Do games work well as movies? Nope, and this is why

Throughout the history of cinema, adaptations have been a cornerstone of the industry and why? Simply put, it is much easier to adapt a story from a novel, comic, or biography as the work has already been detailed to the point where the writer and director merely condense the source material into less than 3 hours (mostly) and give it a sparkling visual treatment. Stanley Kubrik and Steven Spielberg have literally made their careers out of this process and there is nothing wrong with it as long as you do it right.
This all being the case, why is it so that video games never seem to be adapted well into the film medium? There are a number of variables that have made the transposing of this media a virtual impossibility, each equally as important as the next. To paraphrase film critic Roger Ebert’s statement that video games will never be art, I respectfully disagree – video games are art as long as we treat them as art and realise that artistry has been used to create the work, this is just as pertinent to game development as it is to the creation of a cinematic masterpiece.
Once again I reiterate why videogames, even as an equal art form cannot be realised in film successfully.

Control is the master key of the entire difference between the mediums of film and gaming. No matter how absorbing an underlying story is in a videogame, the truth remains that the medium’s progression is dictated by the user’s choice and interaction. For instance, a game like Gears of War (Epic Games) has an incredibly linear player progression however the game still relies on the player creating the choice of how to approach a specific situation.
Another point in question is the relation of time to that of approach. For the majority of games, the time span of gameplay exceeds the limit of a typical film length - on average about 90 - 120 minutes). The length is not based on the written length of the story, which at most should equate to 30 minutes but rather the progression of narrative due to the users participation. A mere puzzle in the Legend of Zelda (Nintendo), no matter how simple will increase the games length due to the player’s individual approach to the puzzle…and if you’re me then you can bet it will take a while.

Right? Down? Perhaps that cave?

Films will usually follow a narrative derived from an idea called “The heroes quest”. This quest is an organisation of plots that chronicle the protagonists journey from humble beginnings to their trials and tribulations and eventually to the conquest of the antagonist culminating in the almost inevitable “and they lived happily ever after” myth. Games typically have a different approach to story telling. First and foremost the character always will have an origin and this mostly takes place as a “player tutorial” event. The origin event is mostly a minor story arc with a brief intro into the setting. A small development of the main characters occur as is natural to this scripted gameplay method however, one deciding difference in progression will happen after the origin. This difference comes in the form of the notion that singular choice accesses a smaller but still significant plot device known as the shortcut. The shortcut or any choice for that matter changes the direction of the scene and what better example to use than the original Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo) where simply taking a different tunnel will alter where the setting leads…well perhaps Mario wasn’t the best example as the franchise is known for its distinct minimalist narrative.

The concept of death in most video games is unavoidable. Death takes what should be a superhuman character with a destiny of conquest and transports him into a world where he is no more mortal than you and I. This leads to repetition and stunts evolution of the gaming story. The repetition of the characters fall is a tenet of the gaming formula - they want you to die so that you will become the hero and strive to become a super man and overcome their challenges as though they were your own.

The principle difference between video games and film is the fact that progress is decided by our interaction with the medium. It goes without saying that cinema merely requires our presence as an audience sitting, being the camera, associating with the characters however video games recognize this idea with a more hands on approach (excuse the pun). We are the character and no matter how cinematic the experience, the fact is that the story as witnessed in the Call of Duty series moves along with the help of a button press or two. The video game technology makes the player aware of the medium as opposed to cinema which tries to mask the viewer’s physical presence. This point is the proverbial kick in the pants of what defines our participation in the medium of interactive gaming as opposed to cinema.

Games allow for a immersive and personal experience, in fact games are designed to make us feel as though we are the main character. Games also tend to create shallow main characters as a proxy to allow the player to feel more integrated in the experience. Unfortunately this doesn’t translate well into film as the last thing that we are expected to feel during a film is the idea of control over how the protagonist views his/her reality. First person shooters have the ability to immerse us as closely to the story as one can possibly imagine due to the player’s inability to see oneself. Games like Half-life (Valve) take this concept to the extreme where the character of Gordon Freeman never utters a single word (or grunt for that matter). Valve even went so far as to eliminate the reflection of the main character in surfaces where his presence would be expected. This notion of the proxy character does not translate well into cinema as the lack of character depth doesn’t make for convincing character driven stories.

Does Gordon Freeman really look like this?

I won’t lie when I say that I avoid video game adaptations. I believe that games both old and new have earned a place on any gaming platform that they have been released onto but please for the sake of all things Halo and Metal Gear, just let them rest with respect. I don’t intend on watching the recent Prince of Persia adaptation for risk of it appearing as a waste of celluloid. Uwe Boll has based his entire career on terrible game adaptations (sadly he tenaciously clings to the idea that he is a talented director like a rat to a sinking nuclear capable submarine) but let it be known that Prince of Persia may have a chance considering it’s Jerry Bruckheimer produced ensemble and thankful lack of Uwe Boll.
What I’ve written today, you can choose to believe or maybe it should be downed with a pinch of salt but a life of gaming and film has enlightened me to the fact that not every aspect of reality is destined for a silver screen appearance.

Tales From The Script: Episode 1, when directors go bad

This is the first article in a series that is devoted to talking about the film industry itself as opposed to productions. These are part retrospective and part opinion but never take it as anything more than a commentary.

I appologise to any directors in advance who feel offended by these words, please note that I am not directing this at anybody personally...oh and don't let this prevent you from giving me a job (I could use the dough).

Directors are responsible members of any production, in fact they probably have the hardest job as they oversee an entire project and make important decisions that no normal person would wish to take on. Directing also instills a sense and power (this together with the fact that they are labelled on the production separately to the rest of the crew who are lumped under the studio involved). Power isn't necessarily a bad thing if you can handle it properly without becoming a little dictator.

Unfortunately this new found power can take an innocent independent or first time director and turn them into the proverbial bad egg. The director in question usually develops a tendency to threaten crew members with fear when a judgement is made on work submitted for review. let me inform "you directors" that fear doesn't get us to work harder, it makes want to quit and shoot ourselves because morale has been brought down. Authority should not be commanded with fear but rather with friendship, camaraderie and reward - take care of your team and they will take care of you. On the other extreme, don't let your team walk all over you because you're a chump as this makes them respect you even less than fear. I'll allude to one very popular example of a director with a violent streak:

I present to you, the one and only



Notorious for being a tyrant and pretty much the bane of any crews existence, however he does make movies that you want to have on your resume.
So fame over insanity and the loss of personal belongings due to knifing against a dartboard? Your choice.

I have an anecdote that can be used for this current situation. A while ago I was involved with a director and he was for lack of better words, green around the ears with a pie in the sky ambition. I jumped on board for the production as I needed the money and it wasn't a very demanding job. I have a lot of respect for directors and most of them have been supportive and understanding, not to mention good teachers. In light of my current position, I decided to give him a few hints as to how he can hold the team together and keep them in check - what a mistake that was. He now blows his own horn more than ever before and expects unrealistic results from a team who finds him to be more trouble than their meager salary is worth, in fact it had gotten so sticky that it influenced my resignation from the project.
Have I created a demon? Perhaps I have and I don't feel good about the results of my tuition but maybe working for a big studio in the future will curb his mean streak.

In the end, a director is who he chooses to be for the best of the crew and is literally just as important as the screen writer all the way down to the wardrobe assistant. We all have our jobs and remember that this article doesn't just pertain to the film industry but every aspect of the working world that we live in.

So how do you feel about all this? Do you think a good director has the permission to metaphorically rip their team members to shreds or perhaps a more sympathetic leader that will understand when you have to take the day of so as to tend to your ailing grandmothers health?

Fight Night: Cinema's battle between standard and 3D stereoscopic

With 3D stereoscopic(3DS) cinema becoming ever so popular an output (thanks to the goliath "Avatar" that was released last year) perhaps it's necessary to address this grudge match in the making.

Film is a seriously old medium, in fact it borders on archaic taking into consideration that the only real advances that have been made are candy coatings such as CGI and high definition for consumers...wait, what am I saying? those are huge leaps but it's important to understand that advances in film are primarily directed at the home consumer market i.e. LCD television sets, Blu-Ray tech, and of course the role of our big brother - the internet.

Stereoscopic is not new, in fact it's been around since the 1920's but that doesn't make it any less important. You might be noticing lately that on average most new 3D animated films as well as CGI heavy films are either filmed in or converted to 3DS, does this present a paradigm shift in one of the biggest industries in the world? The answer is cloudy at best but taking into the account that 3DS home theater systems are being marketed, this suggests a definite maybe. The future of cinema doesn't rely on technology itself but as with most gadgets, the people that power it. Up until now the big boys (Disney, Dreamworks, Fox) have but stood in the wading pool but the big push is soon to come when beloved franchises such as the mammoth Star Wars saga begin their inevitable conversion to 3DS. This just shows that despite 3D being a novel experience, people are the ones that back it and what a huge backing it is.

So now I've told you why everything is so old but still so relevant, the question you might be asking me is "do I feel lucky"? Well not in those words but the point I'm getting at is that 2D and all it's history may possibly become obsolete. I hardly consider myself a purist when it comes to any aspect of society but this article should be especially poignant to those in the film industry taking into consideration that many years from now most of us won't be working in the way we used to. Cinema is an art form, a mass audience art form but only an art form if we treat it that way and many of us may not want to change from our medium. Cinema is also a form of escapism and it does it well because for 2 hours, you no longer feel like you exist in any form other than a viewer however all that is set to change. Transparency is how we escape our reality but just by using 3D glasses, we eliminate a large section of that transparency...I had a very difficult time watching Avatar - For a film that was supposed to technologically immerse me, I felt very alienated (excuse any pun) and this was due to the fact that I required a tool that was a constant reminder of how incapable I was at using the medium.

3DS definitely has a wow factor that will keep people coming back for second helpings however a clear definition between standard film and stereoscopic must be made so that we identify them as different mediums because the last thing we want to leave as a legacy for our future generation is "Casablanca in 3D!".