Wow that trailer looked dull. This, plus Warcaft is going to remind people why we don't do Video Game to Movie adaptations.

Unless the rotten tomatoes viewer reviews are really high. Then I'll assume the trailers just sucked.

Wow that trailer looked dull. This, plus Warcaft is going to remind people why we don't do Video Game to Movie adaptations.

It is hilarious that they open the trailer with what in the original game was the twist surprise (that it's not really real).

Second of all, this is not a movie that needed to be made. I'm currently in the process of getting an adaptation of a game to the screen, and the biggest thing I've learned is that if the story was told well enough in the game then there's no point. (The game I'm trying to adapt has a great story, but had no business at all being a game, and the story was hindered significantly by that choice. Thus, a flim adaptation will strengthen the material).

Assassins creed will flop. Warcraft will flop. Ratchet and Clank flopped. Angry Birds I really have no idea about.

There's a reason the Uncharted movie never happened. It doesn't have to.

The biggest problem with Video Game Movies is that the wrong games are being chosen to adapt.

It is hilarious that they open the trailer with what in the original game was the twist surprise (that it's not really real).

I suppose they weren't worried about explaining that Assasin's Creed is about reliving the past from the future right off the bat because it's well known at this point. That said I think it would have been smarter not to reveal that in the trailers for people who know nothing about the game. Then again, how would they get those people to even see it in theaters?

The biggest problem with Video Game Movies is that the wrong games are being chosen to adapt.

Personally, I don't think it's about adapting games and actually I have a similar problem with most book adaptations. These movies need to have a reason to exist other than "adapting" something into a movie. That doesn't really work. To make a successful movie from a book or a game you have to have a good understanding of what made the original good and what parts of it won't work in a movie and that is extremely rare.

Harry Potter became decent movies because the story was simple enough that adapting it was very straightforward. Other movies (like Starship Troopers) typically fail to understand the original well enough to do anything decent with it (the book was more about military service, politics, and futuristic weapons technology - the movie? pretty much just violence?).

I think 343 had the right idea when they created Forward Unto Dawn. Instead of trying to capture the game of Halo, they added to the universe by telling a tangential story. Sure the Master Chief appears in the movie, but it's mostly about other characters. The other characters are what make that movie good, not the fact that the Master Chief is in it. Actually, the parts with the Master Chief are probably my least favorite anyway because he just doesn't move right and because of some sub-par animation.

Harry Potter became decent movies because the story was simple enough that adapting it was very straightforward. Other movies (like Starship Troopers) typically fail to understand the original well enough to do anything decent with it (the book was more about military service, politics, and futuristic weapons technology - the movie? pretty much just violence?).

Wrong. The film version of Starship Troopers was actually brilliant, precisely because it took the opposite stance on the book's themes and ridiculed it.

After the scene with the knife I knew it was great. In the scene a recruit asks why they learn to use knives when we have guns and nukes. In the book, there's a long speech about the use of controlled violence and who is responsible for that control. In the movie, it's like NOPE! We learn how to use knives because you can't hit the nuke button if your hand is pinned to the wall!

It's not that there was a lack of understanding of the source material. Verhoeven just thought the source was stupid. Because he'd experienced fascism first hand in his own lifetime, you can see why he'd ridicule the idea.

Hi-sCool! Seha Girls is amazing. It's about girls who are Sega consoles, complete with related foibles. I lolled surprisingly frequently.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/hi-scool-seha-girls/episode-1-itll-always-be-10-years-too-early-for-you-661647

It's not that there was a lack of understanding of the source material. Verhoeven just thought the source was stupid. Because he'd experienced fascism first hand in his own lifetime, you can see why he'd ridicule the idea.

Which is why the movie was stupid. He ignored the source material entirely and the movie was worse for it. Rotten tomatoes says critics give it 63% and moviegoes give it 69%. That's pretty much my definition of bad. Anytime I watch a movie with ratings like that it's almost always bad. The only thing worse is when the critics love it and the moviegoers hate it.

That said, if you like the movie go ahead and watch it all you like.

EDIT:

After the scene with the knife I knew it was great. In the scene a recruit asks why they learn to use knives when we have guns and nukes. In the book, there's a long speech about the use of controlled violence and who is responsible for that control. In the movie, it's like NOPE! We learn how to use knives because you can't hit the nuke button if your hand is pinned to the wall!

Also, I think it's pretty clear you have little experience with the military. Ignoring that it's pretty unrealistic for that to happen in real life to begin with, it's just a gross misunderstanding of what bootcamp is about in the first place. Heinlein was a veteran and his description of boot camp is pretty much spot on.

Also, the book wasn't supposed to be about fascism, though it looks similar in many respects. Heinlein himself said it wasn't. He was proposing restricting voting to those who were willing to make a sacrifice for the good of society. Who knows if it would work or not and if it would just turn into facism, but he didn't intend to propose facism in the book.

There's a reason the Uncharted movie never happened. It doesn't have to.

The Uncharted movie did happen. It's called the first three Indiana Jones movies.

The novel wasn't really the source material. The story was just similar and the things linking the two were tacked on once the name was licensed. It was a convenient way for the director to also get in some jabs at a lame book. (EDIT: what he perceived to be a lame book.)

In my opinion, adaptations don't need to be accurate to the source material anyway, they just need to be competent films and do what it says on the tin. Starship Troopers did. Those reviews, to me, signal a good movie in that sci fi action genre. You can have really good action films, like Edge of Tomorrow, and you can have dumb ones like Starship Troopers or The Expendables. To me, these are entirely different genres of movies.

One is supposed to be more about fun and one is supposed to be more about being good. Starship Troopers was more about being fun and it made a decent movie. It's why I don't have any problems with The Hobbit movies or the superhero movies that ruin characters. Sometimes you just gotta let a movie be a movie.

It's also why I'm excited for more video game adaptations. Maybe if they can let them just be movies, we'll get some good films out of them.

One is supposed to be more about fun and one is supposed to be more about being good. Starship Troopers was more about being fun and it made a decent movie. It's why I don't have any problems with The Hobbit movies or the superhero movies that ruin characters. Sometimes you just gotta let a movie be a movie.

I mostly agree with everything you said, except the Hobbit thing. Even as a huge Tolkien fan, I didn't really care that they poorly adapted the Hobbit. I did care that they were three long, boring movies. That's the real issue I think most have. It's not about the quality of the adaption, it's just the fact that they're not good movies.

Also, I think it's pretty clear you have little experience with the military. Ignoring that it's pretty unrealistic for that to happen in real life to begin with, it's just a gross misunderstanding of what bootcamp is about in the first place.

No shit. That's why it should have been obvious that it was SATIRE.

There's a reason the Uncharted movie never happened. It doesn't have to.

The Uncharted movie did happen. It's called the first three Indiana Jones movies.

What do you mean first three? There were only three. :-p

I think they were good movies, the romance between Tauriel and Kili, the extended action, the background with the elves and dwarves, the expansion of The Master of Lake Town, etc. I enjoyed all of it.

Each movie had a nice story arc, and the three movies as a whole told a good story as well.

The problems, in my opinion, with The Hobbit are there because the story in itself didn't have enough substance to fill three movies, but had enough plot events for three movies. In being stuck with the story of the book, the movie makers were limited in what they could do with the plot to fill out the dead space. They had to bring in tons of subplots that could conceivably have been in the Middle Earth junk, but they couldn't be fleshed out too heavily. The added stuff, in my opinion, did enough for me to enjoy the movies in and of themselves.

I think they would have been much better if Jackson just dumped half of the book, but the stuff they did change and add, in my opinion, only made the movies better. They aren't great films, but they're still good. In much the same way, McDonald's hamburgers are still good even if they're not In N Out.

- No text -

Is a really interesting point in the "books vs movies" conversation. It is an adaptation of the book, but it presents the material differently and provides an almost completely opposite take than the source. That doesn't make it a bad movie or a bad adaptation, though. A lot happened in US and world culture & history between the publishing of the book and the creation of the movie.

If you're interested, you should read these articles about it. I read this AV Club one a few years ago when it was published, and found this Atlantic piece today when trying to find the former. Notable quote below:

The resulting film critiques the military-industrial complex, the jingoism of American foreign policy, and a culture that privileges reactionary violence over sensitivity and reason. The screenplay, by Robocop writer Edward Neumeier, furnished the old-fashioned science-fiction framework of Robert A. Heinlein’s notoriously militaristic novel with archetypes on loan from teen soaps and young adult-fiction, undermining the self-serious saber-rattling of the source text. Even the conclusion makes a point of deflating any residual sense of heroism and valor: We see our protagonists, having narrowly escaped death during a near-suicidal mission, marching back to battle in a glorified recruitment video—suggesting that in war the only reward for a battle well fought is the prospect of further battle.

Respect the Brand!

Note - There are probably going to be better edits out there. This is just to bring home the point.

I'm not saying I think the movie will be good (I doubt it, sadly), but DAMN does the music make a huge difference with the trailer. I'd forgotten how great the older AC soundtracks were. Some of the best, IMO.

One is supposed to be more about fun and one is supposed to be more about being good. Starship Troopers was more about being fun and it made a decent movie. It's why I don't have any problems with The Hobbit movies or the superhero movies that ruin characters. Sometimes you just gotta let a movie be a movie.

I mostly agree with everything you said, except the Hobbit thing. Even as a huge Tolkien fan, I didn't really care that they poorly adapted the Hobbit. I did care that they were three long, boring movies. That's the real issue I think most have. It's not about the quality of the adaption, it's just the fact that they're not good movies.

I love the Extended Editions of The Hobbit, a very difficult book to adapt and connect to Lord of the Rings due to the weird pacing and omniscient narrator. My only complaints with the movies are actually that they're too 'short and fun', hah! I wish they were slower and more 'boring'- just shots of trees and mountains for hours in between dialogue. They were actually some of the most of fun I've had watching movies this decade, especially Desolation. Probably seen each about 7-10 times now. I became a huge fan of Thorin, somebody who was a one-dimensional cranky jerk in the book, which I never expected. Despite all the action and adventure added (which I really don't mind), they still stabbed at the heart and core themes of Middle Earth that have been inspiring me since middle school. :)

And the fact that I have three more amazing Howard Shore Middle Earth soundtracks and six more Art-Of books makes me very happy!

I'm not saying I think the movie will be good (I doubt it, sadly), but DAMN does the music make a huge difference with the trailer. I'd forgotten how great the older AC soundtracks were. Some of the best, IMO.

Jesper Kyd is great. I think his last AC was Revelations if I recall correctly. I still listen to Apple Chamber and Roman Countryside to chill out from time to time.

To be honest, I haven't seen many good previews in a long while, whatever the final movie turns out to be. So many of them follow the same formula, they all seem like they're about the same movie! Do something different! Mix things up!

Maybe it would be better if marketing for movies lead with clips versus hype-teasers, like a comic will release the first few pages in full to give you a good idea of what you're actually getting into.

To be honest, I haven't seen many good previews in a long while, whatever the final movie turns out to be. So many of them follow the same formula, they all seem like they're about the same movie! Do something different! Mix things up!

You're crazy, movie marketing is always original!

Well, he does kind of have a "plaster me with words"-ey face, I guess.

The basic problem is that the complaints about the novel stem from a complete lack of understanding of the work, and the themes therein. The supporters of the movie all regurgitate the same opinion that Heinlein loves random violence and glorifies war.

It's a mistake that stems from reading fellow traveler's opinion's about the book rather then reading the book. Heinlein even has character's in his book talk about the cruelty of war, and why his military based government works the way it does. it isn't about the military, you can get citizenship without serving, it's about making voting something that the voter's cherish and take seriously. Likewise the corporal punishment and clearly defined consequences for actions are all an attempt to make people understand and pay attention to their own behavior.

The criticism often reads instead like Heinlein wrote a thinly veiled version of how awesome nazi Germany was. There is no attempt to explore the psychological questions proposed in the novel, or anything else.

The same error crops up time and time again. World War Z is a great example, the only thing it shares with the source material is zombies.