Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Galemp on October 20, 2008, 10:57:06 am

Title: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Galemp on October 20, 2008, 10:57:06 am
Tomatometer ratings (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/) for the past fifteen years.

Max Payne: 18%
Hitman: 15%
Postal: 8%
Dungeon Siege: 4%
Dead or Alive: 35%
Silent Hill: 30%
Bloodrayne: 4%
Doom: 20%
Alone in the Dark: 1%
Resident Evil: 34%
Tomb Raider: 19%
Final Fantasy: 44%
Wing Commander: 9%
Street Fighter: 27%
Mortal Kombat: 24%
Super Mario Bros: 6%

Discuss.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 20, 2008, 11:01:47 am
I guess its because you can't get the feeling of dodging missiles and lasers across in the silver screen easily.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Mongoose on October 20, 2008, 11:31:53 am
Hey, Street Fighter was awesome. :nervous:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: BloodEagle on October 20, 2008, 11:33:13 am
Hey, Street Fighter was awesome. :nervous:

I assume that you're talking about the live action movie. And I disagree.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 20, 2008, 11:35:31 am
Hey, Street Fighter was awesome. :nervous:

I assume that you're talking about the live action movie. And I disagree.
So do I. Most vehemently, but most civilly. It was epic in terms of failure, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 20, 2008, 11:42:53 am
I'm surprised that Max Payne is currently holding out at number one at the box office right now :wtf:. As far as I'm concerned, we should :warp: the people who try to make video game movies. Unless someone revives the Halo movie w/out making it suck :doubt:...
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Mongoose on October 20, 2008, 11:49:24 am
Jean Claude van Damme trying and failing to fake an American accent, and one of the greatest speeches in movie history.  What more do you need?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 20, 2008, 11:50:22 am
I've yet to see a movie adaptation that is really successful, unless you wanna count Final Fantasy Advent Childer, which was more like a sequel.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 20, 2008, 12:09:38 pm
Jean Claude van Damme trying and failing to fake an American accent, and one of the greatest speeches in movie history.  What more do you need?

The best American accent that I've heard is Hugh Laurie as House. A little shaky in the first few episodes, but by the fifth episode he hits it perfect and keeps it up.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Vidmaster on October 20, 2008, 12:45:51 pm
why they always suck? because none has made a good one.

Big exception is the new Max Payne. Hopefully, this one sets a new trend.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Galemp on October 20, 2008, 01:05:16 pm
Big exception is the new Max Payne. Hopefully, this one sets a new trend.

Critics say otherwise. Personally, I'm devastated. Max Payne is one of the most cinematic games I've ever played, and it perfectly straddles the line between being a spoof of the Detective Noir genre and being a shining example of it. I wanted a loving treatment of the source material.

Of course I haven't seen it yet...
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Vidmaster on October 20, 2008, 03:02:35 pm
I liked it. Basta.

If sb expects just the game's story without the gameplay, there would be no reason to actually make a movie.  ;)
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 20, 2008, 03:29:38 pm
Meh, personally I liked Doom and Mortal Kombat, and Silent Hill wasn't that bad either (though clearly born from a videogame). Not saying they were great movies, but they were okay.

As for other video game movies, who knows. Maybe because all the directors are no names?
Or why do Book adaptations suck for the most part? Thing is, both books and video games are stories with lengths that are much greater than simply 2 hours. So how does one shrink that much story, into that small of time and still maintaining the broad appeal? Or maybe that's the thing. People make these movies for people who played the video games, but the movie should be able to stand on its own.

I mean for Hitman, the actor quite honestly looked stupid. If they had Jason Statham in there instead, I might have considered seeing it, but not that dumb looking guy. Of course Statham also did another movie on your list, in the Name of the King, which by all accounts was a huge pile of ****.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Jeff Vader on October 20, 2008, 03:37:49 pm
Meh, personally I liked Doom and Mortal Kombat,
Mortal Kombat was okay. But Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was something that successfully both sucked and blew, effectively deterring me from the rest of the films of the franchise.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Mongoose on October 20, 2008, 03:44:42 pm
Mortal Kombat was okay. But Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was something that successfully both sucked and blew, effectively deterring me from the rest of the films of the franchise.
I've never seen the original, but I've somehow wound up sitting through that sequel multiple times.  Basic cable, how I loathe thee...
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 20, 2008, 05:14:05 pm
Meh, personally I liked Doom and Mortal Kombat, and Silent Hill wasn't that bad either (though clearly born from a videogame). Not saying they were great movies, but they were okay.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: IceFire on October 20, 2008, 05:44:04 pm
Wow Wing Commander takes a beating there...it wasn't that bad.  It had some stupid moments but it had some style and the CGI was really good for the time. Its still pretty good.

Most of the people who do the movies don't get it.  People want to see a good movie based on the story of the video game.  They don't want to play the video game while watching the movie.  If they wanted to do that they could play the video game.

Actually the best game to movie adaptation (I haven't seen Max Payne yet) I've seen is Final Fantasy.  Not everyone liked it but I thought it was a good movie.  The animation style was ambitious and difficult at the time...but they laid allot of groundwork. And the story was pretty decent too.  That one was about the story really...not about the video game.  But then the Final Fantasy games are just so different than your normal shooter.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 20, 2008, 05:52:37 pm
Meh, personally I liked Doom and Mortal Kombat,
Mortal Kombat was okay. But Mortal Kombat: Annihilation was something that successfully both sucked and blew, effectively deterring me from the rest of the films of the franchise.

   Oh, Annihilation was a complete piece of crap "ANIMALITY!!!!"
   As for Street Fighter, I haven't seen the live action one, but the japanese animation of the same name is worth a watch. A lot of the dialogue is horrid, but a lot of the fights are pretty damn good (Chun Li vs Vega).
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: phatosealpha on October 20, 2008, 06:01:55 pm
Is that Final Fantasy: Spirits Within or Advent Children?  Calling the former an adaptation is....well, probably incorrect.


Anyway, really, it comes down to 4 things: 
1: People want to make movies of popular games.  Nobody is dying to make DaiKatana the movie.
2: Popular games almost always follow a pattern that sticks them firmly in action or horror genres.  Schindler's List: The Arcade Game ain't breaking sales records.
3: Generally speaking, most action and horror movies suck.
4: Since there's a pretty good chance the movie will suck even with talent behind it, and it will still make money even if it sucks, why bother trying for more then 'sucks'?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 20, 2008, 06:04:57 pm
Time.

How long did it take you to play through Bioshock? Wolfenstein (the original one)? Duke3D? Doom? And let's not even touch anything turn-based or RTS, which can last for days.

There's your answer. They don't compress.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Demitri on October 20, 2008, 06:10:14 pm
Got to hold my hands up and admit that i liked the WC movie. Still trying to decide if Max Payne is worth going to see, tho loved both games.

Wouldn't mind seeing a movie based in the KOTOR universe, but trying to adapt either of the KOTOR games and shrink it down to 2 hrs would not been a fun task.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 20, 2008, 06:48:25 pm
Wouldn't mind seeing a movie based in the KOTOR universe, but trying to adapt either of the KOTOR games and shrink it down to 2 hrs would not been a fun task.
Which is basically the heart of the problem. The movie makers can't make a movie out of the game, you've already played it and you know whats gonna happen. They have to make it out of its universe, and unless the universe is really fleshed out, its quite difficult to make a movie where the viewers, who are most likely the players, will not see what they want to see, i.e their PC kicking butt.

Although I have to admit, the Doom movie was good. I especially liked the FPS section.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 20, 2008, 10:53:55 pm
Time.

How long did it take you to play through Bioshock? Wolfenstein (the original one)? Duke3D? Doom? And let's not even touch anything turn-based or RTS, which can last for days.

There's your answer. They don't compress.

         Speaking of Duke Nukem, it's due in 2011 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291122/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291122/))
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 20, 2008, 11:19:54 pm
They have to make it out of its universe, and unless the universe is really fleshed out, its quite difficult to make a movie where the viewers

IIRC, the Star Wars universe is REALLY fleshed out. And there's a second KOTOR game...
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 20, 2008, 11:49:07 pm
They have to make it out of its universe, and unless the universe is really fleshed out, its quite difficult to make a movie where the viewers

IIRC, the Star Wars universe is REALLY fleshed out. And there's a second KOTOR game...

      Star Wars wasn't based on a video game.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 21, 2008, 01:24:12 am
      Star Wars wasn't based on a video game.
No, it isn't. If anything though, the Star Wars universe is an excellent setting for both games and movies, which is why its still relatively popular to this day.

I have an eye on the Bioshock movie. I don't have high hopes, but I do hope its at least good.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Vidmaster on October 21, 2008, 05:46:56 am
I disliked the FF movie. The story was silly. The WC movie had the same problem. Generic stuff.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Wobble73 on October 21, 2008, 07:33:14 am
I actually enjoyed the Hitman movie!  :nervous:(I even giggled a bit like a school girl when he crashed through that Russian hotel window and there was 2 teenage lads playing the original Hitman game!)
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: BloodEagle on October 21, 2008, 08:05:50 am
I disliked the FF movie. The story was silly.

Which of the many FF movies are you talking about?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on October 21, 2008, 11:01:00 am
Don't you dare knock Streetfighter mister orignal topic starter, Kylie/Cammy caused my first infusion of testosterone at the age of 10/11 with her leg/neck break move. It will always be epic, plus Raul Julia (RIP you legend) acted Bison brilliantly.



Also Wing Commander didn'ty suck :P




The rest are all crap though :nervous:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Roanoke on October 21, 2008, 04:26:00 pm
I didn't mind the WC film at all. Wasn't awesome but a solid sci-fi time killer.
Anime does tend to be much more sucessful, though I can't think of anyother than SF off-hand.

I think game based films suffer from the perpectual notion of games being for kids (boys, especially) which is why we get the likes of Doom.
Honestly though, Doom was probably the worst game to make a film from.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 21, 2008, 05:11:43 pm
FS movie...that would rock...hard.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 21, 2008, 06:00:33 pm
If rock = suck. Yeah. Otherwise, nah. We don't want to spoil the franchise.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: BloodEagle on October 21, 2008, 07:11:59 pm
Somewhat related:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EKSd5aqD-A

 :eek:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 21, 2008, 07:15:34 pm
If rock = suck. Yeah. Otherwise, nah. We don't want to spoil the franchise.

What? How do you figure? FS has a interesting universe background.

you could make a great movie in thar!
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Inquisitor on October 21, 2008, 08:50:33 pm
Two words: Wing Commander.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Polpolion on October 21, 2008, 10:14:17 pm
An integral part of computer games is that they're games. They're interactive. A lot of the time the plot and structure of the way things happen are hinged on that, and a lot of times the game is only fun because you're shooting at ****. What fun would an Unreal Tournament movie be? Or what about a movie with one character, and no means of story-telling than the isolated 2 line conversation? They just don't go together.

EDIT: I think an FS2 movie could possibly work. It'd require a lot of creativity and extrapolation upon the writer's part, but if they managed to get it right, it'd be amazing.

...

...

...bye...

:nervous:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on October 22, 2008, 01:01:49 am
Keep the FreeSpace movie stuff to a minimum plox. It's all been said in Fs gen disc.
 
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: karajorma on October 22, 2008, 02:22:56 am
You lot didn't like Mortal Kombat?

I wouldn't say it was a great movie but it was a lot of fun in a "turn off your brain and enjoy it" way.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Jeff Vader on October 22, 2008, 02:36:48 am
I liked Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa's performance. I mean, jeez, that guy was born as a movie bad guy. Always gives me the creeps to see him in a film/series.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 22, 2008, 11:22:55 am
You lot didn't like Mortal Kombat?

First one only.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Snail on October 22, 2008, 12:21:27 pm
How long did it take you to play through Bioshock? Wolfenstein (the original one)?
Fastest time I've got was 10 minutes. Because I've memorized all the levels. And I also finished the secret level too. :nod:

Yeah, Wolfenstein rawks.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 22, 2008, 01:54:51 pm
You lot didn't like Mortal Kombat?

First one only.

EH???? The first one was the best of the lot. The others were garbage.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: NGTM-1R on October 22, 2008, 03:46:48 pm
My phraseology was poor. I meant that was the only one I liked.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 22, 2008, 04:31:15 pm
Good.
for a second there, I feared I'll have to label you under the "persons who lost all of my respect for the rest of eternity" category.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Roanoke on October 23, 2008, 03:43:40 pm
that would be a crusher....
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Tyrian on October 24, 2008, 12:02:38 pm
OK, so I'm a couple posts late for the comments about an FS movie, but I just figured I'd post these two links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkwG2fuPUQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qkwG2fuPUQ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzs6BEEyM-o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzs6BEEyM-o)

The music in the first one is a little repetitive, but imagine how it would have turned out (the trailer, at least) if the guy could have used the whole version of the song.

The second one has some footage from Bladerunner interspersed.  I don't think it came out as good, though.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: terran_emperor on October 24, 2008, 12:48:09 pm
Actually i like the second one better...the first one would drive me homicidal

Also, i noticed some Alien 3 and Sunshine footage in the second
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: aurora_energy on October 24, 2008, 08:22:27 pm
Max Pain hasn't be released yet where i come from. The previews make it look like the best movie adaptation ever created. I have seen many of the list, but they all suck.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on October 25, 2008, 02:07:29 am
Max Pain hasn't be released yet where i come from. The previews make it look like the best movie adaptation ever created. I have seen many of the list, but they all suck.

Well you can give marketing props for making it look good, but the critics are still panning it from what I've seen.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on October 25, 2008, 04:04:39 am
How strange is this? When a good game is adapted into a film, it's terrible, but when a good film is adapted into a game, the game's horrid.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: GenericCorvette on October 25, 2008, 04:55:50 am
It's popular.

Someone will want to make something quickly to cash off of the popularity.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Scooby_Doo on October 25, 2008, 04:57:07 am
Time.

How long did it take you to play through Bioshock? Wolfenstein (the original one)? Duke3D? Doom? And let's not even touch anything turn-based or RTS, which can last for days.

There's your answer. They don't compress.

Think thats bad, I remmeber hearing a rumor something about a Sims movie... Now theres a game that never really ends... imagine the movie  :shaking:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: castor on October 25, 2008, 05:28:58 am
Well, there are plenty of crappy movies. Maybe these adaptations are just as crappy as they should, statistically.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Wobble73 on October 25, 2008, 07:04:01 am
Did anyone mention how terrible the Mario movie was?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 25, 2008, 11:11:52 am
Did anyone mention how terrible the Mario movie was?
:wtf: There's a MARIO MOVIE?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: starfox on October 25, 2008, 11:16:02 am
Oh, yes Stormkeeper, oh yes there is! :nervous:
BEWARE of The Mario Movie!
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on October 25, 2008, 12:09:12 pm
I still liked it better than some other game movies :P
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 25, 2008, 01:29:14 pm
The only time I saw the Mario movie was a quick glimpse while I was in a game stop. No goomba stomps :hopping:, a weird Bowser transforming thing :wtf:, and two sticks that acted like the proton packs from Ghostbusters :shaking:. Wasn't too impressed... :rolleyes: :no:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: BloodEagle on October 25, 2008, 03:12:23 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtMZKYnLg5c   (Yes, it's the real trailer)

I still prefer the live-action movie to the Super Show. Though that isn't saying much.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on October 26, 2008, 03:29:35 am
So, does anyone know of any good movie adaptations? There are a lot of them that are terrible, but surely there has to be one or two that are at least of acceptable standards. :nervous:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: spartan_0214 on October 26, 2008, 08:54:18 am
The Halo movie looked like it was going to be amazing... :(
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Stormkeeper on October 26, 2008, 09:04:37 am
It now languishes in development hell.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Wobble73 on October 27, 2008, 07:50:34 am
The Mario movie was the worst thing that Bob Hoskins has ever done!
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Roanoke on November 10, 2008, 05:52:17 am
I see there's a Max Payne movie doing the rounds. Looks very much like The Crow. Uh, without the crow obv.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 10, 2008, 06:04:01 am
I see there's a Max Payne movie doing the rounds. Looks very much like The Crow. Uh, without the crow obv.

I'm dubbing it "Crow-nstantine".............stupid demons, not needed.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Roanoke on November 10, 2008, 11:55:57 am
Underworld is on TV tonight. Everythings gone all gothic.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 10, 2008, 12:11:48 pm
Hands off Kate beckinsale, she are mine. . .
 
I'm watching gadget show on C5 tonight.
 
I quite enjoyed the mario film to be blunt :p
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: gevatter Lars on November 10, 2008, 12:21:54 pm
I read a funny comment about the game to the second Narnia movie. "...actually the game is better then the movie."
Looking at the game I can only predict that the movie must be very bad.
Still does this qualify it to be a good movie adaptation? ^_^
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: DarkBasilisk on November 10, 2008, 12:37:47 pm
Dungeon Siege I totally saw coming and no one around me believed me on it. Reasoning: the game was so dirt boring I stopped about midway through, which is rare for me.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Galemp on November 10, 2008, 02:23:29 pm
I read a funny comment about the game to the second Narnia movie. "...actually the game is better then the movie."
Looking at the game I can only predict that the movie must be very bad.
Still does this qualify it to be a good movie adaptation? ^_^

Uh... the movie wasn't based on the video game. So no.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: StarSlayer on November 10, 2008, 02:44:41 pm
Why movies based on games are awful?

How about this guy:

(http://krossfire.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uwe.jpg)
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Galemp on November 10, 2008, 02:53:45 pm
Less than half of the movies on that list are Boll productions. How do you explain the rest?
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on November 10, 2008, 07:53:15 pm
Underworld is on TV tonight. Everythings gone all gothic.

Underworld is based on a comic not a game though.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Mr. Vega on November 11, 2008, 12:58:55 pm
Movies of games don't work for two reasons:

1. What will work as a game story and what will work as movie story are extremely different. Games are much longer than movies, and their interactivity allows them to have moments during play that in a movie would be extremely boring. Like say, Thief I, a game with an extremely good story, involves the player standing or crouching, waiting for things to happen, as much as half the time. This works in a game, because if you move into lighted areas or too quickly and noisily you'll alert the guards and get yourself killed. That creates suspense, because your character really can die during play. But the protagonist of a movie will never die except under very special circumstances, so you can't convince the audience that Garret should stay where he is for 3 minutes. They'd get bored out of their minds and walk out. So what do you do? Get rid of those moments? Make the entire burglary last 5 minutes? Wouldn't work; it'd look so unrealistic as to be pretty stupid. My point is that there are tons of things that games can get away with because they are interactive, and the stories written for these games take advantage of this. Which is why with most games, even the best written ones, when you try to adapt them to a non-interactive media like film you run into massive problems that are usually insurmountable.

2. Hollywood either doesn't understand how difficult it is to adapt game stories to two hour movie scripts, or doesn't care enough to actually try to make it work.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Galemp on November 11, 2008, 02:13:26 pm
I am going to strongly disagree with you on that point. I postulate that a four or five hour Doom or Tomb Raider movie would be just as bad, if not worse, than what we have now.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Mongoose on November 11, 2008, 04:13:47 pm
I didn't think the Tomb Raider movie (or at least the first one) was all that bad, though that could just be my appreciation for Ms. Jolie's...assets...talking.

I think the tightrope you have to walk when attempting to make a movie adaptation of a game is following the game's story closely enough that it replicates its general experience, while not following so closely that you're left with essentially a cinematic version of the game's mechanics coming through.  That second point probably does contain a few caveats; though I didn't see it, the idea of a few scenes in the Doom movie being shot from first-person view seemed like a decent one to me.  A lot of it also has to do with how well-suited a particular game is to a cinematic presentation; I could see something like Resident Evil 4 working reasonably well, since many sequences in it felt very movie-like to begin with.  Another game that fits that category is the Prince of Persia series, whose film project I have reasonably high hopes for, since Jordan Meichner himself is contributing to the screenplay.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Wobble73 on November 12, 2008, 04:14:07 am
Actually, when we (the wife and I) first went to see the Tombraider movie, during the action scenes at the start. My wife turned to me and said, "It feels like there is something missing..........That's it! You don't have a gamepad in your hand!" She felt the opening sequence where Angelina was doing all those acrobatics, fighting against that practise robot was a lot like the game. I have to agree somewhat, it did have the feel of the game.


That skin tight silver wet suit in the second film was a winner for me!  ;7
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 12, 2008, 04:44:35 am
 :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Anything with Jolie and hot[pants/tight shorts makes me smile like a cheshire cat :D
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on November 12, 2008, 10:23:51 pm
Anything of that sort makes me think of pornography and masturbation. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 13, 2008, 01:31:40 am
Gawd. . . .
 
The tone has been marginally lowered.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Roanoke on November 13, 2008, 06:42:39 am
not so much lowered as torpedoed and hit the sea bed..... :wtf:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: TrashMan on November 13, 2008, 07:15:57 am
..and then plummeted into the dark bowels of the Earth.

Seriously? Tomb Raider? :ick:
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: kalnaren on November 19, 2008, 09:08:18 am
Mr. Vega was on the right track when he said the story elements that make a movie differ greatly from those that make a game. Even the length is quite different -10 hours is a short game yet a very, very long movie. Granted, not all hours of gameplay in a game are dedicated to plot development, but if you look at a game like FreeSpace a significant amount of story elements happen each mission.

I also think those people who mentioned that Hollywood doesn't understand games also had it correct. Games are about far, far more than the action and effects. There has to be other elements in there as well. There has to be something in there that makes the gamer relate to the characters, that make them feel bad when characters die, give them suspense when they're in danger, etc. 99% of movies made from games lack all that. The characters are so poorly thought out and acted that you just don't give a **** about them.

Unfortunately we're starting to see similar trends in both movies and games now. Larger companies *caughEAcaugh* are starting to just throw money at the technology and go for the "wow" effect rather than trying to actually develop an amazing movie or game that actually gets people emotionally involved. Hollywood doesn't understand that gamers actually want to care about the character(s) they're playing, the people or monsters they're fighting, etc. They don't understand that it's about more than shiny explosions.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Akalabeth Angel on November 19, 2008, 09:42:12 am
Actually, when we (the wife and I) first went to see the Tombraider movie, during the action scenes at the start. My wife turned to me and said, "It feels like there is something missing..........That's it! You don't have a gamepad in your hand!" She felt the opening sequence where Angelina was doing all those acrobatics, fighting against that practise robot was a lot like the game. I have to agree somewhat, it did have the feel of the game.


That skin tight silver wet suit in the second film was a winner for me!  ;7

      I never played the games but I thought both of the movies were pretty entertaining. The second-one moreso than the first.
Title: Re: Movie adaptations: why do they suck?
Post by: Vidmaster on November 20, 2008, 08:26:20 am
I never played the games but I thought both of the movies were pretty entertaining. The second-one moreso than the first.

BEGONE!


 :)