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

Executive Producer Means Nothing

[eldavojohn]

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.

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

[EnderGT]

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

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.

Re:Uh, Jerry Fuckheimer?

[vandelais]

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

high expectations

[gEvil (beta)]

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

90% Will Suck

[Karma Farmer]

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

Best one!

[XxtraLarGe]

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

Re:Game Movies vs Book/Movie

[jmorris42]

> 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.