Just posted this up as a "WiiRanty" on Wii60, which is our version of an editorial (and I'm pretty much the major contributor). I figured I'd go ahead and just copy and paste it here for you guys to read. I feel like it started out well, but towards the end I was just getting a bit tired of writing and being at the computer so it likely has a weak end. Nonetheless, I at least hope this is as successful as my "Is Wii the Next Atari?" rant I wrote up weeks ago.
-------
Games Don?t Need Movies
by Chris Cesarano
It?s been almost fifteen years since the Super Mario Bros.: The Movie hit the silverscreen in America. It was a film supposedly based on gaming?s biggest icon, the very mascot of Nintendo to have pumped new life back into an industry thought dead. Such a movie would be expected to be given special treatment, right? Yeah, right. It was 1993, and video games were still kids stuff. Someone created some odd post-apocalyptic alternate dimension of the ?Mushroom Kingdom?, where Goombas are giant lizards with tiny heads in brown trenchcoats, Toad was some punk guitarist with bad hair, Yoshi was a spare animatronic pulled from Jurassic Park, King Koopa was Dennis Hopper and Big Bertha was just some angry, fat black woman in red.
In comparison, the Resident Evil film from 2002 was pretty accurate to its source material?which is pretty sad. When the best way you can describe it is ?well, at least the Licker looks like it did in the game?, then there?s some real issue here.
Now, I?m familiar with the argument that having a bunch of characters wander a mansion pushing statues and finding oddly shaped keys doesn?t make a good film, but Resident Evil didn?t even capture the feel of the game. Instead of exploring what felt like a very old, very abandoned mansion and entering what seemed to be a very old laboratory, it was all brand new and high-technology. There were no members of S.T.A.R.S., just some random special operations soldiers from Umbrella. They didn?t take the game and try to transform it for theaters, but took some keywords, a one-sentence plot summary and went from there.
This is not an uncommon practice. Completely disregarding the likes of Uwe Boll, any plot synopsis for a film based off of a video game strays horribly. The most accurate film adaptation of any game was the Mortal Kombat film from 1992, and even that took some liberties?not only lacked some serious quality, as it?s only watchable when it is being aired on some TV station on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Many gamers demand that Hollywood pay some real attention instead of pumping out what they are.
My question, however, is simple. Why should they be making films based off of games anyway? Do they really need to? I mean, when they based a film off of a comic or a novel, you are able to see things occurring in front of your eyes. Reading about Gandalf facing the Balrog in the Lord of the Rings was one thing, but seeing it on the big screen is something totally different. In the end, those mediums have a potential benefit from being put into movie format (though I?m sure any fan of Venom can also see the potential harm, as represented by Spiderman 3).
Video games are already a visual medium, though. The moment of the big plot twist in Bioshock was just as amazing as it would have been were it a movie. Halo 2 had cinematography and writing capable of matching high-budget Hollywood. Half-Life 2 provides a form of narration and participation that cannot be found in the passive media of Hollywood. The Resident Evil serious is notorious for scattered documents throughout the game, slowly peeling back the layers of plot inside to reveal the mystery, turning the player into a detective instead of just the character on screen.
Even trailers for games are becoming more entertaining than those released for movies. The first trailer for Call of Duty 4 had me on the edge of my seat. The teaser for Assassin?s Creed convinced me to put the game on my ?DO WANT? list. I may play my first Devil May Cry title thanks to the extended trailer for the fourth installment.
In the end, games have everything that film has already. They even have more types of narrative available to them that no other entertainment medium has, and it has been explored greatly. Titles such as Myst go down in history for how involving they are, and the original Final Fantasy Tactics is comparable to a high-brow novel when you delve into all of the politics and depth going on beyond ?save the world from the big bad devils?. In the end, what reason do I have to desire these games being turned into films?
Of course, to answer that, I must go back and correct myself. I?m sure many of you thought ?Wait, what about Silent Hill? Isn?t that more true to the source than even Mortal Kombat was?? While I know many were not pleased with the film, I got to see the ending part of it and found it very interesting. I?ve spoken to plenty of fans of the game who also stated it was in the very style of it. In the end, the Silent Hill movie is the best adaptation of the game?
?but it doesn?t replace the experience of playing the game at all. It just doesn?t measure up. In which case, there is only one thing a film can possibly be good for when it comes to games. Expensive advertisement. The Silent Hill film got several people I know interested in the game series. It only added to my desire to play the games myself. However, no matter what, the games will always surpass the film while achieving the same level of cinematography.
In the end, I don?t want Hollywood to make films out of games. I don?t think anyone should. We don?t need them to. Video games achieve the same things that film does while adding immersion and multiple other forms of narration. In the end, to say ?we?re going to make a film based on this game!? is absolutely pointless, and if it results in a loss of cash from the studio, well, that?ll teach you before you think you can improve on a superior medium.
-------
Games Don?t Need Movies
by Chris Cesarano
It?s been almost fifteen years since the Super Mario Bros.: The Movie hit the silverscreen in America. It was a film supposedly based on gaming?s biggest icon, the very mascot of Nintendo to have pumped new life back into an industry thought dead. Such a movie would be expected to be given special treatment, right? Yeah, right. It was 1993, and video games were still kids stuff. Someone created some odd post-apocalyptic alternate dimension of the ?Mushroom Kingdom?, where Goombas are giant lizards with tiny heads in brown trenchcoats, Toad was some punk guitarist with bad hair, Yoshi was a spare animatronic pulled from Jurassic Park, King Koopa was Dennis Hopper and Big Bertha was just some angry, fat black woman in red.
In comparison, the Resident Evil film from 2002 was pretty accurate to its source material?which is pretty sad. When the best way you can describe it is ?well, at least the Licker looks like it did in the game?, then there?s some real issue here.
Now, I?m familiar with the argument that having a bunch of characters wander a mansion pushing statues and finding oddly shaped keys doesn?t make a good film, but Resident Evil didn?t even capture the feel of the game. Instead of exploring what felt like a very old, very abandoned mansion and entering what seemed to be a very old laboratory, it was all brand new and high-technology. There were no members of S.T.A.R.S., just some random special operations soldiers from Umbrella. They didn?t take the game and try to transform it for theaters, but took some keywords, a one-sentence plot summary and went from there.
This is not an uncommon practice. Completely disregarding the likes of Uwe Boll, any plot synopsis for a film based off of a video game strays horribly. The most accurate film adaptation of any game was the Mortal Kombat film from 1992, and even that took some liberties?not only lacked some serious quality, as it?s only watchable when it is being aired on some TV station on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Many gamers demand that Hollywood pay some real attention instead of pumping out what they are.
My question, however, is simple. Why should they be making films based off of games anyway? Do they really need to? I mean, when they based a film off of a comic or a novel, you are able to see things occurring in front of your eyes. Reading about Gandalf facing the Balrog in the Lord of the Rings was one thing, but seeing it on the big screen is something totally different. In the end, those mediums have a potential benefit from being put into movie format (though I?m sure any fan of Venom can also see the potential harm, as represented by Spiderman 3).
Video games are already a visual medium, though. The moment of the big plot twist in Bioshock was just as amazing as it would have been were it a movie. Halo 2 had cinematography and writing capable of matching high-budget Hollywood. Half-Life 2 provides a form of narration and participation that cannot be found in the passive media of Hollywood. The Resident Evil serious is notorious for scattered documents throughout the game, slowly peeling back the layers of plot inside to reveal the mystery, turning the player into a detective instead of just the character on screen.
Even trailers for games are becoming more entertaining than those released for movies. The first trailer for Call of Duty 4 had me on the edge of my seat. The teaser for Assassin?s Creed convinced me to put the game on my ?DO WANT? list. I may play my first Devil May Cry title thanks to the extended trailer for the fourth installment.
In the end, games have everything that film has already. They even have more types of narrative available to them that no other entertainment medium has, and it has been explored greatly. Titles such as Myst go down in history for how involving they are, and the original Final Fantasy Tactics is comparable to a high-brow novel when you delve into all of the politics and depth going on beyond ?save the world from the big bad devils?. In the end, what reason do I have to desire these games being turned into films?
Of course, to answer that, I must go back and correct myself. I?m sure many of you thought ?Wait, what about Silent Hill? Isn?t that more true to the source than even Mortal Kombat was?? While I know many were not pleased with the film, I got to see the ending part of it and found it very interesting. I?ve spoken to plenty of fans of the game who also stated it was in the very style of it. In the end, the Silent Hill movie is the best adaptation of the game?
?but it doesn?t replace the experience of playing the game at all. It just doesn?t measure up. In which case, there is only one thing a film can possibly be good for when it comes to games. Expensive advertisement. The Silent Hill film got several people I know interested in the game series. It only added to my desire to play the games myself. However, no matter what, the games will always surpass the film while achieving the same level of cinematography.
In the end, I don?t want Hollywood to make films out of games. I don?t think anyone should. We don?t need them to. Video games achieve the same things that film does while adding immersion and multiple other forms of narration. In the end, to say ?we?re going to make a film based on this game!? is absolutely pointless, and if it results in a loss of cash from the studio, well, that?ll teach you before you think you can improve on a superior medium.
