To facilitate video games and their rise to the art fourm of which we all hope they'll be respected as some day, finding (as Sean Elliot would say) a storytelling language native to the medium is nessecary and proper. And those games that have tried it thus far have provided for me new experiences that a cutscene-laden game like Metal Gear Solid 2 or Okami couldn't replicate. And yet, that type of gameplay is something I would never want to completley leave behind. I feel like I'm in this strange in-between space where I advocate the evolution of storytelling in games while at the same time dreading the day where the old troupes of game storytelling are gone for good.
Which brings me, in a roundabout sort of way, to video game to movie transitions. You have the new Bioshock movie coming from Gore Verbinski. I don't know really what to think of the idea, as I'm not inherently against the concept of adapting a story or concept into a different artform. But at the same time, I feel like the way video game to movie transitions go at this point, it's just not going to work. Video game movies projects tend to have two possible outcomes. The first is simply the use of the name and perhaps a few elements from the source material to create a completely unrelated product. These ones always confuse me. From a financial standpoint, it makes sense. You take an already generic, mediocre script and just throw it out into a movie, it might not do so well. If you can slap a well known name onto it, you'll get that much more. You have the sort of fans who will like it no matter what. You have the sort of fans who will hate anything Hollywood produces based on their beloved product, but they'll see it anyway, because they have to. All those irate Transformers fans? They saw Micheal Bay's Transformers movie. But from an artistic standpoint, why would you need it? Why make a Max Payne movie when you could make some other generic neo-noir flick with a similar concept?
And then you have the second outcome, which is the very literal sort of retelling and representation of the events of the source material. It's the kind of thing you have folks like Uwe Boll doing, and it's not like he's making anyone happy there. This might have worked for a game like Mario (ironically), but in this day and age, with our new games that emphasis the players experience, something like this just can't work. We have games like the Grand Theft Auto series that are well know for both the intended narrative of the main story and the narrative that you create through your own experiences in the game. But back to Bioshock. I always get a little annoyed when people refer to games like Half Life 2 and Bioshock as cinematic. Both games do share characteristics of movies, but I personally think both games are excellent examples of how video game narrative can do things that movies can't.
And that's why I think that a Bioshock movie made under the current style that video game-based films are made in would completely miss the point. Bioshock is a game that's about your experience in Rapture, not Brad Pitt's. The way the story is told, the embedded narrative, it would seem awkward in a straight-up adaption. Giving the unnamed, faceless protagonist a name and a face would cheapen the experience. So what do I think Gore and crew should do? I don't know. I'm just babbling here. Perhaps we could see someone else's story set in the Bioshock universe? A film that stayed true to the universe and concepts of Bioshock could be great. But at the same time, I'm certainly not calling for a generic b-grade unrelated story with the Bioshock name slapped on the front; no one wants that. I feel that if video games keep evolving as a story telling medium, any attempts at adapting those games into movies are going to have to evolve as well.
Which brings me, in a roundabout sort of way, to video game to movie transitions. You have the new Bioshock movie coming from Gore Verbinski. I don't know really what to think of the idea, as I'm not inherently against the concept of adapting a story or concept into a different artform. But at the same time, I feel like the way video game to movie transitions go at this point, it's just not going to work. Video game movies projects tend to have two possible outcomes. The first is simply the use of the name and perhaps a few elements from the source material to create a completely unrelated product. These ones always confuse me. From a financial standpoint, it makes sense. You take an already generic, mediocre script and just throw it out into a movie, it might not do so well. If you can slap a well known name onto it, you'll get that much more. You have the sort of fans who will like it no matter what. You have the sort of fans who will hate anything Hollywood produces based on their beloved product, but they'll see it anyway, because they have to. All those irate Transformers fans? They saw Micheal Bay's Transformers movie. But from an artistic standpoint, why would you need it? Why make a Max Payne movie when you could make some other generic neo-noir flick with a similar concept?
And then you have the second outcome, which is the very literal sort of retelling and representation of the events of the source material. It's the kind of thing you have folks like Uwe Boll doing, and it's not like he's making anyone happy there. This might have worked for a game like Mario (ironically), but in this day and age, with our new games that emphasis the players experience, something like this just can't work. We have games like the Grand Theft Auto series that are well know for both the intended narrative of the main story and the narrative that you create through your own experiences in the game. But back to Bioshock. I always get a little annoyed when people refer to games like Half Life 2 and Bioshock as cinematic. Both games do share characteristics of movies, but I personally think both games are excellent examples of how video game narrative can do things that movies can't.
And that's why I think that a Bioshock movie made under the current style that video game-based films are made in would completely miss the point. Bioshock is a game that's about your experience in Rapture, not Brad Pitt's. The way the story is told, the embedded narrative, it would seem awkward in a straight-up adaption. Giving the unnamed, faceless protagonist a name and a face would cheapen the experience. So what do I think Gore and crew should do? I don't know. I'm just babbling here. Perhaps we could see someone else's story set in the Bioshock universe? A film that stayed true to the universe and concepts of Bioshock could be great. But at the same time, I'm certainly not calling for a generic b-grade unrelated story with the Bioshock name slapped on the front; no one wants that. I feel that if video games keep evolving as a story telling medium, any attempts at adapting those games into movies are going to have to evolve as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment