Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Upcoming Game Movies And Their Likelihood to Suck

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the forecast-is-for-lots-of-uwe-boll dept.

Via Kotaku, a story on the Destructoid site about upcoming game movies and their likelihood to suck. Mr. McVengeance runs down the upcoming pixels-to-big-screen adaptations, and amazingly it appears the situation isn't completely hopeless. Just mostly. From the article: "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Probability of Suck: Moderately Low. This gives me mixed feelings on the fact that there are two writers. First is the guy who actually wrote the script for the game, which is a good thing. Second, we have the writer for 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Then, we have Jerry Bruckheimer working as Executive Producer. Y'know, the guy who's name is attached to Pirates of the Carribean and a whole host of other films? I think this film will end up doing OK. I'll be interested in seeing who gets the job as director."

124 comments

  1. Executive Producer Means Nothing by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Informative
    Do you know what an executive producer does? He says, "Hey, I've got shit tons of money, here's some. Go make a movie. I know it's going to suck but you see, even Waterworld made a little money after worldwide sales." Bruckheimer has nothing to do with this movie except fund it. And he's not worried about not making the return, hell even Uwe Boll's bombs make more than he spends creating them. Have you noticed that Tarantino attaches his name to a lot of movies even when he's only producing them? Look at Hostel & Hostel: Part II or even From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter. Do you think that last one was good? It wasn't even though Tarantino attached his name to it, he just wanted to turn a buck off it. The only movies I consider to be true Tarantino are the five he's written, produced and directed. That ensures him total control in the movie.

    Here's the Definition of Executive Producer:
    Executive Producer
    AKA: Executive in Charge of Production
    A producer who is not involved in any technical aspects of the filmmaking process, but who is still responsible for the overall production. Typically an executive producer handles business and legal issues. See also associate producer, co-producer, line producer.
    My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie. If you use this as reasoning as to whether or not a movie will do good, you're not using sound judgement.

    Why do video game movies suck? Because the name is all that makes the cash. Not the story. Not the acting. Not the originality. Those who are interested in making a profit (and everyone is) will put the money down while the movie makes money only because of title recognition. You need to recognize this and stop playing their game for these horrible movies to end. Everyone has to. We're all falling for this trick where names get attached but you need to realize that they're just "producing" it, not directing or writing it. They know it works, look at the sequels roll out as the viewers pay to see them.

    As for the writer, they're kind of forced to adhere to an idea already in someone's mind. Whether it be the original game studio that made the original concept or some hollywood bigshot. If writers aren't given absolute control over the story and script, they tend to suck. Collaboration is good but trying to force feed a writer a plot is bad. You'll see it time and time again.
    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We're all falling for this trick where names get attached but you need to realize that they're just "producing" it, not directing or writing it.

      Yeah, celebrity-names are a suckers game. In any context.

      But producers can do a LOT. Often, one person will produce many movies, and hire directors to do his bidding. He will get a team of writer, director, art director, etc, and send these minions who do as the allmighty producer has decreed.

      My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie.

      Executive producer means nothing.
      That does not mean that "none of their influence is put into the movie", since that would be a meaning of "executive producer".

      Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987.
      His influence was balanced by Gene Roddenberry for a while, after the creator's death, he started to turn Star Trek into the pile of shit that culminated with the realisation of his vision of what Star Trek ought to be: Enterprise (of which he wrote many sucktastic episodes). he's executive producer, and he is the one who took a preachy vision of humanist techno-eutopia into a preachy, designed by comitee, pro-establishment pile of drivel.

      Executive Producer means nothing. Not "that guys has nothing to do with the content".
      It's a throaway title for someone involved in the high-level money-talking decision making process. Sometimes they have nothing to do with the movie personally, only their money is involved, but sometimes they're so involved we can safely put the blame for the sucking on them and them alone.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I know of one movie whose executive producer is actually dead, but still gets credit :)

      --
      Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
    3. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      My point is, a famous person executive producing a movie means nothing. None of their talent, none of their expertise, none of their influence is put into the movie. If you use this as reasoning as to whether or not a movie will do good, you're not using sound judgement.
      That's like saying that VC investors have no input into the operations of a tech startup. They may not manage the operations, but their input will definitely influence the people who do manage the operations.

      You'll notice, for example, that Jerry Bruckheimer has a very talented staff around him that help bring in the best (or most popular) actors. You don't think that has anything to do with him personally? You better believe it does -- if I'm a young-ish but established actor, you think I'm going to risk my career on a POS by a no-name producer? Or will I leap at the opportunity to star in a Bruckheimer film?
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987. His influence was balanced by Gene Roddenberry for a while, after the creator's death, he started to turn Star Trek into the pile of shit that culminated with the realisation of his vision of what Star Trek ought to be: Enterprise (of which he wrote many sucktastic episodes). he's executive producer, and he is the one who took a preachy vision of humanist techno-eutopia into a preachy, designed by comitee, pro-establishment pile of drivel.
      If he wrote episodes, obviously he was more than a producer. He would be both a producer and writer. Duh. Writers have tons of influence, Executive producers generally don't give a shit -- they just want their moneys back and then some.
    5. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by chroot_james · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I like the link! Now I can find out what the hell a key grip is!

      --
      Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
    6. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by EnderGT · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Out of curiosity, which 5 would those be? According to IMDb, there's only two - "My Best Friend's Birthday" and "Grind House" (upcoming).

      Other "Tarantino films":

      • Kill Bill vols 1 & 2 - Wrote and Directed, but did not Produce
      • Jackie Brown - Wrote and Directed, but did not Produce
      • Pulp Fiction - Wrote and Directed, but did not Produce
      • Reservoir Dogs - Wrote and Directed, but did not Produce
      • From Dusk 'Til Dawn - Wrote the screenplay and was Executive Producer, but did not Direct
      • Four Rooms - Wrote and Directed his segment, but is credited as Executive Producer
    7. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      But producers can do a LOT. Often, one person will produce many movies, and hire directors to do his bidding.
      Producers do a lot. Executive producers usually do little more than hand over the cash. Wikipedia's definition is fairly accurate:
      An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production. They generally handle business issues, and may even be a financier of the film. Some executive producers act as representatives of the studio (which releases and/or makes) or production company (which makes) a film, occasionally being credited as executive in charge of production.

      Many times someone will receive Executive Producer credit because of their prior involvement with a property that has since been optioned into a film, even if they had no direct input into the production of the film itself. Some instances of this include authors of optioned literary works; people who had previously owned or currently own a property's movie rights; or, someone who had produced, or been involved in the production of, a previous version of the film.

      Case in point: LotR. The Weinstein brothers were executive producers on those movies because they said yes to funding Jackson before New Line got involved. They had nothing to do with the final productions.

      Example: Rick Berman, executive producer of all things Star Trek since 1987.
      Check IMDB again. Berman was a producer on many things Star Trek since 1987, not an executive producer. So he's a terrible example.

      Besides, the roles of producers are totally different in the TV world (compared to the film world). TV producers are usually far more creatively influential than their movie counterparts. Take Joss Whedon for example (since your sig is a Firefly quote). He produced every episode of Buffy, Angel, and Firefly and was clearly the main creative force behind those series. But he only directed about 10% of the episodes and only wrote about 20% of them.

    8. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in the context of The Simpsons, where the script writers all call themselves 'Executive Producer' etc. so they see a bigger paycheck (i.e. Al Jean, Mike Reiss, Ian Maxtone-Graham).

      And it's not like they don't deserve it.

    9. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he only directed about 10% of the episodes and only wrote about 20% of them.

      IMDB says more like 20% and 35%
      nyah

    10. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      But he only directed about 10% of the episodes and only wrote about 20% of them.
      IMDB says more like 20% and 35%
      I was using IMDB. My count was a total of 52/266 as writer and 31/266 as director. What did I miss?
    11. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by teflaime · · Score: 1

      Bruckheimer has nothing to do with this movie except fund it.

      Except that Bruckheimer is well known for being actively involved in the production of the films put out by his production company. He will be on the set, he will be in regular contact with the line producers of the film. I'm not saying this will necessarily make a good film. I'm just saying that Bruckheimer takes a more active role than the typical film executive producer. In fact, Bruckheimer was probably, as is his penchant, involved in the selection of the writer for the rewrite of the script (odds are, with two writers, that the original guy provided the first script and the second guy did the rewrite, but and made changes to about 30% of the film, thus providing enough original material that he gets a writing credit, but not enough that he gets sole screenplay credit).

    12. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
      Executive producers usually do little more than hand over the cash. Wikipedia's definition is fairly accurate:

              An executive producer of a motion picture is typically a producer who is not necessarily involved in any creative or technical aspects of production.

      Usually, but not necesserily.
      Which was my point: The title means nothing, you cannot reliably infer from that title wether or not the person had any creative input in the work.

      Usually, it's just a nice title to give to someone who's got money in the project, but sometimes it's the title of a suit sent down from the head office of the production company, and he is there to execute the desires of the producers. Like the devil I meantioned...

      Check IMDB again. Berman was a producer on many things Star Trek since 1987, not an executive producer. So he's a terrible example.

      Rick Berman is co-creator and executive producer of Paramount Network Television's Star Trek: Enterprise for UPN.
      Berman was previously the co-creator and executive producer of Star Trek: Voyager for UPN and was executive producer, since its inception in 1987, of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

      Know your enemy.
      And yes, he is a terrible example: No one follow his lead!
      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Which was my point: The title means nothing, you cannot reliably infer from that title wether or not the person had any creative input in the work.
      Fair enough. Bruckheimer is pretty hands-off though (as an EP). He'll advise, but he's certainly not just the suit sent down by the production company.
      ... he is there to execute the desires of the producers ...
      I don't think the executive producer ever does that. If the producers want something done they'll do it themselves - they are more directly involved. But I'd agree if you wrote "he is there to execute the desires of the production company".
      Rick Berman is co-creator and executive producer ...
      IMDB lists actual credits as they appear on the shows and films that Berman has been involved in. It's a lot more accurate than some blurb on startrek.com. He's listed as producer for the movies and executive producer or supervising producer for the TV shows. However, as I said, those titles have different meanings for TV and film (loosly a TV producer is more like a film director - except they don't do the actual shooting, and a TV executive producer is more like a film producer) and film is what is relevant to this story.
  2. Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by DurendalMac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That guy is hit and miss. All the good he's done in film cannot atone for that atrocity known as Pearl Harbor. He also produced Kangaroo Jack and Coyote Ugly, both lesser sins. The guy doesn't always have the golden touch.

    1. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by 14CharUsername · · Score: 1

      Yeah also in the same article the guy says the title executive producer doesn't mean much. Doesn't the executive producer just sit around and say stuff like "yeah I'd like to see a movie with a talking kangaroo" and "you know who'd be good in this? Ben Affleck!". Beyond that is there anything they do?

    2. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Lesser sin? My wife and I both enjoy Coyote Ugly. It's a chick flick with guy friendly eye candy. It's also genuinely funny.

    3. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by gbobeck · · Score: 1
      That guy is hit and miss. All the good he's done in film cannot atone for that atrocity known as Pearl Harbor.

      Fair enough. But remember, without Pearl Harbor, we would not have had Team America World Police.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    4. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I'll never understand in what way Pearl Harbor is such an aweful movie with respect to all the other stereotypically hollywoodian movies. To me it's just your average big budget "average joe becomes a true american hero" movie. Maybe does it only have to do with South Park fanboyism... Just checking, do you also hate Contact for the simple fact that the alien is the girl's father?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 0, Troll
      do you also hate Contact for the simple fact that the alien is the girl's father?
      IGNORE ME!
    6. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Krater76 · · Score: 1

      Have to agree. My wife loves that movie and it is highly tolerable.

      But what do you expect from a lot of people? They don't bother to think about the target audience - if they aren't it then the movie must suck.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    7. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by vandelais · · Score: 3, Funny

      "My wife and I both enjoy Coyote Ugly...It's also genuinely funny."
      Please don't have children.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    8. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by SpectreHiro · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This isn't a troll... It's a Venture Bros reference, damn it!

      If you don't watch the Venture Bros, you don't deserve to mod. I'm not even sure you deserve to breathe, but those namby-pamby panty-waists in government seem to think murder is "wrong" or something. Of course, half of them collect the heads of interns the way fat people collect bobble-head dolls, but it might have something to do with voodoo, or santaria, or aroma therapy - one of those occult "sciences". Hmmmmm, perhaps I should design a robot that runs for office. Now that's a prime idea. Couldn't do any worse than the robots we already have.

      Brock! Did I already design a robot that runs for office?

      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    9. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That guy is hit and miss.

      Hit and miss?

      Bruckheimer's name on a movie is a good indication that the movie is going to be *shit*.

      Doesn't mean it won't make money. It might make a lot of money. But the movie is going to be *shit*.

      POC2? Christ, that was like they took 5 random scripts, fired them from a cannon, picked up whatever scattered confetti they could find, decided to film it, and then lost *that*. What a rambling, insensate pile of crud. I can take that sort of "brainless fun" for an hour and a half, two hours tops, but that movie went on for *almost three hours*. Horrific.

      Beverly Hills Cop 2. Bad Boys 2. Flashdance. The Rock. Con Air. Coyote Ugly. National Treasure. Armageddon. Enemy of the State.

      Every single one of those sucked rancid goat anus. If that's the kind of thing that's "hit or miss," I can't imagine what you'd consider to be his hits.

      Okay, Blackhawk Down. But I think that's because there'd have been a bunch of people willing and able to actually chop his balls off and feed them to him had he departed significantly from the record.

    10. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you, it is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It wasn't a mistake that it got a 5.3 on IMDB.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    11. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Don't pay attention, sometimes I have the feeling that moderators mod down only when they have no clue of what's going on, like, "What is that guy talking about? Oh fuck it, -1, Offtopic"

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    12. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      atrocity known as Pearl Harbor. He also produced Kangaroo Jack and Coyote Ugly, both lesser sins.
      Pearl Harbor was mediocre. Not bad, not good -- just mediocre. Same goes for Coyote Ugly.

      Never saw Kangaroo Jack.

    13. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > But remember, without Pearl Harbor, we would not have had Team America World Police.

      True enough.... Not sure whether that would be a good or a bad thing. Loved the point being made, but just like South Park: Bigger Longer and Uncut, when Matt & Trey are turned loose with an R rating they go a little overboard. I know I could have done with the puke scene being about a minute shorter. And I'm really glad they cut the puppet sex out and have had zero urge to go in search of the unedited DVD.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    14. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree with you, it is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

      Wow imagine that! People have different opinions.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    15. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? That's just your OPINION!

    16. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by gbobeck · · Score: 1
      I know I could have done with the puke scene being about a minute shorter.

      Agreed! They went a bit *too* far with that. Nuff said.

      And I'm really glad they cut the puppet sex out

      Actually, they didn't cut the sex scene out of the movie, they just trimmed at least 2 minutes off of it so that the film would be rated R.

      ...when Matt & Trey are turned loose with an R rating they go a little overboard.

      Just a little?! :-) ...But that is what makes their films work. I think of them as being a version 2.0 of Andy Kaufman.
      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    17. Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Interesting. What makes it one of the worst movies you've ever seen? The acting, script, direction, music?

  3. Game movie suckage by WickedClean · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The reason why game/movies suck is the story structure doesn't apply well to both mediums. Games and movies rely on totally different things to attract and hold the interest of the viewer. Often time the only thing either one has going for it is graphics, and we all know that isn't enough to carry a movie or a video game.

    --
    ...All I can say is that my life is pretty strange...
    1. Re:Game movie suckage by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      Often time the only thing either one has going for it is graphics, and we all know that isn't enough to carry a movie or a video game.

      I'm pretty sure the adult film industry would disagree. ;)

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
    2. Re:Game movie suckage by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Game movies suck because of the incompetent hacks charged with writing and directing them. If novels, which can have far more content than any game in existance, can be adapted into a good movie there's no reason the same can't be done with games.

      Also, keep in mind that most games aren't very well written, with one-dimensional characters and contrived, simplistic storylines. Even games with writing considered to be above-average are fairly weak when compared to writing in other mediums. You're not going to get much of a movie if you try to be faithful to the game.

    3. Re:Game movie suckage by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > Game movies suck because of the incompetent hacks charged with writing and directing them. If novels, which
      > can have far more content than any game in existance, can be adapted into a good movie there's no reason
      > the same can't be done with games.

      And most movies made from novels suck donkey nads too. Same problem that you nailed in that first sentence. Hollywood is infested with incompetent hacks, period. Nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.

      90% of the time when a novel is made into a movie the people who loved the novel hate the movie and depending on just how rabid they are as fans want to do horrible things to the screenwriter responsible. However since Hollywood knows less than 1% of the teen demographic that drives ticket sales will have read the book they don't have to care. Notice that in the one case (Harry Potter) where most of the audience HAS read the books they are going to great lengths to make sure the readers are happy with the films.

      They don't seem to have realized that with video games and comic books, that the two audiences do overlap quite a bit, and the talentless hacks doing screenplays that butcher the basic ideas from the original source material will cause fans to stay away in droves.

      The problem is there doesn't appear to be very many people who can work in the Hollywood system that has much talent. Hollywood as we have known it is doomed, be interesting to see what replaces it. I'd guess micro studios. As digital film and effects drive production costs down we will see more great stuff done million dollar or less budgets that won't need Hollywood and the whole dream factory apparetus.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
  4. No simple way to say... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think the best way to tell if a movie is going to suck is up to the individual.

    Here is my progression to ask myself if the gamovie will be good:

    - Do you like the game/genre in the first place?
    - If yes, does the game have a good amount of storyline?
    - If yes, do you like the producer who is doing the movie?
    - If yes, do you like the director?
    - If yes, do you like the actors/actresses (if known)?

    Generally speaking, if you can answer yes to over 3/5 of those, I think you'll like the movie.

    And, in other words, don't listen to critics. Be your own critic.

    TLF

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:No simple way to say... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You left off the only important one: was it written by someone with a history of good writing?

      Actors read lines. They can sometimes take a shitty script and make a movie "wonderfully acted" if they're fantastic actors. Directors make things slightly prettier than they would otherwise be, assuming it's a really good director. But the movie sucking (albeit prettily and with good acting) or not is entirely up to the writing. And apparently this one's written by the genius from Day After Tomorrow. It'll blow unprecedentedly.

    2. Re:No simple way to say... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes it will blow. But it could be worth renting. You know, popcorn movie at home, rainy night, seen all the others....

      Besides the fact that like I said already, your answer is.. for you.

      There are plenty of people out there who liked Day After Tommorow. Sure, it was an incredible exaggeration of something that's actually remotely possible, but hey, it's a movie right?

      I can't say I loved the movie, but again, that's my opinion. YMMV

      TLF

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    3. Re:No simple way to say... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, entirely right, but

      There are plenty of people out there who liked Day After Tommorow.

      That can't be true. If it were, I wouldn't be able to go on living. So it's not true.

    4. Re:No simple way to say... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 1

      Well, it made a profit. Thus "plenty".

      You may now cease to live :)

      TLF

      --
      I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    5. Re:No simple way to say... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Ah, well. I had a good run.

    6. Re:No simple way to say... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      I realize you qualified your assessment with "genreally speaking" but just for fun:

      - Do you like the game/genre in the first place? Yes. Immensely.
      - If yes, does the game have a good amount of storyline? No
      - If yes, do you like the producer who is doing the movie? I do like the production company.
      - If yes, do you like the director? They did Max Headroom so that's good enough for me.
      - If yes, do you like the actors/actresses (if known)? Most of them, especially Bob Hoskins, Dennis Hopper, and Lance Henrickson.

      Do I like the movie? Heck no.

    7. Re:No simple way to say... by Sku-Lad · · Score: 1
      But the movie sucking (albeit prettily and with good acting) or not is entirely up to the writing.

      I think you're severely underestimating the director's ability to ruin a movie. Granted, starting with a crappy script from a crappy writer can ruin any chance a movie might have not to suck, but handing a decent script and a decent cast over to a bad director will doom a movie just as quickly. Uwe Boll and Michael Bay come to mind.

  5. high expectations by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Funny

    You know that gamer's expectations are high when the metric is "probability of suck."

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  6. It's going to suck. Hard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jerry Bruckheimer? The King of Schlock? The man responsible for crap such as Bad Boys II, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Bad Company, Con Air, The Rock, and more? He was responsible for Kangaroo Jack, for god's sake. It's going to be horrible.

  7. Carmen SanDiego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gosh, I think that this actually has a reasonable chance of not sucking if it's geared toward the younger crowd (as you'd expect). You don't need awesome production values to pull off an entertaining kids flick, and if they introduce enough geography and other educational aspects (subtlely) then I think it has a fair shot at being decent, if not good (say if Robert Rodriguez helmed the flick).

  8. 90% Will Suck by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure, 90% of game adaptations will be crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.

    1. Re:90% Will Suck by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Ted, is that you?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:90% Will Suck by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Except that 99% of game adaptations are pure crap, and they're starting with games that were good enough to be noticed, probably the top 90th percentile -- we should be expecting at least 70-80% of them to be decent. Instead, well, 99% suck, and that's why our index is "probability of suck".

      When a movie is good, it gets noticed. Or, sometimes, when it's so bad it's funny, like Snakes on a Plane or Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Game adaptations NEVER get noticed for being good -- they ONLY get noticed for being mediocre. Christ, even fucking comic book adaptations are good sometimes. People liked Spiderman, Daredevil, Superman Returns. But while some people got a laugh out of Tomb Raider, most of what you hear about it is how much it sucked.

      Which means Hollywood seems to have an even lower respect for gamers than they do comic book nerds.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  9. Everquest... by Beek+Dog · · Score: 1

    ...will be released as the Neverending Story III. It will be worse than the game and the two previous movies combined. It will suck forever.

    1. Re:Everquest... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is a Neverending Story III. Damn. Where have you been?

    2. Re:Everquest... by Beek+Dog · · Score: 1

      Apparently it's official. I've been trying to pass myself off as a geek for years, but I've finally been exposed as a less-than-nerd who doesn't even know about the Neverending Story III. I'm sorry Slashdot. Maybe we can still be friends?

    3. Re:Everquest... by aliendisaster · · Score: 1

      Neverending Story III...how could you not know about this? It has the best performance by Jack Black ever.

      --
      Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
    4. Re:Everquest... by Tipa · · Score: 1

      They're making a movie from EverQuest?

      Oh, right, no, they aren't. So this comment comes from where? Are there any other games you don't like that aren't being made into movies you think should be added to discussions of games that are?

      Checkers. The Checkers movie will SUCK. Unless all the kings fight it out in a cage match at the end.

    5. Re:Everquest... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      And you're probably not aware that the suck continued with a television series.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    6. Re:Everquest... by Joel+from+Sydney · · Score: 1

      Apparently the Everquest movie is going to be called "Nerds on a Treadmill"
      *rimshot*

  10. Game Movies vs Book/Movie by neonprimetime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe Movies made after Games will always suck, for the same reason that Movies made after Books will always suck. You like the 1st thing you experience, and nothing else can live up to it.

    1. Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie by Blastrogath · · Score: 1

      "I believe Movies made after Games will always suck, for the same reason that Movies made after Books will always suck. You like the 1st thing you experience, and nothing else can live up to it."

      I don't find that this is true for me. The best examples I can find are the lord of the ring movies, I thought they were good movies, true to the spirit of the books, and I enjoyed them imensely even though I had read the entire trilogy before. They're not the same as the books though, but that's unavoidable when you change the medium.

      The problem is that for every "Lord of the Rings" there's at least 10 "Starship Troopers"s or "I Robot"s where the director uses at best a few elements of the setting and throws out the storyline entirely. It is hard for me to enjoy a movie based on a book I liked when it isn't really based on the book.

      --
      "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." -Plato
    2. Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie by jmorris42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > You like the 1st thing you experience, and nothing else can live up to it.

      Not at all the reason. The problem is Hollywood is broken. Only talentless hacks can stand working within the studio system so almost everything that crawls out of Hollywood sucks. That and the tendency for screenwriters (ones adapting a novel to the screen, as opposed to people who write original screenplays) to confuse themselves with authors, and producers/directors who feel qualified to impose their 'artistic vision' on an author's work. Guys, if you really had the talent you could write your own material instead of blowing a wad of money optioning the rights to a successful story.

      Yes, film, TV and novels are different mediums and some things must bend to fit. Lord of the Rings would have required a miniseries of massive proportions to film faithful to the books and would probably have been BORING. But the movies did a wonderful job of remaining faithful to the ideas and feel of the original material even when they made massive cuts and alterations.

      David Lynch made such a turd from Dune the original author had to go on CNN on opening day and disown it, saying "I wrote a book about a man who thought himself a God. They made a movie about a man who becomes a God." It took Sci-Fi Channel, working with virtually unknown people in Europe (read as outside the Hollywood system) to produce a version worthy of the name. Yes it also had to drop a bunch of material on the floor and change stuff to stitch the story back together but what remained was recognizable as Dune.

      Then you get horrors like Starship Troopers, where Hollywood allows a man who states, in the promotional documentary for the movie no less, that he took on the project to make a mockery of the novel and so poison the ground that no serious attempt would ever be made to film it. And they expected the fans to flock into theaters for that?

      Or how about the most abused novel of all time, Tarzan of the Apes. How many times has that one been screwed up by Hollywood? And each attempt screws it up in totally different ways yet none even bother to even get the basic storyline even half correct. It looks like all they pay for is the name because they promptly go off and write a totally new story about a guy raised by apes. Has even one at least got the language thing right? In the book when Tarzan reaches civilization he speaks fluent French and can read and write Engish. Yet how many versions have him show up as a illiterate naked savage? The whole core concept of Tarzan is that he understands our ways perfectly well... and rejects them as debased and wicked, opting instead for a simpler existence as a 'noble savage'. A load of fetid dingos kidneys if you ask me, but if I were doing a novel of the book I would respect the original authors intent. No, the only explanation is Hollywood doesn't care. They think that it is only the brand name that sells.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    3. Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      It seems your main judge of a movie's success is how consistent it is with the original novel. If that's the case, why even bother to see the movie? "Dune" the movie wasn't nearly as good as "Dune" the novel, but it stands on its own as a unique interpretation with interesting imagery, rather than the utterly forgettable mini-series. Most people would hate the novel Tarzan - the idea is too goofy to take seriously, plus the Hardy Boys-level prose is laughable. Most people would hate the novel "Starship Troopers," and consider the fascism off-putting. At least I did, but I thought the movie was goofy fun. There are inevitably going to be changes between cult/niche novels and the mainstream movies they inspire. Hollywood is too large and varied to be considered "broken." It's not the 40s or 50's, where literally every movie released is product of a closed system. There's a huge amount of different models for making films. If none of these different systems are releasing pitch-perfect imitations of the shit books you mentioned, it's because there's no audience or artistic desire for "Tarzan: the Real Genuine Story Where He Speaks Perfect French."

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie by jmorris42 · · Score: 1

      > It seems your main judge of a movie's success is how consistent it is with the original novel.

      Yes. Otherwise what is the point of buying the rights to a book? If a filmmaker wants to tell his own story.... why not save the money and write their own?

      > Most people would hate the novel Tarzan - the idea is too goofy to take seriously, plus the Hardy Boys-level prose is laughable.

      Riight. Which is why it earned the author a crapload of money over run of twenty four books and made Hollywood toss cash to him and his estate for decades to buy the rights to such a famous 'brand.' Dude, there is a big audience for 'pulp fiction', which is what all of ERB's stuff was and frankly his stuff was written to just about the exact same semi-educated audience most of Hollywood's output targets.

      > Most people would hate the novel "Starship Troopers," and consider the fascism off-putting. At least I did, but I thought the movie was
      > goofy fun. There are inevitably going to be changes between cult/niche novels and the mainstream movies they inspire.

      Pull the other one. If you can find a Sci-Fi author with more heft than RAH, name him. And Starship Troopers was and is in just about every RAH fan's top three list. That is about as mainstream as it gets. Calling RAH 'niche' only indicates your lack of knowledge of 20th Century literature. That is about as ignorant as saying "who?" at the mention of J.K. Rowling's name. Saying you didn't personally like Starship Troopers is one thing, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Even saying you don't like RAH's stuff in general is ok, heck I don't like several popular authors, tastes differ. Dismissing as 'cult' one of the major products of one of the genre's guiding lights simply because you didn't like it only reflects badly upon your worthiness to debate in adult company.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    5. Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, sometimes they like some ideas inspired by the novel and want to use them in a film, while not being very interested in the authors intent. The two ways to approach such a thing is to make a movie and hope you don't get sued for copyright infringement if it is too close to the book, or option the book and then do your own story that was inspired by the book.

  11. Prince of TiVo by Kesch · · Score: 1

    First ten seconds: Prince tries to jump a pit, fails.
    Next ten seconds: Reverses time, fails again.
    Next ten seconds: See above
    Next ten seconds: See above above
    Next ten sconds: After running out of sand, on his last attempt, he barely makes it.

    Next ten minutes: Lots of fighting, puzzle solving, and Fara.

    Next 50 seconds: Oh noes, it's another huge pit! Time for trial and error.

    It's gonna be hard to create a sense of life and death when your hero has to mess up multiple times before he's in mortal danger.
    Still, just the general concept with some decent FX goodies should make for a half-decent action film, and it can only get better from there.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    1. Re:Prince of TiVo by thoriphes · · Score: 1

      who says they have to adapt the movie from the newer games? what about the classic! - check integrity of ceiling tile, nope - move to next tile - check integrity of ceiling tile, nope - move to next tile - check integrity of ceil...*rumble*...CRASH! Now you have to go find some a potion somewhere. That's a good half hour right there.

    2. Re:Prince of TiVo by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      THey need to make the Prince not superhuman. His little leaps and swinging around poles should not be Daredevil-simple. Make him scared to try it. Sure he'll get better at it, but make it realistic...how would you feel if you had to wall run along a pit of spikes?

  12. Duke Nukem? by dbuttric · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on, why hasn't someone made Duke Nukem Forever into a movie?
    Could that ever suck?!

    I dont think so.

    1. Re:Duke Nukem? by neonprimetime · · Score: 1

      I thought the idea of a Game Movie was for the Game to come first, then the movie?

    2. Re:Duke Nukem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duke Nukem Forever
      que music show title screen then show two hours of a blank screen

      and of course ending with Duke taking a crap in some alien's head

      roll credits

      ** on a side note the wordy thing to type in was an HBO show this time

    3. Re:Duke Nukem? by paranoos · · Score: 1

      how about a making-of duke nukem documentary? that couldn't ever suck, because there would be so much to work with, even if 99.999% of it was bad, that's still enough to make one awesome full-length film.

  13. DOA - High Likely Hood by Reapman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not sure if TFA touches on it, but after seeing the trailers for the Dead Or Alive movie, I think my massively low expectations of the movie are way too high. This might give Mario Bros a run for it's money. Well ok maybe not that bad but still.

  14. Hey what about Crazy Taxi? by Desolator144 · · Score: 1

    What ever happened to the Crazy Taxi movie that was supposedly in the works a couple years ago?

    --
    now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
    1. Re:Hey what about Crazy Taxi? by generic-man · · Score: 1

      It sucked. Don't pair Jimmy Fallon (as Axel) and Queen Latifah (as B.D. Joe) in a buddy comedy.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Hey what about Crazy Taxi? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      That wasn't based on Crazy Taxi, the awesome Sega game. It was based on Taxi, the awesome French film.

      Or maybe you were joking?

  15. WOW by vafada · · Score: 1

    where's World Of Warcraft? I wanna see how Blizzard makes it in the theaters. the in-game movies for Warcraft are astonishing but can they match in in the theaters?

    1. Re:WOW by Hahnsoo · · Score: 1

      where's World Of Warcraft? I wanna see how Blizzard makes it in the theaters. the in-game movies for Warcraft are astonishing but can they match in in the theaters?

      Or any other movie based on a Blizzard game, for that matter. Maybe there is a Starcraft or Diablo movie out there that I'm not aware of (aside from that DVD in the collector's edition of Diablo II). Or maybe this is why Blizzard is such a big success: They don't license their precious video game titles to make stupid movies.

    2. Re:WOW by famikon · · Score: 1

      You will need to pay for the ticket to get into the cinema, then every 31 mintues the ushers will come and charge you an extra 5 dollars...

    3. Re:WOW by drsquare · · Score: 1

      And the Chinese will have bought all the popcorn and will try and sell it to you on ebay.

  16. But what about... by D14BL0 · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to the Metroid Prime movie? I remember Nintendo Power said that there was a production team getting started on such a movie shortly after the game was released. That was the only thing I've ever heard of it.

  17. prince of persia movie cheats? by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    Movies off of games suck because they don't have cheats. For instance, if the "Prince of Persia" movie sucks, can I press spacebar and skip it? No, I must suffer through!

    --
    stuff |
  18. Game movie suckage-Vin Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Often time the only thing either one has going for it is graphics, and we all know that isn't enough to carry a movie or a video game."

    Like Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from butcher bay.

  19. Re:It's going to suck. Hard. by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    The Rock was a good summer popcorn flick; one of the few. It's also important to note that The Rock was the last Simpson/Bruckheimer collaberation. Don Simpson was yin to Bruckheimer's yang. Together, the two were great.

    Since Simpson's passing though, that's when we got everything else you listed.

  20. Castlevania by franksands · · Score: 0
    From the article:
    Castlevania Possibility of Suck: Very High (...)I think it'll fail in this director's hands. He's used to showing games that are all about mindlessly beating the crap out of each other or trying to eradicate your enemies with guns or an assortment of other weapons.
    I think he never played Castlevania. It's a great game, but it's basically DOOM with a whip.
  21. Best one! by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Far Cry
    Probability of Suck: Bet on It
    Directed by Uwe Boll. Next.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    1. Re:Best one! by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Uwe's doing
      Postal (2007)
      In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2006)

      Uwe Boll does not appear to be associate with these two movies anymore.
      Fear Effect (2008)
      Hunter: The Reckoning (2007)

      Last January, German Legislature changed some of their tax shelter laws. I don't know if this has affected his funding or not. I always figured his investors didn't care and were using it as a tax shelter. Possibly, even hoping to lose money on the movie.

  22. A question by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    What's better: the movie of the game or the game of the movie? Is there a good example of either?

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a movie of a game that uses a movie franchise. Like a movie version of the Jedi Night series....or even better, a movie version of LEGO: Star Wars.

    2. Re:A question by LainTouko · · Score: 1

      You can find a few decent games based on films, scattered around in huge mountains of rubbish. Goldeneye seems to be generally regarded as the best example, with all the Star Wars games made before Lucasarts gave up on quality about a decade ago also being of note.

      For films based on games, it depends what sort of game you're looking at. There have been some great TV series based on games recently, (AIR TV probably being the best), but those were games which were almost entirely story to begin with. I don't actually know of a really good film based on a game, ironically films based on action games tend to have too little in the way of decent story, while films based on story games actually have too much good story; you can't compress it all into a film.

    3. Re:A question by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Goldeneye seems to be generally regarded as the best example,
      That's the only game of a movie that I actually like. It's also one of my all time favorite games. Even the music was my favourite video game music. Can't wait for my new 50" TV to arrive - then I'll be firing my N64 up again. So what if the pixels are each going to be a foot across!
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  23. World of Warcraft? by Xlipse · · Score: 1

    I heard there's a WoW movie in the works.. that involves Peter Jackson in the executive producer role?

    1. Re:World of Warcraft? by rehtonAesoohC · · Score: 1

      You're confusing the Halo movie. Peter Jackson is producing the Halo movie, but both the Halo movie, and the WoW movie are both being funded by Legendary pictures (I believe) who funded Batman Begins, etc.

  24. Chomp. by lpangelrob · · Score: 1

    I have a very low opinion of The Day After Tomorrow, but if this Prince of Persia movie has the requisite number of extras falling onto spikes and being eaten by door-sized steel jaws... I'm adding it to the Netflix list. :-D

    --
    -Rob

    Biblical fiscal responsibility

  25. Agreed... by IANAAC · · Score: 1
    You like the 1st thing you experience, and nothing else can live up to it.

    I'm not a big game player, but I did go out and buy Resident evil for the PS2 when it came out. I played it only superficially. When I went to se the first Resident Evil movie, I thought it was good, actually. Having only played the game lightly, I thought it matched up nicely. However, I went to the movie with a friend who had played the game pretty extensively and he hated the movie, saying it wasn't at all like the game.

  26. An alternative to crappy video game movies. by Overneath42 · · Score: 0

    Hopefully I won't get modded down as a spammer or whatever, but I think this is relevant. My fiancee's brother is a big-time gamer and he is current working on producing/directing a movie about games called "Wheelchair Defender." He's not trying to adapt a video game into a movie, though - he's making a movie about gamers instead. It's a 'mockumentary' (a fake documentary - look up Christopher Guest's movies such as Best In Show, This Is Spinal Tap, etc) about gamers competing in a Counter-Strike tournament. He feels that the reason video game movies always suck is because Hollywood doesn't know anything about video games; he, on the other hand, has clocked countless hours in Counter-Strike and spends lots of time in gaming forums, so he knows the community well and knows what gamers are looking for. He made a 50-minute no-budget version of the movie a couple of years ago, and he's since expanded it into a full-length feature, to be shot either on film or HD video. He's got a Web site if anyone is interested.

  27. Blade Runner by Westwood by Sadko · · Score: 1

    Blade Runner (the game) by Westwood ( http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,14 ) is a good example of very decent game-by-the-movie.

    I remember couple of years ago "Chronicles of Riddick" was applauded for good gameplay, (movie was pretty bad though, according to critics). Not seen/played any of those so wouldn't vouch.

    1. Re:Blade Runner by Westwood by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I asked this question of some friends the other day and the only example they came up with was Butcher Bay (Chronicles of Riddick). And curiously nobody had played it, they just heard it was good from reviews.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    2. Re:Blade Runner by Westwood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I played it. It was one of the best games for the xbox (I think it was on other systems as well). They should make a sequel of it.

    3. Re:Blade Runner by Westwood by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      Chronicles of Riddick; Escape from Butcher Bay was actually a very well done game. It was a FPS style experience, but made good use of Riddick's powers, had good voice acting, and an interesting premise; escape from a maximum security prison. Combined with good voice acting, and well done normal mapping, it's probably one of the best games on XBox.

      Although, I'm the exact opposite of you; I haven't seen the movie. Although, I thought Pitch Black was a good movie. ^_^

    4. Re:Blade Runner by Westwood by drb_chimaera · · Score: 1

      Escape from Butcher Bay is a great game. Has absolutely nothing to do with Chronicles of Riddick the movie though - its a prequel to Pitch Black, which in itself is set ten or so years before the movie Chronicles of Riddick.

  28. Half-Life by famikon · · Score: 1

    A movie based on the Half-Life universe (perhaps condensing the storyline from HL1 and moving onwards with the story of HL2, Ep1 (and Ep2) would be potentially the most bad-ass movie based on a game. (evar)

    1. Re:Half-Life by Jesterboy · · Score: 1

      Except that the main character can't talk...

    2. Re:Half-Life by famikon · · Score: 1

      To clarify, I meant based on the timeline in the HL universe between the ending of HL1 and on. Not necessarily having Gordon as the protagonist.

    3. Re:Half-Life by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I think he can. He didn't talk because they wanted the player to identify with him (they even claimed that they avoided mirrors for that reason) but in a movie the viewer doesn't guide Gordon's actions anyway. As long as he doesn't say "Excuuuuuuse me, princess!"...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  29. WoD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HtR as a movie....hmmm...i don't even like the game itself so...but calling WoD emo is a bit crazy. Short of the VtM, it is hardly emo. Maybe this guy went to one too many LARPs with those people who forgot where the RP ended and real world began.

    1. Re:WoD by Cybrex · · Score: 1

      WtF?

      --
      Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  30. Did the author even watch these movies? by Krater76 · · Score: 1

    Tekken

    The director is that of "Mr. 3000" and "Drumline". The writer did "Tomb Raider". A winning pair we have here for a fighting game movie. I expect this to be on the people's lists of top 10 worst video games.

    Both "Mr. 3000" and "Drumline" were solid movies. Not blockbusters by any stretch but both were very well directed.

    "Tomb Raider" wasn't a great movie but I think the writing was pretty good for the subject matter. Too much shooting and and too little adventure, maybe a little to formulaic.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  31. Hitman by zulater · · Score: 1

    Does it bother anyone else that Vin Diesel is playing the Hitman character instead of Jason Statham who looks almost exactly like the character. Plus Vin Diesel sucks. I guess it could be worse. The Rock could be the main character

    1. Re:Hitman by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Seen Find Me Guilty? Diesel's actually a pretty good actor, but I'm sorry, xXx and FF were shitty subject matter. CoR actually wouldn't have been a bad movie but they dumbed down the script a lot from it's original form. Read the novelization, it's based off of the original script and actually gives you the motivations behind each side.

  32. Blade Runner and TRON 2.0 by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Westwood's Blade Runner adaptation is fantastic, and captures the look and feel of the movie perfectly.

    TRON 2.0 is, as far as I'm concerned, the sequel to the movie TRON. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's better than the original movie (and I consider myself a fan of the original). The story is engaging and the special effects/graphics are jaw-dropping. They took everything that was good about the movie, made it better, and came up with a compelling plot that actually makes sense both from the perspective of the original movie and the modern world.

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  33. Movie -- Game and vice versa- it *can* work by Cybrex · · Score: 1

    As mentioned elsewhere, two movies that translated very well into video games are Blade Runner (Westwood) and TRON (TRON 2.0). In both cases the look and feel of the original world was maintained and then expanded upon. In both cases they also made sure that game isn't just a scene-by-scene recreation of the movie, but is instead a unique story that either takes place alongside the movie or is a logical sequel to it.

    Games that have made successful translations into film seem to be harder to find. Off hand the only example that I can come up with is Silent Hill, and I have to admit that I never played the game.

    'Course, I also enjoyed the Tomb Raider movies immensely, but that was entirely a factor of eye candy. :-)

    --
    Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
  34. They are making a World of Warcraft movie by Tipa · · Score: 1

    They're making a WoW movie, live action, and it might not suck.

    http://www.blizzard.com/press/060509.shtml

  35. Why I think game movies suck. by Restil · · Score: 1

    It's not because they have to. Certainly the games managed to obtain a level of quality that built a fanbase sufficient to justify the making of a movie in the first place. So why does the movie inevitably let down? My opinion on the matter is that they actually succeed, at least in the long run, and in the eyes of those who are
    producing it. Otherwise, nobody would ever make video game movies. I have no stats to determine which ones made money and which didn't, but considering there's a sizeable audience that is virtually guaranteed to watch them if you can at least make the trailer look good, and the movies never seem to have much of a budget, throw in a couple of high profile stars, and you can probably at least break even, even if it sucks horribly. And even if the movies turned out to be superb in every way, what's the chance many more people will see them? It's going to be the same audience regardless. So hey, if you avoid wasting time on putting together a good script and quality direction, go ahead and save a few bucks. You'll never notice the difference anyway.

    We will, but the producers won't.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  36. What crap is this? by Praedon · · Score: 1

    From the article in reference to Hunter: The Reckoning: "..... Also, I don't particularly like World of Darkness (as an RPG system). It's way too emo. So, expect this movie to be no better than Underworld...."

    Where does this guy get off calling World of Darkness emo?!?!!?!? I play the World of Darkness systems all the time, and I don't cut my wrist and wish for death and blast life... Maybe he meant that its way to elmo? Cause we laugh a lot playing, socializing, and having a good time, though we don't tickle ourselves.. Some people need to get a life and realize that not ALL RPGS are the works of satan.

    --
    Just me
  37. Umm, Yeah... by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 1
    Second, we have the writer for 'The Day After Tomorrow'. Then, we have Jerry Bruckheimer working as Executive Producer. Y'know, the guy who's name is attached to Pirates of the Carribean and a whole host of other films? I think this film will end up doing OK.


    Yeah, because "The Day After Tomorrow" didn't have massive gaping plot-holes big enough to drive a few semi's through and a story that was so flawed and rediculous that I could almost believe wolves would walk to New York City and find their way into a submarine and that people just walk from Philadelphia to New York without the huge insta-death chill wind getting them... or I could go on and on... that movie made me stupider for having watched it.

    Ugh.
    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  38. Halo will probably suck. by Sippan · · Score: 1, Funny

    Seriously:

    Bungie - check.
    Great backstory - check.
    Peter Jackson - check.
    WETA - check.
    Promising director - check.
    Good scriptwriter - check.
    Infinite budget - check.
    Too good to be true - check.

    How could anything this promising NOT end up the biggest anticlimax of all time?

    --
    Frog blast the vent core.
  39. What everyone seems to have not noticed by cjb909 · · Score: 1

    First is the guy who actually wrote the script for the game... The writing for Sands of Time was what made the game so enjoyable, coupled with voice actors that were actually acting. I don't know how much control the writer for Day after Tommorrow will have, but it sounds like he won't be the primary writer.

  40. Bruckheimer = crap by crossmr · · Score: 1

    Then, we have Jerry Bruckheimer working as Executive Producer. which means the movie will be overblown crap. Its all this guy knows how to do. I'm convinced that the US could be bombed to oblivion with only himself and a rabid squirrel surviving and he could make an over the top drama about how the US kicked ass and won.

    I refuse to see anything he touches. Ever.

  41. Very subjective by SteroidG · · Score: 1
    I personally don't think this article is very fair in some cases, the author is clearly in favor of some genres more than others. By example, one of the reasons he bashs "Hunter: The Reckoning" is because he finds the game system too emo. What does that have anything to do with the quality of the movie? I haven't played the game at all so I'm not saying it's any good, but I find prejudice quite silly in "suckage" prediction.


    Also, I'd appreciate if the poster of future articles can indicate if it's from a blog, so I can avoid reading this kind of subjective crap.

    1. Re:Very subjective by Baldrake · · Score: 1
      I'd appreciate if the poster of future articles can indicate if it's from a blog, so I can avoid reading this kind of subjective crap.
      In all seriousness, you saw a post entitled "Upcoming Game Movies And Their Likelihood to Suck" and you expected something that wasn't subjective?
    2. Re:Very subjective by SteroidG · · Score: 1

      It could've very well been a "clever" name for a serious article. :P You see stuffs like on news papers and gamming sites.

  42. no hl? by kungfujesus · · Score: 1

    NO HALFLIFE MOVIE

    lame, HL would make a coo movie

  43. Do game movies actually suck? by ErroneousBee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Controversial opinion alert!

    I seen Wing Commander, Lara Croft and Resident Evil, and I thought each one was reasonably watchable. Not as good as similar films like Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark and 28 Days Later, but not a wasted evening either.

    I suspect the truth about game movie suckage is that too many people are bringing alot of baggage to the film. Non-gamers are immediately sniffy about such low-brow entertainment, Gamers look down on the films because the plot is even more linear than the game, Movie Buffs are comparing it to the best of the competition and Genre fans have seen spacebattle/adventure/zombie flicks done before.

    So what if the acting is a bit wooden? Star Wars wasnt exactly celulose-free.

    If you want suckage, go see The Avengers.

    --
    **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
  44. jumping for Jerry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You'll notice, for example, that Jerry Bruckheimer has a very talented staff around him that help bring in the best (or most popular) actors. You don't think that has anything to do with him personally? You better believe it does -- if I'm a young-ish but established actor, you think I'm going to risk my career on a POS by a no-name producer? Or will I leap at the opportunity to star in a Bruckheimer film?

    Our point is that you are just jumping for Jerry. Who knows how much if any involvement Jerry will have? What if Jerry owes some guy a favor and now you have a no-name director who is mediocore with Jerry as the EP who will probably just shake hands with everyone before moving onto this next project National Treature 2. Now you're stuck on a Jerry flop instead of working with that so-so director and so-so EP who have a ground-breaking man-man love drama, or maybe man-boy, or man-sheep or whatever is chic this year in hollywood.

    Personaly I think: What's to say he doesn't do this on all of his movies? Whose to say his hits weren't hits because of great writing and directing? Jerry could just be really lucky guy and have no skills, just connections to people who have skills. When's the last time you walked out of a movie and said to yourself "The acting was ok, the writing was terrible, and directing was so-so, but man that movie was excellently Executive Produced."