Poll: Is there a need for Video Game to Movie adaptions?

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Two threads in two days. With polls! I'm such a dynamo.

Spoiler: Personal Feelings on the subject/Rant

I think we all remember Math. And there seems to be a formula that's been going strong for a while in Movie Land. Superior Movie will always equal Inferior Video Game. So why hasn't hollywood, or in conjunction we as the gaming public, realized that the inverse would be true. With Silent Hill Revelations barely making it on anyone's radar, the Resident Evil Movies existing because some of you actually find Milla Jovovich attractive, and the surprisingly lack of talks for a reboot of the Mortal Kombat Movie after the reboot of Mortal Kombat game ("What's that? They actually made a reboot [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqlaU5OMsks]?")... I have to wonder why we even feel like games nowadays need Movie Counterparts.

I decided I wanted to revisit the cutscenes of Halo Reach just yesterday, in keeping with my Halo 4 theme. I looked to the right at the suggested videos I should watch yesterday and I saw Asura's Wrath. The cutscenes for that one video game is 4 plus hours long. I have NEVER saw a movie that was even close to 3 hours. We complain that we watch more of Metal Gear than play it.

It seems more and more, Designers are trying to tell their story more than give us a gaming experience, and I'm actually fine with that. If I want a story, I'll get a story game. If I just want action, I'll play a game that's suitably just action. I'll make that choice. But yet and still, if the game is suitably just action, I'm not here for the backstory.

Left 4 Dead is a great example for a suitable action game. It gives you everything you need to know or care about with great freaking characters (... at least the first one did) and literal writing on the wall. The next and final thing you need to know is where is the nearest gun. And I sunk in 534 hours in just L4D2 to this date. A movie adaption is going to do what? Give more time to the characters? I love them and all (again, just the characters from the first one, although the VO of Rochelle is smoking hot), but I loved them because of just having the right balance of their personalities and realizing it's time to go. I would not want to see an adaption that will spend 60 minutes on their angst and maybe 20 minutes of zombie fighting. That's not Left 4 Dead. And I know that because it wasn't what I played.

And going back to the Story Video Games... why? Why did Silent Hill need any adaptions? The game was about unraveling an epic story, one that needed time that a typical movie time restraints can't even begin to make a dent in. Why do you need a reimagining of a great story? What benefits do we get of taking one of the first genuine Male Characters in the history of gaming and making him a woman? Aren't we doing ourselves a disservice in both ways? Harry was not some nameless super dude, who jumps around and is afraid of nothing. He literally stepped into hell, fear wracking his entire being but just could not leave his daughter behind. I do not remember one male character like that up to that point. Even Leon was a freaking cop, even if it was his first day on the job. How does it look as a people to say 'Well, that's nice... but I think the public will more understand and sympathize with if a mom is doing that. I mean, that's what moms do!'

TL;DR: Has there been any game out there that you felt was made into a movie and it benefited the franchise, or even your appreciation of the subject matter? And not just in a "Holy Shit, that movie was awful, I'm glad the games weren't like that". But in a way that supplemented your enjoyment of the game with the new perspective given or even just the existence of the film?

 

[madwarper]

Superior Movie will always equal Inferior Video Game.

Statement invalid. GoldenEye 007 (N64); Good movie, great game.

 

[Austin Howe]

A need? No. A great artistic opportunity? Absolutely. Some games go to great lengths to create a very pre-constructed, linear "cinematic" experience, which is not to say that they're 100% cutscenes, but they also put in the work to build the feeling of place in narrative as you play, and you also tend to get this linear cinematic experience everytime you play. What this basically means is that a movie based on Silent Hill 2 or any of the good Final Fantasy games would be a very solid idea.

 

[klown]

A need? No. A great artistic opportunity? Absolutely. Some games go to great lengths to create a very pre-constructed, linear "cinematic" experience, which is not to say that they're 100% cutscenes, but they also put in the work to build the feeling of place in narrative as you play, and you also tend to get this linear cinematic experience everytime you play. What this basically means is that a movie based on Silent Hill 2 or any of the good Final Fantasy games would be a very solid idea.

This is pretty much how I feel about it. There is very little need to make a movie from a game, but why not if you are going to do it well. Final Fantasy IX would probably make a fantastic couple of movies if put into the right hands.

 

[Suicidal_Ferret]

I don't know about a need but it would be pretty cool. I like the Resident Evil CG movies. Not so much the live action ones though.

Maybe a TV series...like the Halo shorts. Extend them out a little longer or treat them like Band of Brothers:ODST and I'd watch it. I think Forward Onto Dawn was nicely done (but I've also only watched the first 10 mins of the first episode so...y'know.) I liked the Halo anime shorts from Halo Legends.


A video game movie/TV series would be a great chance to explore the universe. I'd like to see about the other branches of the Assassin's Order in a movie. Not all games would be good for a movie though.

 

[Twyce]

Well... *rubs back of her neck awkwardly* I really loved the original Mortal Kombat movie (the first one ONLY). It was unbelievably cheesy, but you can't tell me that the game wasn't? I don't know, I'm in the minority of this, but I freakin loved the movie. I thought it was a fun and enjoyable embodiment of the game at the time.

As for the new reboot, I couldn't care less about it.

Personally, I enjoy video game movie adaptations, but only if they are done right (see Mortal Kombat above). I hate it when a director tries to add his/her own twist or flare, or worse yet, mucks with the storyline, changes characters to their liking, etc. It's a very fine line to walk when making a game adaptation. I think it's very easy to tell when the director is just phoning it in for a cheap buck, rather than making something out of appreciation for the game.

Example: Silent Hill (the first one). It wasn't the best, but you could tell Gans had paid attention to the material and tried to remain faithful to it. Meanwhile, Resident Evil is an incoherent mess (not that Anderson had much to work with anyway).

 

[BloatedGuppy]

No.

Different mediums, different strengths.

If you want to use the IP fine, but any kind of "play the movie, in GAME form!" translations can DIAF.

Oh wait, I'm looking at this the wrong way. You mean movies made about VIDEO games.

In that case, no. They're all dreadful.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Yes. It's a good idea on it's own. Take a world, its characters, or both, then put then up on the big screen. Seems reasonable.

The problem is when they try to boil day the events of one game into 2 hours or just take the name to make it into something that doesn't look like the source. I'm okay with the idea of someone trying as long as they do it right though.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

First thing is first. J-e-f-f-e-r-s, Twyce... I love you both deeply for your avatars. Seeing Calvin has brought a smile to my face.

Second thing is... well, Second. Twyce, don't worry. I somewhat enjoyed Mortal Kombat because there was punching and I was an easy mark for loving things with punching.

Third is this.

Also, game narratives are typically written to serve the structure of games (pockets of story interspersed with long segments of gameplay), whereas a good film is written very differently (one long drip feed of story, occasional moments for setpieces if needed). What works for one doesn't work for the other.

I really don't understand why so many gamers get their pants worked up over film adaptions. They're completely unnecessary. A Halo film would add absolutely nothing that hasn't already been done, or couldn't be done in future games.

You know, this might be my one caveat with video game movies. If you told a branching story or something that wasn't about the main games, that could be interesting. Halo, for instance. Rich, rich lore that could be branched out. Do we need a Halo movie that shows the Master Chief condensing Halo 1-4? No. Master Chief doing something different from our playable plot line? Maybe.

We have now Spartan IVs who can be made ad nauseum and face something new. Hell, even a civil war between the Spartan IVs who must take on the stronger Spartans IIIs who are now without an enemy to fight and their aggressive inhibitors need an foe to kill. Spartan IIIs who took the old data and started to kidnap children like the UNSC kidnapped the Spartan IIs to make more of their numbers to fight humanity.

... Actually, yeah, someone make that into a movie. But don't make a movie of something we've already done. For the most part, my opinions match with J-e-f-f-e-r-s. The experiences I gotten from the game are enough. I don't need to see them again. The designers didn't see a need for a new spin, because if they did they'd probably would have included it. And well, it would have been nice to play it out instead of not controlling the experience I'm used to having a little say in.