Peter McCoy
Feb 22nd, 2007, 08:22:16 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castlevania_%28film%29
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488982/
just to draw your attention to the Wikipedia article on the film - you'll notice the poster image on the right. At the top it says 'From the Direcftor of RESIDENT EVIL and ALIEN VS PREDATOR - Paul WS Anderson"
Considering the general awfulness of those films in relation to their original, superior, video game counterparts, and the fanbase for those originals, I wouldn't think exclaiming that the director of those movies was behind Castlevania - another great game - to be an effective marketing ploy to get the game's fans in a good hype.
I personally liked Mortal Kombat the movie, but as for the two aforementioned films, I would not let the man near another video game adaptation for as long as he lived if I had the authority.
I'm not doubting his directing - it's his writing I hate. The stories for AvP and RE were crap compared to what was already in existence, namely the RE games and the AvP comics. Even AvP2 had a rock-solid storyline with good characters and an engaging plot. If he didn't insist on writing and directing these adaptations, they might actually turn out to be the great movie they should be.
It only makes sense to employ the creative talents of the people responsible for the game's story - that way you'll get the same magic the players of the game got.
Some could agrue that a fresh take on the idea is a good thing, but I don't think it is always the case. The greateast exception I can think of is Aliens - James Cameron had nothing to do with Alien. The original was directed by Ridley Scott and written by Dan O'Bannon. Cameron wrote and directed Aliens and it turned out to be just as good, if not better than the original - my favourite of the two changes daily, and most of the time I prefer Alien 3.
James Cameron aside, nobody knows the world of a video game better than its creator. This is true of any fictional realm really, but for games it is doubly so. I love playing video games, and I frequently wonder what a movie adaptation would be like. I often think about what actor would best play a certain character, and what plot changes could take place to further the story. And while I might be really enthusiastic about my own ideas for an adaptation, the truth is that many fans of the same game would disagree and in turn have their own views that I would probably dislike. But the original creator would undoubtedly nail it for everyone concerned.
The only problem I can foresee in this is the difference in medium. A video game is very different from a movie. A movie is final - it sees itself through from start to finish, the audience is an outside observer. Whereas a video game - certainly nowadays - is dynamic in that the player is a participant who shapes the outcome, or at least the course throughout. RPG's are the best example - they give you freedom despite a mainly linear storyline and gameplay, but you usually choose where to go and when to do it. You are given some control over the order in which you progress. As a result you can encounter side quests that enrich the main story but do not render it incomplete should you not engage in these extras. There is the other approach, in which you are able to explore multiple endings, such as in Deus Ex, Vampire: The Masquerade (the first one certainly, haven't finished Bloodlines yet) and of course the Jedi Knight games. They're just a few examples off the top of my head, but it is obvious how they differ from the approach to a movies script.
Another different approach is strategy games, such as Command and Conquer, in which there are two playable sides and therefore two different storylines leading to two different endings. The storylines have to weave together successfully up until the point where the outcome is decided in a final situation. All of these considerations would be disregarded in a film treatment and eventual script, so you can see how the game creators' approach would have to change if they were given the task of turning their ideas into a film. So would their efforts be fruitful!?
Well unless they are given a shot we won't bloody know will we!?!?
(If anybody knows of an instance where the original creator has been involved - to any extent - in the movie adaptation, please link me or PM me since I'm unaware of such a case.)
Ultimately it is my opinion that the best choice for writing a movie adaptation of a video game is the talent responsible for the game itself. A film director should be a director first, and a writer second - certainly if your writing isn't that good to begin with.
Any thoughts?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488982/
just to draw your attention to the Wikipedia article on the film - you'll notice the poster image on the right. At the top it says 'From the Direcftor of RESIDENT EVIL and ALIEN VS PREDATOR - Paul WS Anderson"
Considering the general awfulness of those films in relation to their original, superior, video game counterparts, and the fanbase for those originals, I wouldn't think exclaiming that the director of those movies was behind Castlevania - another great game - to be an effective marketing ploy to get the game's fans in a good hype.
I personally liked Mortal Kombat the movie, but as for the two aforementioned films, I would not let the man near another video game adaptation for as long as he lived if I had the authority.
I'm not doubting his directing - it's his writing I hate. The stories for AvP and RE were crap compared to what was already in existence, namely the RE games and the AvP comics. Even AvP2 had a rock-solid storyline with good characters and an engaging plot. If he didn't insist on writing and directing these adaptations, they might actually turn out to be the great movie they should be.
It only makes sense to employ the creative talents of the people responsible for the game's story - that way you'll get the same magic the players of the game got.
Some could agrue that a fresh take on the idea is a good thing, but I don't think it is always the case. The greateast exception I can think of is Aliens - James Cameron had nothing to do with Alien. The original was directed by Ridley Scott and written by Dan O'Bannon. Cameron wrote and directed Aliens and it turned out to be just as good, if not better than the original - my favourite of the two changes daily, and most of the time I prefer Alien 3.
James Cameron aside, nobody knows the world of a video game better than its creator. This is true of any fictional realm really, but for games it is doubly so. I love playing video games, and I frequently wonder what a movie adaptation would be like. I often think about what actor would best play a certain character, and what plot changes could take place to further the story. And while I might be really enthusiastic about my own ideas for an adaptation, the truth is that many fans of the same game would disagree and in turn have their own views that I would probably dislike. But the original creator would undoubtedly nail it for everyone concerned.
The only problem I can foresee in this is the difference in medium. A video game is very different from a movie. A movie is final - it sees itself through from start to finish, the audience is an outside observer. Whereas a video game - certainly nowadays - is dynamic in that the player is a participant who shapes the outcome, or at least the course throughout. RPG's are the best example - they give you freedom despite a mainly linear storyline and gameplay, but you usually choose where to go and when to do it. You are given some control over the order in which you progress. As a result you can encounter side quests that enrich the main story but do not render it incomplete should you not engage in these extras. There is the other approach, in which you are able to explore multiple endings, such as in Deus Ex, Vampire: The Masquerade (the first one certainly, haven't finished Bloodlines yet) and of course the Jedi Knight games. They're just a few examples off the top of my head, but it is obvious how they differ from the approach to a movies script.
Another different approach is strategy games, such as Command and Conquer, in which there are two playable sides and therefore two different storylines leading to two different endings. The storylines have to weave together successfully up until the point where the outcome is decided in a final situation. All of these considerations would be disregarded in a film treatment and eventual script, so you can see how the game creators' approach would have to change if they were given the task of turning their ideas into a film. So would their efforts be fruitful!?
Well unless they are given a shot we won't bloody know will we!?!?
(If anybody knows of an instance where the original creator has been involved - to any extent - in the movie adaptation, please link me or PM me since I'm unaware of such a case.)
Ultimately it is my opinion that the best choice for writing a movie adaptation of a video game is the talent responsible for the game itself. A film director should be a director first, and a writer second - certainly if your writing isn't that good to begin with.
Any thoughts?