Video Game Movies: Cool or Cash In?

[Cloverfield]

What do you think... that when movies are made based on video games, are they a good thing, or is the company just cashing in on the success of the game.

Good example: Oddworld. Not just saying this because I am an Oddworld fan. But the Oddworld Quintology was originally written to be a movie before it was going to be a game.

Good example #2: Oddworld and Final Fantasy. Again not just saying this because I am a fan. The Oddworld movies when they come out will be CG as with the FF movie. Because the entire movie is going to be CG, then the work of the programmers, etc is being put into it to keep it computer based.

Cash In: Tomb Raider. C'mon... the only reason they are making a movie for this is because of "Lara Croft" and her *ahem* ... well you get the idea. The use of human actors instead of CG gives the impression that they are not spending the time in programming and creating the characters which made the game popular. Instead are using a human subsitute. Even if the movie is great... I still feel it is a cash in.

Cash In #2: Street Fighter movie, Mario Bros movie... obvious cash in (again w/ human actors) that was a total FLOP! Need I say more.

Basically I just seem to think that if a game is using CG for their movie, the time is being spent to keep in being with what it originally was... that is computer based. Getting a human actor seems to me a way of avoiding programming and rendering and all that kind of thing. Which IMO is a lot more work than just getting an actor to learn a part and create a set.

Heh... I didn't realize I wrote so much!!!

Abe Babe...

[LuxoJr]

Tomb Raider? Heh...you've said it all.

I'm not so sure about Final Fantasy, though. Probably the most successful part of the series is that, aside from game design, there doesn't have to be any link between ANY of the games for them to be popular. They don't flow like Oddworld installments, or at least the first ones we've seen.

What I think is a bit shameless in the FF movie is their use of motion capture...I mean, this makes sense in games where you're very well aware that nothing is real, but if you create motion through an actor's performance, then what's the point of making a CG film instead of live action? The FF movie is riding on the huge fan base the games have already established, and its groundbreaking visuals. I doubt it will be anything more than a melodramatic, albeit technologically advanced, moneycow.

[lady_elum]

Tomb Raider is definately cashing in (and Angelina Jolie doesnt even look like Lara Croft) but the mario bros. movie was soooo cool, even though it had like, nothing to do with the game. Of course, I was about five or six when it came out so I loved it, the guys with the little heads are so cool. All the bad guys in that movie kicked ass!!!! the guy with the tongue and allll that!

[Sydney]

Not having seen any of the movies, I wont judge any of them just yet.

Tomb Raider isn't that bad. I played Tomb Raider II, it was an alright game. The production of game after game, after game with little improvement in each new installment is what made the series a laughing stock. It started good but stumbled into a pile of crap.

As for the movie, I saw the trailer at the cinema the other day. It looks very good, and Angelina Jolie is a very serious actress, so it will be interesting to see how a film with such acclaimed actors goes.

I have to disagree with your evaluation of human actors versus complete CG. Acting and directing are arts themselves, I believe they are just as good, or rather better than complete Computer Generation. Toy Story, Antz and A Bugs Life are a few movies that spring to mind when I think of CG, all which create a static, artificial atmosphere. They can't be compared to, say, The Deliverance, Silence of the Lambs, etc. No doubt with Oddworld Inhabitants' talent the same wont ring true when they produce their movies.. but my point is that CG doesn't necesarily equal good, even if the story started with CG.

I don't think it matters what medium a film is made in, it just depends on how it's crafted.

[Cloverfield]

Don't get me wrong... there are lots of brilliant movies with actors/actresses... especially science fiction movies and those which entail special effects. I probably sounded like I was against all movies like that in my post (I think I rambled too much).

I just seem to feel that if a movie is based on a game it should remain in the computer environment.

Also it was my downfall that I used 2 examples of my favorite games... that's cause they were the only I could think of!!!

But I guess that is just my opinion...

Abe Babe...

[LuxoJr]

Toy Story, Antz and A Bugs Life are a few movies that spring to mind when I think of CG, all which create a static, artificial atmosphere.

Would you say that that's because of actual film direction and writing rather than the nature of animation itself? Aardman, which I still believe retains John Lasseter's 'story first, technology to support it' rule better than Pixar has (well, recently, anyway) have made some of the most absorbing and lively films ever.

Watch a short film like Steve Box's Stage Fright, and the surreal effect of watching clay 'act' is overcome by the completely natural behaviour that his characters exhibit.