Far Cry

[Roland]

Far Cry - The Movie

My God. I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, it has potential to be a great movie, if it follows the game. On the other hand, it could bomb horrendously. Here's hoping for the former.

Thoughts? I'm going to have to follow this one. :D

[Occhidiangela]

Far Cry - The Movie

My God. I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, it has potential to be a great movie, if it follows the game. On the other hand, it could bomb horrendously. Here's hoping for the former.

Thoughts? I'm going to have to follow this one. :D
[right][snapback]67453[/snapback][/right]

*Grin. Have never played it. However, I liked the comment entitled "Packman Movie Announced."

That about sums up my opinion of "a movie about a video game." It just seems redundant.

Occhi

*who will go and see the movie based on Diablo about the day it comes out . . .*

[Nystul]

It sounds like a flop to me. In my experience, people usually ending going to a movie like this because they identify with the game, not because the movie is any good. It would be interesting to compare what percentage of the U.S. under-18 demographic has played Farcry right now, compared to having played any Mortal Kombat game when those movies came out, or any Tomb Raider game when those movies movies came out. Even Resident Evil. I might be wrong, but I don't think it's in the same league.

[[wcip]Angel]

One of the reasons why Resident Evil "worked", at least to me, is because the games rely so heavily on a solid, unpredictable, meandering storyline (Except for RE Zero, which I thought relied too heavily on problem-solving and action than storyline-advancement). Tomb Raider is only about exploring beautiful scenery and exploring exotic environments. I haven't seen any of the TR-movies, despite being a huge fan of the first two Tomb Raider games (things went sour in TR3, "IMO"), for the simple fact that I don't buy Angelina as Lara *at all*. Also, the trailers for the first film didn't exactly conform with my idea of who Lara was. (In the games she listens to classical music. In the movies, it's got to be hip; so cue mindless techno-drone-music).

I've played Far Cry. I've played it over and over 2 or 3 times. It was extremely enjoyable, although the last couple of minutes ruined much of the game's premise: [slight spoiler]

Towards the end of the game, the villain is replaced by another villain, but in the final scene, the dialogue that was spoken by the second villain belonged to the first one. I think the team behind the game forgot that they had changed villain. Sloppy!)

From a story-telling point of view, Far Cry had a great premise: experiments going awry creating super-strong monsters, and soldiers hunting both them and you down. Great stuff. But that was pretty much it. That's the whole storyline. Sure, you meet a few people and interact with them somehow, but there is no *real* relationship between the player and the characters in the game. They're just targets. Game-designers need only look to Hideo Kojima's brilliant "Metal Gear Solid" (1998) for the blueprint which every game should follow; villain-wise.

It's a beautiful thing, when you sympathise more with the people you kill, than with the character you are in control of.

I doubt Far Cry will make it. Deus Ex was cancelled, and I believe this game showed greater promise than a movie-version of Far Cry.

[pakman]

I think it will be a flop. However, I do own the game which I found to be quite fun. I'll end up going to see it to see how they made the mutants and the locations they picked. Not for the story or anything like that because, face it, it's got an FPS storyline: bad guy does something bad, you are the only possible person in the entire world able to do something about it, so you go around shooting things until you get to the end where shooting the last existing thing alive fixes all problems.

Like Nystul said, I'll go more because I'm familiar with the game than wanted to see the actual movie.

[LochnarITB]

*who will go and see the movie based on Diablo about the day it comes out . . .*
[right][snapback]67457[/snapback][/right]

I've seen this on the shelf of the local Blockbuster but never bothered to rent it. I doubt that it has anything to do with the game but it made me do a double take the first time I passed by it.

[Hammerskjold]

>Thoughts? I'm going to have to follow this one. :D

Two words seals it's doom. Uwe Boll. Though I do respect him for his sheer will and tenacity. He has the potential makings of a demented genius a la Ed Wood + Roger Corman.

[Rinnhart]

Far Cry - The Movie

My God. I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand, it has potential to be a great movie, if it follows the game. On the other hand, it could bomb horrendously. Here's hoping for the former.

Thoughts? I'm going to have to follow this one. :D
[right][snapback]67453[/snapback][/right]

Where's my "Doom" Movie?

[teenagedeathboy]

I thought that Far Cry's story was the same thing as games like Half-Life, Doom, etc. Monsters are made/come, kill, kill back. I can't see it making a very good movie, unless the action scenes are particularly spectacular.

[[wcip]Angel]

Action scenes do not save movies. Look up any movie by Chuck Norris, Steven Segal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. See also The Matrix trilogy for proof of said hypothesis.

[Nystul]

Action scenes do not save movies. Look up any movie by Chuck Norris, Steven Segal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. See also The Matrix trilogy for proof of said hypothesis.
[right][snapback]68076[/snapback][/right]

I'm confused. Your examples seem to contradict your hypothesis. If action scenes alone were not enough to make an enjoyable movie, those guys would not have been stars in the first place.

[[wcip]Angel]

Well, we then need to define "save movies". If the term indicates the success of the actor playing the protagonist, in terms of earning vast amounts of cash and the ability to land similar gigs for identical movies, then sure, but if we try to include any level of quality in a movie that has been "saved", then we best not hold our breaths.

[Nystul]

Well, we then need to define "save movies". If the term indicates the success of the actor playing the protagonist, in terms of earning vast amounts of cash and the ability to land similar gigs for identical movies, then sure, but if we try to include any level of quality in a movie that has been "saved", then we best not hold our breaths.
[right][snapback]68082[/snapback][/right]

"Quality" is a purely subjective term when applied to art. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Perhaps quality art stands the test of time, making a longterm impact. Quality entertainment, on the other hand, could only have to stand the customer satisfaction test. If people continue to pay for movies with the same formula over and over again, then clearly said movies are sufficiently entertaining.

[pazuzu]

Man. When I first read there was a Doom movie in the making, I said to my self "boy, am I glad they're not making a movie of Far Cry". It's true. I said so - to my self - in a low, ambigous voice that didn't sound like me at all.
The game is great, the story is 'just OK', the movie should not be made. There is little to nothing in the game to build a movie on, apart from lending a few ideas to the next James Bond movie (the way the Bond movies degrade it seems fitting).
Now, a game like Max Payne, on the other hand: There's a game worthy of making it to the big screen.
The cinematic feel is already there (in a good sence), you have well built characters and an intriguing plot. The game wants to tell a story, something of a necessity when converting games into movies.

Where's my "Doom" Movie?
[right][snapback]67531[/snapback][/right]

Unfortunately, they are actually making one.

"Quality" is a purely subjective term when applied to art.  One man's trash is another man's treasure.  Perhaps quality art stands the test of time, making a longterm impact.  Quality entertainment, on the other hand, could only have to stand the customer satisfaction test.  If people continue to pay for movies with the same formula over and over again, then clearly said movies are sufficiently entertaining.
[right][snapback]68089[/snapback][/right]

There is a difference between "sufficiently entertaining" and "quality".
Purely logically speaking, you don't have to make quality movies to sell tickets at the theatre. You just have to spend money on advertising/publicity.

[[wcip]Angel]

Welcome to the forums, Pazuzu! :) Finally a fellow Norwegian! (I know Pazuzu from another Internet forum)

Now that you mention it, I always felt Max Payne should have been put onto the silver screen. The storytelling feels very cinematic, and it's a great story to tell. The games are also very dark, with numerous disturbing characters and images, which in my opinion would lend themselves well to another format, such as film.

The only downside to making a Max Payne-film, would be the style of the action-sequences. We've already seen the Bullet-time effect in The Matrix. The fun thing with Max Payne, was that it was the first time we saw BT in a game. I don't see how Max Payne could surpass The Matrix in action sequences. Perhaps a Max Payne feature film shouldn't rely that heavily on action then? Perhaps more of a "Under a killing moon"-type of film noir might be better suited. (UaKM was the first cinematic game, if I'm not mistaken.)

How about "Solitaire - The Movie"? :P

[Nystul]

There is a difference between "sufficiently entertaining" and "quality".
Purely logically speaking, you don't have to make quality movies to sell tickets at the theatre. You just have to spend money on advertising/publicity.
[right][snapback]68239[/snapback][/right]

How would you define "quality" with respect to movies? Most people go to movies to be entertained, so the ability of the movie to entertain them could be considered its primary quality.

Advertising and publicity can greatly increase the amount of exposure a movie gets, but you can't sell a product forever based on hype alone. It has to have quality to have staying power. Norris, Van Damme, and Segal each had a pretty long run of success where people would go to see every movie they made. For a similar example, people are still buying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon". Publicity has very little to do with this, other than getting the ball rolling. People still watch these movies, specifically because of the incredible action scenes. Of course, the standards for action scenes have changed a lot over time... any of the previously mentioned actors would be less of an icon now because their strong abilities in the martial arts can be mimicked so well with special effects. And that brings us to The Matrix, although it had a decent storyline to go with all of the effects.

[jahcs]

Part of the problem with movies is studios and writers are confusing quality with quantity.

Each movie has to be "bigger" than the last. As an example, James Bond started out with spy movies that had some action and a few gadgets in exotic locations. Now it's an action movie with lots of gadets and some spy stuff. I see more explosions in James Bond than I do in some war movies nowdays. Star Trek is another example. Each villain has to be more ruthless and powerfull than the last. If it progresses much further the villain will either be crushed by good people so fast he won't be able to get a power base going or he will win because he is ruthless enough to kill the hero when he has the first opportunity. Current Star Trek policy must be that it isn't a good space battle unless both ships/fleets/planets are floating debris fields by the end of the battle.

I won't even get into trilogies that are sold before the first movie is in production, remakes of classic movies and t.v. shows that are made with substandard plots and dialogue, and any other vehicle movie studios use just to make money.

Sometimes you find writers, directors, actors, producers, and studios that are interested in making a film and not just making money. When they all end up on the same project at the same time the audience can tell.

[pazuzu]

Hi there, Angel :)
The thought of a Max Payne movie has got my head spinning for a while now.
I'd like to see it told from Mona Sax' point of view, starting with the death of mr. Payne (or is he really dead?), then telling the story up to his "death".
The movie would still be about him - as he's trying to understand his connection to and feelings for Mona, as well as bringing some semblance of order to his chaotic world - but we would get to know Mona better as it's seen with "her eyes" so to speak. Also, I think it would make for a great movie where you don't really sympathize with the main character. In fact I think it should be made by Oliver Stone, as he's done at least one really great movie that is similar in feel and character build up (U-turn, see it if you haven't allready).
As for bullet-time, the game "Perfect Dark" on Nintendo 64 was the first one.
The action scenes in Matrix was great in the technical sense, however I think the proper use of slow motion in a Max Payne movie could make for really nice, stylistic action scenes. While Matrix was built on the action scenes, I think the action scenes in a Max Payne movie could be built on the story. Have just a very few shoot outs, and make them important to the development of the story with a priority on the emotional impact they give. Sure, in the game you kill more bad guys than a minor civil war but in a movie the action part should be downplayed a bit to give room for more important elements.
I'm not familiar with "Under a killing moon" so I may just have been repeating your words in an overly longwinded way :P

... Solitare the movie? Preferably with the classic voiceover from 50ies documentaries and deeply philosophical, introspective monologues on the wim of the fates as the main (and sole) character draws an unwanted card? Heck, I'd pay to see that movie!

How would you define "quality" with respect to movies?  Most people go to movies to be entertained, so the ability of the movie to entertain them could be considered its primary quality.

Advertising and publicity can greatly increase the amount of exposure a movie gets, but you can't sell a product forever based on hype alone.  It has to have quality to have staying power.  Norris, Van Damme, and Segal each had a pretty long run of success where people would go to see every movie they made.  For a similar example, people are still buying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the Dragon".  Publicity has very little to do with this, other than getting the ball rolling.    People still watch these movies, specifically because of the incredible action scenes.  Of course, the standards for action scenes have changed a lot over time... any of the previously mentioned actors would be less of an icon now because their strong abilities in the martial arts can be mimicked so well with special effects.  And that brings us to The Matrix, although it had a decent storyline to go with all of the effects.
[right][snapback]68251[/snapback][/right]

Though question. I have to agree that a movies ability to entertain can be considered its primary quality, however my point was that being the most entertaining alternative at the time doesn't make the movie great.
You mention hype and staying power yet fail to see (or so I believe) which made people see every movie Norris and company starred in.
Hype made peopel see every new movie starred by these guys (as well as lack of alternatives), the fact that neither I nor my friends can remember a single movie by Norris means they didn't have staying power. People are still bying DVDs of Bruce Lee's "Enter the dragon" because it's a classic. It has elements of quality in it that are hard to define by words yet obvious to the viewer.
Some movies, such a "Under siege" with Segal, fall into the 'classic' category. It's entertaining even today. Most movies with Segal, however, are not.
Sure, you could point out that there's allways someone who likes even the most unpopular Segal-movie, however this is worthless to the discussion, as the term "quality" would loose it's purpose.
As for The Matrix... Well, I guess I'd better stay out that can of worms, as my strongly negative opinions on the subject are likely to ruin the discussion .

[NuurAbSaal]

From the Inside Mac Games news post:

Warner Bros. is targeting a PG-13 rating for the movie.

=failure

:(

One of the reasons I never went to see Alien vs. predator


Greetings

Nuur

[teenagedeathboy]

ction scenes do not save movies. Look up any movie by Chuck Norris, Steven Segal or Jean-Claude Van Damme. See also The Matrix trilogy for proof of said hypothesis.

some people like action movies. if a movie has a stupid story/bad acting, all that gravy, but really good action sequences i'll still prolly watch it.