But out of all mediums recently mined, the video game has been the most unsuccessful. For years, the industry rarely strayed past the notion of using video games as an accessory to
market a film. By making an "officially licensed game" that would make interactive the experiences of the movie, companies can cash in on a film's success, or a game could serve as advertising for a film. This has been done for years, with everything from Disney movies to blockbuster action films. Recently, however, the opposite has happened - film companies have been releasing movies based on the video games themselves. However, they have been almost exceptionally terrible - many are not even screened for critics before wide release, a move studios only make if they know that the reviews will be almost universally poor.The debate rages on, however, as to which side of the creative process is responsible for the apparently poor quality of video game releases. Is it the source material, a young form of entertainment media that is without artistic merit, or the adapters, treating a fully-formed art form with out the proper care and respect to translate it to another medium? To be fair, it is equal parts of both. For instance, the latest video game translation, Hitman, is based on an intriguing premise that, as a game, was quite unique: a hitman is genetically engineered, and scours the world killing the worst the world has to offer. While the idea of an engineered vigilante had premise, the story of the game never really went past that.
But what film producers fail to grasp is that there is an ultimate purpose in a video game that is completely different from any pre-recorded medium -- The interactive experience. In any game that is well-received, the emphasis is on the player enjoying the game, and not the sound or story. Therefore, these qualities are necessarily secondary when a game is created. Since many games are inspired by film genres themselves, their storylines tend to follow the outlines of thousands of Hollywood movies before them. It should be no wonder, therefore, that when a movie translation sticks to the plot, they only seem like mediocre action films at best. This means that games will work mostly to establish a particular mood or setting, create a shell of a story, plug in a thematically attractive character, and then focus on the gameplay from there.
If producers would understand this fundamental difference, then translations would be handled much differently. Rather than looking to capture the specific storyline, producers should look to capture the soul of the game's story and themes. In these details, games are prolific in what they have to offer. Games usually contain backgrounds and levels that are akin to fully realized sets, and the characters are often constructed simply to get an image across (the Loyal American Soldier, or Amoral Con Man, for instance).
In fact, if this is kept in mind, games that have a near-complete lack of story could translate to
an excellent film. One of the most successful games of the 2007 holiday season was Rock Band, a game created entirely around the idea that even the most musically challenged consumer has had visions of emulating their favorite rock stars. The game itself has little story, but the players that indulgein it can create any style of band they desire, and grow their band from indie sensation to rock legend throughout the game's story mode. If a film were to be made strictly following this, it would be quite poor. However, if it followed the idea, casted up-and-coming but everyday-esque actors, and turned them into phenomenons (something akin to HBO's Entourage, but for a music band instead of an actor), then that film could have the creative prowess to translate into a successful video game movie.
1 comment:
JVM, you bring up a large issue that the entertainment industry faces today, and I definitely stand at your side. I completely agree with the fact that video games are suffering because they lack proper treatment. The results of most adaptations of games are an empty shell of what players experience, and the reason is indeed that games involve that interactive element in them. Without that part, the creators are left with the basic premise for the movie to work with. But I have to disagree with where you mention that the emphasis is on "enjoying the game, and not story or sound." I understand that the interactive element is a very large part, after all, these games are meant to be played with. But there are many games out there that heavily involve story (i.e. Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda). It's true that a lot of the stories follow a basic premise, be it an action story, horror, etc. But pretty much every story starts out that way, in movies, books, and video games. And it's from these stories that much more is created. You are right that a lot of these movies do fail because, with the premise, that's the only part that often becomes the focus when adapting the game. That's just the blueprint for everything in the game. There is a lot more depth to these games, and I feel that often these filmmakers don't even play these games, and therefore don't know what's in them beyond the basic story. You are definitely right about how these games can be further expanded in films, and that can create something new and interesting. It worked for "Pirates of the Carribean," so it can definitely work for a game like "Rock Band." They can also do something like take one story, and create a new one based on it, like they're doing with the "Halo" movie, where the idea was to follow new characters in the same setting, and have the main character of the game be more of something in the background. I feel you could maybe have added a few more links, because there is so much information out there about the topic, and more keeps coming in. You definitely bring up very good points with this topic, and I stand on your side with this. If they don't start making video game movies right, we might just have to do it ourselves!
Post a Comment