Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Upcoming Game Movies And Their Likelihood to Suck 124

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Upcoming Game Movies And Their Likelihood to Suck

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:27AM (#16089147) Journal
    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 [imdb.com]." 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 [imdb.com]:
    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.
    • by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) * on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:42AM (#16089326) Homepage Journal
      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: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by 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

      • 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 [wikipedia.org] 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 represe

        • 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 someo
          • 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

    • by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:59AM (#16089508) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by EnderGT ( 916132 )
      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
  • by DurendalMac ( 736637 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:28AM (#16089172)
    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.
    • 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?
    • by Gulthek ( 12570 )
      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.
    • by gbobeck ( 926553 )
      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.
      • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
        > 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.
        • by gbobeck ( 926553 )

          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 And

    • by 4D6963 ( 933028 )

      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?

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        do you also hate Contact for the simple fact that the alien is the girl's father?
        IGNORE ME!
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Phanatic1a ( 413374 )
      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 hal
    • by dougmc ( 70836 )
      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.

  • Game movie suckage (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WickedClean ( 230550 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:30AM (#16089190) Homepage
    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.
    • 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. ;)
    • 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
      • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
        > 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 m
  • by The Living Fractal ( 162153 ) <banantarrNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:30AM (#16089193) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, 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 blo
      • 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
      • by Sku-Lad ( 990269 )
        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.

    • by hal2814 ( 725639 )
      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 H
  • by gEvil (beta) ( 945888 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:32AM (#16089208)
    You know that gamer's expectations are high when the metric is "probability of suck."
  • 90% Will Suck (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:35AM (#16089249)
    Sure, 90% of game adaptations will be crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud.
    • Ted, is that you?
    • 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 bein
  • ...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.
    • Neverending Story III [wikipedia.org]...how could you not know about this? It has the best performance by Jack Black ever.
    • by Tipa ( 881911 )
      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.
    • Apparently the Everquest movie is going to be called "Nerds on a Treadmill"
      *rimshot*
  • by neonprimetime ( 528653 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:39AM (#16089295) Homepage
    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.
    • 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.

    • "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
    • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris.beau@org> on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @02:41PM (#16091004)
      > 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.
      • 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
        • by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) *
          > 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 t
  • 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,
    • 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.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lymond01 ( 314120 )
      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?
  • Duke Nukem? (Score:2, Funny)

    by dbuttric ( 9027 )
    Come on, why hasn't someone made Duke Nukem Forever into a movie?
    Could that ever suck?!

    I dont think so.
    • I thought the idea of a Game Movie was for the Game to come first, then the movie?
    • 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.
  • by Reapman ( 740286 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @11:40AM (#16089309)
    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.
  • What ever happened to the Crazy Taxi movie that was supposedly in the works a couple years ago?
    • It sucked. [imdb.com] Don't pair Jimmy Fallon (as Axel) and Queen Latifah (as B.D. Joe) in a buddy comedy.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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?
  • by vafada ( 782986 )
    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?
    • by Hahnsoo ( 976162 )

      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.

    • by famikon ( 994709 )
      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...
  • 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 [computeran...ogames.com]? No, I must suffer through!
  • Best one! (Score:4, Funny)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Tuesday September 12, 2006 @12:13PM (#16089672) Journal
    Far Cry
    Probability of Suck: Bet on It
    Directed by Uwe Boll. Next.
    • 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.
  • What's better: the movie of the game or the game of the movie? Is there a good example of either?
    • Blade Runner (the game) by Westwood ( http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,14 [adventuregamers.com] ) 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.

      • 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.
        • 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. ^_^
      • 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
    • 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
      • 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!
  • I heard there's a WoW movie in the works.. that involves Peter Jackson in the executive producer role?
    • 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.
  • 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
  • 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)
    • Except that the main character can't talk...
      • by famikon ( 994709 )
        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.
  • 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.
  • 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
    • 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.
  • 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 t
  • 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 audien
  • 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 tic
  • 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

  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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

    • 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?
  • NO HALFLIFE MOVIE

    lame, HL would make a coo movie
  • by ErroneousBee ( 611028 ) <neil:neilhancock.cFREEBSDo.uk minus bsd> on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @05:37AM (#16095048) Homepage
    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.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...