Upcoming Game Movies And Their Likelihood to Suck

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."

Comments

Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer?

[DurendalMac]

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.

Game movie suckage

[WickedClean]

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.

No simple way to say...

[The Living Fractal]

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

Re:No simple way to say...

[CosmeticLobotamy]

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.

90% Will Suck

[Karma Farmer]

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

Game Movies vs Book/Movie

[neonprimetime]

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.

DOA - High Likely Hood

[Reapman]

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.

Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing

[Red Flayer]

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?

Re:Executive Producer Means Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Do game movies actually suck?

[ErroneousBee]

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.