Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by Silver Knight, Dec 27, 2010.
I would make the movie in animation CGI animation like think Beowulf
Nintendo is so protective of their properties following the embarrassment that was the 90s Mario movie. Combine that with the facts that this would be an insanely difficult and expensive product to adapt and that video game movies, especially high budget ones, have not done very well...I just think it creates a perfect storm where best case scenario is a direct to DVD/Netflix animated movie, geared primarily at a younger audience.
The problem with video game movies is how Hollywood mis-adapts them to their formula and alters them to such a degree they are barely recognizable as the source material.
Look at how poorly they adapt most works from books, television, anime or anything foreign or up until recently, comic books.
That somehow they managed to (mostly) get comic book movie adaptations right is a shocker after the years of mistakes.
Video games will find their way to the big screen properly eventually. I just hope I'm alive and not senile enough to enjoy it.
Every other medium you've described is narrative driven. No matter how good the story or characterization of a video game is, it generally is not narrative driven. It is driven by its game play engine. Even the most in-depth narrative games are 75 % game play, 25 % story. A film cannot replicate that. There cannot be a film that is 75 % shooting monsters, 25 % dialogue and story. As such, massive changes are always going to be needed. And when you do that, fans tend to get cranky.
I pray a Movie Will Never Happen but a Netflix Serie instead
I wait with hope...
Video games have a story too as you pointed out, just because the story is a lesser part of the experience does not mean it cannot be adapted to a movie or television setting. Granted not all games are adaptable but something like Bioshock is definitely possible and despite the jokes, the Tomb Raider movies weren't terrible adaptations, although they did somewhat suffer the typical "Hollywood can't write women" issues.
I agree with OofT being a great adaptation...the other for me would be Link to the Past...that would be another one that would work...
Yes yes yes.
But that's what I am getting at. They get adapted to the point that they are unrecognizable.
Look at Resident Evil. It is nothing like the games. But the games have, maybe, a combined 15 minutes worth of dialogue (and that is being generous). Its hard to turn something like that into a feature length film without change to the point that it is unrecognizable (much as the RE movies are virtually nothing like the games).
Could a Bioshock movie be made? Sure. But be prepared for it to be very, very different. Because it is a necessity. And when those changes cannot be made, it fails. Hell, half of what derailed the Halo project from the mid-2000s was that Bungie would only sell the film rights if the studio agreed to stick to a **** ton of restrictions regarding the source material and as a result, a film could not viably be made.
Maybe the best thing to do is to accept that it is simply a very different medium that requires interaction.
These movies could be adapted better. This is nothing new with Hollywood bastardizing most properties they get their hands on. The examples of them messing up adaptations of other works are endless. Video games aren't impossible, they are just irresponsibly altered. The original Mortal Kombat movie against all odds was a decent, good movie and it was based on nothing much more than people fighting to the death.
Meh, Mortal Kombat is looked at through rose tinted glasses because it is the least smelly piece of **** in a pile of ****. I challenge anyone to watch it today without cringing throughout. Its also worth remembering, a lot of what fans of Mortal Kombat view as canon was created in the movie. The games that followed borrowed heavily from the lore the movie created, not the other way around.
I suppose what I am getting at is, the only way to make these movies is to accept the inevitable bastardization. The games will only ever lay down a very broad blue print.
I agree, MK was garbage.
I had that opinion the moment the movie ended, back in the day.
I still remember it ending, the lights turning on and i was "WTF was that?!?"
But, glad some people liked it.
Video Games adaptations are not impossible, the problem is that Hollywood just doesn't care to make it good, they just care if it makes money.
Video Game adaptations need changes, that's a given, you can't make a 2h movie about a guy going alone and killing everyone on sight.
But Hollywood looks at that necessity of changes and thinks that they can get away with anything and just stick the name of the game to the title.
One would think that the all comic book adaptation would open the doors to QUALITY video game ones...but, nah.
As for a Legend of Zelda movie.
Honestly, i never played a Zelda game before, but i guess it could work as a trilogy like Lord of the Rings.
Or at least 2 movies.
Have Link search for the Master Sword in the 1st, and kick Ganon's ass in the 2nd.
But one thing to keep in mind, video games differ from books and comic books. Books are pure narrative. Therefore, they are easily adaptable. Comics can be adapted but are not adapted directly. Instead, the filmmakers pull from dozens of years worth of stories and characterization to create a narrative.
Video games would have to be closer to the comic model as they do not have complete narratives like books (like I said, Resident Evil has a total of about 15 minutes of dialogue). But then comes the question, what do you adapt? Unlike comics, which have 50 + years worth of history and characterization, video games have a few games.
Let me ask you this: who is Chris Redfield as a character? What do you know about him beyond he likes his sister and Jill, tends to blame himself for bad ****, and he kills zombies well? What do you know about Liu Kang aside from bad ass monk with unresolved daddy issues regarding Raiden? Even one of the more fleshed out characters like Solid Snake, do we really know much about who he is?
Also, what happened before the Spencer Estate? Being as most movies do not take place in one, non-stop, action horror set piece, one would imagine that there would be a good 30 minutes of a Resident Evil movie before the Estate even comes into play.
This is the inevitable problem with video game movies. The material just isn't there. So Hollywood has to make it up. But the problem with making it up is that you have to craft themes and narratives around the characters whom you have basically created from vague blue prints. This will necessitate further change. And that's when fans get whiny.
I don't think there's any doubt that fans can object to changes (although I've seen that more from comic fans than video game fans, really). However, I'm not aware of a single case of a quality film being rejected because it didn't adhere strictly to the video game source material. Pretty much invariably, these movies are poorly received by professional critics, and I doubt many of them care if they're true to the source material. In the cases that I disagree with the critics and like them, they tend to do seemingly pretty well in theaters. The only exception I can think of is Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and that didn't take liberties with the material, because it was an entirely different story.
So if the filmmakers do some of what they've done out of fear of a fan backlash, it would seem to be acting in anticipation of something that's never actually happened. Now (even though I liked the first Resident Evil movie), after a series of six Resident Evil films, if they do a reboot starring a bunch of non-game characters, I'm likely to blow it off. But that's not to say that I'm going to object to them daring to develop those game characters beyond what was in the game. I have no problem with them having lives outside of zombie killing or developing relationships or what have you. I understand that a movie isn't a game.
I might not always agree with the decisions that are made, and I'll grant you that it's easier for people to develop their own individual interpretations of a character when that character doesn't have a lot to say, but it's not really that different of a problem than a character who's had multiple iterations like Batman. And while I may have my own basic headcanon of Claire Redfield, even if they don't get her "right", I'd rather they make a good faith effort than use original characters or shrug and throw out some campy nonsense.
Also, if elements of the Mortal Kombat movie later became canon, that just goes to show that fans can embrace new material in the films.
With Metal Gear Solid getting adapted into a movie, I hope its just a matter of time until we get a Zelda movie.
Yeah that Netflix series is more likely.
That said though, assassins creed was such a bomb and it had more going for it in terms of being a traditional blockbuster but it didn't work so if they couldn't do it there is it worth trying again with the legend of Zelda?
IMHO, Zelda can't work as a movie, and Nintendo has good reason to be protective of adaptations for its properties after the Super Mario Bros. movie.
The whole point of Link is that he's a player self-insertion character. Players insert their own personality or self into-Link. If you try to define and create a personality for Link in a movie or story, it won't work.
Case in point, the animated series where they tried to give Link that yuppie personality. Players aren't going to like Link that way. Moviegoers aren't going to understand it.
Well, to be fair, they dont have to give him THAT personality in a movie.
They can easily make Link into an introverted character. Just dont make him demo-annoying like Eddie Redmayne in Fantastic Beasts.
Make him soft spoken but not boring. Its a challenge but not impossible.
Imagine if Link was like Ryan Goslings Driver!!:0
I dont even think they need to shy away from giving him dialogue. Just dont make him a whiny *****e like he was in that cartoon.
I think Link should be earnest. He's defined by being a hero, so focus on him being a hero, caring about saving the world. If you need funny characters, that can be someone else.
Therein lines the problem. How do you define the definitive movie personality of Link when the whole point of the character, including his standard name "Link," is that he's a Link between the game and the player. The player defines Link by their play style and how they play they game. Gamers essentially define Link's personality and that's why games are empowering to many gamers.
In the games, Link is pretty much a blank character because of this. FYI Link is not even his real name. It's really just a placeholder until players enter their own name for the character.
The problem you will run into is struggling how to make a definitive movie personality that satisfies players who have spent years identifying themselves as Link OR actual moviegoers who haven't played the games.