>this is still the best video game movie ever made
Does anyone have a serious theory as to why video games are so hard to adapt to other mediums? Don't say "because they have bad writing/characters to begin with", because comic books work GREAT in other mediums and they have even WORSE writing and characters.
Other urls found in this thread:
www109.zippyshare.com
twitter.com
comic books don't work well in other mediums, what you're seeing made today are standalone films featuring characters and settings from comics, not comics adapted into movies
also it's not that video games are hard to adapt, if you care about making a good movie, it's entirely possible, but if you just want to get paid and get shit done, that is also possible
>what you're seeing made today are standalone films featuring characters and settings from comics, not comics adapted into movies
This is false on multiple levels.
>it's not that video games are hard to adapt, if you care about making a good movie, it's entirely possible
You can't polish a turd, dumbass. Some content just does not work in certain mediums.
Angry birds movie was way better.
>what you're seeing made today are standalone films featuring characters and settings from comics, not comics adapted into movies
No video game movie has ever been a 1:1 translation of a game's story and they still always turn out like shit, so that doesn't explain anything.
Full movie:
Postal (2007).mp4
www109.zippyshare.com
Hollywood producer interference, design by committee, etc. And they think it needs to appeal to non-gamers in some way.
The reason Mortal Kombat worked as a movie is because there was arguably little source material to fuck around with. So they mostly just had to make sure it looked the part.
BOLL I'M VINCE DESI, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU DO TO MY GAME POSTAL?
So what is the difference between a duck?
This is dolphin porn, isn't it?
it sucked.
>make it a 1:1 retelling of a game
What's the point? Games are already a visual media
>inject your own ideas into the universe
It turns out shit since most people that work on these kinds of things never actually play the game or understand it
because gamers are the most retarded consumers there are. There is no other industry where you can strip away essential parts of your product and sell it separately to the customer while also implementing gambling systems into the same product to make even more money.
>preordering
>microtransactions
>exclusivity
>post release fixes
Imagine this stuff happened with movies or books. All this is only possible because gamers are fucking retards. And companies know that. So film studios don't care about making a quality product as long as they make enough money which gamers most of the time accomplish for them.
It was so weird how they had a character reference the movie itself in the middle of the movie.
SMB is better.
The first MK movie is still the best. SMB and Postal are dumb fun.
Anyone see that It Came From The Desert film?
Games can contain cinematic elements but movies cannot contain gaming elements. Movies remove the major strength of video games: immersion, gameplay. It's like taking a step back. That's why it's way easier to adapt a movie into a game than the opposite.
>You can't polish a turd
It seems like you can never have a video game movie that doesn't entail replicating the parts where someone is playing the game or how the setting or plot structure are meant to be part of a video game. Even if you can get around it, it's like its own breed of camp now where you HAVE to throw in those nods.
I would argue the Silent Hill film are the best ones of the lot. And the director played the games on set to show everyone what his vision was.
It was the movie studio putting their hands in to it that added scenes with Shawn Bean being useless. But the only reason Pyramid Head was in it was just fan service and nothing to do with the plot of 1.
Because video games are inherently an interactive medium and movies are not
A move can replicate the plot and setting from Sands of Time, but it can't replicate the way I slowly built up skills and felt cool by getting better at the game as it got progressively more difficult
If they tried to make a movie about Portal, there'd be no sense of figuring out the puzzles or learning how to manipulate the tools you're given. They can make a dozen Doom movies, but none of them will ever top the feeling of gunning down demons and personally ripping through them with a chainsaw. That kind of experience isn't just me watching someone on a screen do it, it's me actively being the person who does that, which a movie can't replicate
>none of them will ever top the feeling of gunning down demons and personally ripping through them with a chainsaw
Evil Dead doesn't count?
That was garbage. It really fucking was. It wasn't even "so bad that it's good". It was just bad.
mortal kombat and street fighter are better.
angelina jolie tomb raider also
This isn't the best anything ever made, you're just so impossibly retarded you borrowed an opinion from some shit-for-brains contrarian on Yea Forums because you thought he was being honest.
Stop being an easily coerced retard and watch the things you try to discuss. You're an embarrassment.
>because comic books work GREAT in other mediums and they have even WORSE writing and characters.
Have you thought that comic books can perfectly work as retooled storyboards (montage and vignetting, save the idiosyncrasies of time and page layout/intervignette relations, are very much alike in essence) and that they don't have the added layer of interactivity that videogames do? Also, there are quite a bit of videogame movies that are worthwhile.
Manga works great as storyboards, at the least if the author has good panel setup and good flow of character movement.
Comic books generally have far worse panel flow, and even worse character movement.
Then again, using manga is cheating. I have not read anything as good as what Toriyama has presented, where the quality translated perfectly to anime storyboard, where a lot of movement is kept.
I've also had fun reading Osamu Tezuka with works like Phoenix and Black Jack, where a lot of time is spent taking advantage of the medium. But its not at Toriyama's level.
Further I have read Spirou and Astrix, as they where imported to my country quite a bit before the cold war ripples finally ended. The panel flow is quite good as well, but not anywhere near Toriyama's level. But its far above western comics.
What is interesting is that comics/manga and french comics is the same medium. Yet the qualities are very different.
I think something like Invincible and Irredeemable is perfectly 1:1 storyboard adaptable, despite not reaching up to Astrix or Tezuka's work in terms of panelling and motion.
tl:dr
WTF does this have to do with vidya?
You can't just storyboard vidya. If anything its more comparable to BLAME and Vampire Hunter D than talking/actor franchises. You need to impress the audience with spectable and action, with progression and architecture.
In fact, in european comic adaptations (say Arrugas, Persepolis), it's very common to just rip the vignettes and put them onto montage. Which make them maudlin movies at best, but oh well.
>comic books don't work well in other mediums
They do for the French and Japs. And most of Euros.
The problem with Comic books is that most American stuff has terrible panelling, at the least for more modern stuff.
I can see a lot of 1940s and 1950s stuff working where you take each panel and put them into the storyboard before interpolating them into fluid motion.
But not modern stuff. Simply the quality of movement, the angles and the panel quality is too horrible.
Even something like pic related has static weird movement on all the subpanels, that wouldn't do well for the intended purpose.
Then again, another problem is that if you go
Superman 1990s to TV animation 1990s is that the latter requires animation of all impacts and combat, which the comics lacks beyond "lets clash our forces"
i really like this quote
Because one leg is the same as eachother
not him, seen it multiple times, beat P2 multiple times, it is the best game movie, suck a dick you embarassment
You people have missed my point entirely, which does not surprise me, really. Making a good movie is a pursuit in and of itself, the actual context and content of the film matters very little as long as a proper vision and talented people are employed. Compare Iron Man 1 to either of the Fantastic Four films and tell me where one somehow adapted the source material better than the other. The source material was irrelevant. The FF movies sucked because they hired random actors to job and job they did, they hired random screenwriters to job and job they did, they hired a random director to job and job he did. Those sure were films but no one wanted to fucking watch them because they were soulless, uninspired pieces of shit. Iron Man 1 had motivated, talented actors backed up by a solid script and a director who did a great job putting it all together. The actual fucking content of these films is not what sells them, video games, comic books, world war fucking 2, these are window dressing, themes, no one really fucking cares about the theme, if the film is utter trash no one will really care to go watch it without some external impetus like screeching children or a popular legacy. Western movies were not a monolith and fell out of favor just like comic book movies will in time, if someone managed to asspull a great Metal Gear Solid movie or whatever then we might see the era of the vidya movie arise but I wouldn't hold your breath, they've been trying that angle for a long time and the only reason they keep making them is because when a game sells literally millions of copies, the corporate suits in Hollywood just think "if we got even half of them to go see our movie opening day we'd be doing pretty damn well right out of the gate".
how does it feel knowing you just spent 10 minutes writing out all that shit that i'm not gonna read?
>Making a good movie is a pursuit in and of itself
I feel you should watch more interviews with movie directors and script writers. Because they say a lot about this, only being dishonest enough that you can only get what they have as a belief from the subtext of denial.
For many directors, movies is about "getting highly profiled actors together in one scene and interacting". Which means they won't have any other goals than celebrity masturbation.
Having talent won't help if something is fundamentally wrong about how the process is done. And this fundamental of movie making is why a lot of movies are trash.
What i find funny is that in your subtext you agree: Movies for Hollywood is cheap tactics using random components to try to sell off brand name
There is no effort or passion, only talent.
>This is false on multiple levels.
>doesn't back up why
Is this a Yea Forums comment generator?
>cameos just to say his films are funded by nazi gold and he hates vidya
Is there a more based director than Uwe Boll?
Producers like to make a lot of money, so to get a lot of money, movies have to appeal to a wide audience. They don't give a shit about the source material.
Thats a terrible axiom user.
Okay so
>Producers like to make a lot of money, so to get a lot of money
Thats a good
>movies have to appeal to a wide audience.
And to do that, you have to remove what is good about what you are adapting in the first place. So you are replacing a good element with something random, often without trying to ensure any type of quality.
Essentially its a bad decision because it won't make any more money.
Is it still Dolphin pornography?
Is is it good shit?
this gif has never been more appropriate
Most of the better video to game adaptions do toss out as much as possible
To fit in grinding/combat/enemies/exploration/prologue/post endgame
Which generally works, at the least when there is some ambition to make it greater.
Star Wars: Episode 1
Most of the LOTR games
Is shining examples of what is possible when you try, really really hard.
>Does anyone have a serious theory as to why video games are so hard to adapt to other mediums?
because its uwe boll directing most of them. but other times its because you're taking a game that normally takes 10-40 hours to finish and adapting it to a medium where runtime is an hour
>there are quite a bit of videogame movies that are worthwhile
this is objectively false
>still no deleted Stuttering Craig and Handsome Tom Far cry scene
absolute disheartening
Any info on these scenes?
And fucked
its because uwe boll is based as fuck
man will literally fight you if you call his movies shit
>and they have even WORSE writing and characters.
Bullshit. Vidya has other reasons as to why they've so far managed to be unadaptable to film but writing in comics absolutely shit all over video games.
I watched that and actually thought it was funny.
>tfw the best video game movie isn't even based off a video game
Sharlto Copley is a wonderful man
Honorary vidya kino. It feels like a game, so that's enough for me.