Why is it that game-to-movie adaptations always suck? A common excuse is that games don't have good enough plots to make decent movies. But is that really the case? Would you say the Resident Evil movie has a deeper/better plot than the original Resident Evil game? I certainly wouldn't!
Erik Antoine, an independent filmmaker, is sick and tired of Hollywood's failed attempts at game-based movies. As a filmmaker, he just can't understand how big-budget directors can make these movies so awful, while also bearing such little resemblance to the games they were based off.
(go to source for full article)
But, starting to play a new Silent Hill game got me thinking about my big Hollywood pet peeve again. Namely, when are they going to finally learn to make these things properly? By "these things" I am referring of course to video game film adaptations. I can't think of a single one that has worked. I really wanted to like Silent Hill. Especially with the talent involved. And for the first 45 minutes or so, I was really into it. But then, they decided to transform the movie into a giant *bleep*ing turd.
Why is it so hard? I've already cracked the formula. Listen up:
I - Trust The Source Material.
Is that really so hard? Why can't they look at it the same way as adapting a book? For this, my favorite example is Resident Evil. I still remember how excited I was when I first heard they would make that and George A. Romero was involved. Eventually, all that was scrapped and they ended up making a stupid action movie starring Milla Jovovich. It trashed everything the game was about for the sake of using a popular brand name to sell tickets.
But Resident Evil has a good storyline. Just imagine the exact same story from beginning to end. The STARS team stumble into what appears to be a haunted house, they investigate, slowly they uncover the high-tech conspiracy behind the whole thing and discover that one of their own (a douchebag named Albert Wesker) is in on it... It starts out like a creepy, scary horror movie and slowly transforms into a sci-fi adventure. Wesker gets what he deserves and the big monster gets blown up by Chris Redfield and his rocket launcher.
Picture it. You use the game as a 3-D Storyboard and tweak the script using less Engrish and more wit. Put some decent actors in there and you would've had a solid and very entertaining B-Movie. Condense an 8 hour playing experience into 135 minutes.
Where's the problem? It's no different from taking 529 pages of John Grisham tripe and turning it into a 2 and a half hour movie where Gene Hackman spits toothpaste out of his mouth while Chris O'Donnell cries.
Submit a Story
Register
Get Started
Webmaster Tools
Comments with -10 or lower "thumbs" are removed from display.
The movie versions are simpler than their game counterparts. The directors either simplify the game plots, or completely ignore them.
I like the author's idea for an RE movie - Heck, the game had a pretty solid story already. It didn't need to be changed.
When it comes down to adaptions towards either side, some stuff has to be taken out and some stuff gets taken away, in order for it to fit in a cinematic form. Of course, no matter how small those changes are, fans get super pissed.
Personally I think the Bourne movies massacred the source material(the novels) far more than most other adaptations. Actually I'm sure there are plenty of other examples too. It truly is sad.