Videogame movies...whats the point?

[Vault101]

Ok I know that sounds pretty stupid (and its not just because of the rocky relationship between games and movies)

and Im sure many would disagree with me..but I really have no desire to see my favorite games on the big screen, I feel like there is nothing to gain, Id rather they try and think of somthing else

for me its different with a book, with a book its a completley different experience, so there always that fascination with how they adapt it, and how the charachters look

games often have a visual and cinematic nature (not just cutscenes) so really theres not much to gain there..except being different

and THEN your not even touching on the issue of games...like RPG's where pretty much everyone has their own version of events...and changing that (particually the gender of the main charachter) would be rather jarring...

HOWEVER if you talking about a movie that somehow compliments the existing universe, but doesnt directly adapt the acutal game in question..thats somthign different all together

this is only my veiw of things....like I said you might feel differently

 

[Marter]

I don't recall many, if any, RPGs being adapted onto film.

And the reason is pretty simple: Money. These films tend to make a large amount of money, as long as they're not directed by Uwe Boll. I mean, look at the Resident Evil live action films. They've made way more money than they should. (And that's coming from someone who liked them). However, I suppose the Resident Evil movies would fit your "ideal", as they definitely didn't adapt the game directly.

Also, I wrote something about why video game movies suck a long time ago. It's <url=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.230396-Marters-0-02-Video-Game-Movies>here, if someone wants a long read.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

To make money. Because most producers are afraid to take risks and if something, even a videogame, has proven successful elsewhere then they'll go with it.
You may have no desire to see movie adaptions of videogames, but I like seeing what comes of them, the results are... interesting. And be fair, Prince of Persia was fun.

 

[Vault101]

To make money. Because most producers are afraid to take risks and if something, even a videogame, has proven successful elsewhere then they'll go with it.
You may have no desire to see movie adaptions of videogames, but I like seeing what comes of them, the results are... interesting. And be fair, Prince of Persia was fun.

I was always interested to see how prince of persia would turn out, since it prety much had mroe or less the right people behined it, from what I could tell it wasnt too bad

however the day they make a mass effect movie Im going to kill somone

 

[aba1]

the problem is most games dont have a strong enough plot of a movie and the ones that do the producers dont want to make movies of because they dont want to risk it being bad (ie:mgs)

 

[Nemesha]

Well the point is:

The game has a community behind it, this means people have an idea what the movie is about. Even if the movie is only similar to the games in certain aspects.

Prince of Persia had some of the key elements of the games, the climbing, fighting, the timeset and environment. That way the filmmakers don't have to create something out of nothing but base it on a proven product.

This does not make it a certain succes. I would give the Prince of Persia movie a 6 or 7 out of ten. Granted it was a better adaptation than mortal combat.

Resident evil only took some aspects of the games as far as I know, the setting, the t-virus, (dunno any more for I haven't played the games (no ps2). Did see the cartoony RE degeneration and saw the original characters from the games.

 

[Speakercone]

A lot of people stand to make a lot of money very quickly with practically no risk. That's why they make these movies.

 

[Lilani]

I think if anyone has done it the best, it would be Square Enix with Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Rather than trying to adapt the story and feel of the game to a movie--two mediums that do not mix very well--they only used the movie to expand on the story and universe. I think it would be interesting to see a game franchise that is rooted in both film and video games. Maybe even books, too. And not just as a bunch of add-ons like what we've seen with the WoW and Halo novels. A real, deep, overarching plot expressed through multiple mediums.

I mean, Valve has already experimented with interactive movie trailers with Super 8. With things like that, the possibilities are endless.

 

[Mallefunction]

It's the same idea with comic book movies. It introduces people to a thing that they might have not realized they were interested in thanks to the medium it was originally presented in. I love comics, but there is NO way in hell that I am wading through all the decades of comics for each hero. Most people who are not comic fanatics would agree.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And be fair, Prince of Persia was fun.

It could've been fun...if Stephen Sommers had directed it. He would've been able to give it that extra kick.

There's only one game that I feel could make a very interesting movie, and that's Ico. Just because all the while when you're playing it, you feel like there's something way bigger happening behind the scenes which you never get to see. Making a dreamy movie that delves into the relationship between Ico and Yorda, and how their past haunts them, while they're wandering around an ominous castle...

I wouldn't mind seeing that.

 

[Jordi]

I don't really see what the problem is if a game has a good enough story. That's often a problem though, and while games can mitigate it by having good gameplay, movies can not. I see no reason why a Mass Effect movie would have to be bad though (although the second game is rife with plot holes). Sure there will be people who played with the other gender, or who made different choices. It's basically the same problem as with adapting books, because people always have different ideas about how it should be. But people should just be able to get over that. Accept that there are more ways to view the material than just your own.

 

[Cenequus]

The only way a good game(any good RPG)can be made into a good film is to make them more than one film. Film trilogies was a big thing in the early 2000 and that might be the only way the only way to have a good game/film. I doubt that there's ever gonna be something good put in a 2 hour film.

 

[Zefar]

As long as they don't give it to Uwe Boll who I'm amazed is still getting movie scripts for games. Or if they don't even read the script before it's made to a movie.

Still Final Fantasy Advent Children is a movie I really enjoyed. Even Spirits Within was ok.

Max Paine movie was fine imo and so was Hitman. There might be more but those where ok for me.

 

[The Abhorrent]

MONEY!

Well, that's why studios try to make movies based off of games. Of course, after seeing the results of several attempts... there's a good reason for people to say that video game movies are horrible. I'm having difficulty thinking of an example of a passable movie that was based off of a game, let alone a good one.

Nevertheless, studios are almost guaranteed to go after an easy cash-grab when they can. It could be so they're able to fund the projects needed to create the truly great movies (gotta pay the bills first), or simply because they want the money. Nevertheless, MovieBob's recent video said it as clearly as possible: the box-office matters [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/3281-The-Numbers].

---

I think part of the problem is the nature of a gaming medium. Because of their interactive nature, games are allowed to get away with something (or maybe required to use?) that's a major faux-pas in storytelling for any other medium: the invincible protagonist.

In any other medium, using this is a death-sentence for a story. It makes for a very boring story, predominantly due to a lack of conflict (and subsequently, no tension). Because games require the player to win every objective (with very few exceptions), the tension comes from the fact the player themselves can fail. However, the player can always come back and try again; quite often the game's story will not progress until the player successfully completes the objective. Starting to see the problem?

Perhaps this is best shown in the Mass Effect series, in that there's one critical problem with the writing:
Shepard is a Mary Sue [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue].

Yes, as in the type of character seen so often in bad fanfiction; typically as a sort of wish-fulfillment author self-insert character which steals all the attention. You can't really deny it either, Shepard will always save the day (though how is up to the player). No one questions his or her decisions (aside from protests which are ineffective at best), and all who have crossed Shepard end up dead. During the "Last Stand" section of the Arrival DLC of ME2, the NPCs (no more details given to avoid spoilers) almost outright declare Shepard to be a one-(wo)man army. All of this from a developper (Bioware) known for having superb writing in their games, and in a series of games which is commonly held as one of the best examples of good storytelling from this generation.

Because games are interactive, the possibility of failure mostly comes from the gameplay rather than the storytelling. Even in the best written games (like Mass Effect above), this is the case. Transferring this type of storytelling from the gaming medium to another less interactive medium (i.e.: movies) just doesn't work, even if the studio is going for a quick cash-grab it's going to be a major issue.

 

[penguindude42]

The existance of Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva renders this thread unnessecary.

Also, Sonic had a better movie than Mario.

~tom <3

 

[ArchAngelKira]

The same point of movies that are made into games, it money