|
Post by seagull on Oct 13, 2005 22:17:33 GMT -5
Anyone have an opinion on this? I personally don't think they make a very good transition. The only videogame movie I liked was Super Mario Brothers. But Resident Evil, House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, all that shit pretty much eats ass.
Also, I guess Peter Jackson (if you don't know who that is, I pity you) has signed up to direct the adaptation of Halo. What do you think of that? So far, he has had a pretty good success, and as a director he might be able to pull more than action out of the videogames. Like, maybe a little plot?
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 13, 2005 23:42:21 GMT -5
yeah, usually video games have fairly weak plots by themselves. If it weren't for the gaming side I'd never bother with them. Some of the best games ever had no plot at all (pac man, sonic the hedgehog, mario). And when you make it all plot, you get a crappy game. Or in this case, a crappy movie.
I really don't know about this Halo movie. I'm not that familiar with the game, but i'm prety sure it wasn't all that plot based. Peter Jackson might be able to make a good flick...but I've got some serious doubts.
Wasn't somone making a metroid movie?
|
|
|
Post by Rock Lobster on Oct 14, 2005 0:06:39 GMT -5
FUCK HALO!
Now, with that out of my system, I don't think video games should EVER be made into movies. That's just retarded. Like the Final Fantasy movie. I thought it would be awesome, but I prefer to just play the fricken game.
I think I liked Mario though. I remember seeing it a long time ago and liking it. It wasn't really like the video game though was it?
|
|
|
Post by kay on Oct 14, 2005 9:10:22 GMT -5
I like the Tomb Raider movies... Never played the games though, I'll admit..
And Resident evil's good (haven't played the games or seen the second movie).
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 14, 2005 12:42:26 GMT -5
I agree with Jessy. But I think the reason I like Mario Bros. was because it took the characters from the game, and developed a story using the characters.
The main fault, I believe, is the fact that video games depend on action, otherwise they wouldn't be entertaining to the people playing them. So, what you get when you make a flick out of these games, is just another hollywood blockbuster action picture.
This Doom movie is being hailed as innovative because it brings the "first person shooter" aspect into the movie. This seems pointless to me, because if you are going to watch a monster get cut up by a chainsaw (in poor cgi, I might point out), wouldn't you rather control the chainsaw?
As for Ol' Pete Jackson, I think he is a greedy mother fucker who will do anything for money. Keep in mind, he sued over the profits from LOTR.
By the way, has anyone seen Dead Alive (also known as Braindead)?
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 14, 2005 13:38:11 GMT -5
nope, never seen Dead Alive.
I never saw tomb raider either, but from what I gathered the entire film seemed to revolve around Angelina Jolie's digitally enhanced tits.
And I hate how EVERYTHING is cgi these days. Take the old star wars vs new star wars. The old shit looked real. The new shit looks shiny and plasticy. Half the reason the acting is so shitty is because the set, half the cast, and most the objects in the scene are cg. The other half was that they had allot of shitty actors. Also, George Lucas directed them, he only wrote and produced the originals.
And yeah, Pete Jackson is probobly a greedy bastard. At least LOTR was a good movie...3 good movies technincally.
And this first person shooter aspect is going to suck. What I hate about any first person game is that you don't get a real grasp of what's going on because you can't see much of what's around you. Plus, the Rock is in it....he fucking sucks.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 14, 2005 14:19:38 GMT -5
I hear that shit.
It is very unlikely to see a movie these days that is not digitally enhanced in some way.
George Lucas is a fucking jackass. He thinks he is the god to special effects, therefore he feels that he must insert them into every movie he does. And then, if they don't have enough, he'll rerelease them with more. Even see the directors cut of THX1138? Jesus christ, the mother fucker digitally inserted digital monkeys into the movie. ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? That movie was nothing much a showcase of poor special effects. Plot had potential, but was underdeveloped, characters were retarded. Movie fucking sucked. Fuck George Lucas. Sometimes it is more impressive to limit the special effects than showcase them. I recently saw the original star wars movies on VHS, prior to the digital enhancement, and what was wrong with the special effects in that? Models and shit rule over fucking cgi, anyday.
This is turning into a post fit for the rant session.
Dead Alive shows Peter Jackson's roots, and they are fucked up. Zombie Entrails, that's all I have to say.
Also, when a bitch punches a shark in the face, grabs the thing's tail, then rides that fucker to the surface, that is a shitty movie.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 14, 2005 15:35:03 GMT -5
haha, i think I'd like to see that just to laugh at the obvious unreality of it all.
|
|
|
Post by Rock Lobster on Oct 15, 2005 18:14:39 GMT -5
The main fault, I believe, is the fact that video games depend on action, otherwise they wouldn't be entertaining to the people playing them. ....wouldn't you rather control the chainsaw? Damn straight. That's the only reason you get into video game plots in the first place, not to watch it, but to control the game. Making a movie out of it is just stupid. I also agree with you guys about all the digital effects. It's gone WAY out of hand. Fuck technology (as I type on the internet). And yes Jessy, the only reason people watched the tomb raider movies was for Angelina Jolie's tits. They totally ripped off Indiana Jones and the Mummy with all the fight scenes. It was a very very simple plot with very very large boobs.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 15, 2005 18:27:24 GMT -5
hurray boobs! Making men do things they wouldn't normally do since the dawn of time.
|
|
|
Post by kay on Oct 17, 2005 13:18:13 GMT -5
And yes Jessy, the only reason people watched the tomb raider movies was for Angelina Jolie's tits. They totally ripped off Indiana Jones and the Mummy with all the fight scenes. It was a very very simple plot with very very large boobs. Um, excuse me, I believe I need to take a stand here. I did not see the Tomb Raider movies to watch Angelina Joile's tits. I watched the movie for the movie. For all that females-kick-ass feminist bullshit that I sometimes am in the mood for. And no, I don't believe I am the only one who did so. I like the Tomb Raider movies, though I believe the first was better than the second, since they got a little out of hand with all the make-believe in the second one.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 17, 2005 14:53:59 GMT -5
bollocks. If I see another kick-but bad girl cliche in a movie I'm gonna puke.
No. I'm not sexist. It's just been done over and over and over again. Do something different once in a while.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 18, 2005 22:18:33 GMT -5
These fucking video game movies are a trend, and it is beginning to get tireless. Nearly every shitbird videogame that is a hit is subsequently adapted to film. People just need to quit paying money to see these turds, and maybe hollywood will get the idea. Like comicbooks, not all video games are equipped properly for the transition.
I say fuck em. They are shitty movies, with shitty plots, and a heavy dependence on CGI.
|
|
|
Post by Diogenes on Oct 18, 2005 23:40:31 GMT -5
CGI breasts none the less.
|
|
|
Post by seagull on Oct 19, 2005 0:05:48 GMT -5
CGI titties are better than CGI bloody cock.
Evidence: Tomb Raider vs. Irreversible.
Not saying Tomb Raider is a better movie, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather see CGI tits than a CGI blood-stained cock.
|
|