I haven't played the games, but fuck me does this trailer look good.
http://www.maxpaynethemovie.com/
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 06/09/2008 04:06:46
I haven't played the games, but fuck me does this trailer look good.
http://www.maxpaynethemovie.com/
I saw this trailer when I saw Babylon A.D. I can't wait. Mark Wahlburg will make that movie good.
I'm actually a pretty big fan of the games. They're pretty epic. My brother first got the game on PC the year that it came out...man I loved that mousepad. :'(
He never did believe me about the rats in the subway shooting and killing me though.
Now I have the Xbox version of 1 & 2 and I really must say they are quite enjoyable. There are some quirks to the game, but they provide a unique aspect that if it doesn't turn you completely off to the game can be quite addicting.
On that note, I must say that I wasn't highly impressed by the first trailer I saw. I found certain aspects disappointing. Especially the Mark Wahlberg aspect. I don't want to turn the point of this thread, but The Happening was one of the biggest disasters the film industry has encountered in years IMO (of course minding the fact that I was working in a combined restaurant/movie theater at the time for tips...people tip less when they're disappointed in a movie :-\).
In any case, this trailer, which was not the same one I saw before does seem to offer a glimmer of hope for this film yet. I'm not convinced, and won't be (at least) until I see the film that this movie will do the games justice (and perhaps not even then), but this trailer has at least sparked a desire for me to give the movie a chance. Thanks for the tip! :=
Yeah, i saw the trailer a while ago and was pretty impressed.
Let's hope they can do the whole "Angels and Demons" dream idea right,
and that it shall do the games the justice they deserve.
My first impression was that I was disappointed that it looks like another dumb overstylized overproduced action movie, but then I realized that I really shouldn't expect anything else from a Max Payne movie. I'm a pretty huge fan of the games, so I sure hope it'll be enjoyable on the "balls-to-the-wall stylized action movie" level, at least.
Are the hardened gangsters still played by weedy game-designer types?
I'm not watching this if they aren't.
I must say, when I heard Mark Wahlberg was playing Payne my first reaction was...erm....yeah. Ok.
But then I realised that Payne is a normal guy with serious issues (who wouldn't having your wife and kid brutally murdered).
I was always rooting for the guy who played Richard Hillman in Coronation Street to play Payne - he was a double of him in Max Payne 2. Don't deny it.
Ever since I've played the first game I was dreaming of a movie about it. Now of course it's not exactly what you are hoping for but it looks pretty close.
Ooh! I went to see Dark Knight last week and noticed the poster, but forgot about it. Thanks for reminding!
Well. I consider Max Payne games best 3rd-person shooters ever made for PC. I other words, total fan.
But this... trailer. It was like a bad heavy metal video.
Wahlberg is a damn boy scout. In every role, he stays emotionless, his steps are counted, his clothes are ironed twice, etc. I bet he washes his hands before and after dinner, and spends an hour making his bed every day. He might play really good solider with all that aura of order and discipline in his every move, but not a bitter cop.
Max Payne was all about emotions, rage, losing control and going rogue. A cop turning revenge into a genocide. Crossing all limits, making bullets only thing that talk. And, a love story.
Now, I really DON'T see Wahlberg being able to express this wide range of emotions. Ever.
Did I see a sword? I did already see swords in Hitman movie. And I hated this because of swords.
Still, as with hitman, I will see this movie and give my best to like it.
And Mila Kunis would make superb Mona Sax, I think. Even her voice is pretty same.
Instead a movie, I would actually prefer Max Payne 3.
** wiping off dust from Max Payne 2 cd... whee, game time!
Max Payne, ah the nostalgia.
At first I thought, it's going to be another Uwe Boll's cheap ripoff, but when I saw at imdb that it's not going to be his movie, and what's more important, Sam Lake, the guy who wrote the screenplay and story for both games is going to be one of the movie writers, my anticipation of the movie has dramatically increased.
It does look like an overstyled and over producted movie, but so does the game and that's one of the reasons, I loved it.
Now, there's one more thing, that made me a Max Payne fan. Practically for the whole game his face stays the same. You see, in real life people wouldn't show their emotions after each every little thing that happens to them. Most of the time people wear the same faceless mask. I mean, yes, Max Payne did have a huge nerve strike when he saw the dead bodies of his relatives. And he started his adventure out of pure anger and lust for revenge, and that's what keeps him going. But I see no reason, why should he munch his face mucles into an angry smiley each time he sees an enemy. Although some bits of the trailer had the actor do that, thanks to InCreator, I've still got hopes that most of the time it won't be so.
Now, I'm not saying that anyone should think the way I do. One of the most beautiful thing about humans is their diversity. Each has got his/her own set of standarts. I'm just saying that it look like I'm going to enjoy this movie more than some other guys.
I think Marky Mark should've stayed with his band and not went into acting.
Just my opinion.
Also, what's with the random supernatural crap? Max Payne had some surreal moments (when you're inside his memories) but I don't remember valkyrie-griffon things grabbing people and flying around in huge fire tornadoes.
Silly.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 06/09/2008 14:36:44
Also, what's with the random supernatural crap? Max Payne had some surreal moments (when you're inside his memories) but I don't remember valkyrie-griffon things grabbing people and flying around in huge fire tornadoes.
Silly.
True, but I can imagine a Max Payne movie or game to have some dark fantastic elements. But what those things are, exactly, who can say it?
I didn't really mean the grin on the model of first game or cry/rage/cry on his face.
I mean... Max Payne is highly emotional story. It's about what mask is on protagonist face but... I can't explain it. I played MP2 few hours and really... Game takes us through laaarge amount of pain, confusion, betrayal and suffering. And revenge. It's not in the face, but in every word, move and action.
Mark Wahlberg cannot express this all. Cannot express even believable piece of it.
I've seen him on screen enough to be sure of this.
He's the typical quiet passive aggressive solider-type, might perform well in Black Hawk Down, but not as Max Payne.
And his nasal voice isn't nasal voice of Max Payne.
Period.
Also, I fear they might do the same as the director of Silent Hill did. Good approach, but got the stories mixed up.
In the trailer I saw, it showed Mona Sax. Now I haven't played the first game, I only have the second one, so correct me if I'm wrong. Mona Sax only appears in the second game right? She isn't a part of the same story in the first one?
Films based on videogames rarely ever sit entirely accurately in the game universe. Take the Resident Evil films. They're really good films but there are a lot of inconsistencies between them and the game franchise. This isn't necesarily a bad thing. After all the films aren't being made solely for the game fans... they have to appeal to a wider audience and this inevitably means making a few minor adjustments and running the films in a universe that is similar but nevertheless parallel to the games.
Quote from: R4L on Sat 06/09/2008 17:41:32
Mona Sax only appears in the second game right? She isn't a part of the same story in the first one?
She appears, but very briefly, only in the comics. Here's the appearances, ripped from Wikipedia:
Quote..After an exhausting firefight Max finally kills Lupino, but comes face to face with Mona Sax, the identical twin sister of Lisa Punchinello, Don Puchinello's wife. Sax warns Max that the Valkyr scandal goes all the way up to Don Puchinello, who she intends to kill. Max and Mona share a flirtation and a brief drink before Max realizes Mona spiked his with Valkyr, succumbing to the drug and descends into a surreal, demented nightmare, forcing him to relive his wife and daughter's murder..
..Max appears in the lobby of the Aesir Corporation Building and shoots his way past floors of security guards and mercenaries in pursuit of Horne. Max suddenly encounters Mona Sax, now under the employ of Horne, with orders to kill him. She refuses, only to be shot [in the head] by another wave of Aesir security guards. As Max finishes killing them, he notices Mona's body has disappeared...
Where did all of the Mark Wahlberg hate come from recently? Was "The Happening" really that bad? He's a perfectly competent action star, in my opinion.
He has this fucking whiney 15-year old acne-ridden kid look on his face all time.
Somehow, all his roles consist of whining aswell... or he translates them that way.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 06/09/2008 14:36:44Also, what's with the random supernatural crap? Max Payne had some surreal moments (when you're inside his memories) but I don't remember valkyrie-griffon things grabbing people and flying around in huge fire tornadoes.
Silly.
Actually I felt this way the first time I saw the Valkyries myself...but I've shifted slightly in my opinion of the issue based off this trailer. I'm
hoping that they are intended as deranged hallucinations and not actual physical beings. For example in the scene in the trailer where the guy is pulled out of the window by the Valkyrie...IMO that could be interpreted that the drug (Valkyr) drove him to
jump out of the window. If this is the case then I accept this aspect of the movie. If instead they are supposed to be actual physical beings that only the druggies can see...that might be enough (paired with Whailberg ;)) to destroy the cinematic end of this great franchise.
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 06/09/2008 18:22:03Films based on videogames rarely ever sit entirely accurately in the game universe...This isn't necesarily a bad thing. After all the films aren't being made solely for the game fans... they have to appeal to a wider audience and this inevitably means making a few minor adjustments and running the films in a universe that is similar but nevertheless parallel to the games.
I absolutely agree with this sentiment, and though hard-core fans would want a line-for-line adaptation, this isn't always the best approach for the film. Hopefully the adaptations they have made (*cough*Wahlberg*cough* :=) will be in the best interest of the film without losing those long-standing fans of the series.
Most silver-screen video game adaptions suck, as I'm sure you all know. Then again, Max Payne was originally just an adaption of hard-boiled detective movies, so maybe it'll translate better. Then again... again, judging by the trailer, the entire film just seems to be dedicated to Max Payne kicking insane amounts of ass. Which is only really cool when it's Vin Diesel...
Why am I back here?
Coz you love us Sean.
Welcome back.
If not Mark Wahlberg, then who does everyone think would make a good Max Payne?
I'm not familiar with the games so I'm not really qualified to answer, so I'll say Orlando Bloom.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 06/09/2008 20:55:48
Quote from: Makeout Patrol on Sat 06/09/2008 19:27:36
Was "The Happening" really that bad?
Yes.
Yes it was.
It can't possibly be bad enough to erase the awesomeness of The Departed.
Anyway, Stupot's question is one that I'd echo. Mark Wahlberg looks just as much like the model in Max Payne as the model in Max Payne 2 does (although I think I would have liked someone a bit older - the decision to make him older in the second game was pretty much a stroke of genius in my opinion). Someone that looks like Bruce Willis, but not actually Bruce Willis.
Quote from: monkey_05_06 on Sat 06/09/2008 20:09:58
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 06/09/2008 14:36:44Also, what's with the random supernatural crap? Max Payne had some surreal moments (when you're inside his memories) but I don't remember valkyrie-griffon things grabbing people and flying around in huge fire tornadoes.
Silly.
Actually I felt this way the first time I saw the Valkyries myself...but I've shifted slightly in my opinion of the issue based off this trailer. I'm hoping that they are intended as deranged hallucinations and not actual physical beings. For example in the scene in the trailer where the guy is pulled out of the window by the Valkyrie...IMO that could be interpreted that the drug (Valkyr) drove him to jump out of the window. If this is the case then I accept this aspect of the movie. If instead they are supposed to be actual physical beings that only the druggies can see...that might be enough (paired with Whailberg ;)) to destroy the cinematic end of this great franchise.
From what I've read of the film, the supernatural stuff and columns of fire are confirmed by Wahlberg as a side-effect/hallucination from the drug (and, yes, because they're Valkyries and the drug shares the same name).
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/max-payne-the-first-great-videogame-movie/a-20080804113823281022
QuoteHe’s hell bent and â€" judging by the twisted nightmare-visions of winged gargoyle beasties â€" possibly hell bound...
“The hallucinations are a side-effect of this drug that’s been leaked onto the streets,†says Wahlberg.
QuoteTake the Resident Evil films. They're really good films
Stop. Rewind. Replace good with 'horrid'. Continue!
As for the images being hallucinations, I suppose that can work as long as no two people in the movie share the same hallucination, which just isn't reasonable. Ie, the guy being pulled out of the window can't think he's being pulled out of the window by a valkyrie while Max sees the valkyrie also pulling him out of the window. That's just not how hallucinations work. Matter of fact, a hallucinogen wouldn't cause you to see any kind of specific imagery at all, and even if you were repeatedly told about 'valkyries' or whatever, each appearance of them in the movie would vary based on individual interpretation of what they looked like. Yeah, it's just a movie, but it also seems like a pathetically lame excuse to throw in massive doses of CGI...
(http://www.journaldugamer.com/images/-2008/01/mark-wahlberg-as-max-payne.jpg)
Good one!
(http://www.filmwad.com/fw_images/max_payne.jpg)
Bad one! :(
(http://www.increator.pri.ee/i/pull/mp2.jpg)(http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2008/03/569123WTMK.preview.JPG)
no no no
(http://www.increator.pri.ee/i/pull/poster.jpg)
This poster shows well how wrong it looks. Marky should grow some hair first!
Thomas Jane could pass as a resemblance for older Max Payne. I think he's a good actor, he's just in a lot of shit films.
Christian Bale looks like Max from the 2nd one A LOT.
Quote from: R4L on Sun 07/09/2008 19:01:07
Christian Bale looks like Max from the 2nd one A LOT.
Yes! (http://bestof.provocateuse.com/images/photos/christian_bale_94.jpg)
I second the Tom Jane suggestion. He's made many a shite film, but he's likable. He made a good stab at being The Punisher (though the whole tone of that film was wrong, stupidly entertaining though it may have been), and he'd be a pretty good choice for Max Payne.
Wahlberg just comes across as a grumpy house painter.
Personally, I always thought the first Max Payne looked like Johnny Knoxville. Maybe that's why I liked dropping him off buildings so much.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 07/09/2008 14:53:32
Stop. Rewind. Replace good with 'horrid'. Continue!
Seconded. I still enjoy them for some reason, though. Maybe it's Milla Jovovich's bone-supplying influence. Don't ask me why. :-\
Plus, they keep people like Russell Mulcahy away from other films they might otherwise potentially ruin.
Max payne. payne to the max..
Quote from: LimpingFish on Sun 07/09/2008 22:49:13
I second the Tom Jane suggestion. He's made many a shite film, but he's likable. He made a good stab at being The Punisher (though the whole tone of that film was wrong, stupidly entertaining though it may have been), and he'd be a pretty good choice for Max Payne.
There was also that Punisher game that, if I recall correctly, played almost identically to Max Payne, so this might just be fate.
I just read that they're trying to get a PG-13 rating for this film. Bad sign #1.
Quote from: Makeout Patrol on Mon 08/09/2008 01:27:58
There was also that Punisher game that, if I recall correctly, played almost identically to Max Payne, so this might just be fate.
Ha! Yeah, I'd forgotten that. Tom Jane also supplied the voice for the game.
Quote from: LGM on Mon 08/09/2008 01:38:22I just read that they're trying to get a PG-13 rating for this film. Bad sign #1.
Doesn't make sense either since those who played the games when they were around 13 years old are a lot older now. Can you even show blood in a PG-13 film?
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 07/09/2008 14:53:32As for the images being hallucinations, I suppose that can work as long as no two people in the movie share the same hallucination, which just isn't reasonable. Ie, the guy being pulled out of the window can't think he's being pulled out of the window by a valkyrie while Max sees the valkyrie also pulling him out of the window. That's just not how hallucinations work.
I'm assuming only Max can see them. That's how it was in the game, though POV is a bit different in a game than in a movie. After all, in the game we are Max Payne, and in the movie we're watching Max Payne. In any case, I don't think they're so stupid that they'd do it. It's another case altogether whether they think the audience is that stupid.
Does anyone know if Sam Lake has been actively working on the screenplay with the yank writer, or is he credited as the co-writer only for the premise of the story?
Quote from: LGM on Mon 08/09/2008 01:38:22
I just read that they're trying to get a PG-13 rating for this film. Bad sign #1.
Not just bad, I find it awful!
Max Payne is a game made by adults for adults.
Changing it would be... so wrong.
It's about selling tickets. Lower the rating, more people pay to watch it. Simple as that.
Well to me it reads that they want to get younger people in, thinking they need them to make up the sales for this video-game film. Kids like games and action films. So they seem to be heading for this demographic rather than the more mature audience that the film should deserve. It needs it's deep character issues and thick adult plot to retain all that makes it Max Payne, yet that seems to be dissipating in favor of a more shoot em up constant action film.
I still hope that I'm not right and this will be a great film, but it isn't much hope.
This sounds like zombies and half-covered boobs. I already imagine an evil demon lady, with wings and as little of clothes as possible.
Trust me on this.
And no, I have no real proof that there will be one.
But there will.
I just came back from the theater. Man, that movie sucked. They couldn't possibly ruin it any further. I'm not even a cranky viewer, I forgive movies too easily. But not this one.
I could guess, but do tell me as to why it was a steaming turd so bad the flys were throwing up at the stench of it.
Dammit. We all chanted doom upon this movie and what's sad is that it actually turned out to be true.
I still don't understand why. Why does game movies suck so bad? Is that a rule or something?
Well, for me it stunk the moment I heard "Wahlberg"...
I doubt I will go and see this movie. My heart was already broken when sword-wielding smiling kid tried to pose as 47.
Not gonna ruin my second favourite game because of incompetent directors.
Well, okay. What was good about it? They managed to capture the atmosphere of the game. But that's it. The plot was ridiculous and totally watered-down. You might be like, "whatever, I want to see ACTION!" Well, I'm afraid you'll still be disappointed. There wasn't much of it and whatever action WAS in the movie was short and stupid.
Picture this:
Spoiler
Max Payne breaks into Rag Na Rock to get to that Lupino guy. Somehow this looks like an abandoned office building for some reason. And he finds a stack of the Valkyr drug. Then two idiots come into the room, shoot around for no reason at all and begin searching for Max Payne. Max Payne then kills them. Then some guy comes from behind him, on a higher floor. Max Payne magically knows that and does a bullet-time back-jump and shoots the gunman with a shotgun.
There wasn't the elaboration on that Lupino lunatic like in the game. There was too little of that "I saw the flesh of fallen angels!" kind of bullshit that made the game feel so much better. Sure there was some of it, but it was like the movie
tried to focus on the nastiness of the Valkyr drug and failed miserably.
Spoiler
That old bitch doesn't die and the movie stops when Max kills BB. Max Payne nearly died three times; All three times he dreamed of his wife, and in two of those she told him "not yet, Max". Can it get any worse than this?
It would be great if they just took the game as it was and made a movie out of it.
That's too bad. The source material had everything to be a great action flick: complex story told with style, great atmosphere with a bit of parallel story telling, non stop action and bullet time, something that come straight from cinema. If Hollywood couldn't make something great out of Max Payne, the problem of video games based movies might be the people who make those films rather than the source materials.
I genuinely had faith in the movie, but if they couldn't make something great out of that game, I don't think I will hold my breath for video games movies anymore.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 19/10/2008 00:16:29I still don't understand why. Why does game movies suck so bad? Is that a rule or something?
A finnish reviewer said it the best: "This movie was made because the game franchise sold millions. It was not because it was a finnish game franchise, nor because the story was any good, nor because of the action gameplay. It was made because the producers knew it was going to make money, at least in the US, where for whatever reason there is a large market for the game movie genre."
If simply turning a buck is the goal, why make a game movie any good? Why waste money on a capable director, a passable script and good performances, when you know you're going to make more profit the less money you spend making the movie. In the case of game movies, the selling point is the game franchise, not the film itself. Just as long as you have a barely A-grade film, that will fulfill the requirements of a theatrical release (i.e. not a classic Ãœwe Boll game movie project), you're in the clear. The only reason you'd need a game movie to be remotely good would be in anticipation of a sequel. That I don't think will happen with Max Payne, unless to coincide with the release of Max Payne 3. Though, seeing as they're now making a Bioshock movie to coincide with the release of Bioshock 3, I hope things aren't as cynical as I see them :).
In Finland, we're experiencing a somewhat unprecedented couple of weeks in our history of film. There are 3 theatrical releases coming out right now that relate to our country in a special way. Of course, the first one is Max Payne (http://"http://www.maxpaynethemovie.com"), which was after all initially created in Finland and starred by finns. The second one is Niko & The Way to the Stars (http://"http://www.nikomovie.com"), our first A-grade 3D animation feature film, which is being distributed widely in the rest of the world. The third one is Sauna (http://"http://www.bronsonclub.fi/sauna"), which is our first real horror film and which has received much acclaim around the world so far, including being premiered at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival.
Nevertheless, ruthless as ever (and rightly so), reviews have been bleak. The consensus of reviews put Max Payne and Niko both at about 2/5 stars, with Sauna coming up next week. Of the three, I've only personally seen Sauna, so I can't comment on the other two. Anywho, for someone who hates finnish films as much as hockey, I really liked Sauna. It was seriously like watching a real movie, with real actors and great production values.
Watch the first four minutes of Sauna here: http://www.iltasanomat.fi/viihde/uutinen.asp?id=1600614
Part of it ties in to the arrogance of the screenwriter, who thinks he can one-up anything, be it in written or video game format. This Hollywood arrogance is what often results in absolute disasters for film adaptations because they take so much creative license that there's almost no original content. Resident Evil is a great example of a game series that could have been a great b-movie schlock series if adapted faithfully; instead, that degenerate hack Paul Anderson got a massive hardon for Milla Jovovich (who I can't stand) and restructured an entire narrative around her character. Needless to say, with each sequel the original content was diminished by leaps and bounds (to make ample room for her skinny, grating screen presence) until the third movie just did away with it entirely. This is the sort of thing that annoys most fans, honestly; it's not that there are differences, it's that there's no attempt whatsoever to be true in any way to the source material or to provide a similar experience. This is why adaptations typically fail and will continue to do so until/unless they bring on screenwriters who are fans of the source to the point where they only tweak key elements to fit the story into a 90 minute run time or to eliminate confusing subplots that are not addressed in the first game.
So, they failed at making a movie from a video-game that actually had potential for a movie.
Let's see what they did to Far Cry...
Quote from: dkh on Sun 19/10/2008 13:07:24
Let's see what they did to Far Cry...
Believe me, you don't want to know. Let's just say: The setting is changed to some woodlands full of moose, there are approximately 4 mutants in there, and the main character is now a German (called Jack Carver, Justification: "I can't do zer amerikan akzent.")
He doesn't even wear the shirt.
This is still strange. Very few movies do hit the mark or atleast stay on the theme?
Tomb Raider, Silent Hill...
What's Max Payne? Drug, conspiracy, depressive protagonist, revenge, dead wife, Italian mob, gunfights.
Hollywood has done it like million times, how can they do it decently and so far and when GAME is involved, fail?
All they had to do was take one of those terrible movies by Steven Seagal or Chuck Norris, remove bone breaking, face kicks, and replace main character with Max Payne instead of fat and sweating muscular man (with or without dirty red beard/ponytail) jumping onto people.
Awful. Why did Doom end with fistfight? Why did Hitman wield a sword?
It doesn't even make sense! It's feels more like intentional spit into fans' faces.
They can't make decent movies out of books neither. I really loved book "Day of the Jackal". Anyone seen the movie adaption (starring Bruce Willis)? How in the world could somebody make something better by replacing hardcore French president with a !black !FBI !director and witty French police detective with !russian !woman with !scar on her face?!
Bah.
Then again, USA has over 700,000 Russian language speakers, and I've seen only 3 movies (out of hundreds) where spoken Russian actually sounds like one. Like there wasn't anyone who could go to a director and teach them to speak right. Another Hollywood mystery for me. Guess they're stubborn and that also applies to game movies.
Went offtopic here... or did I?
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 19/10/2008 14:41:23
Why did Hitman wield a sword?
Actually, the Hitman movie suffered from extensive re-shoots by a new director, including that terrible swordfight (which has some of the worst stunt-doubling in recent memory). The original sequence involves a single fight on the train platform (Hitman vs Evil Hitman) and makes better sense. A lot was cut, including footage more in tone with the games, and a lot of shite was substituted to fill in the gaps. The original footage supposedly makes for a more coherent story, with less shitty "action". Hitman was a movie I wanted to like, but the butcher-job by the studio makes it almost unwatchable. Aside from Olga Kurylenko's frequent nude scenes.
Huzzah for boobies!
Doom was utter cack, easily as bad as anything by...
...Uwe Boll? Is anybody really that surprised? I admire the man, on some twisted level. He makes no apologies, and sticks to his guns. His films may be dire, but it's not like he's tying people up and forcing them to watch. The fact that he manages to get "respected" actors to work for him is what's really amazing. (Sir!) Ben Kingsley manages to spend almost the entire running time of BloodRayne moving only his lips, while everybody else plays second banana to Kristanna Lokan's nipples. The fact that there is a petition calling for Boll's forced retirement is appalling. I can think of numerous Hollywood directors I would "retire" first; journeyman creative vacuums, who produce $50 million dollar+ duds every time they step behind a camera.
Regardless, take a look at the source material, before we act all surprised when one of these movies sucks. The Max Payne stories, though told in an enjoyably stylish way, are choc-a-bloc with genre cliches and one-dimensional characters. A cop whose family was killed? A sexy female assassin? Corrupt police? A mysterious drug? Doesn't Dolph Lundgren's career almost exclusively consist of movies that fit that storyline?
Does this mean that a Max Payne movie
can't be good? Of course not, but that's not how Hollywood works, and studios really don't give a toss whether a movie stays true to it's source material. Xavier Gens, an admittedly young director with little or no track record, stated he set out to make a faithful Hitman movie (a scene cut by the studio features 47 assassinating a target by lethal injection while disguised as a doctor; something familiar to anyone who has played the games) with the game's same moral ambiguity and violence. That wasn't the movie the studio wanted to release, and that's not the movie we got. Would Hitman have been a better movie if Gens had been allowed make the movie he thought he was making? Who knows? But it may not have been so obviously terrible, something that is apparent with most movies that suffer such creative conflicts.
Christophe Gans more or less had free rein on Silent Hill, and it turned out fairly decent. Unfortunately, it was also fairly successful. The sequel, now exclusively in the hands of Sony Pictures, will not be directed by Gans
or written by Roger Avary,
or have the direct input from Konami and the game's creators that the original had, because more studio focus will be on it's budget plan and box office forecasts.
Par for the course.
Heh, we don't really need a petition, anyway. The change in Germany's laws about movie investors getting all their money back if a movie is shit has effectively crippled him. From now on he'll have to convince investors that the movie is going to sell, and they're tougher than any audience.
I haven't seen Silent Hill because I do my best to avoid videogame adaptations, but the trailer revealed glaring differences almost immediately, which is never a good sign.
Thinking about it, I can't come up with a single videogame to movie adaptation I've liked so far, be it the disastrous Super Mario Bros. or Hitman. Comic superhero movies have fared slightly better in recent years, surprisingly, although I'm pretty much expecting the Punisher sequel to be total garbage without Thomas Jane, and I really don't see why anyone would want an Avengers movie. There are just too many characters to give them all equal treatment as the X-Men films proved.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 19/10/2008 00:16:29
...
I still don't understand why. Why does game movies suck so bad? Is that a rule or something?
...
The expectations of gamers are just too high.
I though Akira was a good movie, but then I read the manga and found out the movie is missing 2/3 of the story! They did some bold editing but it worked. If I was a fan and read the comic before the movie I'd be very dissapointed. And I will be when they make the american version starring Leo. I'm just too hard to please.
How interesting are in game stories anyway that they have to be adapted to the big screen? Isn't it the arogance of the gamers to think it is worthy of a movie?
Uwe Boll works hard and fast to get his crap movies rfinished. You have to respect that. I liked some parts of Postal, if only the jokes were funny and the actors gave a crap.
Best game to movie adaptation?
Street fighter 2 the animaton. Or is that cheating?
The wizard. Or is that cheating too?
Tron? The King of Kong. Oh I give up.
Expectations too high? I think it would be enough if a good movie would be the result of a game adaption. Apart from Silent Hill (I would recommend watching it, very enjoyable) I can't think of one. If it's true to the source material, that's another question.
Uwe Boll has neither managed to make a good film nor to stay true to the games.
The thing about Akira is that Katsuhiro Otomo was both the comic's writer/artist and the films writer/director, so even though it was a different vision, it was still his artistic vision, which is why both versions work independently. The live action version (Neo-Manhattan? Bleh) doesn't seem like much.
A good game to movie adaption? Man, I'd have to agree with ProgZmax here and say that there has never really been one. I suppose Silent Hill.
The last one I saw was Onechanbara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneChanbara). To anybody familiar with the games, the movie manages to stay quite faithful. Zombies, swords, bikinis...how could they get it wrong? Plus it must have cost about half a buck to make! They didn't even spring for the cost of working prop guns, just added in some CGI muzzle flash and a sound effect during editing.
You have to admire that.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 19/10/2008 13:02:18
... Milla Jovovich (who I can't stand) ...
Sir, you have gone too far, Milla Jovovich is a goddess on screen and can do no wrong. And yes, I realize that it’s because of eye candy consumers like me that turds like “Max Payne†are churned out by Hollywood. I’ve always been of the opinion if you wanted substance to read a book, movies should be visual, but I digress. Sorry to interrupt this thread with a mindless rant on how hot Milla Jovovich is… by all means continue…
PS. I think Mark Walberg is a good actor too. Egads, I think just realized I’m every thing that’s wrong with our modern cinematography.
Extremely off-topic!
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 19/10/2008 00:16:29I still don't understand why. Why does game movies suck so bad? Is that a rule or something?
Well, I haven't seen Max Payne so I can't comment on that...but I can comment on this question: the reason is, because gamers just don't get it.
First of all: the target audience for a movie and a game are different. Sure, Hollywood hopes to get the fans of the franchise, but in the end they are not the target audience. In most instances the demographic of the movie will be younger than that of the game. Sure, this is mostly a marketing decision made by suits who do not understand the franchise, but still. The same applied to Die Hard 4 by the way, where Bruce Willis's character did not curse as much as in the original trilogy...only to make sure that they would get the much desired PG-13 rating (which doesn't really make sense, since you would expect that your target audience are the people who saw the original trilogy and would therefore be old enough...but no).
Another problem is, that many games - particularly the big buck games of the 90's - have a story that fits on the smallest size post-it. Let's face it: compared to the game, Street Fighter, Mortal Combat, and Doom (the latter of which I haven't seen by the way) all had great stories. Yes, it was still complete and utter crap, but when compared to the game...so they had to make something up. Something that still fitted within the original, but also to the (non-interactive) medium of cinema.
And then there are those games that do have a story (like the good adventure games, and most RPG's). Here we have the opposite problem. The amount of dialogue alone in for example Broken Sword was something like eight moviescripts...so you have to reduce it. Well, the first step is easy: get rid of some characters. If I were to write a game on Monkey Island, I probably would get rid of the voodoo lady. Why? - Because to me she never really fitted in the story at all...it was more like she had been put there because they had to have a voodoo something or another in there. But let's face it: if I were to do that each and every monkey-fan would put up a website to lynch me.
Once you've removed some of the characters, you go on to remove some of the story to make it fit. This is common for all adaptations. I personally thought Starship Troopers (the original) was a good movie, that was manipulating it's viewers into agreeing with fascism (the bugs were the (invaded) victims, but the movie continually made us think we were better then them, and that they were evil and we were heros). But if you read the original book...you will suddenly notice that they removed huge parts of the story and that the original was much better. Some will now say that this means the movie wasn't good at all. I say that you have to look at the movie in its own right. A movie isn't a book, a movie isn't a video game. (I still haven't figured out why people accepted these great deletions in Lord of the Rings, but can't accept is for almost anything else...it's probably because the fans of the original thought that a reduced movie was better than no movie at all).
Then there's the problem of interactivity: most games are extremely boring if you're only watching them. Now imagine watching that game on big screen in the cinemas...it's still equally boring. So things have to be adapted to convert the interactive original into a non-interactive reinterpretation. This generally means you have to invent the flow of the story that the original did not have to have because it was the player who created that flow himself: in a game wanting to beat the level boss is enough motivation to create a flow in the story...in a movie that just doesn't make sense.
As for actors...gamers seem to be the most annoying, most cliché casting directors ever. Fist of all they always want Angelina Jolie (and I really don't understand why), and secondly they always want to cast people to have done similar roles. As I said: I haven't seen Max Payne, so I can't say whether she did any good, but on the internet there were enough people complaining that Mila Kunis was to play an action character, because she was in
that 70's show, and they had discussions on casting all the cliché women they could think of. I honestly believe, that it if gamers were to write movies we would only get the kind of crap like
snakes on a plane.
In the end, gamers get disappointed, because they can't look at the movie in it's own right. If you look at Battlestar Galactica from the point of the original series, that it's worse than Street Fighter. If you look at it in it's own right, than it's actually quite some fun.
Ps. Any movie that has Arnold Rimmer carrying a shotgun is great. ;)
Pps. And yes, I know: I am legend was completely different than the book and it didn't make sense that they shared the same name. But apart from that (and some plot holes), I was able to enjoy the movie. And I can be able to enjoy a game adaptation movie as well, even if it's not the same as the game.
I'd say that this is one big missing-the-point here.
QuoteThe expectations of gamers are just too high.
To "not miss" with a movie based on game, you have to stay on game character(s) and rules.
What is a game? A set of rules.
All games have rules. Movies have no right to replace or change the rules.
They are the basis of the game. Movie isn't a game, indeed, but if it doesn't reflect game rules, it's not about that particular game.
Nobody expects "Saving Private Ryan"-ish load of Oscars and star actors from game movie. Nobody expects same budget or profit. Or hype. Or level of epic-ness. Or whatever makes the most memorable movies.
What I - as a gamer - do EXPECT, is that movie is about game and not something else - if it is announced as a movie about game. That, as I stated, means staying true to game rules.
Especially if there's absolutely no need to change them.Expectations too high?FFS, do not give Hitman a sword! By rules of the game, Hitman is a
silent killer. He is not a pirate.
NO, sword will NOT make movie appeal to wider audience. It's stupid and pointless. If you skipped the sword, you might had guaranteed game fans' appeal. Now you have shitty, ruined movie with bad ratings. Even game fans turn away. You need blazing gunfights? Oh well. This game CAN be played like this. Fine. But for other parts, stay true to the silent killer theme. We have fuckloads of movies about silent killers. Much-much more silent. Why cannot do it again THIS particular time?
Was it really necessary to put static zombies (shoot me!) into Doom movie fps scene? Was it really hard for actors to pretend they're actually attacking the protagonist? Look, the CGI monster was able do it! It bite an charge protagonist! Why couldn't real dressed up actors? It's a movie about fighting monsters. Why didn't any of monsters fight, then? Isn't this fundamentally screwed up?
And standard action movie hero carries a truckload of weapons. Every Rambo and Terminator has a rocket launcher in his pocket. Why did Doom star only a shitty machine gun for most part? Isn't game about shotgun and rocket launcher? You had like $60,000,000 to spend. And you couldn't buy few weapon props. Even plastic toys... ?!
Is that too much to ask?
Is that too high to expect?
Does it have any ACTUAL reason to be wrong?
"Wider, not-game-fan audience" enjoys Rambo with rocket launcher and silent killers of various movies really well. So this overused "excuse" is pure bullshit.
Dammit, am I wrong?
And Mark Wahlberg is no Max Payne. Period.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 21/10/2008 16:17:38
To "not miss" with a movie based on game, you have to stay on game character(s) and rules.
What is a game? A set of rules.
All games have rules. Movies have no right to replace or change the rules.
They are the basis of the game. Movie isn't a game, indeed, but if it doesn't reflect game rules, it's not about that particular game.
But then you have to ask the question: what are the rules of the game, which are major rules, which are minor rules, and which cannot be applied in a movie.
QuoteFFS, do not give Hitman a sword! By rules of the game, Hitman is a silent killer. He is not a pirate.
It is true, the Hitman should work as an anonymous silent killer. This should be the basis of the character. And it is therefore a rule that should not be broken. On the other hand, you don't want your movie to be a series levels so that's a rule that can be broken. Also, there's no problem for the Hitman to be trained in sword-fighting, kung fu, chemistry, physics etc. as long as the major rule of the character is not broken. However, once the rule is broken during the movie (for example, once his anonymity is compromised) a new set of rules might
temporarily apply. Simple example: there is no problem to the character if he has knifes, swords, and a great arsenal of guns in his home. Should the enemy break into this character's sanctuary, then there is no problem if - in the heat of the situation - he uses one of the swords, since the rule of him being the hunter (anonymous) rather than the hunted (known target) has been broken. However...after this epic battle which completely destroys his house and introduces the second act of the movie is over and he stands victorious, the original rules of the character should apply again: he's an anonymous silent hunter again (he just has to figure out whom he's hunting).
QuoteIs that too much to ask? - Is that too high to expect? -Does it have any ACTUAL reason to be wrong?
Yes...and no. I mean, I didn't care that Jim Barvura was black rather than an old white guy (and I didn't care that Ford Prefect was black either). I didn't consider that an important rule, since it didn't define the character (making Shaft a white guy would be evil though). I also don't care that the story is different (I'm talking about the details, not the overall story). On the other hand, if you change too much of the rules you end up with something that just isn't right. That's the reason why I consider Casino Royale the best Bond-clone ever (Living Daylights is another great Bond-clone), but also one of the worst Bonds. They broke too many of the rules. Bond (the bastard) just wasn't Bond (the gentleman), and there is no way he could ever become that character (even though people keep using that argument). I blame the writers, not the actor...but I won't be going to his next one.
QuoteNobody expects "Saving Private Ryan"-ish load of Oscars and star actors from game movie. Nobody expects same budget or profit. Or hype. Or level of epic-ness. Or whatever makes the most memorable movies.
But why in the world not? - If the source material is good, than why not expect greatness...is the source material wasn't good, than why turn it into a movie at all?
Ps. Yes I know...it almost sounds like I'm contradicting my previous post :)
Inc, you'll love River City Rumble (http://www.x-strikestudios.com/rivercity.html).
But if it's all about integrety, lets reverse your question. Are there any good games that are true to the movie it's based on? (there has to be some since there are more games based on movies than movies based on games)
Quote from: Misj' on Tue 21/10/2008 17:28:18
(and I didn't care that Ford Prefect was black either)
Me neighter. It did pissed me off that Samuel L. "Mother fuckin snakes!" Jackson played Nick Furry at the end of Iron Man. Better than David "Where's my burger" Haslehof, but still...
The point is not that movies aren't following the game exactly. The problem is that those movies are bad, or at least worse than if the movie had followed the game closely.
I actually think Wahlberg does look like Max Payne. I didn't like the idea before the movie, but after seeing it I decided he was a good choice. Like I said earlier, I thought that the total atmosphere of the movie was spot-on; it's the story (especially where it differs) AND the action (which was both surprisingly low and painfully unlogical) that ruined it for me.
QuoteAre there any good games that are true to the movie it's based on?
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (PC-adventure)...
and...
strange. I cannot recall any others, though there's hundreds.
But change of rules. Game rules don't apply to a movie.
What I meant by rules is definition of the protagonist, era, and specifics what make this person/alien/world/whatever stand out and known as this specific person/alien/world/whatever. This is something - a movie bearing same name - SHOULD follow.
Hitman
is bald, tattooed with barcode, a clone, a silent assassin, white and a professional.
There might be thousand bald and tattooed men in the world, but other named specifics or so-called-rules define that particular fictional man. This is Agent 47.
Movie-
shitman was not silent, was not professional. Was he a clone? I don't remember really... guess not.
Rules broken, movie ruined. Gamers give director a finger.
Simple.
And however much we could go into philosophy/ethics/law/etc and make up theories about "rights and reasons to change rules", fact stands: movie was terrible, as was it's adaption of a popular video game.
Any changes will be accepted ONLY if they really add something to the story, make things better. Surprise even original creators of that fictional world/character/etc.
Somehow, still sticking to hitman example, I have this terrible feeling that movie director/crew went over game and said "clone? how cliche, we won't use this crap". And thought they actually make something better. And messed everything up, because creators of the game based a game around the cliche and made a great game... which is not what happened with movie.
With major game studios as big and advanced as they are nowadays, I'm wondering why do we need Uwe-Boll-like party shitters at all? Bigger game studios should have even more budget, experience and know-how to make movies out of their franchise. I'm quite sure Eidos, instead of selling Tomb Raider rights, could simply hire a director and camera crew of their own liking and let their game-storywriters make a true script for Tomb Raider- the movie?
Or maybe it IS the future?
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 21/10/2008 22:14:57With major game studios as big and advanced as they are nowadays, I'm wondering why do we need Uwe-Boll-like party shitters at all? Bigger game studios should have even more budget, experience and know-how to make movies out of their franchise. I'm quite sure Eidos, instead of selling Tomb Raider rights, could simply hire a director and camera crew of their own liking and let their game-storywriters make a true script for Tomb Raider- the movie?
I liked Wing Commander the movie :)
But I'm pretty sure I was the only one. Fans of the series were even more critical about that movie than outsiders...even though the original game-storywriter wrote (and directed) the movie.
I think Wing Commander was a failure because of the cast. Seriously, teen-angst heartthrobs Matthew Lillard and Freddie Prinze Jr? They needed an older, early-30's looking cast to pull it off. Instead, we basically got punk kids in fighter ships flying around like it's all cool and everything instead of taking their jobs seriously.
I need to see that River City Rumble movie!
Also:
QuoteSir, you have gone too far, Milla Jovovich is a goddess on screen and can do no wrong.
Blargh. Just blargh.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 19/10/2008 13:02:18
Part of it ties in to the arrogance of the screenwriter, who thinks he can one-up anything, be it in written or video game format. This Hollywood arrogance is what often results in absolute disasters for film adaptations because they take so much creative license that there's almost no original content.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 21/10/2008 16:17:38
To "not miss" with a movie based on game, you have to stay on game character(s) and rules.
What is a game? A set of rules.
All games have rules. Movies have no right to replace or change the rules.
They are the basis of the game. Movie isn't a game, indeed, but if it doesn't reflect game rules, it's not about that particular game.
I think of this as "the great fanboy myth": The idea that what's wrong with movie adaptations is that they take liberties with the source material, and that everything would be alright if they just put the book/comic/game/TV show on the screen the way it is.
This kind of thinking leads to projects like Stephen King remaking
The Shining. Oh, so Kubrick's film is different from the book. Big deal! It's a brilliant film, and that's all that matters. Is the remake any better for being more like the novel? Obviously not.
And it's the kind of thinking that cause stubborn old
Battlestar Galactica fans to reject the revamped version, just because it's not in the same "spirit" as the original, never mind that it's... you know,
good.
It's easy enough to pin the blame on "creative license" when a film sucks, but really, most Hollywood blockbusters suck regardless of where the material comes from. I don't see any evidence that the cause has anything to do with straying from their inspirations. In fact, truly excellect films like
Blade Runner,
Apocalypse Now,
There Will Be Blood and many others stem from the "arrogance of the screenwriter" to completely reshape a source text. How many films that slavishly follow whatever they're based on have achieved a comparable level of greatness?
If you start out insisting that the screenwriter, director and other creative people who are going to actually make the film can't take any creative liberties, can't come up with their own personal interpretations or alternative ideas, how do you expect to get anything but a bland, uninspired movie out of it?
If the writer has the arrogance to make changes, and they'are actually good, what's the problem? And if the writer can't tell that his ideas are worse than the original ones, do you really think that that writer would be able to come up with a good script anyway, even sticking to the original plot?
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 22/10/2008 07:09:49
If you start out insisting that the screenwriter, director and other creative people who are going to actually make the film can't take any creative liberties, can't come up with their own personal interpretations or alternative ideas, how do you expect to get anything but a bland, uninspired movie out of it?
If the writer has the arrogance to make changes, and they'are actually good, what's the problem? And if the writer can't tell that his ideas are worse than the original ones, do you really think that that writer would be able to come up with a good script anyway, even sticking to the original plot?
I agree...
Quotequote author=ProgZmax link=topic=35487.msg470429#msg470429 date=1224640300]
I think Wing Commander was a failure because of the cast. Seriously, teen-angst heartthrobs Matthew Lillard and Freddie Prinze Jr? They needed an older, early-30's looking cast to pull it off. Instead, we basically got punk kids in fighter ships flying around like it's all cool and everything instead of taking their jobs seriously.
And I agree again...
So basically: I haven't seen a good game-movie-adaptation yet.
And the reasons are one or more of the following:
A.
Miscasting. This is most often true when they try to make it a flavour of the month vehicle (like Wing Commander)
B.
Miswriting. The writers don't seem to understand the source-material, and will therefore introduce changes that just don't fit to the world. This doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't take the liberty to make the movie stand out on its own. But they should stick to what's working in the original, and should get freedom on everything else
C.
Misdirecting. A good director adapts some of the writing to his own vision (even though it's the same general story, with the same general characters, I consider the Thomas 'Brosnan' Crown affair better than the Thomas' McQueen' Crown affair...thanks to changes in the plot made by the director).
C'.
Bad cinematography. Some movies are ruined simply by the fact that they didn't capture the right atmosphere.
D.
Guy in Suits. Mass-appeal and PG-ratings can ruin any movie, Max Payne as a PG-13 movie does sound kinda weird.
E.
Crappy Original. Let's face it...most games have bad dialogue, a cliché plot, terrible acting, and pretty special effects. Most gamers like to
play instead of waiting for the story to evolve. Therefore most stories are kept simple, clean, and understandable even when you skip the cutscene. Some of the best sold games in gaming history hardly had a story at all (super mario brothers, the sims). So it shouldn't come as a surprise if these movies either take great liberties or suck...and yes, I think the sims (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1042380/) will suck.
From what I understand, B and D ruined Max Payne (there is no general consensus about A).
But who knows...maybe Jake Gyllenhaal is a good Prince of Persia...at least Jordan Mechner was involved in the script...
QuoteAny changes will be accepted ONLY if they really add something to the story, make things better. Surprise even original creators of that fictional world/character/etc.
I so said it before.
But some shit-movie creator (BollBollBoll) coming and thinking that story of a good game is too lousy for his crappy movie, no thanks.
QuoteI think of this as "the great fanboy myth": The idea that what's wrong with movie adaptations is that they take liberties with the source material, and that everything would be alright if they just put the book/comic/game/TV show on the screen the way it is.
You're misinterpreting me. I'm not talking about people like Kubrick who had respect for the original and did touch-ups here and there or LOTR, which had some glaring differences I didn't agree with but overall enjoyed the film; I'm talking about people who clearly are
not up to the the calibre of the source material but think they can do better, and they fail miserably.
I think we've all seen screenwriters or directors interviewed that claim the source had to be 'spiced up' or something ridiculous and the outcome was horrible.
I'm all for people being creative with their own creations, but I really do despise people taking creative license with established and loved works, especially when they massively dump over it or miss the point of the book/game entirely. I think when you're handling someone else's balls, you should be gentle and hold them as you'd want yours held, that's all.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 24/10/2008 02:26:26
QuoteI think of this as "the great fanboy myth": The idea that what's wrong with movie adaptations is that they take liberties with the source material, and that everything would be alright if they just put the book/comic/game/TV show on the screen the way it is.
You're misinterpreting me. I'm not talking about people like Kubrick who had respect for the original and did touch-ups here and there or LOTR, which had some glaring differences I didn't agree with but overall enjoyed the film;
I beg to differ. Kubrick didn't just touch up parts here and there, he made his very own piece of art; it was different and King wasn't too fond of it (which is why he re-made it himself later) but it worked because Kubrick was brilliant and original and King is at best a decent main stream writer.
LOTR is another story in my humble opinion; Jackson didn't have very much of his own artistic agenda; he simply turned it to a story that was easier to follow, more modernised and not so lengthy. LOTR isn't exactly layered or full of messages or symbolism; if you get through all the poetry and the abundant descriptions and the extensive backfill you can enjoy an epic story about good and bad, and that's pretty much it.
Quote
I'm all for people being creative with their own creations, but I really do despise people taking creative license with established and loved works, especially when they massively dump over it or miss the point of the book/game entirely.
All good adaptation is original artwork. A book translated to another language is a brand new piece of literature.
No movie can stay perfectly true to a novel. A novel isn't a story waiting to be filmed; we're talking two vastly different media here.
Blade Runner is a superb movie.
Fight Club is a superb movie, and the novel is rather mediocre.
Dune is a graphically interesting but pompous movie not at all true to the novel, which was different in almost every aspect save for its pompousness.
I agree that filmmakers without a genuine interest for the original book/comic/whatever, but who only want to ride on a well established franchise and make quick money are horrible. But it's not the fact that they alter the story that is horrible; it's how they do it.
People who are talentless are going to produce crap, no matter what approach they take. No amount of respect and care for the source material is going to protect you from that unavoidable fact.
Given that, I think making an adaptation requires a leap of faith: you have to believe that you're up to the task, and have the confidence to make any necessary changes so that the script and the film work on their own terms. I'd much rather have a few embarrassingly misconceived failures than see filmmakers too afraid to add their own creative input to a non-original work.
It's not like there's a neat, universal distinction between Hollywood hacks and brilliant auteurs, so that you could issue licenses to only the first group to modify a beloved work. You can only really judge whether a change works or not in hindsight, once the film has been made.
As a forinstance, take David Lynch's Dune (Edit: Nice coincidence, Andail!). I'm a great fan of the book, but the film is a mess on pretty much every level (Lynch tends to agree). But it doesn't make sense to blame him (as the main screenwriter and the director) for deviating from the book. The truth is, Dune almost certainly couldn't be filmed as-is (for a whole bunch of reasons), and if someone tried, the result would be stiff, boring, confusing, and drag on for hours (which is how the film ended up in any case, but never mind that). So Lynch made changes. Somewhere things went wrong, but at least he tried to deal boldly with the problems posed by an adaptation. As a fanboy, I think it would have been nice if they had got a director whose vision was more in line with Frank Herbert's, but as a moviegoer I can't say that it would have made for a better film. (The Sci-Fi Channel miniseries is a more faithful adaptation, but not particularly effective, dramatically speaking.) Had he pulled it off, we would at least have had a great David Lynch movie, even if it wasn't the real Dune put to celluloid just as we knew it. The book would still be here.
I would add that there are brilliant films that have been made by filmmakers who had little respect for the source material, who were only interested in some particular aspect of it that sparked their imagination, and threw the rest of it out. While this is frustrating and disappointing to fans of the original, it's a completely valid way to work.
Quote from: Andail on Fri 24/10/2008 07:59:35
A novel isn't a story waiting to be filmed
I didn't realize it until I realized it but when I was younger this is how I thought. When there was something I liked and I heard it was going to be a movie I thought "Awesome! The ultimate compliment/media for experiencing the story!" and even when I was disappointed over and over again I didn't quite realize what was going on.
It's almost hilarious how long it took me to realize this stupid way of thinking I had.
Now when I hear that something I like is going to be remade in a different media, I can separate it from the original and view it as something different.
The Time Travelers Wife is one of my favorite books, they are making a movie out of it, if it sucks the book is still amazing. NO HARM DONE!
Wicked is also one of my favorite books... Went to see the play and it was one of the more boring thing I have seen in years. THE BOOK IS STILL GOOD!
Alan Moore thinking movie adaptations of his comics are silly and pointless is an interesting thing to read. I mostly only hear how excited the author is to have a movie made out of their story [either genuine excitement or marketing inspired excitement].
Anyway, sorry for not talking about Max Payne, it was a game where you shot people and the story was silly, I didn't expect anything from the movie and I confused why people are surprised the movie wasn't amazing. Also, doesn't Agent 47 in Hitman have a sword in most of the hitman games?
QuoteNo movie can stay perfectly true to a novel. A novel isn't a story waiting to be filmed; we're talking two vastly different media here.
I think a movie can stay true to a novel in every important way and still be marketable and successful. Certainly because of subplots and movie runtime you have to trim a bit, but some of the actual changes to the narratives I've seen are simply atrocious. Granted, there are some books with subject matter or plots or thousands of characters that ups the challenge, but I've read many books that were written in a very visual and fast-paced way that would work well on the screen in pretty much their entirety.
Both Blade Runner and Fight Club were rather ho-hum movies, which goes to show how much opinions and tastes vary, even when it comes to whether or not people should and could stay true to source material.
QuoteAs a forinstance, take David Lynch's Dune (Edit: Nice coincidence, Andail!). I'm a great fan of the book, but the film is a mess on pretty much every level (Lynch tends to agree). But it doesn't make sense to blame him (as the main screenwriter and the director) for deviating from the book. The truth is, Dune almost certainly couldn't be filmed as-is (for a whole bunch of reasons), and if someone tried, the result would be stiff, boring, confusing, and drag on for hours (which is how the film ended up in any case, but never mind that). So Lynch made changes.
I disagree.
Dune was a damn disaster.
Disaster.
Infact, every moment when Lynch used the book it was watchable.
Almost every change he made was a disaster. Turning Baron Harkonnen into some kind of acne monster?! I kept my eyes closed when he was on screen. It was simply too disgusting, both the idea and rape of the story with such a "change". Making spice navigators into aliens? Eyebrows of mentat? Today (re-watched few months ago - atleast tried to), it seems like unreachable goal for "Jackass" show in terms of shock effect and defining word "gross".
No era excuses here. You don't need 3D graphics to keep popping acne off the characters face or reduce gas blowing holes on space/spice navigator. Or NOT paint walls of harkonnen castle with some sickly-ugly hospital green.
It wasn't even the "changes" but interpretations of the elements.
Sure, he tried to follow novel, even way too much, leaving elements unexplained and untied, focusing often on things he could simply leave out because they didn't really have carrying role in book, yet he kept forgetting the carrying roles...
To be honest, "twist" ending of the original book sucked too, IMO.
But no point to repeat it on screen and making it look like something important.
And only thing I liked at all was Bioshock'ish design choices for architecture. Steampunk?
Then again, there were things that I find unimaginable without help of 3D graphics. Personal shields, krys knives, ornithopters for example. Going retro on such hardcore sci-fi elements does not work. Not if your name is David Lynch, atleast.
Well, it was the year I was born... some points for effort are still given.
Dune would still be superior material in 2008, in some great director's hands, and supported by heavy CGI.
The original I mean. Not much into sequels by other people.
I think that best thing about Dune IS the environment setup. Introduction to totally fictional world. Once you got through introduction of things in book (pretty much 80% of the book?), story started to suck and picked up uncomfortable pace.
Got totally offtopic here.
Off to see Max Payne: The movie!
Did you happen to see the 2000 Dune miniseries, InCreator? I didn't really care for it but it seemed to be a closer adaptation of the novel overall.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/
Also, there's a Dune movie being planned for 2010.
I think Dune the movie still deserves some praise for a fair amount of visual ingenuity and a whole lot of bravery.
Having said that, I really look forward to a new adaptation that might care more about capturing the atmosphere of the novel. And I look forward to seeing proper youths playing the sons of the rivalling families instead of a greased up Sting and a stiff McLahlan in his thirties.
For some reason, the mini-series - or the very little I've seen of it - has disappointed me even more; instead of movie's highly innovative gigeresque steampunk you get the typical horrid, chatty costume-drama with some computer rendered backgrounds and soft days-of-our-lives lightning.
EDIT:
I also must say that save for some few weird choices, the casting of the movie was excellent. Really cool actors in their prime.
EDIT 2:
Wait, I've already talked about the cast before! (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=29395.msg402968#msg402968)
New Dune movie, IMO, should lend more from RTS games (Dune 2 and latter) than 60's book. I mean look'n'feel. Music and design choices. Without "under construction" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INq6gqEEhXc) or "robotix" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Cp9jZ1YOEY) the image is incomplete.
Westwood somehow managed to turn poetic, maybe a bit overdone sci-fi meditation into an awesome techno-thriller.
And this is how *I* imagine Dune. Humans after millennias of warfare, progress and science. Conquering universes but still powerless against nature and need for natural resources. This is what makes Dune immortal, timeless and perfectly believable hundreds of years after us.
Dune 2, 2000 and Emperor: Battle for Dune capture that moment pretty well.
I wonder why Command & Conquer 3 engine isn't used for another Dune game release yet? Maybe after Red Alert 3 it will...