To date, I still haven't seen a film adaptation of a game that I thought was well made. And I can anticipate the hate coming already, but I absolutely hated Silent Hill when I first saw it a few years ago. Here's the review I wrote on Flixter:
"Considering the rich narratives present in many modern games--"Planescape: Torment" and "Baldur's Gate" come to mind--it's unsurprising that filmmakers are increasingly turning to them for their projects. Unfortunately, Hollywood has yet to take the potential of such films seriously, and they often suffer from shoddy alterations and poor production. Just look no further than "Street Fighter" or "Alone in the Dark" for proof. "Silent Hill" does little to break that standard, and despite its great atmosphere and effects, it falls prey to an utterly mystifying plot, poor pacing and a plethora of decidedly non-frightening creatures.
Not having played the game that the film is based on likely led to part of my bewilderment, as I often had no idea of what in the world was going on. It initially seemed simple: Rose, a young mother, takes her adopted daughter Sharon to the abandoned town of Silent Hill in an effort to understand its connection to the little girl. From there, however, the plot descended into a dizzying series of flashbacks, opposing views and changing realities that never felt completely resolved. Although I ultimately think I grasped the story line, it never felt compelling simply because of the presentation, which frequently and unwisely chose to pause for elaborate explanations and details. The film literally does play out like a game at times, carefully arranging its scenes so as to include each creature and encounter from the series.
The baffling actions of the characters make this approach even more incoherent, as they often act as if they're in a completely different film. First we have a mother who thinks it wise to try to outrun a police officer by crashing through a chain link fence blocking the path to a ghost town. Then that same police officer idiotically assumes that an armless critter that spits acidic bile for kicks is going to obey a demand to halt. Worst of all is the inexplicable need many characters have to tell Sharon that everything will be alright. Yeah...you're in a town pulled into a ghastly nightmare where people get literally torn to pieces by hellish creatures, and psychotic religious zealots want to burn you alive, but there's nothing to worry about. Morons.
It doesn't help that the acting generally fails to be even the slightest bit believable, with the exception of Sean Bean, who wastes his talents in his role as Rose's husband. Radha Mitchell, a moderately talented actress in general, fails to provide the clout needed for such an elaborate plot, especially since the script calls for strong emotions for her character. Most important, Jodelle Ferland, though not incompetent as a child actress, never fully convinces in her dual role as Sharon and Alessa, and she plays the latter as if she popped some amphetamines and rolled in the dirt for a while.
Despite its many weaknesses, "Silent Hill" does exhibit a visually stunning design in many cases, and its ambiance remains consistent throughout. But effects can only carry a film so far, and in this case they're far more surrealistic than terrifying. The violence doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than shock value, and I found myself more disgusted by the deformed creatures than frightened, particularly because few startling moments actually occur. Films can't expect their viewers to be familiar with their source material, and in this case, I felt like I was stuck in an appalling game with a bunch of idiots. Now that's terrifying."
Tron on the concept of video games is the best for me. But if you wanted a specific game, then it would be Mortal Kombat. Everything else pretty much sucked.
I've never been satisfied with a video game movie. I could pick the one I was least disappointed with (Probably Prince of Persia?), but I'd rather simply hold out for a movie worth my time. With Michael Fassbender producing and starring in the upcoming Assassin's Creed movie, the wait may be over soon.
I've never seen a video game-to-movie adaptation that satisfied me. Cautiously optimistic for the upcoming Assassin's Creed project starting Michael Fassbender, though.
Well since the story of the games is completely nonsensical all the movie really has to do is get the stabbing and parkour right.
Not a video game, but a tabletop... Mutant Chronicles. It has some flaws with logic, but overall, I found it very entertaining. Strictly video games... Mortal Kombat 2013 looks promising.
I think what usually happens when they make movies based on successful games, producers are only interested in acquiring the name of the thing. They don't care what the story is or about characterization or care much about the source material at all; they just think that since there's already a fan base for the title, it'll be an instant cash cow.
Not always of course; there are some producers and directors who might be genuine fans. But I think there are other problems with adapting video games into movies. In books, graphic novels, and films, the writer and/or director dictate everything about how the story unfolds, and you're just along for the ride. In a game, the player gets to interact with the world and decide how things pan out... I know some games are very linear, and they tend to be the easiest. I don't think Baldur's Gate would make a good movie; the main plot itself isn't really that exciting. It's the world and the characters that make it, and you'd have to leave far too much out in order to compress it down to just a couple of hours.
I think games are getting so cinematic now anyway that movie versions just seem a bit redundant anyway.
I think the problem with video games movies are bad scripts. Adapting a book provides the screenwriter with more material than he or she can use and the writer for a good adapation is probably someone who has buried themselves deep into the source material. A video game has less material and requires more of the screenwriter to generate something of substance, and as a result those scripts are nearly always superficial plots and character development in between special effect scenes. Many of these movies also talk down to the audience as if they expect them to be middle schoolers with limited IQs.
You could make a good movie out of Baldur's Gate or any number of games but it requires a good screenwriter who is invested in the story. I haven't seen many where I think the writer has been personally invested. (Contrast that with a movie like the Matrix where the author was quite invested in creating a world and characters with impact, style, and some depth. That could easily have been a good game adaptation.)
2. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was a comic book series first. Then it was simultaneously made into a movie and video game.
Now opinions!:
1. Tron was great for its time. Looking back, lol the movie is kinda mediocre. If you guys liked the pretty bad arcade game, go look up the online game Armagetron Advanced. Free, great gameplay, pretty decent community. I actually really, really loved the recent movie Tron: Legacy. It was solid; good enough plot, great characters, incredible action/eye candy ... watching it in theaters was a visual phenomenon. I watched it twice: Once in 2D and once in 3D. Both were great, but I must say the 3D didn't disappoint (and this is coming from someone who usually dislikes 3D).
2. I haven't read too much of the comic books. What little I have, I dig. I want to buy all 6 of them in color some time if I can. Some people really dig the video game for some reason, to me it was painfully slow (too much Streets of Rage and Golden Axe growing up I guess, I'm used to my beat-em-ups being really fast-paced). The movie? AGUUUUGHH!! My favorite movie of all time. Yes, Pirates of Carribean 1, Inception, Tron: Legacy, and 3:10 to Yuma are amazing, but if I had to pick one: Scott Pilgrim. Perfect blend of action, comedy, and romance. Super compelling. Currently me and a girl friend are planning to go to San Diego ComicCon this Summer cosplaying Scott and Ramona. I'm very, very excited.
I would like to see movie adaptations of Half-Life and Warcraft, Gordon Freeman's and Arthas Menethil's story respectively. But to stay on topic, I can't think of any game-to-movie project that I like right now.
2. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was a comic book series first. Then it was simultaneously made into a movie and video game.
Now opinions!:
1. Tron was great for its time. Looking back, lol the movie is kinda mediocre. If you guys liked the pretty bad arcade game, go look up the online game Armagetron Advanced. Free, great gameplay, pretty decent community. I actually really, really loved the recent movie Tron: Legacy. It was solid; good enough plot, great characters, incredible action/eye candy ... watching it in theaters was a visual phenomenon. I watched it twice: Once in 2D and once in 3D. Both were great, but I must say the 3D didn't disappoint (and this is coming from someone who usually dislikes 3D).
2. I haven't read too much of the comic books. What little I have, I dig. I want to buy all 6 of them in color some time if I can. Some people really dig the video game for some reason, to me it was painfully slow (too much Streets of Rage and Golden Axe growing up I guess, I'm used to my beat-em-ups being really fast-paced). The movie? AGUUUUGHH!! My favorite movie of all time. Yes, Pirates of Carribean 1, Inception, Tron: Legacy, and 3:10 to Yuma are amazing, but if I had to pick one: Scott Pilgrim. Perfect blend of action, comedy, and romance. Super compelling. Currently me and a girl friend are planning to go to San Diego ComicCon this Summer cosplaying Scott and Ramona. I'm very, very excited.</p>
Uhh guy, fully aware that the comic book came before the film, and as far as the video game goes I didn't even know it existed. The question mark was supposed to suggest this and that the film could be considered due to it being based on video games rather than a single video game, and as you say it's super compelling.
Uhh guy, fully aware that the comic book came before the film, and as far as the video game goes I didn't even know it existed. The question mark was supposed to suggest this and that the film could be considered due to it being based on video games rather than a single video game, and as you say it's super compelling.
I'm sorry I hurt your pride so bad. I *did* figure the ? denoted that, but I just wanted to confirm, and the guy I was talking to about Tron actually *didn't* know Tron came first. So I lumped you two together out of laziness. You don't have to be offended, now.
Not a video game, but a tabletop... Mutant Chronicles. It has some flaws with logic, but overall, I found it very entertaining. Strictly video games... Mortal Kombat 2013 looks promising.
The only thing i disliked about Mutant Chronicles was the casting of the male lead.... it was a role i'd have loved to see Nathan Fillion do.
I would like to see movie adaptations of Half-Life and Warcraft, Gordon Freeman's and Arthas Menethil's story respectively. But to stay on topic, I can't think of any game-to-movie project that I like right now.
Regarding Warcraft... eh. Arthas's story is pretty compelling by video game standards, but it really doesn't offer anything to make a movie of that hasn't been done before. He's Anakin Skywalker with a different ending, I don't see it being handled well.
Regarding Warcraft... eh. Arthas's story is pretty compelling by video game standards, but it really doesn't offer anything to make a movie of that hasn't been done before. He's Anakin Skywalker with a different ending, I don't see it being handled well.
On the other hand, Anakin's story done *well* might be interesting to watch.
Regarding Warcraft... eh. Arthas's story is pretty compelling by video game standards, but it really doesn't offer anything to make a movie of that hasn't been done before. He's Anakin Skywalker with a different ending, I don't see it being handled well.
I have been wanting to see a Starcraft/Warcraft movie for many years. Not because I expect it would offer something never before seen in the moiveworld - I'm not expecting that. I have seen a lot of films - a lot of recycled concepts and crossover/hybrid ideas, and it isn't necessarily bad. Everything gets inspiration from something else, so expecting something completely fresh and original is not what I would expect.
The reason I would like to see these games made into films, is because the stories they do have are engaging enough to warrant being made into a film, and Blizzard makes amazing CGI movies. Blizzard CGI cutscenes are among the best I have ever seen across any medium, and I would be really interested in seeing a feature film comprised of nothing but that.
That being said, I still think the Half Life games could make excellent live action films.
Going to have to say Mortal Kombat movie. It felt like the game to be honest. Yeah the movie makers of that movie had to go off a bit on the MK lore but still it was an very good movie. I will say Kudos to the first two Resident Evil Movies for making good on a video game franchise.
As for the rest of em it's like pulling all your teeth out and that goes for triple for the Super Mario Bros movie. Now that movie Super Mario Bros that was the worst piece of trash I've seen when I was an teen.
Comments
Good times!
"Considering the rich narratives present in many modern games--"Planescape: Torment" and "Baldur's Gate" come to mind--it's unsurprising that filmmakers are increasingly turning to them for their projects. Unfortunately, Hollywood has yet to take the potential of such films seriously, and they often suffer from shoddy alterations and poor production. Just look no further than "Street Fighter" or "Alone in the Dark" for proof. "Silent Hill" does little to break that standard, and despite its great atmosphere and effects, it falls prey to an utterly mystifying plot, poor pacing and a plethora of decidedly non-frightening creatures.
Not having played the game that the film is based on likely led to part of my bewilderment, as I often had no idea of what in the world was going on. It initially seemed simple: Rose, a young mother, takes her adopted daughter Sharon to the abandoned town of Silent Hill in an effort to understand its connection to the little girl. From there, however, the plot descended into a dizzying series of flashbacks, opposing views and changing realities that never felt completely resolved. Although I ultimately think I grasped the story line, it never felt compelling simply because of the presentation, which frequently and unwisely chose to pause for elaborate explanations and details. The film literally does play out like a game at times, carefully arranging its scenes so as to include each creature and encounter from the series.
The baffling actions of the characters make this approach even more incoherent, as they often act as if they're in a completely different film. First we have a mother who thinks it wise to try to outrun a police officer by crashing through a chain link fence blocking the path to a ghost town. Then that same police officer idiotically assumes that an armless critter that spits acidic bile for kicks is going to obey a demand to halt. Worst of all is the inexplicable need many characters have to tell Sharon that everything will be alright. Yeah...you're in a town pulled into a ghastly nightmare where people get literally torn to pieces by hellish creatures, and psychotic religious zealots want to burn you alive, but there's nothing to worry about. Morons.
It doesn't help that the acting generally fails to be even the slightest bit believable, with the exception of Sean Bean, who wastes his talents in his role as Rose's husband. Radha Mitchell, a moderately talented actress in general, fails to provide the clout needed for such an elaborate plot, especially since the script calls for strong emotions for her character. Most important, Jodelle Ferland, though not incompetent as a child actress, never fully convinces in her dual role as Sharon and Alessa, and she plays the latter as if she popped some amphetamines and rolled in the dirt for a while.
Despite its many weaknesses, "Silent Hill" does exhibit a visually stunning design in many cases, and its ambiance remains consistent throughout. But effects can only carry a film so far, and in this case they're far more surrealistic than terrifying. The violence doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than shock value, and I found myself more disgusted by the deformed creatures than frightened, particularly because few startling moments actually occur. Films can't expect their viewers to be familiar with their source material, and in this case, I felt like I was stuck in an appalling game with a bunch of idiots. Now that's terrifying."
In honesty, Prince of Persia was actually fairly enjoyable (meaning not too cringeworthy if watched with a non-gamer other half).
Not always of course; there are some producers and directors who might be genuine fans. But I think there are other problems with adapting video games into movies. In books, graphic novels, and films, the writer and/or director dictate everything about how the story unfolds, and you're just along for the ride. In a game, the player gets to interact with the world and decide how things pan out... I know some games are very linear, and they tend to be the easiest. I don't think Baldur's Gate would make a good movie; the main plot itself isn't really that exciting. It's the world and the characters that make it, and you'd have to leave far too much out in order to compress it down to just a couple of hours.
I think games are getting so cinematic now anyway that movie versions just seem a bit redundant anyway.
You could make a good movie out of Baldur's Gate or any number of games but it requires a good screenwriter who is invested in the story. I haven't seen many where I think the writer has been personally invested. (Contrast that with a movie like the Matrix where the author was quite invested in creating a world and characters with impact, style, and some depth. That could easily have been a good game adaptation.)
1. The movie Tron came before the game.
2. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World was a comic book series first. Then it was simultaneously made into a movie and video game.
Now opinions!:
1. Tron was great for its time. Looking back, lol the movie is kinda mediocre. If you guys liked the pretty bad arcade game, go look up the online game Armagetron Advanced. Free, great gameplay, pretty decent community. I actually really, really loved the recent movie Tron: Legacy. It was solid; good enough plot, great characters, incredible action/eye candy ... watching it in theaters was a visual phenomenon. I watched it twice: Once in 2D and once in 3D. Both were great, but I must say the 3D didn't disappoint (and this is coming from someone who usually dislikes 3D).
2. I haven't read too much of the comic books. What little I have, I dig. I want to buy all 6 of them in color some time if I can. Some people really dig the video game for some reason, to me it was painfully slow (too much Streets of Rage and Golden Axe growing up I guess, I'm used to my beat-em-ups being really fast-paced).
The movie? AGUUUUGHH!!
The reason I would like to see these games made into films, is because the stories they do have are engaging enough to warrant being made into a film, and Blizzard makes amazing CGI movies. Blizzard CGI cutscenes are among the best I have ever seen across any medium, and I would be really interested in seeing a feature film comprised of nothing but that.
That being said, I still think the Half Life games could make excellent live action films.
As for the rest of em it's like pulling all your teeth out and that goes for triple for the Super Mario Bros movie. Now that movie Super Mario Bros that was the worst piece of trash I've seen when I was an teen.