It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Or Tomb Raider, which everyone knows, inspired Indiana Jones. ;)
Now we know who to blame, if Boll gets his hands on the Splinter Cell licence. Dimi! *shakes fist*
It's like the serpent eating its tail.
Wasn't there a Pacman movie in the making at one point? Seriously, why?
Haha, just imagine. ;-)
See, the thing about video game adaptations is that it's really hard to do them well. Anyone who's going to try it faces three challenges:
(I feel like we're having this conversation aboard a Zeppelin... ;-) )
1) In most video games, there's only you and very few other characters. Quite the boring starting point for a film, right? So let's just invent a bunch of other characters, force some backstory on them et cetera, and suddenly the film looks nothing like the game anymore. It's a conundrum and a tough riddle to solve. Examples of failures (IMO): Doom, Need4Speed
2) It's exciting as long as you hold the controllers in your hand. But if someone else does it, the repetitive nature of many games becomes painfully apparent and boring above all. So we throw in additional story no-one cares about as filler (BloodRayne), or the opposite: we cut out 80% of the game for the sake of a condense and not-too-expensive film (Doom, Max Payne).
3) Some games are themselves built on famous films or gratuitously pick elements from those films, which is why it would be odd to adapt Duke Nukem, the first couple of Call Of Duty games or GTA Vice City as films.
I think the Resident Evil series did it well, thanks to the Japanese providing more than just playable content from an early stage on, and to Paul W.S. Anderson for striking just the right balance between a video game adaptation and a fairly original zombie horror series. The Tomb Raiders managed to Hollywood up the game just as well. Silent Hill provided some really eerie moments which I like and Wing Commander as well as D.O.D. are guilty pleasures of mine.
But Mario Bros, StreetFighter, Mortal Combat, Warcraft, Prince Of Persia, ... really, I couldn't care less, not to mention everything Boll has touched from Alone In The Dark to Postal and everything in between.
Trust me, I can barely play a game without considering its film potential. Wolfenstein, a good--i.e. can we please keep hack John Moore in movie jail??--Max Payne adaptation, F.E.A.R, ... sure, why not? Except that I would also want the studios to "Peter Jackson" these properties into extremely faithful trilogies that would cost hundreds of millions to get made, even if they couldn't possibly recuperate 50% of their costs.
So in most cases, I'd say, forget it. Just look at FarCry. Nevermind Boll, no-one is going to invest 350 million dollars in one or two two-hour grand-scale adventure films that would make Skull Island blush, yet that's the only way to do this game right. A 5 million dollar backlot production with one petty car chase and some zombie-faced thugs as your main "monsters" is not going to cut it. Such a barely releasable mini-film is to the game what The Holiday Special was to Star Wars. I have the same issues with Doom (and its terrible sequel). Doom 3 is a "big game", large in scope, relentless in its monster attacks, and epic in scale. The film, however, is "micro" in every way, at best a "teaser trailer" to the treatment this game deserves. Despite a few really cool moments, this film is meaningless except as an exercise in over-the-top downsizing. It's the equivalent of adapting Fleming's Moonraker as a 20-minute school play.
And that is the real problem, isn't it. To do something like Doom right, you'd need to invest Disney money into a duology or trilogy at least, yet no-one besides a couple of hardcore fans would want to pay to see that. At the same time, we'd be spending hours and hours with one character at most, who'd be navigating an endless labyrinth on Mars. So Hollywood wisely chose a compromised version, which isn't atrocious but doesn't even feel like 10% of the game either. Doom and many other video game adaptations have convinced me that no-one has really cracked the code yet, that these two media should be treated as irreconcilable by default, with only a few brave attempts leading up to something other than a sickening bastardization of the video game property.
Again, I cannot stress enough how angry I am with Moore, Wahlberg and others for thinking they had what it would take to do Max Payne right, one of the few games I honestly think you could adapt well and without draining all the studio's bank accounts. It was the one chance Hollywood got, in my opinion, at giving us not just a good film but a few great Bogart-meets-John McLane killer action flicks. And they messed it up, like a boss.
All very, very good points.
I think the main problem is that the reasons one cares about (most) video games and the reasons one cares about films (or increasingly TV series) come from a very different place.
This will be wildly different for other people and from game to game, but at the end of the day there is something in gaming where you care about the outcome, because you had some hand in creating it. Even in the most on-rails, minimalist story you can find in a game there is - at least for me - the feeling that you did it. Even when you have a very meta experience and analyze the things the game throws at you and how you as a player, not as the character, can solve these puzzles, there is that thing in your brain that tells you "this was cool" once you solve it. Even if the story is complete and utter shit or there isn't even a story (looking at you Pac Man) or it's the easiest game in the world, there is that feeling of accomplishment. It's immediately more internal. Films are always (often? most of the time?) external. Sure, you might identify with somebody and wonder what you would have done; you feel with someone. But it is always something someone else has done.
And the greatest games (the ones that are so succesful that people want to make movies out of them) hook into that. It is not just the story. It is that you took part in that story in some way.
That is why it is easier (although not always succesful) to make a game out of a film. You already have a story, now you build a game loop on top. Stripping the game loop out of a story and having that stand on it's own seems much harder.
But we will keep getting these things for a while, because this is the era of pre-existing IP and studios seem to be completely convinced that it is a better sell to say "Hey, some of you may have heard the title of this before, come in and pay for it" "Hey, we think this is a cool story, come in and pay for it".
Excellent post, @ImpertinentGoon!
SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (1977)
The PG version is far superior to the original R rated version. It's funnier, more family friendly and overall looks better.
Just kidding, I barely remember the PG version. That said, I have a hunch that in this day and age it would go over better than the more graphic R rated cut.
You about gave me a heart attack based on that first paragraph. A friend of mine and I watched the PG version on HBO years ago and it was pretty dire. Part of the charm of SNF was the rough-hewn Travolta character and his Bay Ridge working class existence he was trapped in and his aspiration to reach across the river to Manhattan, which his dancing gives him a chance for.
I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the SNF PG cut was probably in response the massive success of Grease, which was PG and Travolta's status of being the hottest actor on the planet in '78.
Sadly, you're probably right about a modern take being more PG or PG-13 friendly. Also sadly, given Hollywood's obsession with remakes/reimaginings, there's probably some script out there doing a modern update of SNF. And we thought Staying Alive was the final nail in that coffin.
Woody Allen has been a creep in my eyes with no directing, writing or acting range. After hearing about his troubles, he never wanted to change, he was always on sexual autopilot, professionally and personally. He isn’t nice to fans, unless they’re underage girls.
Spike Lee is an angry racist. His movies make everyone who isn’t black look like a villain. Like WA, he’s on autopilot professionally and personally.
Both of them should have been kicked out of moviemaking a long time ago!
I believe the PG version was actually released on a double bill with a reissue of GREASE. I could be mistaken, though.
SNF remains my favorite Travolta film.
In an even more controversial opinion.....................I actually like STAYING ALIVE.
So you're telling us you're not suicidal? Good for you, mate! ;)
LOL! There's no point living if you can't feel alive ( in my best Brosnan voice).
This is a tough one. Yeah, you see and hear things that can build such impressions, especially in this age of countless media sources. In most cases, I try to separate the art from the artist's personality. I personally enjoy many of Allen and Lee's projects and respect their talents.
I've enjoyed Chevy Chase's work over the years, yet I've read multiple accounts of how poorly he treats coworkers and others. But I will put on Fletch or Caddyshack and just have a good time. The same can apply to a lot of professional athletes, singers, etc.
Thing is, if you're looking at some of these high-profile people then there's a good chance you may be disappointed by them. Very few are on the level of Tom Hanks. But at the same time, we are also in a culture that wants to downplay people and bash them too. So who knows?
I have read some very shocking things about Hanks online.
Controversial opinion: Adam Sandler is so ridiculously unfunny it's infuriating that he became a star.
Mustn’t believe everything you read online!
Don't tell me, Epstein Island?
Never heard of it, sounds like a Michael Crichton novel
My point was just that he isn t above scorn, either.
I have to say, I've always liked Adam Sandler, clear back to when he was on the MTV game show Remote Control in the late '80s and then on Saturday Night Live. I don't rush to see his films, but I also watch them if they're on and nothing else is. I don't know why. But he was actually really good in a dramatic role in Uncut Gems. So he's not really a 1-trick pony. But I do understand why people don't like him.
On the other hand, the comedian in a similar vein I've never really liked is Will Ferrell. And I can say that from his first appearance on SNL back in 1995.
I don't hate him, I've actually enjoyed a few things like Step Brothers, which is good, dumb fun. But I just don't take to his cluelessness even when I do somebody like Sandler. Part of that may be a group of guys I used to work with who worshipped the guy and wouldn't stop doing his lines.
Plus, going continuing the topic above on how celebs treat others, I've read stories about Ferrell being a jerk to people, acting like he was going to give them an autograph and then laughing and walking away.
That’s true, I’m sure he’s not perfect.
I still think that Sandler and Ferrell have more range than Woody Allen. They take chances, Allen’s been making the same movie since the 70s.
My favorite Burton film is the beautiful Edward Scissorhands. I enjoy Depp’s work in that as well as in Ed Wood. As for HBC, she was fine in Alice in Wonderland (not a very good film overall) and I’ve never seen Sweeney Todd or Dark Shadows so I can’t comment on her work in those, though I tend to really like her as an actress usually. If there are problems with some of Burton’s later work, they probably lay right at the director’s feet more than anyone else’s.
As for Batman TAS, to me, that is the greatest version of Batman and his world outside of the comics(sometimes even including the comics).
I fully support Zack Snyder and Justice League, even though I’m not the biggest fan of either. It just feels right for him (like Donner and his team), to finish their project as much as they intended. I feel that Joel Schumacher (RIP) should have Batman Forever release the original version of his, with the footage that he intended. Get Akiva Goldsman involved! And let David Ayer release his full Suicide Squad cut. DC comics seem to do better with director’s cuts. They just feel right.
Are you serious? Are you referring to Allen always basically playing himself as an actor, because he's had a real range of stories and subject matter over the years as far as what he's written and directed. Allen makes the films he wants, not what the audience wants him to do and that's range and taking chances.
For all Sandler's acclaim for Uncut Gems, what was his follow-up project? Hubie Halloween. As for Ferrell, I'm sure he's got another Daddy's Home sequel in him.
I think TDK is the best superhero movie ever, but Superman 78 was maybe the only genuinly great superhero movie until (probably) Batman Begins. I think I said it earlier in this thread: Superman made you believe a man could fly. Now they don't even bother, they just go with it.
Yes I agree with you on both points. I also forgot to add Tim Burton’s career hasn’t been as high recently. I’m thinking that people realize that his Batman movies are part of his creative peak. Richard Donner did ok career wise overall though. As I said before, he doesn’t get enough credit as a director. I’m just questioning why Batman 89 seems to be more attracting more people than Superman 78, even on this website.
Well, for me it's as simple as Batman being the more interesting character of the two. I really love the first two Superman films for their craftsmanship and Reeve is certainly iconic in the part, but I never found the titular hero all that captivating in the same way I do Batman. The first Superman film that actually made me interested in the character himself rather than simply being in awe of the things that he does was Man Of Steel, but with that it brought the unfortunate side-effects that are often pointed out about that particular incarnation.