"I came here to to kick *** and chew bubble gum, and IIt already exists and it's called "They live" by Johnny Carpenter...
The more movies Uwe makes the better he will get, right?
So maybe in 10 years we will have good movies based on games. Besides he is a genius, who else can make money out of movies that nobody likes?
Apparently anyone. I saw the Far Cry trailer starts with Boll KS. It should say Boll BS.Apparently he takes advantage of a film investment law in Germany that was put in place to promote investment in local films. So investors of the film only pay taxes on the profit of the movie and anything lost is accepted as a tax wright off. Way to waste taxpayer money, Uwe!
Disagree with both of those. A plot's a plot. Saw Underworld a few years ago, and my first thought was, "Romeo and Juliet with werewolves and vampires". Same plot as Shakespeare had, actually, but it works. What I'd like to know is how fans and professional reviewers(especially) can mistake atmosphere for story, whereas you are able to tell the difference, but aren't a professional reviewer, who would have a better idea than a fan, I'd guess.For those who don't know:
Boll is a director who has taken several videogames and turned them into movies.
Games have a certain quality to their story that just doesn't fit into a movie. It's ok or even great for a game, but not for a real film!
Kind of like a porn-movie can have a plot and everyone's like: "Oh, look, what a wonderful plot" when in fact it is abysmal, but at least there is one at all!
It's similar with games.
As most games don't have a real plot at all, those that do take the extra mile to present one that is at least somewhat intriguing are hailed for their awesome story - with reviewers and fans often mistaking atmosphere for story!
Making a movie out of those REQUIRES you to butcher the original plot OR to just make a crappy movie with what you've got.
Uwe Boll, and here is the problem, did both. He butchered the games while still coming up with crappy movies.
A quote from the imdb.com trivia section about him:
1. I doubt any hard-core fan of the original Romeo and Juliet would attest you that Underworld did NOT butcher the original...Apparently anyone. I saw the Far Cry trailer starts with Boll KS. It should say Boll BS.
Disagree with both of those. A plot's a plot. Saw Underworld a few years ago, and my first thought was, "Romeo and Juliet with werewolves and vampires". Same plot as Shakespeare had, actually, but it works.
If a game has a good atmosphere, the over-all story seems to be more complex than it actually is, because oyu fill in the blanks with imagination.What I'd like to know is how fans and professional reviewers(especially) can mistake atmosphere for story, whereas you are able to tell the difference, but aren't a professional reviewer, who would have a better idea than a fan, I'd guess.
My first thought, reading that, was Blair Witch Projects a good example of a non-existant plot.1. I doubt any hard-core fan of the original Romeo and Juliet would attest you that Underworld did NOT butcher the original...
2. Romeo and Juliet was already written as a drama, for stage performances and the differences from drama to film aren't nearly as gaping as those between game to film.
If a game has a good atmosphere, the over-all story seems to be more complex than it actually is, because oyu fill in the blanks with imagination.
Example: Soul Reaver 1
It had a pretty basic but cool plot but it wasn't deep or anything. Just unusual. However the atmosphere was so great that all the small unconnected hints you got about the places you visited made you come up with your own explanation of what happened although there was NONE in the game. The result is that most people will say that Soul Reaver 1 had a very complex story, although it was mainly the atmosphere that was so great.
I think even the developers didn't get the difference between atmosphere and story, because appearantly they were charmed by all those reviewers and fans who said the story was great so wanting to deliver more of the same they packed a lot of story into Soul Reaver 2. That game had a lot of story but much less atmosphere! The end-result is, that at least for me and all the people I know, Soul Reaver 2 wasn't nearly as enjoyable as the first part.
Or just look at Half-Life! Excluding Episode 1 and 2 as those really seemed to focus more on the story. HL1 and HL2 had a very basic story-line. But it had enough holes in it - presumably because the devs had no idea about their own "story" either - so people filled in the blanks. HL1 is always said to have a great story. Imagine that - and only what you get to see in the game! Not those extensive fan-fiction-like writings about the story that float around in the internet - as a movie: Boring B-movie. It could only be good if it's very tongue-in-cheek.
Yet people praise HL as a game with a great story because it had a great atmosphere and a great setting!
Regarding Far Cry: Boll can't butcher a whole lot there because the story is different from Far Cry game to Far Cry game anyway. Play Far Cry (PC) and then play Far Cry Instincts/Evolution/Predator (xbox/xbox 360) to see what I mean. He can do everything with Jack Carver and no one can argue that that wouldn't be true to the games because the games contradict each-other already.
But still, Bolls an arrogant ***, and needs to gtfo of the movie business.
But..Hes the only genius in the movie business! Polanski, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese, Lucas, Speilberg, all hacks!Just to add a more substantial reason, i think millions of German taxpayers would also be happy if he stopped wasting their money
But..Hes the only genius in the movie business! Polanski, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Scorsese, Lucas, Speilberg, all hacks!
Warning! Minor typo nitpicker detected! Set phasers to buttseks!You're right, Speilberg is a hack, he's certainly no Spielberg.
See how thats not so different? Also, I havent played RO since it went retail, it need Steam, and I find it too invasive for my taste, which is why I dont play games with Punkbuster, since they got invasive too.the storytelling of cinema and videogames are not the same and they are not compatible.
In games the story develops arround the main character, the main character has to overcome lots of trials, defeat a lot of enemies, what the main character does, and how the main character does things is the atractive point, you have the feeling of watching events play out, the effects that should never distract you from what is important (the storyline), ... (why are you playing RO if that wasn't the case, huh?).
Movies must have interesting stories, you have to wonder what WILL HAPPEN next instead of what will YOU do next, thats it, YOU don't have to do anything, so that part of the equation is removed, when you have a game you want to play it, not watch someone else play it for you. What is not important for the story itself must be removed.
it all comes to the basic principles of both media
"games must be played"
"movies must be watched"
so, if they release a "something" based on "something else", it will most likely fail. (game -> movie, and viceversa)
Besides, when that kind of project is made, its with the only objective to get rich, instead of real artistic inspiration, exponentially increasing the chances of failure
I don't say its impossible to make a good movie based on a game, and viceversa, it would all depend in the talent, and the capacity of the creators to know WHAT they are making
imagine is "enemy at the gates" was called "red orchestra: the movie", it wouldn't be close to the game, but I would gladly accept it as a worthy movie, instead of 4 chessy characters playing heroes in a tench for 2 hours
an example of a good game based on a movie would be "Star Wars: Republic Commando", is not based on any movie in particular, is just that the setting is star wars, and they chose to release a GAME that is actually fun to play.
I dont really see Republic Commando as based on a movie, but being based on the same "world" as a movie.