Welcome to Gaia! ::

In the latest TombRaider games made by Crystal Dynamics they've tried to give Lara a personality, so she's not just pixels in the shape of a woman anymore...however I could go on forever about how bad the Crystal Dynamics games are compared to the old Core Design ones. But what about characters like Super Mario? he's not got a personality yet they tried to give him one in the movie.

Characters in films NEED personality and in older video games character didn't have that...in the latest one the story of the game is worked on alot more than it used to be. Games now seek to create emotional responses in the gamer, just like movies should always do...so perhaps modern games could be converted into good movies..who knows...perhaps it all depends on how "deep" the game is. Characters like Lara Croft and Hitman had no personality so perhaps they didn't convert into good movie characters.

Picking up on what Yuuki said about game characters dying and coming back to life but in a movie they don't, I think that's interesting. In a movie the people are real...and movie-makers will try to make the movies based upon reality whereas games aren't like this...maybe they could try to make a movie a little more unrealistic? make a character die and come bac to life or something? Not sure if it would work though...but it's an example of how games and movies are to different genres and different rules apply to them and so are not easily converted.

One of the main things I think about a game is that the gamer has full control of the character...he is IN the game..experiencing it...in a movie the character does whatever he wants and the viewer has no control what-so-ever. Perhaps this is why people are often disappointed with a movie based on a game...because they've lost the control of their character.

People always seem to think "wow my favourite game could make a really amazing movie" yet when it's made into one they're disappointed because it's not as good as they visualised it in their minds, yet I'm sure that they couldn't have made it any better. People are always willing to complain about the people who've made the movie, yet unwilling to admit that sometimes a game just cannot be converted to a movie, no matter how hard you try.

Considering the Prince of Persia movie, already there have been people grumping about it based only on the trailer they've seen, making assumptions already. Clearly they're already biased because they don't want to see a game they loved being ruined.
From what I've read so far the movie is only loosely based on Sands of Time. the character aren't the same and even the enemies and villains aren't the same as in the games. It's got a distinctly realistic look rather than the cartoony look of the first game too. This interests me because if it stuck absolutely to the story of the game I'd be bored cause I'd already know the story...at least it's going to be different and show me something I don't know...
I'm quite a big fan of the Prince of Persia games and I'm still excited about the movie. Even if it turns out to be bad it's not gunna make me lose interest in the games or make me grump about how bad the movie was and how it should never have been made. It's been made by Jerry Bruckheimer, a decent guy and alot of money being spent on it so I think it's at least worth the effort and the attempt....it doesn't look like it'll be a lousy cash-in movie...

Mario is a whole different case though. It's one thing when a character is bland. But Mario didn't have ANY character at all. And when there's nothing to work from, it's so much easier to actually create something out of it, because they could do anything. Lara Croft is a rich girl who finds treasure and kills endangered species. No danger ever phases her, she's super smart and knows every myth there is, and usually her 'wit' comes off as smar assery. In fact, the only really witty and funny thing I heard her say was in Tomb Raider legend, where Zip says, "You're pretty deep. So the communication between us might be cut off." and she says, "There is a god." That was funny![/tangent]

Mario is a plumber who goes to save the princess in a Mushroom Kingdom. That's all there is to him. So it can work out to be a very good thing or a very bad thing.
Actually, Sonic is a better example. If anyone's familiar with the old Sonic Cartoons, released on the same year, in the 1990s, one was just horrible mash of nonsense, the other created complex characters, interesting storylines, and a really cool artificial universe. When you are given nothing, you can either keep it the same pile of nothing, or you can get creative. People should do the latter more often. I wanna see how far they can go with, "Tetris: The Movie"

Although it makes me think.
I mean, back when game characters had NO personalities, or limited personalities and stories, it was kinda cool to interpret that into a movie with actual characters who walk around and talk, and do the stuff like in the games. Mortal Kombat is an awesome example.
But now, with games like Uncharted, Metal Gear Solid, etc. They do it so well that... Would they even NEED the movies? What would be the point?


Actually, that's a good point, but I don't think it's as much about control as it is about mind set. In a lot of games, you get cinematic, gameplay, cinematic, gameplay. So between those cinematics, you walk around, shoot guys, do whatever. And during that time, (if you're anything like me) you're so immersed in it that you start thinking like the character. What would they be thinking at that moment, according to you?
Since most games don't have THAT much of a story aspect, I mean, 5 minute cinematics per half an hour of gameplay isn't a lot. That means there's so much we don't know about the character and our mind fills in the gaps.
And yes, that's taken away at the movies, and you go, "Well, I just didn't picture this character to be like that."
But again, that's only with character centric games. It's not like Doom is popular for its iconic main hero.

Exactly! I've been saying that for a long time.


Well from what I've seen, they at least got the art direction right. It looks gorgeous, and proper to the source material. And sometimes, proper art direction could turn an okay movie into a pretty damn good one.
I don't know if I'll see Prince of Persia, since I didn't get around to playing the games. But I'm sure you'll let me know if it's worth seeing or not.

Yeah, that's totally unnecessary. Depending on the cast, I might go see it, but I don't think I'll be satisfied with it.

However, IF a bunch of people see it and say, "Hey, I wanna play this game now," then all the better. Because despite Uncharted 2 getting ridiculously positive reviews, majority of people still don't seem to care, because they're too hung up on Modern Warfare or Assassin's Creed sequels.

Hey, that's not fair. Uncharted 2 implemented a Multiplayer mode, that's actually a lot of fun. And this is coming from a guy who typically doesn't bother with multiplayer at all.
The setting is different, the melee system is different. There's more puzzles. There's helicopters and tanks as enemies now.
What else could you do with it? I mean, it still has to have the climbing, duck and cover shooting in it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Uncharted anymore.

Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing an Uncharted movie prequel. That would show how Drake got into the treasure hunting business in the first place, and maybe told a little bit more of his own backstory.

It would have to be written by the writers of the game, of course.

Yeah. I mean a prequel game wouldn't really work. Because in Uncharted 1, Drake meets the weird freaky monsters, and judging by his reaction, it's the first time he sees something like that. Since he spends the whole game saying, "Curses don't exist" and stuff.
So because of that, the prequel would actually have to be less extreme than Uncharted 1. And making a game like that would only make it less exciting, because the two predecessors are just crazy fun.
But if you make a movie prequel, especially since it's a movie, it can allow for more dialogue, more backstory, and not AS many action sequences. Which is how movies differ from games anyway. Even action movies have a bigger story to action ratio than most games. Games are usually doing doing doing, story, doing doing doing, story etc.

Normally I'm willing to give video game movies the benefit of the doubt. But I gotta say, I'm not too crazy about this idea. Who's the director who doesn't have a creative bone in his body?

Yeah, I read that much. Well anywho, if they can't come up with an original story based around the same characters, then I highly doubt this movie will go over well.