Max Payne

[Paper Carnival]

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.

[InCreator]

Are 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?

[Misj']

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?

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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:

Sir, you have gone too far, Milla Jovovich is a goddess on screen and can do no wrong.

Blargh.  Just blargh.

[Snarky]

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.

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?

[Misj']

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...

quote 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 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...

[InCreator]

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.

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

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.

[Andail]

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.

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.

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.

[Snarky]

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.

[MrColossal]

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?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

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.

[InCreator]

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.

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!

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

[Andail]

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!

[InCreator]

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" or "robotix" 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...