Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Video Game Movie Adaptations Need New Respect

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the no-more-fighting-game-movies-please dept.

Movies 283

An anonymous reader writes "Hollywood has yet to find any video game property it is willing to treat with the same respect as J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K.Rowling, arguably still following the principles that led to the appalling Super Mario Bros. movie in 1992: 'A game lacks the complexity that a movie requires.' Yet a modern gaming masterpiece such as Mass Effect has the depth and breadth to deserve better treatment in the proposed trilogy. Is Hollywood again going to disrespect fans who, in this case, have as much right to see a good plot respected as the readers of Lord Of The Rings? This article discusses why and how Hollywood should grow up regarding these adaptations."

cancel ×

283 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34543950)

What's the point of making a video game into a movie? You already have the story, the actors, the dialog, the setpieces, etc.

Re:What is the point (5, Interesting)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544060)

Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like". This is when marketing execs see golden opportunity. Not only will you get most of the fans of the game to see it at least once, you'll probably get the people who wouldn't have touched a game with a barge poll.

In my mind respect is only one part of the equation worth exploring. Understanding of the game becomes another. Mass Effect may have been about shooting Geth, driving the Mako and using biotics but there was an underlying theme of good versus evil within the character. Perhaps not even versus, both Paragon and Renegade are a part of Shepard, problem is you can't introduce choice into a film and therefore can't communicate it as well as you can in a game. Another issue is whether you have Shepard as a man or a woman. Jennifer Hale was by far the better voice actor and I would find a real female lead a far more interesting story than another bland bloke. The fact that she was a woman wasn't exploited for sexual purposes in ME, it just so happened she was a woman. But you know that wouldn't be how hollywood would do it.

The article says that judging by the IMDB page, its set during the first contact war, so they wouldn't be having to ruin everyones Shepard on them if they did make the film.
Incidently the website linked to was down for me so here is a link to a google cache of it [googleusercontent.com]

Re:What is the point (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544194)

there was an underlying theme of good versus evil within the character.

Ah, good versus evil, how profound. Did they by any chance choose the motif of broken mirrors to show the protagonist's fragmented self?

Re:What is the point (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544462)

If you had read the next sentence its probably not versus, its more likely a comment the duality of man, capable of both extraordinary acts of kindness and evil. The unusual thing with Mass Effect compared with every film which has explored the same theme, is that you make the choice, you can then see the effects of your actions and if that way inclined you can see what would have happened had you done something different.

Re:What is the point (2, Insightful)

glwtta (532858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544670)

The unusual thing with Mass Effect compared with every film which has explored the same theme, is that you make the choice, you can then see the effects of your actions and if that way inclined you can see what would have happened had you done something different.

I'm pretty sure I've read a choose-your-own-adventure Goosebumps that explored similar territory.

If you reduce it to a strawman... (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544762)

If you reduce it to an oversimplified strawman, of course nothing is profound. The Odyssey is just about some guy dicking around the sea instead of going home. LORD of the ring is a old-timey==good vs industrialism-and-change==bad story. War And Peace is about war and identity crisis. Crime And Punishment is just about the simple moral dilemma of whether you can justify evil means for a good purpose, so basically good vs evil again. (Since you already reduced similar themes in ME2 to just simple good vs evil, or to seeing the same basic trope in a choose-your-adventure book.) Etc. Not very profound when put that way, is it?

In fact, I your message was trolling, because otherwise it's so stupid it's depressing. What makes something profound or not isn't just having theme X or theme Y in it, but you do with it and what you explore from there. You can take any theme in the world and turn it into a shallow exercise, or do something thought-provoking with. You just need to look at the likes of Lewis Caroll who managed to turn something as dry as hating the new mathematics and especially topology, into a classic, or L. Frank Baum who took a political alegory so far that most people don't even figure it out and again managed to turn it into something both popular and for many people thought-provoking.

So, really, troll or just stupid?

Re:What is the point (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544222)

Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like"

What? Where have you been for the past four years [wikipedia.org] ? I even hear there's plenty of girls who play WoW. Of course WoW and Wii games are designed to cater for noobs, but it's still plenty of people playing computer games. Gaming is very mainstream these days.

The only game->movie film I really thought was anywhere near good was Tomb Raider (the first one, the second was "meh"). Though perhaps the fact I only ever played the demos helped with that (didn't really like the game).

Re:What is the point (2)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544262)

Come on, the wii is casual gaming. Casual gaming is not the same as what would be considered "hardcore". No one is talking about making a film out of Wii Sports or Farmville or any of the other games which are well and truly casual gaming. We're talking about Mass Effect, we're talking about Resident Evil, we're talking about House of Dead we're talking about the other million and one games which a majority of people in the world simply will not play.

Re:What is the point (2)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544454)

Come on, the wii is casual gaming. Casual gaming is not the same as what would be considered "hardcore". No one is talking about making a film out of Wii Sports or Farmville or any of the other games which are well and truly casual gaming. We're talking about Mass Effect, we're talking about Resident Evil, we're talking about House of Dead we're talking about the other million and one games which a majority of people in the world simply will not play.

Arguably a Zelda movie or a Warcraft movie would have a target audience that is an order of magnitude larger than any of these... And first person shooters rarely translate well into movies - I didn't expect the Doom movie to be any good, but even Max Payne (which is an FPS that is as narrative-driven as they come) was pretty rubbish as a movie.

Re:What is the point (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544652)

Well, Max Payne was actually a TPS, but I agree with you. Gaming is not nerdy these days. There may be a distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" gaming, but that is simply down to how much time people have to play their games, their individual skill level, and their interests.

Re:What is the point (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544696)

Wha? I've not played Mass Effect or Resident Evil (well, I played a demo of RE1 ~14 years ago but I hated the controls and camera angles and any time I've seen someone playing the sequels I can't say it's got me any more interested), but I love the Resident Evil movies.

How does House of the Dead fit into your list? It's available to the public in the arcades - plenty of casual gamers will have played it, and the plot didn't seem special to me.

Re:What is the point (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544808)

Come on, the wii is casual gaming. Casual gaming is not the same as what would be considered "hardcore"

Its simpler than that. Its framing the question by careful selection of description to get the answer you want. It has little relationship with reality of course.

Real gaming, also known hardcore gaming, is just endless remakes of Wolfenstein3D from 1992. I thought it was fun for a couple years (decades?) but now its pretty boring. "I've got a good idea, lets fight WWII again, err, uh, I mean lets do it again in higher res"

Not real gaming, also known as "casual" or "for noobs" is merely the entire human experience of technologically aided recreation with the sole exclusion of first person shooters.

Re:What is the point (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544234)

Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like".

There are also those who refuse to shell out money for an entire console simply because it has a single game they want. There are also those unwilling to make the 30+ hour investment a game requires. There are also people (such as myself) who are unable to grasp the mechanics of modern gameplay and partake in such pleasures as Mass Effect (I struggle with combat that isn't turn based and/or menu driven).

But hey, don't let facts stop you from making a martyr of yourself simply because you play video games.

Re:What is the point (2)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544320)

Both Mass Effect games are available for PC. Most people who are interested in games or at least are open to the concept of games will either have a PC or one console which will play 90% of games out there. Those who are unwilling to invest 30+ hours which a game requires usually don't make the same excuse to not watch a TV series which by the end of 2 seasons has usually clocked up more hours than it takes to complete a game.
Your third point I accept, there maybe those who simply can't play computer games, but by the same token there are films which have story lines which are too complex for some people but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. However I would be very surprised if you couldn't adapt to even the easiest setting on the game.

there was an underlying theme of good versus evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544392)

The underlying theme of Mass Effect is lesbian sex with blue alien chicks.

Re:What is the point (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544484)

Because right or wrong, there are a large amount of people who wont play a computer game because its too "nerd like". This is when marketing execs see golden opportunity. Not only will you get most of the fans of the game to see it at least once, you'll probably get the people who wouldn't have touched a game with a barge poll.

Why would people who don't care about the game be interested in a movie adaptation of that game? Game movies are every bit as nerdy as the games themselves. Possibly even more so; The Sims and Farmville aren't terribly nerdy as far as I can tell, but simply make The Sims: The Movie or Farmville: The Movie, and all of a sudden it's nerdy.

Movies are a different medium than games. A story doesn't translate well from an active, participatory medium like games to a passive consumption medium like movies. And if you want to attract people who don't care about the game, why would you even try to make such an adaptation? Just make an original story that's designed to be good for that medium.

Have you noticed that games based on movies also almost always suck? The mediums are too different, despite the similar visuals.

Re:What is the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544498)

Jennifer Hale was by far the better voice actor and I would find a real female lead a far more interesting story than another bland bloke.

And I would find a real male lead a far more interesting story than another bland chick.

Since the VA wouldn't be playing the lead role anyway, I don't really see why there'd be a difference.

Re:What is the point (1)

ZeRu (1486391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544196)

You already have the story, the actors, the dialog, the setpieces, etc.

That's the whole point actually. You have everything needed for a good movie...but we haven't yet seen a movie adaptation of a video game which utilizes all of the above to the best possible extent.

Re:What is the point (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544426)

Well I'd say part of the problem would be that in the games with a story to work with trying to fit it into an hour and a half would probably suck. Take one of my favorites: Bioshock. You'd have the whole "capitalism gone mad" part, the main character and his loss of identity, a world descended into madness, and of course all the Ayn Rand references.

Trying to keep even 60% of that while keeping a story that can go from start to end in an hour and a half would probably end up with some lame half assed POS simply because trying to squeeze that much into that little amount of time while keeping the action up would probably be impossible.

The few we have seen that have been able to pull it off, like the first Tomb Raider and Resident Evil were already dealing with themes the audience already knew even if they had never picked up a game. Indiana Jones and zombies respectfully. How many would understand and follow Bioshock if they had never heard of Ayn Rand? It would probably end up coming off as a parody like the commercials in Robocop.

Re:What is the point (2)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544388)

I think it's great and I firmly believe the next step is turning architecture into cinematic classics. Who needs original content?

(Come to think of it, Helvetica the movie was quite excellent. I can't wait for the adaptation of Comic Sans, let's hire Uwe Boll for that.)

Respect? (3, Insightful)

spooje (582773) | more than 3 years ago | (#34543956)

Where was Hollywood respect when they were talking about dwarf tossing?

Hollywood only cares about making money so they can throw some ewoks into a movie to sell some extra toys to kids they will.

Re:Respect? (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544656)

yeah, the last thing that comes to mind when thinking of the LOTR movies is "respect for the original plot". I understand that a movie can only be so long before your audience falls asleep, but hand waving saruman away with a one-liner and instead tacking on 10 minutes of happy ending, fade out, happy ending, fade out was a slap in the face to anyone who read the actual books

The LOTR movies might be enjoyable in their own right, but they dont do justice to the original work by Tolkien

Right? (4, Insightful)

Alarindris (1253418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34543964)

If you want someone to make a movie the way you want to see it, become a director.

It seems there is a heavy feeling of entitlement as far as media and the arts go here.
Like people often say here, ideas are a dime a dozen. The implementation is the hard part.

Re:Right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34543976)

Like people often say here, ideas are a dime a dozen. The implementation is the hard part.

Good point.

Re:Right? (4, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544084)

I had a similar thought to yours when I read the story heading. The only time that comic books got decent adaptations were from people who really loved them. Why did it take decades for many good comic based movies to be made after their original stories have long sit idle? Because the people who pitch and produce passionate and -good- adaptations of these stories needed to grow up first. Plus, having a good history of success making comic movies has made it easier for the pay masters to open their wallets to the idea of comic movies. Video game based adaptations will have their days, but they will need those few first break-away hits to make people stand up and notice. Wing commander and company were not these success stories, alas.

Re:Right? (1)

Raumkraut (518382) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544192)

Ideas are indeed a dime a dozen, but we're talking about already successful ideas with existing fan-bases.

Personally I think the problem is that people try to make a movie based on a video game, rather than making a movie based on characters, setting, and plot.
There is often the same issue with games based on movies, and they usually suck just as much as the game-to-movie attempts.

Don't make a movie of a game, just make a movie.
Don't make a game of a movie, just make a game.

Re:Right? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544354)

You could make a movie that's inspired by a game, or loosely based on it. Take the characters, the main gist of the "plot" and maybe even the look, but adapt it in a way more suited to the cinema.

Of course, then everyone will complain about the discrepancies/inaccuracies/inconsistencies or whatever. OMG not canon oneleventyone!!!!

Re:Right? (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544444)

If you want someone to make a movie the way you want to see it, become a director.

Even that didn't work for video games, see the Wing Commander movie.

Re:Right? (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544988)

Well now that's a helpful sentiment. It's like saying if you don't like watching your favorite football team lose, you should suit up in pads and start running windsprints. Directing movies has significantly high barriers to entry. Oh, you can become an independent director, but nobody is going to watch your crap.

Mass Effect (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34543974)

The first Mass Effect was the business, story wise. Deeply thought out, self consistent world, interesting characters, a shadowy nemesis and a basically solid beginning, middle and end. Everything Hollywood needs to make a great movie.

But Mass Effect 2, though technically speaking a better game, definitely fared worse on the plot. The plot in ME2 suffered heavily from being wrapped around a fairly trivial design doc and didn't really have any beginning as such. Basically: hero dies, is rescued by an enigmatic terrorist leader with access to incredible resources, who tells him to recruit the most badass characters in the galaxy to fight an alien menace. 90% of the game involves this "recruitment". It's a race against the clock but nobody demonstrates any sense of urgency at all. There's never a "well, he'll do, let's get going!" to be heard. Once you have some arbitrary number of characters you jump through a wormhole, fight some baddies and blow up a space station. Fin.

There's some other stuff in there that advances the plot of the trilogy as a whole, but it's pretty weak.

Basically, if the author of TFA is hoping that Mass Effect will become a successful video game/movie crossover franchise, he'd better hope they only try and do it to the first game.

Re:Mass Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544008)

What we need is ME1's plot and ME2's characterization.

Though, to be fair, ME1's plot is pretty B-grade when you look at it closely...and this is coming from somebody who has played both games to excess.

Re:Mass Effect (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544688)

Computer games with A-grade plots are extremely rare. Mostly, you want stuff to do, so there's a quest and maybe a bunch of side quests. Meet people, explore new areas, talk a bit here and there, and kill stuff. Unless your name is Lord of the Rings, people have done this before and done it better. You're going to get a B-movie at best.

Very, very few games have more interesting plots than that. Planescape: Torment stands out here. Maybe the original Fallout games. Half-Life perhaps. I can't think of anything else that has a movie-worthy plot. And even of these, only Torment is truly interesting, plot-wise. The others are still "figure out what the problem is and kill it" stories, just good ones.

Re:Mass Effect (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544968)

Isn't just the case that modern games have the graphical capability to mimic film hence the increased appeal of modern games and their ability to be turned into good films? Not everyone wants to play games that are so far removed from reality and nobody wants to watch a film based on the premise.

Previously popular games were 'cutesy' or simplistic: Pac-Man, Bubble Bobble, Horace Goes Skiing - none of those would have made a good film. Pac-Man literally has no depth of character - whether those hyphens are wafers or crack - he just can't get enough. On a deeper level that could be comment on the effect of greed on the human soul - but only if you were on crack.

Super Mario Brothers was the epitome of 'missing the point'. A successful game does not a good movie make. Street Fighter was better but still dreadful and Mortal Combat was 'acceptable'. Doom could have been good but it is widely accepted that the director has the 'reverse-Midas effect' - everything he touches turns to shit - therefore the chance was missed.

The Modern Warfare series of games would make great films but I suspect that it would be like seeing a film after reading the book i.e. a little disappointing.

Re:Mass Effect (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544112)

As with movie sequels often the original writers were not planning to write one but commercial pressures demand they do. Sequels are often pretty poor for that reason.

Games are slowly getting better, using proper script writers and trying to make vocal work easier for the actors. Actors in games have a particularly hard time because they tend to end up in a sound recording booth reciting lines that have little context. Even with animated movies there is a fixed plot and some character development. Most games seem to be very much centred around the player with other characters being there simply to interact with or walk you through how to climb a ladder (MGS).

It reminds me of the situation with daytime TV in the 80s. It was cheezy has hell, badly written and badly acted. It was all down to lack of budget and time, and while I expect there will always be shows like that I'd say that the bar has definitely been raised since then. Go back and watch some episodes of major shows like Babylon 5 and you will be shocked how corny it all is. Actually Stargate and Battlestar Galactica are good examples too - compare how they were originally to their latest incarnations. Eventually the same thing will happen to games... Hopefully.

Re:Mass Effect (3, Interesting)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544204)

I once heard an observation about the ME series that makes a lot of sense: ME1 is following the template of a movie; ME2 is following the template of a TV series with a large ensemble cast, like Star Trek.

After our hero is introduced and the scene set, it's then broken into "episodes" which are heavily focused on one member of the "cast", who the rest of the time just stay in the background and throw in the occasional quip. Every now and again throw in a plot advancing episode to keep things ticking over, and finish with beating on a Big Bad. But be sure to wrap up with a bit of a cliffhanger to ensure people are hyped for the next sesaon.

The actual plot of any given episode, most of the time, is immaterial - any events which happen in a character episode are expected to be contained within that episode, and exist only to frame character development or provide obstacles for them to overcome. Since most games follow the movie template, it does feel very different to play, but not necessarily worse - the focus on characterisation did pay off, I feel. Still not perfect, but then nor is the characterisation in most good TV series either.

Sadly, having said all that, I do agree that it wouldn't work as well as a movie, which does make me concerned about the quality of any adapation, since it's going to have to stray pretty far from the plot to fit it into a movie-shaped box.

Re:Mass Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544880)

The first Mass Effect was the business, story wise. Deeply thought out, self consistent world, interesting characters, a shadowy nemesis and a basically solid beginning, middle and end. Everything Hollywood needs to make a great movie.

But Mass Effect 2, though technically speaking a better game, definitely fared worse on the plot. The plot in ME2 suffered heavily from being wrapped around a fairly trivial design doc and didn't really have any beginning as such. Basically: hero dies, is rescued by an enigmatic terrorist leader with access to incredible resources, who tells him to recruit the most badass characters in the galaxy to fight an alien menace. 90% of the game involves this "recruitment". It's a race against the clock but nobody demonstrates any sense of urgency at all. There's never a "well, he'll do, let's get going!" to be heard. Once you have some arbitrary number of characters you jump through a wormhole, fight some baddies and blow up a space station. Fin.

There's some other stuff in there that advances the plot of the trilogy as a whole, but it's pretty weak.

Basically, if the author of TFA is hoping that Mass Effect will become a successful video game/movie crossover franchise, he'd better hope they only try and do it to the first game.

No no and no.

Besides the fact I personally think ME2 was just as good as ME1,

DO NOT MAKE A MOVIE IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF SHEPARD!

Considering the very level of customization that goes into the game, whether it be your character or the decisions you make, (especially the latter!,) the game experience is different for EVERYONE and the movie would NOT be the Mass Effect you know. I propose a movie based on the Illusive Man or The Alliance or something. Not. Shepard.

In videogames, the protagonist is the player. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 3 years ago | (#34543984)

Movies are tales can be written down in 2 pages, maybe one.

Games are interactive experience, that often have worldbuilding.

Games are not tryiing to write a story, but can be the result, would be a side effect of the worldbuilding and gameplay.

There are games that have zero lore, and zero story to it. Think... Minecraft.

But is this important? Not, because you can make a awesome movie inspired in Minecraft. Key word here is inspired. The less material Minecraft have, the better movie a inspired moviemaker have, because is free to do his own thing.

The translation? you can't translate gameplay to a movie, or no one know how to do that, so you can't translate games to movies. And gameplay is the core of a videogame. You can get a videogames about spaceships in space, replace the space by a grass land, and the ships by wizards, and will still be the same exact game.

Theres is deep in videogames, but if often user made, and that depends on the player creativity and attitude. You can't make a good movie out of a 16 years old playing to win, but you can make a good movie out of two slighty dumb guys goofing around in a game (the type of dudes you would love to drink a beers with).
Games like Morrowind would best be served as serials, like Battlestart Galactica or Babylon 5.
But has a movie? maybe not.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544002)

In the proposed cast is that Yvonne Strahowski as Miranda Lawson or is this movie based on Thriller?

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544944)

In the proposed cast is that Yvonne Strahowski as Miranda Lawson or is this movie based on Thriller?

If they put Yvonne Strahovski in I'd watch, she can even make blocks of lego look sexy, BTW why are there so many hot Aussie women on US TV

I'm still waiting for Solitaire (3, Funny)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544010)

the movie

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544030)

Quickly now, shut up before they hear you...

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (5, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544350)

"A touching film of humanity at its best when all the cards are down..."

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544602)

"...when you feel like the deck is stacked against you..."

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544374)

Meanwhile, you can watch "Minesweeper, The Movie". Look it up in YT

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544970)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14KwzYBjm-8 [youtube.com]

All I get is a video about being blown up.

OH you meant minesweeper not minecraft, silly me. It's still the same either way however.

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544666)

They managed to make Doom into a movie, so solitaite should be a walk in the park

Re:I'm still waiting for Solitaire (1)

SJ2000 (1128057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544698)

Nah, they only do action [collegehumor.com] .

Was Lara Croft Tomb Raider adaptation of a game? (2)

Rsriram (51832) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544016)

If so, it had a good budget, effects and commercial success.

No more Uwe (3, Insightful)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544024)

How about we just stop letting Uwe Boll direct videogame inspired movies.

Re:No more Uwe (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544294)

Hope you're fit...talking like that you're in line for an ass-whoopin' [google.com] .

Re:No more Uwe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544606)

He's a boxer?

That certainly explains why his movies seem so ... brain damaged.

Re:No more Uwe (2)

lxs (131946) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544420)

Hush now. Postal was awesome.

Re:No more Uwe (1)

slimshady945 (1553213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544978)

Hush now. Postal was awesome.

...and Far Cry was even better!

Doom movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544026)

The Doom movie is a prime example of what NOT to do, and what to do. Include a little game experience like the first-person part, but do not completely change the plot/story, and especially do not change it to a clichè and worn out plot.

Re:Doom movie (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544580)

I am actually surprised they DID change it.

While the original Doom did not exactly have a solid story line, the setting (HELL) is a pretty damn good one. It would require a large budget to fully realize, but a bad ass marine vs hell's legion could have made for an awesome action horror film.

Prince of Persia (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544034)

Hollywood has yet to find any video game property it is willing to treat with the same respect as J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K.Rowling

IMO the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time movie was top-notch and one of the best movies in 2010. So, if Hollywood really wants to make a movie based on a video game, they can pull it quite easily, effectively and remarkably.

So no attitude needs to be changed. It mostly/just depends on their will to make a real movie.

Re:Prince of Persia (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544198)

One of the best in 2010? You may not have watched many movies in 2010 then.

That said, it was a competent popcorn action movie... which is fine, and probably as good an adaptation as the series as a whole was going to get (a more loyal adaptation of the aesthetics of the first game only would have been a better movie, but would probably end up too disney-esque to attract the same gamer demographic that is now attached to the brand).

But it's worth noting that the movie has barely any real plot - it's an action flick based on a platformer, so it doesn't matter that much, but it bypasses many of the dilemmas of adapting a game into a narrative, where either there is nothing to adapt (Doom) or there is way too much non-linear depth to fit on a streamlined single plot (e.g.: Deus Ex).

You can argue that LoTR also has way far more material than could fit in a movie, but the fact is it's already a linear narrative... a director can have a gut sense of the pacing and timing of the plot, and whether X chapters fit on Y script pages and Z minutes of movie work, using standard narrative tools. Most interesting games are non-linear interactive experiences, so X hours of gameplay do not translate directly to Y pages or Z minutes of video unless the game was already an extremely linear experience, or the movie is a really bad and confusing movie.

It's like talking about a movie adaptation of a painting - it makes no sense. The media is different and the objectives are different, we should be talking of movies "inspired by" games, not "adapted from" games before we can expect some consistently good movies coming out of this.

Re:Prince of Persia (1)

achenaar (934663) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544290)

o.O
Seriously?
Neither of you are slating the Prince of Persia movie as the unmitigated pile of crap that it was?
I'm now wondering if we've seen different films under the same name...
It was utter garbage. Truly embarrassing. From Gyllenhaal's hair (and the selection of Gyllenhaal as the prince in the first place), through the use of what for all the world looked like the font Papyrus (argh!) to the dagger being used precisely three times and not one of which was in combat or a time of great peril as per the major point of the bleedin' game.
I made the mistake of seeing that pile of trash at the cinema and both I and the missus (she'd played sands of time and enjoyed it thoroughly) were the closest we'd ever been to storming out of the theatre.
Having paid actual money to be there however, we stuck it out.
In retrospect, I wish we'd have left.

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544038)

Do video games need the respect of Hollywood now?

Must suck to life in the kind of world that "anonymous reader" does.

Shepard: Wrex. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544040)

Shepard: Wrex.

Uncharted (2)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544072)

Uncharted is the perfect candidate for a popcorn movie, but from all the revelations/rumours it sounds like the movie studio is determined to dump everything that is good about the character and plot while adding unnecessary father/son (and Uncle???) dynamics.

At which point you have to ask: "Why bother?"

Oh yes, it's the money you can scalp from disappointed fans. Great.

Re:Uncharted (2)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544312)

Oh yes, it's the money you can scalp from disappointed fans. Great.

So watch the trailers, read some reviews, and it if looks like it's crap, don't watch it.

Scalp? No one is forcing you to spend your money just because you like the game.

Re:Uncharted (1)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544694)

Scalp? No one is forcing you to spend your money just because you like the game.

Oh behave. I rarely watch video game movies and I can't remember ever seeing one at the cinema. Like most of the Slashdot crowd, I'm very selective about all my spending and research everything from films to games to washing mashines before parting with my money.

But let's not kid ourselves that all consumers will ever be like that. Or that those who don't research a film before going to see it deserve to be ripped off by a film that solely relies on a name borrowed from a previously successful video game.

Respect? (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544094)

Respect that respected Science Fiction authors get when their thought provoking stories are turned into action flicks with rappers?

Respect Tolkien got when Elves appeared at Helms Deep?

Hollywood knows about respect, it is what is underneath their boots.

And what do you expect when they serve an audience that thinks Mass Effect has depth? What depth? Evil monster with no motivation appears and gets blown up by equally unmotivated guy/gal. Great literature this does NOT make. Granted it has depth if you grew up on superman comics but then Hollywood got you well covered.

Games to movies rarely will work because most games are simply NOT about story. Tomb Raider? It is about solving the puzzles and making the jumps. As much as I would like to see a well proportioned woman spending an hour and half flexing her body on the silver screen, it would have any depth. Except maybe her cleavage.

Tomb Raider, Doom, Mario Brothers: These are games, you play them for the game. NOT the story. Trying to bolt a story on top that becomes 90% of the content instead of 10% is going to require addition of stuff the player simply does not want. Case in point: Lara Croft in the original is a rather bland character with no boyfriend or past. In the movie she suddenly gets a love interest. HELLO! She was supposed to be MY fantasy, not some other guy.

But in a game, this doesn't matter. The little we know about the game Lara Croft is plenty, but jumped up movie directors think they GOT to tell a story. That is were Hollywood keeps going wrong, they still don't get that what they could produce is eye-candy porn. Take Transforms (please). Remove the humans and just gives us 1.5 hours of robots fighting. Zero attempt at story and even less at badly acted out emotions. I liked revenge of the fallen, just fastforward when a human shows up.

Tomb Raider the Story does not work. Tomb Raider the action-adventure does, but focus on action, not bolted on "depth". Give me a mindless 2D movie where I can park my brain at the door and just enjoy myself.

Hollywood isn't ruining game movies by not adding enough depth, but by adding to much. Pure 100% action, that is why I play games, add this to game movies and you are golden.

Re:Respect? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544316)

That is were Hollywood keeps going wrong, they still don't get that what they could produce is eye-candy porn.

I take it you've not watched Avatar then.

Re:Respect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544574)

Evil monster with no motivation appears and gets blown up by equally unmotivated guy/gal.

If you phrase it like that you almost make it sound like LOTR. Anyway, Mass Effect doesn't need to compete with great literature when it gets turned into a movie, but simple make a good movie. And the story of Mass Effect is easily better then basically everything that passes these days as sci-fi in the cinema.

Re:Respect? (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544620)

Of course most movies have rather simple plots too... or rather, can be reduced to one.

For example Citizen Kane: A man dies and a reporter makes a documentation about him.

War of the worlds: Aliens attack Earth.

Pulp Fiction: Two hitmen have a variety of amusing misadventures, as has a boxer.


While I wouldn't say that, for instance, Mass Effect has the most complex of plots I would call it on par with what passes as a plot in your average Hollywood movie. (The ones above not neccessarily included.) While the plot ultimately boils down to "the bad guy wants to kill everyone", most of it is spent figuring out what's actually going on, with the focus being on the characters found along the way.

In a way, you could say it's a sci-fi adaptation of Indiana Jones: The good guys race with the bad guys for an ancient artifact of immense power in order to keep the bad guys from taking over/depopulating the world/galaxy, visiting a variety of interesting places in the process. We even have the same kind of smart-talking action hero as the lead, depending on how you play the game.

If they turned Mass Effect into Indiana Jones In Space, would that sacrifice a lot of the game? Not really, especially if they try to preserve Bioware's humor in the dialogues. Mass Effect is a game that would work with relatively little added; most of the work would be in cutting it down to size.


I agree that they do add a lot of unneccessary cruft to video game movies but it's not like all video games are Doom. A theoretical Monkey Island movie would very much not work if it was action-focused just like Alone in the Dark didn't work as a fast-paced action flick. What you can do with a game depends on how the game is in the first place. If you strongly deviate from the game's genre or change around the plot too much it's obvious that you lose whatever narrative qualities the game had. Unless your writing is good enough to carry the movie on its own you're going to end up with a mediocre result.

The main problem is not all video games lacking some narrative quality found in movies or not providing enough material, the problem is film makers who insist on adding completely new material that doesn't fit or focusing on something that only was a minor part of the original game. For instance, Mass Effect: The Movie would probably make the romance sideplot the main plot with everything else just used for backdrop. And then they'd wonder why nobody likes it.

Re:Respect? (2, Funny)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544648)

And here we are talking about only video games. What about "Chess, the movie" and "Chess II, return of the King."

Now planescape torment (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544836)

THAT would be the type of game I respect and like for the story "what can change the nature of man". "regrets". As you said the other game incomparison have no depth. Still a film on PS:torment would lose part of the depth by having a prefered start / middle and ending path. That would break it for me, as every time i replay it, I get a different story.

WTF!? (3, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544126)

The vast majority of games out there don't have enough plot to fill a matchbox. How exactly are they worthy of extra respect versus any random short-story?

Really, Super Mario Bros. the movie was very close to the spirit of the games (light entertainment) and had more plot that all the games put together.

Just because some games have a bunch of fanboys out there doesn't mean that they or their game are worthy of special respect.

Might as well complain that movies about popular sports like football (the American one and the Rest Of The World one) don't show enough respect for the game - at least there are more fans for any of of those sports than there are for any specific computer game.

Re:WTF!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544298)

If you want "depth and breadth" read a book, there are millions out there, that make most movies and games, look as what they really are, childish. Hell, if you're not a reader, then go for comics, manga and manhwa.

WTF!?-Deus Ex. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544408)

The vast majority of games out there don't have enough plot to fill a matchbox. How exactly are they worthy of extra respect versus any random short-story?

Deus Ex: Human Revolution. That so much deserves to be made into a movie.

Re:WTF!?-Deus Ex. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544456)

Deus Ex: Human Revolution. That so much deserves to be made into a movie.

??? What deserves to be made into a movie? A few game trailers and some random interviews? The game isn't even out, for all we know its going to be a cliched POS. It might be a great game, it might be another ET from the Atari. But until it's out, there isn't anything to make you really think it would be a good story, let alone worth making a movie out of.

Re:WTF!? (1)

IronSight (1925612) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544812)

Man, I must be crazy. I actually liked the Mario movie... the resident evil movies... the street fighter movie... parasite eve... silent hill... I know the fiction is always way off, but I don't really care. I'd rather watch a movie in the resident evil universe (maybe not akin to the game story at all) than a couple of vampires sucking face, or a couple of wizards discovering puberty.

Sam and Max (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544156)

A Sam and Max movie would be perfectly awesome, and also cheap to make!

Sorry, but... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544166)

Any game that has a story good enough to be told well in a movie should have been a movie in the first place.

I play games for the gameplay, not some damn story that interrupts gameplay (you know, the reason we play games in the first place?) every ten seconds.

We need a gaming crash like we had in the US in the mid-80s again. Sadly this won't happen because modern gamers would actually *like* E.T. and give it "Game of the Year."

Re:Sorry, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544282)

Sorry, but video games were just board games on TV in the mid-80s. You are going nuts.

Re:Sorry, but... (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544608)

That's an unfounded generalization. Not everyone plays games for the single-minded purpose of gameplay. Maybe you'd like storyless flash games?

Uwe Boll (1)

chadruva (613658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544186)

Just don't let Uwe Boll direct or anyware near the studio and you may get a decent adaptation!

Hollywood directors? Respect? Since when! (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544200)

...have as much right to see a good plot respected as the readers of Lord Of The Rings?

The movies for Lord Of The Rings had many parts cut and bits moved around here and there. In particular a huge chunk of the Two Towers was cut. The plot was not set in stone and unchanged.

Don't get me wrong, Peter Jackson did a wonderful job. There were some changes that I really don't like though.

So with that said, don't expect Hollywood to treat any story with respect. They just do what they want.

Re:Hollywood directors? Respect? Since when! (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544536)

What would you consider "respecting a plot"? There's no way in the world to fit the LotR books in their entirety in a trilogy, so many parts had to get cut. Any other book should be the same. Book plots and movie plots have vastly different implementation details, too, and it's unsurprising changes have to be made. Perhaps you think it's impossible to respect a plot of some books in making a movie version? I have my pet annoyances with the changes in the recent LotR movies, but I still think they did a very good job overall of respecting the story as much as possible for a movie adaptation.

Re:Hollywood directors? Respect? Since when! (1)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544704)

There's no way in the world to fit the LotR books in their entirety in a trilogy, so many parts had to get cut.

agreed, but they made some pretty damn awefull cutting decisions, in RotK, Sarumans role is completely cut, and his name is mentioned once or so when gandalf happens to pass by isengard, a whole 20 seconds of Saruman related stuff. His entire coup of the shire at the end is cut, and replaced by: happy hobbit homecomming *fade out* happy hobbit party *fade out* happy hobbit wedding *fade out* happy hobbit baby shower *fade out ad nauseam*. I remember sitting in the theatre almost getting up everytime it faded out again, only to once again be confronted by yet another happy ending scene.

the fellowship took me some getting used to (my own imagination had filled in things differently), two towers was OK, RotK was a slap in the face when it comes to how the plot was handled

Games don't need validation through film (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544240)

I don't understand people who cry out for a good "film of a game". Games are their own medium, they don't need hollywood to come along and put their blockbuster seal of approval on them. If you want a Mass Effect narrative on your screen then go and play Mass Effect - simple.

Hollywood is making a film out of Battleship (1)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544256)

Yes, the board game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship_(film) [wikipedia.org]

Next will be Tic-Tac-Tow

Anyone who is looking for "respect" in Hollywood deserves the respect that the upcoming "Yogi Bear" CGI animation deserves. Or Garfield or the TWO chipmunk movies had.

I'd tell the poster to grow up, but that would require leaving their parent's basement, which would be hard for a person over the age of 25 who has never had a real job and has as their most prized possession a collection of McDonald's Happy Meals figures.

Re:Hollywood is making a film out of Battleship (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544308)

Next will be Tic-Tac-Tow

Well, they took a few liberties with the game, but there's already been a movie about it [imdb.com] .

Hollywood doesn't give a flying fuck. (2)

sealfoss (962185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544264)

I hate the Lord of the Rings movies. Hate. They're visually stunning, I'll give them that. Though, thats as far as I go. I read the books years before the movies came out, and to put it mildly, together they are a literary masterpiece. A literary masterpiece that Peter Jackson completely fucked up and shat upon within the first five minutes of HIS Fellowship of The Ring movie (by explaining who and what Sauron was and why the one ring was so important). Oh, and in The Two Towers, please show me where the fuck it is mentioned that the Enemy had access to gun powder for a fucking bomb. Horse Shit! But these movies are paraded around as the "best ever" simply because they were based of something much greater, paying almost no attention to the actual quality of the movies. I wonder how many "fans" ( by which i mean fan-boys, or posers, or both ) of LOTR out there haven't even glanced at the books? If you have read the books, you would find the movies a very nice visual component to what you already know as LOTR, that is all. To claim these movies as anything more than that is a travesty, and a racial fucking slur against Tolkien's own work. Fuck Peter Jackson. Fuck his movies. My point is, the author of this post is assuming that Hollywood cares anything about the content off which they're basing ANY of their movies. Nine times out of ten, the only thing Hollywood cares about is making a movie that will make them money, as cheaply as possible. Movies based off anything, a book, a real event... a video game, all they offer Hollywood is an existing fan base that might automatically buy a ticket. Consider the Watchmen movie; horrid. They raped Hell Blazer like a Chinese finger trap, calling it "Constintine". Fight Club is the only movie i can think of that was better than the book ( yes, fuck the book is what I said ). SO, why in the HELL would you think Hollywood would treat video game based movies any differently? The most I think they would ever do is prevent Uwe Boll from directing them.

Re:Hollywood doesn't give a flying fuck. (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544398)

Nerd rage is the best rage.

Re:Hollywood doesn't give a flying fuck. (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544638)

Oh re-fucking-lax. The books are entertainment, the movies are a related form of entertainment.

Nine times out of ten, the only thing Hollywood cares about is making a movie that will make them money, as cheaply as possible.

No shit, it is called capitalism. Money pays the bills, no one works for free.

I wonder how many "fans" ( by which i mean fan-boys, or posers, or both ) of LOTR out there haven't even glanced at the books?

Well 99.9% of the nerds who went and saw it did.

If you have read the books, you would find the movies a very nice visual component to what you already know as LOTR, that is all.

And what is wrong with the movies being just that?

To claim these movies as anything more than that is a travesty, and a racial fucking slur against Tolkien's own work.

Shit gets chopped up. People die. Awesome action scenes. I'm good.

And how the fuck is it a racial slur? Seriously WTF?

It is a movie. It had action and good music.

Lower your expectations a bit. Yesh.

They raped Hell Blazer like a Chinese finger trap, calling it "Constintine".

Constantine sucked because it had too much emo whining and not enough action. *yawn*

It was based on another work? Hey guess what? I don't give a shit. I go to the movies to be entertained.

I don't give a fuck about the "artistic merit" of the original work. Hell for that matter I don't care about the artistic merit of the movies I go to see. If I want a good story I read a book. I go to the movie theater to see shit get blown up.

for what? (2, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544328)

Can we keep seperate types of art seperate? There is no need to unify everything, just for the sake of doing it. The Mona Lisa is a great painting, I'm sure a novel about it would suck. Some books don't make good movies, and many movies would suck in book form. Likewise, while a few games make good movies and vice versa, the usual case is that they don't, so why try?

A movie is first and foremost about storytelling, in a carefully set up series of scenes, with a dramatic curve and a specific ending that everything in the movie is subtly linked to so that near the end you get the feeling of everything falling together like the pieces of a puzzle. Well, good movies anyway. It's about changing perspective, it can tell the story from various angles, leave storylines hanging for a while then return to them - there is a lot in the way how the story is told, in pacing and in letting the viewer know more than the protagonists on the screen.

Games are about decisions, reactions, about finding out clues and hints and about consequences. You are the protagonist, so even if they include cinematics of the evil guy planning his next move, the protagonist then knows about it. The pacing depends on you more than on the story. There are usually multiple routes and endings. It is a lot more about your character than about the story. And one of the challenges is that even the most meaningless random encounter could kill you, while in the movies we all know the hero never gets hurt except by the bad guy himself or one of his leutenants. All the nameless "random encounter" guys are just there as targets.

A good movie and a good game are not made following the same recipe. A good movie about a game, or a good game about a movie, will have little in common except the setting. Example: The Aliens and the Predator movies, and the AvP games (don't get me started about the AvP movies, they were crap). Great movies, great games, exactly because the games did not try to copy the movies but created their own world within the movie setting.

In the year 3000... (2, Interesting)

matunos (1587263) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544362)

Movies will *be* video games, so who cares?

gamers == readers (2)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544386)

Readers generally dislike movie adaptations of the book such as a lot of the LOTR fans from the original trilogy didn't like the movie because it was better played in their mind. Gamers tend to have that higher standard as well, and they will always expect more from something that adapts from what they are used to. A game isn't built like a movie and when it is, it's called Final Fantasy 13... hah. Though, anyone seen the IGN april fools movie trailer of the legend of zelda? That looked like it had amazing potential and I would be stoked if peter jackson did a movie like that, but I'm sure he's pre-occupied with the hobbit 1 and 2.

In the end, it's not that they can't make movies into games or games into movies properly, it's just that they don't pick the right ones to adapt. I don't think a Halo movie would be that great but Parasite Eve? That might be just as decent as Resident Evil if you're a fan of the movies. Then again, Resident Evil is originally a novel, no? So there's a great example on how a novel has a decent movie trilogy and pretty fun games.

Re:gamers == readers (1)

grumbel (592662) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544658)

Gamers tend to have that higher standard as well, and they will always expect more from something that adapts from what they are used to.

Kind of, thats why good video game movies don't adopt an already existing story, but write a new one in the same universe. Resident Evil: Degeneration and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children do that and they are as a result fine video game movies. The trouble with adoption is that you have to rewrite, reinvent and just change stuff around that people are already deeply familiar with and while one can't avoid that in a book, it just feels out of places in games where the source material already is in no small parts build out of movie pieces.

Re:gamers == readers (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544662)

Resident Evil is originally a novel, no?

No, novels were made from the game, not the game from novels.

What would grinding look like in a movie? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544402)

Yet a modern gaming masterpiece such as Mass Effect has the depth and breadth to deserve better treatment in the proposed trilogy

The extended version of the Mass Effect movie will then include hours of footage where the team is grinding faceless sandy moons, raiding the same structures over and over again.

The problem is the "interpretations" (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544532)

I think the problem is not the history of the games themselves or the question of how to convert the game mechanics on film. The problem for me are the stupid "adjustments" that a idiot director makes in the history. As an example, do you remember the movie "Catwoman"? The movie have only the name from the comics history, the rest is a retarded vision from a jerk director who probably wanted to leave his "mark" in the movie. And the exact same thing happens in adaptations of games to movies.

side note (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544664)

kinda off topic, but i dont think there's a video game movie out there that comes anywhere close to silent hill. i really enjoyed that one.

Not hard (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544674)

You could make a movie out of Half-life 2. Or even the original Half-life. It's not difficult at all. You have established characters, half-decent plot, tons of special-FX opportunities, at least an hour and a half of actual movement and things happening and people explaining plot, characters and sub-plots all the way through, and it fits in well with other movies which have (to be honest) not dissimilar plots, scenes, dialogue, etc.

But then you'd have to find someone who knew that game well enough to direct it (I think almost every video-game conversion has been awful because the people behind it want to turn it into a cheap, shit movie rather than treat the game *as* a movie and work from there, just padding it out). Then you'd have to find an audience - with Half-life 2, you could probably introduce anyone to that plot and it would be understandable without even knowing the games - people would love to hate the G-man. Then you'd have to find someone who can gauge that audience and "take a risk" in their eyes on investing many millions (rather than throw it a few mil like you would some Youtube kid who wanted to make a movie - "Yeah, son, it's really good, here, that's all your getting because you're not one of us"). Then you need to find people who can actually act (apparently that's REALLY difficult when it comes to video-game-movies).

It's actually easy: no harder than getting any other thing movie-ised, or any movie game-ised (and look at the disasters there have been there!). You just need to actually take it seriously, not rely on the "nerds will love it" factor and actually make a MOVIE from an established franchise. You already have plot. You'd need some screenwriting. Your artistic direction is set in stone. Your characterisation is done for you. Your casting will be pretty easy, provided you can get the cash to have someone actually good in it. The acting won't be difficult or intense. Your special FX budget will probably be largest but that's not shock in today's Hollywood. And if in doubt, half your CGI is done for you at the games studio already.

Too often, it's seen as "this'll make us 50% profit on a couple of million and who cares if nobody goes back for a second screening or buys the DVD?" rather than actually *making a movie*. How much was pored into the Aliens movies? How much was pored into EVERY Aliens video game ever made ever since? If it's as close as a 10-1 ratio (in adjusted-for-inflation terms), I'll be impressed. And how many of those games actually come *close* to capturing the right atmosphere compared to their rivals (Few... the closest are actually Aliens-rip-off-clones that do a better job even if they can't use the same characters / aliens / lines)? I love the Aliens movies - still yet to find an Aliens game that actually grips my interest or makes me feel like I'm in the movie. It's the same thing, but the other way around. Hell, even most of the Games Workshop crap (Blood Bowl, Warhammer, etc.) would make and sell movies if someone picked it up and fleshed it out to a couple of hours of consistent content, but nobody bothers.

Hollywood is about quick returns - that's why they only ever advertise the first-week-returns and things like that. They expect to make their money back in a week and if they can do that by only investing a handful of millions, they will. It's probably quite good business sense. In the UK, we had a TV series Red Dwarf. It ran for eight series, was wildly popular and it would be FABULOUS to make a comedy movie of it - it's just *designed* for that, and there's been talk with studios for DECADES - there's supposedly even several finished scripts that were carved out with major movie studios. The interest wanes when they hear it needs money, when they can't replace the main character with a blonde-haired, blue-eyed hunk to keep the ladies' interest, can't cut out the more risky jokes because "the US audience might not understand them" (hell, they wanted to change the title when it was trialled in the US because people might be offended - and that US pilot was an absolute travesty that spits on the actual UK programme. If you ever wonder why the US doesn't see many foreign conversions, just watch an episode of Red Dwarf, say from about series 3 or 4 before the pilot was made, and then watch its US pilot) and when they don't think they'll get their money back instantaneously without any risk.

It's down to stupid cinema-goers (seriously, there's been nothing worth going to the cinema for for years, and you all fell for the fourth-time-around 3D crap again recently), easy returns on absolute drivel, and abusing trademarks and franchise for a quick buck rather than lots of slow bucks. There's a million and one decent movies to be made out there - many with scripts written today. Instead we get poor remakes of 40-year-old films, a Harry Potter split into 3 movies purely because their gravy-train will end if they don't eek it out a bit more and absolute shite from the US "comedy movie" circuit (which apparently must involve pubic hair, being sick, someone putting their penis in something or a bloke dressed in a woman's clothing). It took *years* to get Pratchett on the TV and even more years to get to feature-length movies. It took *decades* to actually get a Hollywood version of Narnia or Lord of the Rings (and at least one of those can be considered another travesty by its loyal fans) and most probably the authors would be turning in their graves.

Stop watching shit. Stop buying shit. If there's nothing but shit on, watch nothing. Then maybe people will realise that there is an awful lot more to movies than "Popular Teenage Dancing Crap, Part 247" or "Dude, you shat in my mom's hot tub, 43.5". Hell, gimme yet-another-Rocky-movie than crap like that, any day.

Blade Runner guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34544682)

Westwood went broke partially because of trying to realize the OP vision.
As did the company that did the Last Express.

Gamers suck ass.

The Doom movie was shockingly non-crappy... (1)

RichiH (749257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544754)

...and it even featured Dwayne "the really sucky actor" Johnson; a sure sign of bad plots.

Screw your opinion (1)

Eightbitgnosis (1571875) | more than 3 years ago | (#34544758)

Seeing Super Mario Brothers in theaters was completely awesome. You are completely wrong
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?