This is a tough one for me. Im not sure how I feel about this. Before I started using giant bomb, and reading kotaku and stuff, I always had the idea that if a movie studio made a game movie, it was because the game's story was THAT GOOD. It was good enought that even with out the gameplay, the story, would keep people entertained, especially people who dont play games. Now, I've read here and there that some people think that they have to change the story so people who played the game, get a new story as well. What do you think.
Thats true. Although, I think that when ever they start making up stuff, they endup creating wierd things that just look out of place. Like the jumpsuit zombies in the resident evil movies, or the strong girl with telepathic powers, or even the beat up desert world they now live in. Dont get me wrong, those movies can be entertaining, but a Residen evil movie, that tells the story of the first game, would really go a long way, with the right cast, and the right movie director of course. See, I still kinda belive that they should stick closelly to the game's story, to prevent movies like the ones made by that Boll guy. But I also want to belive that a good movie can be made even if its only loosely based on a game, or the game's world. Im not really sure what to think about this.
The thing is, video games contain story formats that are inimical to film (or any other passive-audience medium for that matter). What producers and writers need to do is incorporate the tropes and hallmarks of a game franchise, and then build a watchable story around it.
Let's say you were building a script for a Metroid movie.
You wouldn't need to copy and paste the line: "The last metroid is in captivity. The galaxy is at peace." (You could have it, but it wouldn't be necessary.) But you WOULD need Metroids. You would need a band of space pirates to ransack the space colony and steal the last metroid, and you would need to give Samus her proper backstory (orphaned by space pirates, fostered by Chozo, employed by the Galactic Federation), but you wouldn't need to spend 2 hours showing Samus powering up her suit (though exploring an uninhabited planet with Samus would make for an interesting segment of the movie.) You would need to condense Metroids 2-through-Fusion into 2 and a half hours, so you would need a clever introduction to the X virus, and the surgery scene where the doctors in the Galactic Federation decide to inject Samus with Metroid DNA to help her survive and help her combat the X on BSL. And since you're going to have the BSL saga (Metroid Fusion) as part of the movie, you'd need to start out (or have a flashback) with Adam Malkovich training Samus. In other words, you would need to fill -- with narrative -- in all the gaps that the Metroid series of games fill with gameplay. But if all of a sudden you didn't have space pirates, or you didn't have metroids, or you didn't have the fact that Samus works alone, then you might as well not spring for the license fee and make "Generic Science-Fiction Movie #895 026".
It really depends on the game. If the game already has an amazing story (ie. Bioshock, Uncharted, the list goes on), then the story should not be changed unless like you stated it is set in the same universe. Even then it should follow as close to the source material or formula as possible. The story worked in Bioshock. Why not translate it directly to film???
The only time that a person should be given creative lisence with a game to turn into a film is if they already have a good track record with movies (NOT Uwe Boll) and the game itself does NOT have a deep engrossing story (ie. pretty much any NES sidescroller) then they should come up with a story that fits the universe while having a person who worked on the concept of the original game on hand to assist.
" It really depends on the game. If the game already has an amazing story (ie. Bioshock, Uncharted, the list goes on), then the story should not be changed unless like you stated it is set in the same universe. Even then it should follow as close to the source material or formula as possible. The story worked in Bioshock. Why not translate it directly to film??? The only time that a person should be given creative lisence with a game to turn into a film is if they already have a good track record with movies (NOT Uwe Boll) and the game itself does NOT have a deep engrossing story (ie. pretty much any NES sidescroller) then they should come up with a story that fits the universe while having a person who worked on the concept of the original game on hand to assist. "
I think you're mistaken about the points you make about Bioshock. Yes it's a great story, but the greatness comes from the interactivity.
The revelatory moment, when you realize that you are susceptible to the command phrase "would you kindly", and that Atlas is exploiting your love of charity to help him take over Rapture, it changes the way I felt about video games forever.
You can't really translate that directly into a film. You would need to take some creative license. Having said that, if they changed the characteristics of Atlas, or Andrew Ryan, then it wouldn't work either. What you need to do is adapt your narrative model to the medium. And if part of the definition of your medium is a passive audience, stuff that is profound in an interactive experience is decidedly less so in a passive experience.
You make a great point. But I dont think any movie maker would show 5, 10 or 20 hours of gameplay as part of a movie. They turninto into a 2hour film Like if a Metal gear solid movie was made, the part where it took you 10 or 15 minutes to get acustomed to the controls, and take out the 2 or 3 guards before reaching the first elevator, can be boiled down to a 2 minute scene where snake taps on the wall, snaps the guy's neck, shoots the other one with the dart gun and gets in the elevator. All while playing this song int the background.
But I still get your pont. It makes alot of sense.
@narley: The thing about Metal Gear, it's actually the kind of series which I would like to see turned into a marathon saga. 20 hours of pre-apocalyptic future warfare, and genetically-engineered soldiers contemplating their existence. I could actually watch something like that for a giant chunk of time (though, admittedly, not all in one sitting). But you're exactly right, you would need to make subtle and fleeting nods to the interactive aspects of Metal Gear games if you wanted to satisfy the hardcore fanbase (as well as draw in all those non-players too).
How did this get flipped around into the process of turning a game into a movie?
Anyway, like @Meowayne: said, it's not only possible but necessary. I can't understand why anyone would want to replay the movie in game form. Movies are passive narratives while games are interactive and variable. Knowing how the story progresses takes all the surprise from the game. Why play it at all if you know the Joker dies that the end? You're just jumping through hoops because the main character is bound by the film story to do the same things and make the same decisions. Anytime a game development studio agrees to make a game from a film property, they should set it in the same world, obviously, but make the story something completely different. A good example was the Escape from Butcher Bay game which was based off the Pitch Black movie. In this context, the player got to inhabit the character of Riddick and use some of the abilities he had in Pitch Black, but under a completely different circumstance. I think it's important in games to allow the player to be the main character from the movie because that's what drew them to the property to begin with. That's always been a "head scratcher" for me and the Godfather games. Don't you want to play as young Vito or Michael Corleone? But, I guess some properties don't allow that type of leeway, which makes me believe they shouldn't have been made into games to begin with. Then, there are bonehead mistakes which go too far in the other direction of creating a fresh story. Jumper: Griffin's Story didn't even involve the main character from the movie. Who the hell is this jabonee, and why should I care about him at all? A good licensed game needs to be familiar where it counts and original in all other regards. Not any easy task which is why there have been so few good licensed games.
I think they already started on a metal gear movie before MGS4 came out, it was going to take approx. 45 mins, and the first 15 are somewhere on the net.
As said before, I personally prefer the idea of having a film in a universe of a game, but possibly following other characters (such as the 'Escape from City 17' series). Only problem with this though is that some of the main characters which make the game more interesting might not be in the movie.
You're right. Like if they made a TV series of Metal gear instead of just a 2 hour movie, they could make an episode where they fallow one of those gen-altered soldiers, or any bad guy, just to show a diferent perspective on that world. But they would only do that because its a tv series, and they have to continue making episodes. Wich is kind off what their doing with that half life short. Showing a diferent perspective. But for a movie, I think that by re - telling the same story from the game, if its a good story, they can reach new people, who dont allways play games, and that way, they can find new fans of their work. Not only that, but for people who played the game and already know what's going to happen, they can show them how the things in the game would be and look like if they were real. Like in that ODST trailer. In the game, you see the character droping on one of those pods, but in the live action trailer, it looks so much better, and way more awesome that it did on the game, giving the espectator that sense of realism. Thats just my opinion. But your idea makes alot of sense.
Log in to comment