Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Why can't video game films be made by gamers with actual film talent?
I was inspired by the recent hubbub on the Avatar thread to talk about this. As a both a gamer and a filmmaker I've always wondered why can't video game movies be made by people who actually play the games they are based on? It wouldn't be hard for someone who is a goddamn good filmmaker make a Legend of Zelda movie when they themselves are diehard fans who know the lore and whatnot.
Comments
It is my belief, that video games will have a Big Bang, similar to how comics had a big bang. I mean comics weren't popular movie adaptions back then, but now it's being whored out. Yet look at the parallel with video game movies, not so different eh?
Oh wait, I'm an ass. Never mind.
See, most of the really good video games are very thin on plot. That's because a good game is all about interactivity. A game like Metroid or Zelda has almost no story whatsoever. Save the princess, beat the bad guy. That's about all there is to it. The reason they are great games is because the interactivity of the adventure is so amazing. Exploring caves inside an alien planet, alone, for days on end makes a great game and a terrible movie. The reason these kinds of games almost always fail in translation to film is because someone is given the impossible task of making shit up that can fill in 90+ minutes of screen time.
The games that would make better movies, and have richer plots, are already movies. Metal Gear Solid games, Final Fantasy games, etc. are already movies. If you take all the FMV content and watch it end to end, you've got yourself a movie. No need to make something separate. Actually, in many cases, all those FMVs add up to something that is far too long and complex to be a movie in theaters or on DVD.
There are lots of video games that occupy some sort of middle space. They have a slightly richer plot, but also enough interactivity to be a good game. Maybe something like Resident Evil, but even then people fail to translate it into a good movie.
What it really comes down to is licensed properties. Most of the time when someone brings a license from one medium to another, they're just trying to make money. Take someone's favorite comic, and make a movie out of it, and you've got an instant audience. You don't have to make it the best thing ever. It just has to be good enough to make the money back. It's much easier and much less risky than trying something completely new. Very rarely does someone actually try to adapt something with actual care. When they do, you can get some Lord of the Rings type action going on. Really though, what producer and filmmaker respects and loves a video game property that much to give it that kind of treatment?
I think there is a potential for more video-game based movies (Zelda, Half Life, etc.), but I think they will not come 'round until the comic book movie well runs dry and industries need a pull for the geek audience.
In all honesty, I'll be happy if somebody, someday, can make a decent Max Payne movie, to erase the memory of the abortion that is the extant one.
Also, the movie Legend came out in the UK in December of '85 and in the US in April of '86. The Legend of Zelda came out in Japan in February of '86 and in the US in August of '87. With that sort of timing, I highly doubt anyone who worked on the original Zelda had seen or heard of the movie at the time.
I wouldn't say that The Legend of Zelda had "substantial" plot; while Legend had a relatively simple and cliché plot, it was more in-depth than the original Zelda. Later games gained a lot more plot, particularly A Link to the Past (the second best game ever).
Part of the issue, as has been mentioned, is that making a movie out of movie-ready, plot-heavy games will piss off the canon-obsessed fanbase, and it will miss your target audience. What I'd really like to see is a filmmaker who takes a game with a thin (but still present) plot and actually makes something out of it. Take the themes or core ideas of the game and expand on them. Just don't let Uwe Boll anywhere near any sort of franchise, and you're set.
I think a much bigger question is why can't the average game be made by someone who can think of a competent storyline? With some exceptions, most games that promise to deliver story end up failing miserably (Gears of War 2 is the latest example to come to mind). Instead, it seems like the most celebrated stories, when summarized, are really just folk tales.
Metroid Fusion and Metroid Prime 3 both attempted to fill in some blanks. Fusion added a computer that talked to you, and filled in some history. Metroid Prime 3 actually had direct interaction with other characters. Space started to feel a lot less lonely. While the gameplay was just fine, the feel was totally lost. Filling in the plot of Metroid necessarily destroys the essence of Metroid, which is dark loneliness.
The same goes for something like Zelda. While the land of Hyrule is much more rich with characters than Planet Zebes, the main character of Link is notably mute. Miyamoto has often said that Link is the connection between the player and the game world. He doesn't talk because he's you. He doesn't have to talk, because you are there. The last time link talked he said "Excuuuuuse me princess!" That's not really going to work out so well.
I try to think of games that could become decent movies, and almost every single one I think of effectively already contains a decent movie within itself. Pokemon, Professor Layton, Earthbound, Half-Life, Star Control 2, I could go on.
Maybe the best bet for making a video game movie is to take a game that is super duper sparse, and just create an otherwise good movie around it. Make a really good alien invasion movie, then just happen to call it X-Com. Make a really good movie about terrorists, and happen to call it Kaboom!
I was getting at your suggestion; take a really thinly plotted game and just make a movie around it. If there's no canon to violate, you can't really piss anyone off. I think the real issue is that there just aren't that many quality filmmakers, and it's really really easy to completely ruin something when you cram it into 100 - 150 minutes of screentime.
EDIT: Max Payne mini-rant:
It was already done for them. Completely. The character fundamentals were there, the plot basics were there, the action sequences were perfect. The imagery and themes were all there. There was even a tone: game noir. Simple. Make a goddamn film noir movie and you're halfway there.
They didn't do that. At all. They took a NOIR VIDEO GAME and DID NOT MAKE A FILM NOIR MOVIE. HOW DO YOU DO THAT?
Besides all that, the storytelling was ridiculously disjointed, and plot elements from the game seemed to be thrown in haphazardly. A modicum of care, a bit of thought, would've made it worth watching.
And there weren't even any good action sequences. It's a shooting video game with bullet time, and they managed to make the least interesting action sequences I've ever seen.
Fuck that movie and everyone associated with it.
You can see the same thing happen when they make video games, tv shows, or comic books from licensed properties. Because the original work was created by someone else, nobody actually working on it typically cares all that much. Very often they will change it to something they like, pissing on the original creator's vision. They're just trying to get a paycheck, not trying to make great art.
What could be awesome is if someone re-attempted the //Hack idea. Find someone with video game skills and also movie skills, Spielberg? Then make a new video game and a new movie at the same time that go to together. I mean, remember the Matrix MMO that bombed? What if there had only bee one movie, and the MMO started while the movie was in theatres, and didn't suck? That would have been something.
To the same point, why would you like a movie about a game you have already beaten, if it's just going to tell you the same thing you went through in the game? These types of movies are not catered to readers or to gamers, they are a secondary market (not even harry potter as the book really started to sell worldwide after the 1st movie). So if they change shit, the people that don't know the original material won't care, and the people that do know it shouldn't care either, its a story based on something you already know, they are giving you something fresh and different. If you want the stuff to be the exact thing as in the game, PLAY THE GAME.
On an unrelated note, Shoot 'em Up is probably the best movie to deliver exactly what it said it would deliver. In that regard, it's a triumph of filmmaking. However, I have a feeling that it would make a godawful video game.
The point about Uwe Boll, from what I understand of German tax laws, is that he doesn't need to make any profit. In Germany, if you invest in films made by German production companies, you can write off your investment 100% against tax. So, Uwe says to rich Germans "Instead of paying tax to the government, pay me 20 million euro to make a film." And people do. If the film makes no money, the investors don't care. If the film somehow DOES make money, the investors only pay tax on the profits. It is a win win situation for Uwe, his investors and the German film industry, and a lose lose situation for game fans.
Uwe has got a good thing going, and maybe one day he'll actually direct a film that is worth watching at all. Meanwhile, don't complain about the crap he makes, you are just watching a celluloid tax dodge by rich Germans.
Tax Benefits
The tax benefits available in Germany are astonishing. German tax law permits the immediate deduction of the cost of creating "intangible" assets, including films. Thus, investors are able to immediately write off the entire cost of producing a film. This is in stark contrast to almost all other tax systems, which require the cost of creating a film to be amortized either over a number of years or as a percentage of revenues received (in order to match deductions and income). Under the German tax system, investors get deductions now and income later, which is the stuff tax dreams are made of. With tax rates in excess of 50%, the up-front deduction is a substantial benefit, which is magnified if the investment is leveraged with debt. For example, if the debt/equity ratio is 1:1, the investor immediately gets back more in tax savings than the amount of the investor's actual cash investment (although the investor will be liable for repayment of the debt later on).
Most importantly, the films do not have to be produced at all in Germany. Most countries that have film tax shelters require production in the home country, and the tax shelters serve as an indirect, but intended, subsidy for local production. In contrast, Germany's system results in an unintentional subsidy for worldwide production. This fact has not escaped the German government's attention, and overtime, Germany has passed increasingly restrictive requirements on German tax shelters. These restrictions have changed the business model (discussed below), but they have not - by any means - changed the fundamental benefits of film tax shelters outlined above.
> talent