So after watching Silent Hill Revelation not to long ago and having to scrub my brain with steel wool just to get it out of my mind it was so bad; I began to think. What I thought about was that there hasn't been a single movie based off of a video game that was any good.
Movies that spring to mind that were aweful adaptations of video games are films like Doom, Street Fighter, BloodRayne, and a lot of straight to DVD films.
To some film makers credit there were some OK ones that did hit the screen. Silent Hill was not to bad and followed the game fairly well with the exception of pyramid head making an appearence, but he kind of had to in order to please the fanboys and general audiance alike. Resisdent Evil(the first one) was not to bad either. It had some general pacing and not to far out situations involved. Also Final Fantasy VII Advent Children was very good but I am looking at more live action films then CG.
Maybe I am being to critical and the fact that I have played all these video games makes me jaded in the way that I veiw the film. I guess I should just base the moive off of the movie and stop trying to compare it to the game. Although books/novels that get turned in to movies seem to be far better off then games that get turned in to movies. Take Lord of the Rings for example. I read the books before hand and still thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
With the new announcment of heavy hitters such as Blizzard (Upcoming WoW movie) and Ubi Soft (Assassin's Creed movie) taking a stab at it I will be looking forward at how well they do.
What is your take on video games to movies? Do you like them? Are there some films that I might of overlooked?
Enough said, really. He made a career out of buying VG IPs for cheap and making terrible movies from them.
But I liked Postal for the sheer insanity of it all. If you can watch it for cheap, it's one I'd recommend even though it's not a good movie per se... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486640/?ref_=sr_1
There really aren't too many others I'd recommend. Mortal Kombat was fun to watch as a kid, I think.
It's a generational thing. For decades, the people making video game movies were too old to have grown up with video games and didn't play them. They misunderstood them as toys for children, unworthy of real time and effort in adaptation. But as people born in the Eighties and Nineties come of age in Hollywood - people who know who Aerith is, what happens in a Zerg rush, and why Electronic Arts is so loathsome - we can expect to see more serious work done. I have high hopes for Assassin's Creed especially; the source material is rich, and apparently Fassbender is a fan.
Look at what's happening with comic book movies. Yeah, unlike video games, superhero comics have been around since the Thirties, but it's really not until the Seventies or Eighties that they started to get really serious. And now here we are a few decades later, and lifelong fans like Sam Raimi and Joss Whedon are running the show.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As a further extension of this..why is the opposite situation(video games based on books/movies) also almost always true? Is a movie too constrained, as a medium, to carry over successfully into a video game title/franchise? You wouldn't think so, but this virtually always seems to be the case.
There's another problem that people haven't brought up yet, I don't think:
Video Games are designed in such a way that the player is the main character, the agent in activity and storyline, and all the storyline revolves around them and their agency. Decisions made are made by them if they're made actively in the story.
A good example of this is Bioshock, where the player is actively 'making decisions' until the major plot twist comes later.
In a movie, while some of these things can have merit (see Bioshock), a lot of that storytelling is lost on the audience. They're watching, not actively participating, so the storyline doesn't quite work the same way. Events that feel impacting and insightful, especially such ones as 'you did this, and this was bad' are not quite as impacting when seen from an observing standpoint.
Not only that, but there's also the simple problem of 'too high of expectations'
As a further extension of this..why is the opposite situation(video games based on books/movies) also almost always true? Is a movie too constrained, as a medium, to carry over successfully into a video game title/franchise? You wouldn't think so, but this virtually always seems to be the case.
Highroller's third point counts both ways. Most movie tie-ins are half assed, produced for the sake of getting more money from people who liked the movie/children. (Notable exceptions: Spiderman 2 and the Rogue Squadron games).
Also, good movies tend to follow major plot threads and have very little filler, while games are often built around gameplay, with plot being comparatively crap. If a movie tried to retell a game's story it would likely be terrible/simple, or at the other extreme would miss most of the game's interesting backstory in an attempt to cut the plot to 3 hours (max).
There are exceptions to this as well, and I'm biased by the movies and games I like, but I think those are the main points.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
That's because video game movies are targeted at people who actually play video games. It's such a limited market, but they're part of that young demographic that's notoriously easy to extract cash from if you can manage to catch their attention. Anything designed to appeal strictly to consumers between the ages of Pixar and Tarantino is going to be pandering, glossy, and over-processed.
Most of these video game characters don't even have a backstory. How is that laying the groundwork for a good movie? The screenwriters can either indulge themselves with scene after scene of character development that's based on nothing, and risk the displeasure of some scumbag producer for their troubles, or they can thrust an audience full of ritalin fiends straight into the action, just like the games themselves.
Comic book movies are different because the characters have transcended the medium and become cultural figures. Superman first appeared in Action Comics Number #1 in 1938, and two years later there was a tri-weekly radio play called The Adventures of Superman. It aired for nearly ten years. Hardly anyone reads comics these days, but everyone knows who Wonder Woman is, whether they've seen an adaptation of her or not.
Reviews and word of mouth are more of a factor to your box office when you're looking for broad appeal than when you're trying to exploit a niche in the market, and so far all video game movies have been opportunistic and greedy because the franchises lack the potential for a massive audience. The difference between the grosses of a good Wonder Woman adaptation and a botched one is much greater than the difference for something like Hitman. Only a small fraction of the population that is already invested in Hitman will care about the reviews either way, while everyone who likes good movies is already interested in Wonder Woman as a subject.
"Hey, I just saw Hitman and it changed my life. I haven't cried like that since The Piano."
"Is that the one with Jason Statham?"
"Hey, I heard Wonder Woman is pretty decent."
"Oh, really? Tell me more."
There's another problem that people haven't brought up yet, I don't think:
Video Games are designed in such a way that the player is the main character, the agent in activity and storyline, and all the storyline revolves around them and their agency. Decisions made are made by them if they're made actively in the story.
Depends on the video game, specifically how linear the game's storyline is and how much the mechanics of the game are incorporated into how the story is told. I could easily see a Psychonauts movie. I don't think it's possible to make a movie out of Braid.
In a movie, while some of these things can have merit (see Bioshock), a lot of that storytelling is lost on the audience. They're watching, not actively participating, so the storyline doesn't quite work the same way. Events that feel impacting and insightful, especially such ones as 'you did this, and this was bad' are not quite as impacting when seen from an observing standpoint.
The thing is, the Mortal Kombat movie is the only direct video game -> film adaptation that worked, and you cannot say that there's no difference in interactivity between a fighting game and a movie.
But let's not kid ourselves here: most video games have terrible stories, they are laughably bad so you really can't do a good film even if you wanted to (and of course they don't). When we say "this video game has a good story" it means "for a video game". Compared to any other medium the "good" video game stories are simply awful.
I'm sorry, good video game stories are not good stories?
Do you want to qualify this statement, or do you want to leave it as is?
That's because video game movies are targeted at people who actually play video games. It's such a limited market, but they're part of that young demographic that's notoriously easy to extract cash from if you can manage to catch their attention. Anything designed to appeal strictly to consumers between the ages of Pixar and Tarantino is going to be pandering, glossy, and over-processed.
Comic book movies are different because the characters have transcended the medium and become cultural figures.
Do I even need to point out how the very things you say about the video game generation was said about the comic book generation not too long ago, and how this is a giant boatload of special pleading, or does it come across without my needing to?
No, comic book movies are certainly not different. The only reason you're arguing that they are is because of Spiderman. It made a boatload of money, Hollywood jumped on the superhero bandwagon, and then Christopher Nolan came along and got mainstream audiences excited. But it wasn't too long ago that people for the most part gave up on superhero films until Spiderman came along to resurrect interest.
So no, comic book movies are no different at all. The only reason they haven't gotten a good film is because they haven't gotten a good film yet. There's no difference between a video game and a comic book in this regard.
As Highroller siad, the only video game movie I can say I wholeheartedly enjoy is Mortal Kombat (only the first one). The reasoning for that is they went back to the formula that inspired Mortal Kombat - Martial Arts movies like Enter the Dragon or Bloodsport.
Unlike Street Fighter, which tried to turn a fighting game into a generic and slightly comical action movie, with Guile instead of Ryu and Ken as the stars. Also: Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game is probably one of the lowest points in gaming, ever.
As Highroller siad, the only video game movie I can say I wholeheartedly enjoy is Mortal Kombat (only the first one).
I mean, I guess MK was fun and it introduced me to some good music, but it was hardly a quality film. I think the Silent Hill adaptation was much better, both in terms of faithfulness to the game as well as overall quality. It wasn't perfect by any means, but I liked it a lot more than MK.
I think the reason why haven't seen many truly good films based on video games is that they aren't taken seriously and they're seen as cash grabs and not opportunities to adapt really good stories, characters and settings. There are so many properties that I think lend themselves well to film adaptation, but until Hollywood starts treating those properties with respect I hope they aren't adapted.
It's funny, when it comes to blockbuster films versus blockbuster gaming, I think in many cases the games are the ones telling better-crafted stories with more engaging characters. Games manage to balance spectacle with story better in a lot of cases, especially when certain studios (like Bioware, Naughty Dog, 2K/Irrational, Konami, Quantic Dreams, Valve, etc) are involved. Some blockbuster films hit that balance, but many don't which is I think a good sign of where Hollywood's priorities are with that kind of movie.
I think the videogame based movies are always fighting an uphill battle against their market.
1.- You have the high chance of upsetting the fan base with a movie that its not "true" to the game because you want to water it down and make it more understandable to the general audience.
2.- You make the movie too related to the game and it will alienate the general audience because they'll have no clue of whats really going on.
Marvel somehow has put a balance with their movies, while they are NOT completely following the most of their comic's canon, they keep key elements to make the fans happy and entertain the general audience.
Do I even need to point out how the very things you say about the video game generation was said about the comic book generation not too long ago, and how this is a giant boatload of special pleading, or does it come across without my needing to?
No, comic book movies are certainly not different. The only reason you're arguing that they are is because of Spiderman. It made a boatload of money, Hollywood jumped on the superhero bandwagon, and then Christopher Nolan came along and got mainstream audiences excited. But it wasn't too long ago that people for the most part gave up on superhero films until Spiderman came along to resurrect interest.
So no, comic book movies are no different at all. The only reason they haven't gotten a good film is because they haven't gotten a good film yet. There's no difference between a video game and a comic book in this regard.
Giant boatload of special pleading?
I don't know what that means, but I generally dislike comics and superhero movies, so don't assume that I have a dog in this fight.
Let me clarify my point. The incentives to develop a comic book property are different from a video game property because comic book heroes are culturally iconic. When you have a character and a myth that everyone is familiar with, the potential audience is universal. When everyone is at least vaguely interested in your premise, the critical reception of the movie makes a big difference. The masses are just waiting for a reason to go see it, so these properties are handled with extra care nowadays because almost every potential theatergoer is on the fence.
Video game properties are different because the franchises are only familiar to a niche audience. If the demographic for them wasn't the most desirable demographic, studios wouldn't even bother. But there is a real opportunity to turn a quick profit on the Resident Evil name, so they push something through. Even if it had turned out to be a pretty good horror movie, the Resident Evil franchise was not popular enough to reach an audience of superhero movie proportions, so from the studio's perspective it's not worth any special effort to appease the critics, because those critics won't be able to effectively sell the premise to older demographics who've never heard of it. This is why critical reception and word of mouth are not strong incentives to make a really good video game movie.
As for your Spider-Man (2002) changed everything theory, X-Men came out in 2000 and was, in my opinion, a better movie. And no one was saying that there had never been a good comic book movie before that because Superman came out in 1978. Aside from the superhero properties, there were also movies based on comics like Men in Black (1997) and The Mask (1994) which predate Spider-Man.
So what do you mean the same things were said about comic books not too long ago? That there had never been a worthwhile adaptation of a comic book property? I already cited a radio play from 1940, The Adventures of Superman, which hit the airwaves just two years after the character was conceived.
From what I can gather, the best video game adaptation is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, but it wasn't terrible. Also, Wreck-It Ralph seems to have a lot of video game characters in it, although it's not based on a video game property itself. I didn't see that one but I wanted to.
Maybe you're right that it will just take one good movie to change the way studios approach these projects. Let's wait and see if Fassbender can get a decent director involved.
Marvel somehow has put a balance with their movies, while they are NOT completely following the most of their comic's canon, they keep key elements to make the fans happy and entertain the general audience.
The key difference here is that Marvel is very involved with the MCU, so they have a great deal more say in the direction of the adaptations than the average adapted property. Your average video game studio has little to no say in the direction of a film adaptation. The most notable exception is Ubisoft, whose stranglehold on the Assassin's Creed property being adapted has slowed production but likely for the better.
The key difference here is that Marvel is very involved with the MCU, so they have a great deal more say in the direction of the adaptations than the average adapted property. Your average video game studio has little to no say in the direction of a film adaptation. The most notable exception is Ubisoft, whose stranglehold on the Assassin's Creed property being adapted has slowed production but likely for the better.
Maybe thats what the industry needs, good directors + big studios + good script adaptations from video games; instead of just 1/3 of the formula like in most examples.
Maybe thats what the industry needs, good directors + big studios + good script adaptations from video games; instead of just 1/3 of the formula like in most examples.
Oh absolutely, but that's just the point many here are trying to make: Marvel didn't get into this position overnight. And it's really the only one on the comics field in such a position, the others don't have nearly this much sway. Marvel's situation is unique even amongst comics, I don't see video games achieving it. It's unlikely a video game studio will get to this point in the near future, let alone several of them to result in many well-adapted properties. If we're lucky, we'll get one great adaptation and several mediocre ones.
Your formula is also missing one critical part: talented actors. Let's face it, the MCU films have gotten a lot of traction out of talented, charismatic leads.
Oh absolutely, but that's just the point many here are trying to make: Marvel didn't get into this position overnight. And it's really the only one on the comics field in such a position, the others don't have nearly this much sway. Marvel's situation is unique even amongst comics, I don't see video games achieving it. It's unlikely a video game studio will get to this point in the near future, let alone several of them to result in many well-adapted properties. If we're lucky, we'll get one great adaptation and several mediocre ones.
Your formula is also missing one critical part: talented actors. Let's face it, the MCU films have gotten a lot of traction out of talented, charismatic leads.
Marvel also had the advantage of a strong of more-or-less successful licensed films, and had the foresight to set up their own production house to tackle each film carefully. That's a very unique circumstance. Comics tend to make better films as well, because a comic book is essentially just a storyboard (and in fact Mark Millar has been making his career on just that fact for half a decade now).
For game studios, it basically comes down to a cheap IP. The studios usually want a quick buck or the movie companies do, seeing a built-in audience.
I have to say now that it's been pointed out, Silent Hill was a good adaptation, I just don't really care about the movie (while MK is great if you are a martial arts movie fan).
Let me clarify my point. The incentives to develop a comic book property are different from a video game property because comic book heroes are culturally iconic. When you have a character and a myth that everyone is familiar with, the potential audience is universal.
Iconic to whom?
You might get away with this argument for Superman and Batman, but for how many other superheroes does this actually apply?
Video game properties are different because the franchises are only familiar to a niche audience.
The same is equally true for comic books, with the exception of Superman and Batman. Case in point: no one cared about the Green Lantern movie. No one. In fact, there's an Onion skit satirizing the very idea that the Green Lantern is a cultural icon.
And, as evidenced by the fact that the collapse of the last influx of comic book movies was because of, or at least heralded by, terrible Batman movies, it was not because of Batman inherently. It was a combination of Batman and good storytelling.
This is why critical reception and word of mouth are not strong incentives to make a really good video game movie.
Wreck-It Ralph.
As for your Spider-Man (2002) changed everything theory, X-Men came out in 2000 and was, in my opinion, a better movie.
You're contradicting the point you were just trying to make. It's not about which movie is better, Spiderman was far more successful.
And no one was saying that there had never been a good comic book movie before that because Superman came out in 1978. Aside from the superhero properties, there were also movies based on comics like Men in Black (1997) and The Mask (1994) which predate Spider-Man.
You didn't understand what I was saying. Comic book movies hit a boom and then faltered, only to be brought back into the limelight by Spiderman. They didn't fade away completely, true, but there wasn't anywhere close to the same level of excitement.
So what do you mean the same things were said about comic books not too long ago?
That video games are a younger demographic that isn't taken seriously while comic books have been established as a cultural icon. No, it became established as a cultural icon when the generations that grew up on comic books became adults. Then they became a cultural icon.
There's no reason this can't happen with video games. The problem is video games are just a younger medium.
From what I can gather, the best video game adaptation is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, but it wasn't terrible.
It was a terrible adaptation because it had nothing to do with Final Fantasy.
As was previously mentioned, I believe it was because it was a rather virgin path for movie makers to take. Uwe Boll was one of the uh... pathfinders through this, buying the cheap rights to make a movie and producing filth. This at least introduced the idea to the mainstream directors/producers. I think now that we have broken through the first bad eggs we can progress the creation of decent movies based on game franchises.
And then in the case of the Resident Evil series, once they learn they can get away with royally screwing the lore of a franchise, and keep making money off of it, suddenly you have a yearly release milking money from everyone that hopes it might get better.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Been playing Magic for 2 years.
Currently play in Modern with a u/w Control deck.
To be fair, Wreck-It Ralph was about video games but it wasn't adapted from a video game. To people who have grown up with the games and tropes presented the movie is amazing, but to someone who isn't in the know it's merely cute. It's a solid movie on its own, but a lot is missed if you don't already know the bits its sending up. Wreck-It Ralph was trying to solve a different problem than a movie that's an adaptation of a video game.
It was a terrible adaptation because it had nothing to do with Final Fantasy.
And it was a horrible movie on top of it.
Amen. Lots of money spent to make something that had absolutely nothing to do with the source material other than name.
I think the difference in mediums are always going to hinder movies adapted from video games. Good video games require active participation from the audience while movies are inherently a passive medium. In a sense a video game makes you feel you are part of creating the story while a movie requires you to only experience it. It's a tough hurdle. I can see someone clearing it eventually, but it's going to require a lot of factors coming together (the right IP, a knowledgeable director, etc.).
I have to agree with some online polls, and say Prince of Persia: Sands of Time was actually not bad and easy to watch. Even if Jake is about as un-persian as it gets.
That said, I have to disagree with a lot of online polls, Super Mario Bros. the movie was amazing, it was the Citizen Kane of our generation!
I'd give anything for a SERIOUS attempt at a quality Shadow of the Colossus film.
You hear that Hollywood. SotC, and don't **** it up!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Marvel somehow has put a balance with their movies, while they are NOT completely following the most of their comic's canon, they keep key elements to make the fans happy and entertain the general audience.
Quote from Biefall »
Maybe thats what the industry needs, good directors + big studios + good script adaptations from video games; instead of just 1/3 of the formula like in most examples.
I'm sorry, do we actually think Marvel comic movies are good/not formulaic for the most part?
Look, the Avengers was awesome, but it's not as though Marvel's movies for the most part haven't been crappy. Iron Man 1 was most likely their best movie aside from Avengers, and look where that series went since then.
Let me clarify what I'm getting at: do you think Shadow of the Colossus would work in a non-interactive medium?
Yes, I think it would be awesome.
With great character development for Wander & Argo (think War Horse or Hidalgo)
and actually spend time on Wander & Mono and why he must set off to save her life, (think the first few minutes of UP meets King-Kongesque "sacrifice" of Mono)
Then, Wander and Argo set out to defeat the Colossi leading an adventure of such grand scale (think Clash of the Titans meets Neverending Story)
Have the colossi done right, massive in scale, but intimate in minimalism. Scenery like LOTR, danger like Jurassic Park, and adventure like Indiana Jones all with a sense of loneliness and isolation (because like in the game, there aren't any towns/people in the forbidden land)
There is a lot that would need to be done to get it right, but I think it'd be amazing. International hit for sure, possible bomb in America
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Movies that spring to mind that were aweful adaptations of video games are films like Doom, Street Fighter, BloodRayne, and a lot of straight to DVD films.
To some film makers credit there were some OK ones that did hit the screen. Silent Hill was not to bad and followed the game fairly well with the exception of pyramid head making an appearence, but he kind of had to in order to please the fanboys and general audiance alike. Resisdent Evil(the first one) was not to bad either. It had some general pacing and not to far out situations involved. Also Final Fantasy VII Advent Children was very good but I am looking at more live action films then CG.
Maybe I am being to critical and the fact that I have played all these video games makes me jaded in the way that I veiw the film. I guess I should just base the moive off of the movie and stop trying to compare it to the game. Although books/novels that get turned in to movies seem to be far better off then games that get turned in to movies. Take Lord of the Rings for example. I read the books before hand and still thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
With the new announcment of heavy hitters such as Blizzard (Upcoming WoW movie) and Ubi Soft (Assassin's Creed movie) taking a stab at it I will be looking forward at how well they do.
What is your take on video games to movies? Do you like them? Are there some films that I might of overlooked?
Cheers!
Enough said, really. He made a career out of buying VG IPs for cheap and making terrible movies from them.
But I liked Postal for the sheer insanity of it all. If you can watch it for cheap, it's one I'd recommend even though it's not a good movie per se... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486640/?ref_=sr_1
There really aren't too many others I'd recommend. Mortal Kombat was fun to watch as a kid, I think.
There is also this... http://www.imdb.com/keyword/based-on-video-game/?sort=num_votes
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time... huh.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4557651&postcount=1
TheWarden's Creative Commons Music Pick Project (Retired):
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=336498
Look at what's happening with comic book movies. Yeah, unlike video games, superhero comics have been around since the Thirties, but it's really not until the Seventies or Eighties that they started to get really serious. And now here we are a few decades later, and lifelong fans like Sam Raimi and Joss Whedon are running the show.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it, "Wow, this particular video game has a great story that would be interesting if told in a different medium like film"?
Is it, "I freaking love this video game and video games in general and want to tell a story that communicates that love so others may share it?"
Or is it, "This franchise in video games is successful, let's make a movie around it to grab more money?"
It's almost always the last one. Is anyone surprised, then, that the people telling the story don't tell it well?
Notice how good Wreck-It Ralph was. It's not hard to see the difference in approach and passion between that and the Resident Evil series.
Video Games are designed in such a way that the player is the main character, the agent in activity and storyline, and all the storyline revolves around them and their agency. Decisions made are made by them if they're made actively in the story.
A good example of this is Bioshock, where the player is actively 'making decisions' until the major plot twist comes later.
In a movie, while some of these things can have merit (see Bioshock), a lot of that storytelling is lost on the audience. They're watching, not actively participating, so the storyline doesn't quite work the same way. Events that feel impacting and insightful, especially such ones as 'you did this, and this was bad' are not quite as impacting when seen from an observing standpoint.
Not only that, but there's also the simple problem of 'too high of expectations'
My helpdesk should you need me.
Also, good movies tend to follow major plot threads and have very little filler, while games are often built around gameplay, with plot being comparatively crap. If a movie tried to retell a game's story it would likely be terrible/simple, or at the other extreme would miss most of the game's interesting backstory in an attempt to cut the plot to 3 hours (max).
There are exceptions to this as well, and I'm biased by the movies and games I like, but I think those are the main points.
Art is life itself.
Most of these video game characters don't even have a backstory. How is that laying the groundwork for a good movie? The screenwriters can either indulge themselves with scene after scene of character development that's based on nothing, and risk the displeasure of some scumbag producer for their troubles, or they can thrust an audience full of ritalin fiends straight into the action, just like the games themselves.
Comic book movies are different because the characters have transcended the medium and become cultural figures. Superman first appeared in Action Comics Number #1 in 1938, and two years later there was a tri-weekly radio play called The Adventures of Superman. It aired for nearly ten years. Hardly anyone reads comics these days, but everyone knows who Wonder Woman is, whether they've seen an adaptation of her or not.
Reviews and word of mouth are more of a factor to your box office when you're looking for broad appeal than when you're trying to exploit a niche in the market, and so far all video game movies have been opportunistic and greedy because the franchises lack the potential for a massive audience. The difference between the grosses of a good Wonder Woman adaptation and a botched one is much greater than the difference for something like Hitman. Only a small fraction of the population that is already invested in Hitman will care about the reviews either way, while everyone who likes good movies is already interested in Wonder Woman as a subject.
"Hey, I just saw Hitman and it changed my life. I haven't cried like that since The Piano."
"Is that the one with Jason Statham?"
"Hey, I heard Wonder Woman is pretty decent."
"Oh, really? Tell me more."
Depends on the video game, specifically how linear the game's storyline is and how much the mechanics of the game are incorporated into how the story is told. I could easily see a Psychonauts movie. I don't think it's possible to make a movie out of Braid.
The thing is, the Mortal Kombat movie is the only direct video game -> film adaptation that worked, and you cannot say that there's no difference in interactivity between a fighting game and a movie.
I'm sorry, good video game stories are not good stories?
Do you want to qualify this statement, or do you want to leave it as is?
Do I even need to point out how the very things you say about the video game generation was said about the comic book generation not too long ago, and how this is a giant boatload of special pleading, or does it come across without my needing to?
No, comic book movies are certainly not different. The only reason you're arguing that they are is because of Spiderman. It made a boatload of money, Hollywood jumped on the superhero bandwagon, and then Christopher Nolan came along and got mainstream audiences excited. But it wasn't too long ago that people for the most part gave up on superhero films until Spiderman came along to resurrect interest.
So no, comic book movies are no different at all. The only reason they haven't gotten a good film is because they haven't gotten a good film yet. There's no difference between a video game and a comic book in this regard.
Unlike Street Fighter, which tried to turn a fighting game into a generic and slightly comical action movie, with Guile instead of Ryu and Ken as the stars. Also: Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game is probably one of the lowest points in gaming, ever.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I mean, I guess MK was fun and it introduced me to some good music, but it was hardly a quality film. I think the Silent Hill adaptation was much better, both in terms of faithfulness to the game as well as overall quality. It wasn't perfect by any means, but I liked it a lot more than MK.
I think the reason why haven't seen many truly good films based on video games is that they aren't taken seriously and they're seen as cash grabs and not opportunities to adapt really good stories, characters and settings. There are so many properties that I think lend themselves well to film adaptation, but until Hollywood starts treating those properties with respect I hope they aren't adapted.
It's funny, when it comes to blockbuster films versus blockbuster gaming, I think in many cases the games are the ones telling better-crafted stories with more engaging characters. Games manage to balance spectacle with story better in a lot of cases, especially when certain studios (like Bioware, Naughty Dog, 2K/Irrational, Konami, Quantic Dreams, Valve, etc) are involved. Some blockbuster films hit that balance, but many don't which is I think a good sign of where Hollywood's priorities are with that kind of movie.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
1.- You have the high chance of upsetting the fan base with a movie that its not "true" to the game because you want to water it down and make it more understandable to the general audience.
2.- You make the movie too related to the game and it will alienate the general audience because they'll have no clue of whats really going on.
Marvel somehow has put a balance with their movies, while they are NOT completely following the most of their comic's canon, they keep key elements to make the fans happy and entertain the general audience.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
I don't know what that means, but I generally dislike comics and superhero movies, so don't assume that I have a dog in this fight.
Let me clarify my point. The incentives to develop a comic book property are different from a video game property because comic book heroes are culturally iconic. When you have a character and a myth that everyone is familiar with, the potential audience is universal. When everyone is at least vaguely interested in your premise, the critical reception of the movie makes a big difference. The masses are just waiting for a reason to go see it, so these properties are handled with extra care nowadays because almost every potential theatergoer is on the fence.
Video game properties are different because the franchises are only familiar to a niche audience. If the demographic for them wasn't the most desirable demographic, studios wouldn't even bother. But there is a real opportunity to turn a quick profit on the Resident Evil name, so they push something through. Even if it had turned out to be a pretty good horror movie, the Resident Evil franchise was not popular enough to reach an audience of superhero movie proportions, so from the studio's perspective it's not worth any special effort to appease the critics, because those critics won't be able to effectively sell the premise to older demographics who've never heard of it. This is why critical reception and word of mouth are not strong incentives to make a really good video game movie.
As for your Spider-Man (2002) changed everything theory, X-Men came out in 2000 and was, in my opinion, a better movie. And no one was saying that there had never been a good comic book movie before that because Superman came out in 1978. Aside from the superhero properties, there were also movies based on comics like Men in Black (1997) and The Mask (1994) which predate Spider-Man.
So what do you mean the same things were said about comic books not too long ago? That there had never been a worthwhile adaptation of a comic book property? I already cited a radio play from 1940, The Adventures of Superman, which hit the airwaves just two years after the character was conceived.
From what I can gather, the best video game adaptation is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. It had nothing to do with Final Fantasy, but it wasn't terrible. Also, Wreck-It Ralph seems to have a lot of video game characters in it, although it's not based on a video game property itself. I didn't see that one but I wanted to.
Maybe you're right that it will just take one good movie to change the way studios approach these projects. Let's wait and see if Fassbender can get a decent director involved.
The key difference here is that Marvel is very involved with the MCU, so they have a great deal more say in the direction of the adaptations than the average adapted property. Your average video game studio has little to no say in the direction of a film adaptation. The most notable exception is Ubisoft, whose stranglehold on the Assassin's Creed property being adapted has slowed production but likely for the better.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Maybe thats what the industry needs, good directors + big studios + good script adaptations from video games; instead of just 1/3 of the formula like in most examples.
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/805-w-underground-sea-h-revised-lands
Oh absolutely, but that's just the point many here are trying to make: Marvel didn't get into this position overnight. And it's really the only one on the comics field in such a position, the others don't have nearly this much sway. Marvel's situation is unique even amongst comics, I don't see video games achieving it. It's unlikely a video game studio will get to this point in the near future, let alone several of them to result in many well-adapted properties. If we're lucky, we'll get one great adaptation and several mediocre ones.
Your formula is also missing one critical part: talented actors. Let's face it, the MCU films have gotten a lot of traction out of talented, charismatic leads.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Marvel also had the advantage of a strong of more-or-less successful licensed films, and had the foresight to set up their own production house to tackle each film carefully. That's a very unique circumstance. Comics tend to make better films as well, because a comic book is essentially just a storyboard (and in fact Mark Millar has been making his career on just that fact for half a decade now).
For game studios, it basically comes down to a cheap IP. The studios usually want a quick buck or the movie companies do, seeing a built-in audience.
I have to say now that it's been pointed out, Silent Hill was a good adaptation, I just don't really care about the movie (while MK is great if you are a martial arts movie fan).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Iconic to whom?
You might get away with this argument for Superman and Batman, but for how many other superheroes does this actually apply?
The same is equally true for comic books, with the exception of Superman and Batman. Case in point: no one cared about the Green Lantern movie. No one. In fact, there's an Onion skit satirizing the very idea that the Green Lantern is a cultural icon.
And, as evidenced by the fact that the collapse of the last influx of comic book movies was because of, or at least heralded by, terrible Batman movies, it was not because of Batman inherently. It was a combination of Batman and good storytelling.
Wreck-It Ralph.
You're contradicting the point you were just trying to make. It's not about which movie is better, Spiderman was far more successful.
You didn't understand what I was saying. Comic book movies hit a boom and then faltered, only to be brought back into the limelight by Spiderman. They didn't fade away completely, true, but there wasn't anywhere close to the same level of excitement.
That video games are a younger demographic that isn't taken seriously while comic books have been established as a cultural icon. No, it became established as a cultural icon when the generations that grew up on comic books became adults. Then they became a cultural icon.
There's no reason this can't happen with video games. The problem is video games are just a younger medium.
It was a terrible adaptation because it had nothing to do with Final Fantasy.
And it was a horrible movie on top of it.
Terrible video game movies that do poorly here tend to do better elsewhere.
I tried watching the latest resident evil movie on a place recently, but it was so bad I couldn't watch it. For free. Rarely are they that bad.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
And then in the case of the Resident Evil series, once they learn they can get away with royally screwing the lore of a franchise, and keep making money off of it, suddenly you have a yearly release milking money from everyone that hopes it might get better.
Currently play in Modern with a u/w Control deck.
To be fair, Wreck-It Ralph was about video games but it wasn't adapted from a video game. To people who have grown up with the games and tropes presented the movie is amazing, but to someone who isn't in the know it's merely cute. It's a solid movie on its own, but a lot is missed if you don't already know the bits its sending up. Wreck-It Ralph was trying to solve a different problem than a movie that's an adaptation of a video game.
Amen. Lots of money spent to make something that had absolutely nothing to do with the source material other than name.
I think the difference in mediums are always going to hinder movies adapted from video games. Good video games require active participation from the audience while movies are inherently a passive medium. In a sense a video game makes you feel you are part of creating the story while a movie requires you to only experience it. It's a tough hurdle. I can see someone clearing it eventually, but it's going to require a lot of factors coming together (the right IP, a knowledgeable director, etc.).
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
That said, I have to disagree with a lot of online polls, Super Mario Bros. the movie was amazing, it was the Citizen Kane of our generation!
I'd give anything for a SERIOUS attempt at a quality Shadow of the Colossus film.
You hear that Hollywood. SotC, and don't **** it up!
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm sorry, do we actually think Marvel comic movies are good/not formulaic for the most part?
Look, the Avengers was awesome, but it's not as though Marvel's movies for the most part haven't been crappy. Iron Man 1 was most likely their best movie aside from Avengers, and look where that series went since then.
What would that involve exactly?
Let me clarify what I'm getting at: do you think Shadow of the Colossus would work in a non-interactive medium?
Yes, I think it would be awesome.
With great character development for Wander & Argo (think War Horse or Hidalgo)
and actually spend time on Wander & Mono and why he must set off to save her life, (think the first few minutes of UP meets King-Kongesque "sacrifice" of Mono)
Then, Wander and Argo set out to defeat the Colossi leading an adventure of such grand scale (think Clash of the Titans meets Neverending Story)
Have the colossi done right, massive in scale, but intimate in minimalism. Scenery like LOTR, danger like Jurassic Park, and adventure like Indiana Jones all with a sense of loneliness and isolation (because like in the game, there aren't any towns/people in the forbidden land)
There is a lot that would need to be done to get it right, but I think it'd be amazing. International hit for sure, possible bomb in America
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein