Poll: VG Movie poll.

[Red Rum]

All of the lame Video Game movies that have been released have one thing in common:
they're all LIVE-ACTION.
And I figured that since all video games have computer-generated visuals, would we respond better to a movie that uses CG to make the movie look more like the game it's based on.
What U think?

 

[Hungry Xenomorph]

Final Fantasy tried that, ate shit, and died.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I don't think the format has anything to do with it. It's more the fact that a story written to be discovered by the actions of a player doesn't necessarily translate well to being delivered passively.

The best attempt so far has been Silent Hill, but that wasn't recieved terribly well, partly because of what was changed to fit the story into the timeframe allowed, and get around the problem noted above, and partly because of Sean Bean's hilarious attempt at an American accent.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It depends on the script and director, really. For example, the upcoming Metal Gear Solid movie, with Hideo Kojima staying involved. It will be live action, but it will likely be awesome, because Hideo's involved.

 

[Thaliur]

Casting real-life actors would probably be a bit cheaper than relying entirely on CGI graphics, at least if you want a hint of realism in the movie. This leaves some money to hire someone to write a decent story. Rhianna Pratchett did a good job on Overlord, maybe she could create a nice movie storyline too, video games and movies aren't too different after all, except for the interactivity of games.
And I guess as long as there aren too many Anime-style freak characters or anthropomorphic animals and objects, you can always find someone who looks like the character (s)he is supposed to play, and can act (this would remove Keanu Reeves from any casting list I guess)

 

[Hey Joe]

People seem to forget that at it's barest level, film tells us stories. If you don't have a good story full of interesting and well drawn characters, it doesn't matter one iota whether it's CGI or live-action, it WILL fail.

 

[njsykora]

*cough*Advent Children*cough*

A VG movie that's all CG can be good, and potentially brilliant. Its just a matter of finding the right game.

 

[Hey Joe]

Here's something I found a while ago, and some of you may have seen this, but Studio Pendulum did a tech demo using a monologue from Marc Antony. Their mission was to convey gut wrenching emotion using animation, and I think this serves to highlight the possibilities with CGI and animation.

http://www.studiopendulum.com/toprecent.html

(3rd one down)

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

i think it'd be easier and honestly, i prefer the character from the game, not a hollywood actor dressed like a more fassionable version of the character. however i think it's been said, there are alotta problems with translating into movies but generally the story changing has always been bad. hollywood writers aren't as good as the people who sunk years into a single project to build the lore and realm of these video games. i think with proper writing cg movies of the games would be better than live action versions simply because they could use the same voice actors and it would simply be a movie version of the game, not a movie interpretation of the game.

 

[Copter400]

I think that any director about to make a game movie needs to understand that you can't change the story in any way lest you be boycotted by the fans. Book fans get angry enough, but geeks are just plain ravenous. Besides, in most games it doesn't work. Consider a HL2 movie. The director starts with nothing. Freeman isn't even a blank slate, there's no slate to speak of. Try making that into a movie without turning him into some stupid action hero.

Wait...that's not on topic, is it...

It all comes down to who's making it and how much of a pillock they are. That's it.

 

[Larenxis]

I don't think live-action vs. CG makes much impact. I think I'd prefer live-action, but it wouldn't be a decisive difference.

 

[PurpleRain]

I just saw Uwe Bowle's (or is it Boll?) name and i picked that one. I hate that man with a gun.

 

[REDPill357]

If you go for something like Beowulf, it's not going to work because the director will try to show how fancy this new-fangled technology is. If you get a director who won't fall for that, then it might be good.

Overall though, it's the plot and story and acting that make a movie. We need a movie with good writing, good plot, and a director who cares about the source material.

HURRY UP WITH THAT HALF-LIFE, MR. TARANTINO! Or at least support or deny the rumors.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

As my roommate keeps reminding me, many BOARDGAMES have been signed for movie deals. I mean Monopoly, Candy Lane, etc... I feel sorry for the directors and actors who agree to take on such bad movie ideas, because its not them who said "Holy f'ing assburgers. People will pay to see Bee Movie, I guess they'd watch pretty much anything. We have two choices, film adaptations of Paris Hilton's VD treatment and the Hoff's colonoscopy, or movies about uninteresting products. Come up with something new? No that costs time and money, so lets start with Board Games and work our way up to household cleaning products..."

Um.... Clue? Clue was one of the best movies ever, dude.

That said, Advent Children was one of the better video game movies I've seen, in so much as it was watchable. That alone presents a strong argument for CG. Try to imagine Advent Children exactly the same, but with real people. Now you tell me, would that scene where Cloud jumped about a mile and a half straight up have been anywhere near as cool?

No. Because real people look stupid doing stuff like that.

- J

 

[Red Rum]

Final Fantasy tried that, ate shit, and died.

I mean, if the CG was as far away from real life visuals, like Okami.

 

[broadband]

like somes said, the main problems isnt much if its CG or live, is the script and directing.

take hitman for example, the script, it was nothing like the storyline of the game and was complete crap, 47 wasnt the silent ruthless asasain he is suposed to be, in the movie it was more like a loudly sadistic, and it wwasnt even a clone like its suposed to, the only things that kept from the original source was the suit and the bald head.

i think if a movie is going to be based in a game, it should be some kind of canon storyline that happens in the game world, a bitaway from the original game storyline.

the first resident evil was decent, a canon story about the first hours of the mansion outbreak, it could fit in the game world, but it was screwed with the secuels.

 

[Cousin_IT]

Final Fantasy tried that, ate shit, and died.

I dont care what anybody says I liked the spirits whithin, box office catastrophe though it was.

But to the question (& this really only applies to Western blockbuster adaptations): Hollywood has some rules that when applied to games storylines/characters I find instantly result in the movie being a less enjoyable experience. The main one for me is that it seems a rule in hollywood movies that any ethically/morally questionable male protagonist has to have a female emotional counterweight, there to try & "break" through to the males cuddly humanity even though they dont "understand" them(& will often say so after having a gratuitous sex scene). Not meaning to sound sexist but I find such transparent characters really unenjoyable to watch(& am usually glad when they usually die, less so when they needlessly turn evil)

Also, plot drivers in games often dont translate so well in movies. Being an emotionless hitman working for an anonymous assassination agency, for example, works when playing a hitman, but when watching one for two hours it is somewhat lacking as a plot device. Thus they have to add things (such as the female counterweight, a more acceptable driving motive for murder etc) which usually results in the film progressing & feeling completely different from the game.

So I dont think making a film of a game will make it better if done all in CG or something else. I think (hollywood at least) seems to have seen the sucess of Tomb Raider & Doom (well I liked it at least), which were not paticularly deep games & neither were the films, & assumed that all games are equally shallow in execution & therefore theyll do a better job by just taking the bare essentials from the game & doing the rest themselves.
Lately the movies: either attempt to add depth to characters & storyline in games that distincltly lacked it (the colossal failure that was Alien Vs Predators & its lead female protagonist); or taking games that had decent storylines & characters & completely missing the point with them (Agent 47 being an assassin working for a secret order of catholics? I know just being a regular assassin is a bit boring but really wtf?). I think Max Payne looks set to suffer this fate as well & as long as this approach is taken, Game to fim adaptations will need more than different filming methods to stop them sucking till theiir mouth implodes.

tl:dr version: ban Uwe Boll (& whoever made AvP) from making films

 

[Mausenheimmer]

I'd prefer live action. With the quality of CGI images and Video Game graphics, a CGI video game movie would be too much like watching the game. Live action, on the other hand, makes the game feel all the more real.