Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Hollywood's Rising Fascination With Videogames 39

Thanks to the New York Times for its article (free. reg. req.) discussing the growing interaction of Hollywood directors with videogame products. The piece notes that Lord Of The Rings director Peter Jackson has "worked out a deal with the game maker Ubisoft and Universal Pictures, the studio that plans to release 'King Kong' next year, that will give Mr. Jackson substantial creative control over the future game", and also mentions John Woo (" now developing for Sega a video game, an idea he will own outright, about an elaborate heist", as well as his proposed Metroid movie), and Ridley Scott ("seeking a video game maker to form a partnership with him and his brother Tony") as other Hollywood creatives seeking input into games.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood's Rising Fascination With Videogames

Comments Filter:
  • by shadwwulf ( 145057 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:13PM (#8825639) Homepage
    ...Leisure Suit Larry: The Movie will be next...

    Although I wouldn't mind Space Quest: The Movie...

    SW
  • by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:29PM (#8825734) Homepage Journal
    This news translates to that we'll get great games from movies like Rocky and Batman and...Enter the Matrix and... umm, er...

    Well, what I really mean is that we'll take great games and turn them into great movies like Super Mario Brothers and Tomb Raider and... and... crap. All this means is that we're really screwed now.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:34PM (#8825768)
    Although I feel such director involvement will perhaps benefit the cinematic quality of games, the fact remains that too much creative control from these guys will be a bad thing. Games are games. Movies are movies. Unless Peter Jackson is some sort of closet game design guru, I can only hope for prettier games that play lousy.
  • by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @02:46PM (#8825829) Journal
    Well, I don't really doubt that Hollywood directors are very interested in video games as a new creative medium for themselves. Yet, I can't help feeling that the executives in Hollywood have an alterior motive behind their involvement in the video game world. I'm guessing that they're scared of the game industry, and that if they can further their involvement, the more power they'll have over what happens within it.

    At the very least, this has a little something to do with damage control. Their increased involvement allows them to have more power over what happens in the game world and also gives them a new area to do business.

    In a worst case scenario, they're trying to start taking over the industry and are just beginning to sink their teeth into it.

    Really, I can't blame Hollywood for trying to stay afloat. The major game companies almost seem to want this increased partnering, I don't agree at all that they should partner, but at least this will make it easier for up and comers to shine like never before. The video game scene has a very critical audience, so I hope the big boys stay in top form, for their sake.

    Regardless, the potential competition between the established companies and the new breed is starting to excite me. Let the games begin.
    • by Guppy06 ( 410832 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @03:50PM (#8826159)
      "Yet, I can't help feeling that the executives in Hollywood have an alterior motive behind their involvement in the video game world."

      Well, duh! It's called "money." If they were truly interested in a new artistic medium they would have given it serious consideration a decade ago. Hollywood is catching wind of what some of the more popular games are worth these days.
    • by securitas ( 411694 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @06:49PM (#8827237) Homepage Journal

      This will probably be modded OT but I think something should be said.

      Here's the original post (including the missing financial context and Google link) that I wrote up shortly after reading the article at midnight last night when the New York Times site is updated.

      Hollywood's Rising Fascination With Video Games

      The New York Times Technology [nytimes.com]'s Laura M. Holson writes about a growing trend: Hollywood movie directors making videogames [nytimes.com]. The reason? Big money, sometimes even more than they made from the movies they directed. Peter Jackson missed out on the bonanza from the Lord of the Rings trilogy but will have creative control of Ubisoft's King Kong movie tie-in. John Woo's (Face/Off, Mission Impossible 2, Hard-Boiled) Tiger Hill Games [tigerhillgames.com] and Sega have a 30-person team developing a heist game (maybe a Metroid [eonline.com] title too?). Ridley Scott (Blade Runner, Alien, Gladiator) and Tony Scott (Top Gun, Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State) are in talks with major game executives. Finally, the Wachowski brothers raked in millions from the Enter the Matrix game, which Warner Brothers declined to back. Determined not to miss more opportunities, the studio founded Warner Games [wbie.com], led by Monolith [lith.com] co-founder and ex-CEO Jason Hall [slashdot.org]. What if the games are better than the movies they are based on?

      Admittedly, it's a bit long and deserves some necessary editing (substituting the IMDB link for the directors' respective filmographies and movie credits for example).

      When I logged in early this morning, the post was rejected and in mid-afternoon simoniker posted the story (1 of only 2 today - it's after 6:30 PM as I write this comment). It's entirely possible - though somewhat unlikely considering the sequence of events - that simoniker stumbled on the article by himself and wrote it up entirely by himself.

      In the past I've largely ignored that fact that many articles submitted when simoniker was editing invariably are rejected and then - often very similar or identical text - are posted uncredited.

      I'm not the first person here to take notice of the pattern or to point this out.

      It's not about the Karma or complaining that something wasn't posted, or anything of that sort because I've been maxed out on Karma for a long time, I have lots of submitted items posted, and probably even more rejected because someone else thought to submit it before me. Rejected posts aren't the problem.

      It's about common courtesy and respect for the readers and the people who make Slashdot work.

      Slashdot works because of the people who take the time to write in and let their fellow readers know about items of interest to geeks everywhere. It's more than a little irritating to take time to do a write-up on a holiday weekend, have it rejected and then see a nearly identical (less so in this particular case) item uncredited.

      Most people have had at least one experience of a pinhead boss taking credit for their work, and most people have tolerated it because they get paid to do their jobs and don't want to risk workplace wrath. Here, nobody's getting paid except the Slashdot editors, to whom none of us are accountable. The reader/reporters aren't getting paid and the virtual tip of the hat as thanks is the only reward. I've read people's compaints about a relative lack of submissions or stories in the Games section. If this type of behavior is the reason, it goes a long way to explaining why.

      simonker, 'Stuff that matters' is part of Slashdot's slogan. The bottom line: Give credit where credit is due.

      It matters.

      • It's quite possible several people submitted this. Simon may have taken them, written a summary himself, and posted it. OTOH, when I've noticed this in the past, someone will say 'several people submitted this'. Simon started out pretty strong, but it seems like some michael stink is rubbing off on him. Speaking of the king of the slashtards, if you have michael blocked, that might be cutting down on the headlines today.

        Yup, just checked; I've only got three stories since 1:00 am EDT, but there are several
  • by Mupp252 ( 263650 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @04:04PM (#8826233)
    Hopefully we'll get some decent titles out of this. I mean if you think about it Woo, Jackson, and Ridley have more to lose then your average game publisher (Credibility, fanbase, etc.). I can't help but feel the Wacowski brothers lost some of that from their hardly mediocre endeavor.

    This would put more of a face on the games we play. Possibly make games a little more glamorous and appealing.

  • by DaveCBio ( 659840 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @04:18PM (#8826321)
    I shudder. It's not that there aren't savvy people in Hollywood because there are. It's just that they aren't the people making these deals for the most part. I think cross-pollination could be a good idea, but I have yet to see it actually work.
  • This Is Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wan-fu ( 746576 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @04:45PM (#8826480)

    For the most part, titles that go from game to movie or movie to game have been terrible (Super Mario Bros., Enter the Matrix, Street Fighter 2, etc.) However, I can only see the growing interest of Hollywood into games as a good thing. Sure, it's been bad in the past, but that's mostly due to the fact that one side is only interested in capitalizing off the title to get some extra bucks (like LOTR or the Matrix). There wasn't a serious amount of forethought put into it (at least it seems to me) but more of a "Hey, this is a successful franchise, let's build a game/movie out of it" (game/movie depending on which direction) "so that we can get more money."

    With this increased input and interaction from movie makers, games stand a good chance to do better where they've generally failed: story. And sometimes, games need a little push in the cinematic direction too. How many times have you seen a cutscene that made you puke or a default camera angle that was unusable? Or how about the terrible voice acting that seems to be a hallmark of so many games? And boy oh boy, story... imagine if a lot of games got a good push in that direction. Sure, there are been some games with interesting/excellent stories in the past (HL, Deus Ex, LucasArts adventure games, and others come to mind), but the majority of games do not have a good story - almost all FPS, most RTS, some MMORPG, most platformers, and the list goes on. Maybe finally, it will be the norm for games to have intriguiging story lines with good dialogue.

    • Re:This Is Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by corpsiclex ( 735510 )
      There are some games in every genre with great storylines. It just takes a bit of looking to find them because they get buried under all the other crap from EA Sports. And what's wrong with older games? Examples of games with good story: FPS: Deus Ex, Half-Life RTS: Command & Conquer series RPG: Baldur's Gate (and Icewind Dale), Ultima series, Legend of Kyrandia (Virgin/Westwood. very old but amazing graphics, music, and especially story. Lots of puzzles.) Hollywood produces just as many storyless m
    • Re:This Is Good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DaveCBio ( 659840 )
      You forget one thing. Linear stories in movies do not make good games. The world can be a good setting, but if you are stuck within a story line your options are limited. Also, Hollywood writes as many shitty stories as game devs do. As for voice acting, have you been playing many AAA titles latley? The VO is at least on par if not better sometimes than VO done for animation.
    • Re:This Is Good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by C0rinthian ( 770164 )
      Remember:

      Story != Gameplay

      If the gameplay is good a decent story is nice, but hardly needed. However, no amount of storytelling will make up for bad gameplay. We are talking about games afterall, not "interactive movies".
  • Arguably better than the movie, of course, was the Nintendo 64 game Goldeneye.

    What did it do right? Well, it was a great game in its own right -- I enjoyed it, even though shooters usually leave me cold.

    But what I think Goldeneye did right more than anything else was be a generic James Bond game. Everything about the game just screamed "James Bond!" Other developers have since tried to do the same thing, with varying results.

    Basing a game on a specific movie is bad -- since movies are usually less than two hours long, and a successful game has to hold the player's attention for much longer, it's very difficult to stay true to the movie without adding a bunch of extra material. Too much, and you're unfaithful. Too little, and people leave. Better to base your game off a franchise, as then you can draw in elements throughout the series.

    Also, let's face it, most games are based on action movies, and action movies are particularly known for verisimilitude. (Not that most games are abounding in that quality.) I guess what I'm trying to say here is: most action movies suck. Most games suck. And remember, suckiness grows not linearly, but exponentially.
    • Allow me to correct myself: and action movies are NOT particularly known for verisimilitude.
    • I thought the discworld games were fun! Now we just have to wait for the movies to be made of them...
      • Even if movies were made, they'd still be games based on books.

        And actually, there were elements of the games that didn't seem to jive with the books. I remember thinking they got Lord Vetinari wrong. The puzzles were a bit obtuse, too. However, the games were certainly better than they could have been.

        Note that I'm only talking about the first two games here -- I've never seen Discworld Noir.
    • What did it do right? Well, it was a great game in its own right

      I agree with this statement. As a programmer I think the key to making a great game is thinking about game play first and foremost. It seems like lately video games have been shifting towards high budgets which does little for the game but add 'filler'. There was a time when game play was all that mattered because you could barely make out the character on the screen. Logically it seems to incorporate elements of a movie into a game you mus
  • Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by NedR ( 701006 ) on Saturday April 10, 2004 @11:35PM (#8828557) Journal
    There was a similar article in the Washington Post today, at the link below: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A637 34-2004Apr9.html Please note that the Post seriously needs to do better research on this sort of thing, rather than just making popular assumptions. They say that the target audience for "R-rated" video games are "teenagers and young adults," though the age of the average gamer is closer to 30. I suppose it's possible that the target audience is different from the core demographic, but if so, that just means that the marketers at every major game publisher are absurdly incompetent.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I'm still waiting for tetris, the movie.
  • An overview of what has gone is: Games into movies, with nealy everything being rather awful. (Street fighter, Mario, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc) Movies into games, a bit more successful, with LotR, Bond, and some others. And then there is the middle ground, which is games that are affiliated to a movie, but stand on their own. The best example is the new 007 game Everything or Nothing, which is a bond game, but at the same time not based on anything up to now, as EA had a movie script written for
  • ... Great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lvdrproject ( 626577 ) on Sunday April 11, 2004 @06:51AM (#8829611) Homepage
    Fantastic. Because game-based movies are always top-notch. Have you seen the Alone in the Dark [alone-in-the-dark.com] trailer? The last AITD i played was for DOS or something, so i may've missed any pre-butchering done by the latter episodes of the series, but i distinctly remember that there was a guy who was alone in the fucking dark. Maybe i didn't get far enough, but i don't recall any armies or face-huggers or intestinal surgeries or car crashes or virtual-reality simulators or clichéd military lingo at all in that game.

    At least Mortal Kombat, while still a horrible movie, stuck roughly close to the plot line. You could even consider the Final Fantasy movie to be worthy of the name (although it did have too much military lingo and not enough fantasy). But i'm so tired of Hollywood putting out 'horror' movies based on games. Every time someone says they should make a Silent Hill movie, i just want to scream. There is absolutely no chance you could do that game justice. They will RUIN it. They will turn it into a machine-guns-and-zombies-let's-lock-and-load-boys gut-fest, like 80% of every other video-game movie Hollywood has put out.

    Seriously, i want no part of any games in Hollywood. The quality of games is already decreasing at an alarming rate (ever since 2000 or so, it's been to the point where there are maybe one or two decent games a year) -- we don't need Hollywood milking things even more than they already are (if that's possible). We don't need to start any more Pokémon crazes. You remember what happened there -- the market became ridiculously over-saturated, and it absolutely RUINED the entire franchise. Final Fantasy is pretty close to that, and so are 'survival-horror' (actually just third-person zombie-shooter) games.

    Also, once again i have to express my disdain for military lingo in movies. I swear to God, one of those stupid phrases ('back-up'/'lock and load'/'we're surrounded'/'we've lost contact') will ruin the credibility of the entire movie.

    Hollywood has made me such a bitter person. :(

    • The quality of games is already decreasing at an alarming rate (ever since 2000 or so, it's been to the point where there are maybe one or two decent games a year)

      I totally agree with the rest of what you wrote, but I can't see how you could possibly justify this statement. Even this year so far (historically the worst time for new games) has seen a number of outstanding new games. Some of which (like Ninja Gaiden or Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow) are even the current pinnacles of their respective genr
      • Heh, yeah, i do like Japanese RPGs, but it goes beyond that. I just wish they would come out with a game that doesn't follow the same old premise. Like every game that's come out in the last few years has just been a rehash of another game.

        Like, 'Pikmin' is the kind of originality i'm looking for. Can't expect one of those every month, but eh. I think i'm just nostalgic for the olden days, where unique gameplay was the big thing. :/

  • ... are condemned to repeat it.

    I guess they've forgotten the short-lived "Sili-wood" fad of the mid '90s, which produced works of genius like The Daedalus Encounter and Critical Path.

    This on again, off again synergy has produced a lot of bad seeds over the years. (Just look at the history of a publisher like Ocean, which tied its tail to a series of film licenses in the early '90s.) Movie-makers rarely have contributed to fun games--they don't understand the principles of interactvity-and, on the evid

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Working...