(Why I think) movies based on games will never work.

[SoopaSte123]

Yep. You're right. Video game stories are laced with interactivity. That's what makes them special and that's what makes the best ones good. Like the ending to Red Dead Redemption,

Spoiler

giving you the opportunity to try to kill all those soldiers in Deadeye mode, only to realize that it was useless and you were going to be killed.

Adding the interactivity made it more powerful. Or, say, the evil ending to inFamous 2 where

Spoiler

you had to kill Zeke yourself, not just let Cole kill him in a cut-scene.

It made it feel more personal.

Usually video game stories suck without the interactivity.

 

[Casual Shinji]

But in the end there's no reason to adapt games into movies (apart from box office draw). Unlike books, comics or TV shows, a videogame doesn't gain anything from an adaptation. With a book and comic, an adaptation can add visuals, sound and motion. With a TV show it add a bigger budget or better cinematography. But videogames already have all of this.

What? Games are on-the-whole extremely are weak with cinematography, sound (especially voice acting), and writing. The reason to adapt something from one medium to another is to reach a broader audience. Even games known for good stories are usually not that great, Bioshock's plot has some big issues and that's a game many point to on how games should tell stories.

I never mentioned writing, but whatever... And if you're calling games extremely weak when it comes to sound, you must not have been listening to your games very well. And I'm not talking about the voice acting, which is only teeth-clenchingly bad in games that are bad period. In any decent game the voice acting is either very good or just filled with overbloated puffery, which only suit certain types of games anyway, like God of War or Resident Evil. But when it comes to sound design games are at the forefront.

As for the cinematography, if you can instantly recall a scene or moment from any of your favourite games, that means it has good cinematography. Are there plenty of games with bad cinematography? Sure, but the same can be said about movies.

 

[grumbel]

The biggest problem with adapting games to movies is simply that a lot of games are based around a sole hero who wanders around the world alone, maybe meeting a random NPC every now and then, which would make a rather uninteresting movie. However a movie adaption is an adaption, not a scene by scene translation of the game to film, so that isn't really a problem when the film simply adapts a different story playing in the same universe.

This is essentially no different then games adapting movies, the really good ones are the ones that don't try to adopt the film directly, but those that do a different story in the same universe. Riddick was fantastic and so was Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, while games that try to stay really close to the movie always feel off.

 

[Tsaba]

The silent hill movie sucked?
?_?

My thoughts exactly.

I would argue games and movies are two different things and as such should be treated for what they are.

 

[trooper6]

I loved the Silent Hill movie and thought it was great. I also really liked the first Tomb Raider.

So...yeah, I disagree. Movies based on games can work...they have worked.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

What Ubisoft wants to do is make one of these a movie: Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, or Ghost Recon. The last two were games originally based on books in the first place. With the right actors, they could be good movies of the summer block buster variety. Assassin's Creed with it's insane plot twist. With the higher profile of movies, the U.S. psycho christian brigade would have a field day, forgetting that it's a movie, but hey, free publicity.

 

[Pearwood]

If Tim Burton were to direct a movie version of Psyconauts

Holy crap that would be the most awesome thing ever.

I think the most common problems are that the style is wrong or that the director just wants to cash in on the success of something without much effort. The Tomb Raider films are a good example of a movie that's a similar style to their game and while they won't be winning any best film of the year awards they're enjoyable. The Silent Hill film is good too if you ignore the obviously tacked on subplot with the husband which is probably more down to executive fucking around with it than the director.

 

[Scizophrenic Llama]

Yep. You're right. Video game stories are laced with interactivity. That's what makes them special and that's what makes the best ones good. Like the ending to Red Dead Redemption,

Spoiler

giving you the opportunity to try to kill all those soldiers in Deadeye mode, only to realize that it was useless and you were going to be killed.

Adding the interactivity made it more powerful. Or, say, the evil ending to inFamous 2 where

Spoiler

you had to kill Zeke yourself, not just let Cole kill him in a cut-scene.

It made it feel more personal.

Usually video game stories suck without the interactivity.

I agree with this completely. It's smaller things like that, that will have the greatest effect. Metal Gear Solid 3 did this big time at the end.

Spoiler

Big Boss is just lying there and you are standing over her. I sat there for a good five minutes before realizing that it was myself who was supposed to pull the trigger and that it wasn't a cut-scene.

 

[LilRock1976]

I personally think the main problem is the movie makers change too much stuff.
Double Dragon - A horrible piece of trash. I don't seem to remember anything about a medallion in the game either.
doom - A complete emasculation of the highest order. The story went from a satanic theme with portals to Hell opening up and demons pouring out of them to a generic genetics based sci-fi story. Can you say playing it safe.
Resident evil - I loved this game . Especially when you got to the underground facility and worked your way down to final boss fight against a computer. Oh that's right that is not how it went.
Silent Hill - While I enjoyed this movie the main character is a male not a female.

Unfortunately books and comicbooks are also victims of this.

 

[Nargleblarg]

Out of the many problems that come with a video game to movie adaptation there is one that seems the most prevelant.

Movie= 2-3 hours
Game= 4-100 hours depending

You just cannot abridge the story and characterizations of a whole game into a 2 hour movie.

So the two choices are usually to throw everything about the game out the window then shorten and loosely follow the plot. (Prince of Persia) Or you just assume your audience are fans and that they understand everything you are talking about and go with it. (Final Fantasy VII Advent Children)

 

[Thaius]

To say an adaptation from one medium to another is inherently not going to be good is simply bad adaptation theory. I'm sorry, but it is. Take a class in it and you'll see what I mean. It's not that one medium is "lesser" than another; thinking that in the way you are is no better than the snobby intellectuals who still insist that literature is inherently superior to film, or Roger Ebert ignorantly claiming that video games can never be "high art." Rather, each different medium has different strengths and abilities.

I understand what you're saying; the pivotal plot twist in Bioshock, the epilogue of Halo: Reach, the choice of who to save in Mass Effect... all these powerful moments would lose much of their potency when the player is not in control. But that does not mean movies are destined to suck.

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and Professor Layton and the Eternal Diva are two awesome movies based on games. You know what makes them good? The makers respect the source material. They don't take a profitable name, dump everything about it and make their own thing (*cough*uncharted*cough*), they actually take the source material, as it is, and work with it in a way that is in line with the original vision of the creators. And both movies are freaking awesome. That's what is missing from most game to film adaptations; respect for the source material and the talent to pull off a good film based on it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Games are on-the-whole extremely are weak with cinematography, sound (especially voice acting), and writing. The reason to adapt something from one medium to another is to reach a broader audience. Even games known for good stories are usually not that great, Bioshock's plot has some big issues and that's a game many point to on how games should tell stories.

I never mentioned writing, but whatever... And if you're calling games extremely weak when it comes to sound, you must not have been listening to your games very well. And I'm not talking about the voice acting, which is only teeth-clenchingly bad in games that are bad period. In any decent game the voice acting is either very good or just filled with overbloated puffery, which only suit certain types of games anyway, like God of War or Resident Evil. But when it comes to sound design games are at the forefront.

As for the cinematography, if you can instantly recall a scene or moment from any of your favourite games, that means it has good cinematography. Are there plenty of games with bad cinematography? Sure, but the same can be said about movies.

How can games be strong on cinematography? Almost all WRPGs have you talk to completely wooden NPCs and the camera is right in the NPC's face, no kind of technique at all with the framing. And, RPGs are games that are usually stronger with story and characters, and they have lackluster cinematography. And a game like Bioshock that many point to as a way games should interweave plot and exposition into gameplay has NO CINEMATOGRAPHY because they are no cut-scenes, you can't even have cinematography when the player is always in control of the camera.

Voice acting is definitely below par in most games. It's not like games are getting top-tier voice actors like a Billy West the majority of the time. Oblivion had several voice actors voicing a several characters. Video game scores aren't done nearly as well as the average movie. Yeah, some games have good scores but those are the exceptions not the rule. Sound effects are usually pretty good, I'll give games that. I do listen in 5.1 surround sound, not through basic TV speakers, and games are lackluster in sound outside of sound effects.

And, real life actors can act so much better than the game's character models and animations can act. Another reason to adapt a game to a movie. Games are just now starting to do advanced facial expressions, but I don't know if you can ever do that kinda of stuff in a digital way better than real life.

 

[head desk tricycle]

A game is really just a premise, an aesthetic, and a style of gameplay. Right off the bat, gameplay has to bite the dust, for obvious reasons. And then you've got to consider that most games have aesthetics that would be too weird for mainstream movie audiences; the Super Mario movie decided to just throw out the game's aesthetic for exactly this reason. That leaves the premise, which is the part most resembling a story; however, it isn't enough. The biggest obstacle is that anyone in Hollywood who writes, greenlights, or shoots a movie adaptation of a game has their reputation and financial future on the line, and this will interest them a lot more than any game could. However, supposing that some day in the future it becomes important for Hollywood to adapt a game correctly, they would definitely succeed.

 

[ProfessorEkim]

I don't feel like reading this whole argument, but I just want to raise a point.

Goldeneye? Wasn't that a good movie based game? Never got to play it myself, so I can't tell you...

 

[Christian Hodgdon]

Movies based off games suck in my opinion because games don't have enough of a story to translate to a full length movie. The story I'm talking about is told through cutscenes, and not through gameplay itself.

 

[aba1]

Wow you need to space that wall of text some @_@

But it's the same thing one could say about books being turned into movies... And really anything being changed into anything else.

The source material will always seem better. ESPECIALLY if the medium is one without restrictions or limitations.

Unless you're a transformer. A transformer's source material sucks.

to be fair to turn a book to a movie is a little different because books ussually have alot more information that simply cannot be added into there movie counterparts due to time constraints. People will read a book in sittings but people watch movies in one go and that is the difference.

OT:

I find with games becoming movies it has alot to do with choosing the right game there are a select few that transition best for example MGS would transition well because it has such a strong story focus the narrative is easy to translate. A game like zelda would not translate well because the main character does not talk and the story takes a backseat to gameplay. For a game to be a movie the game has to have a strong focus on the narrative.

 

[Terminate421]

Wall of text not helpful.

Also, Prince of Persia wasn't a bad movie. It was OKAY.