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


Forgot your password?
Movies Media The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Hollywood Courting the Gaming Industry 201

beatleadam writes "In a trend that we all seem to already be hyper-aware of... 'The video game industry was once an afterthought in Hollywood, at most an ancillary source of revenue like action figures. The people passionately developing the computer-based form of entertainment were seen as dorks compared with the celebrities. Not anymore. Now that games have matured into a $11 billion business, topping movie box-office sales and siphoning television viewers, the lucrative and increasingly influential genre has attracted more star power than ever.'" We did another story about this a month ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hollywood Courting the Gaming Industry

Comments Filter:
  • Oh dear god... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:40PM (#9188539)
    I don't see this lasting too long. The "Van Helsing", "Spider Man", and "X-Men" video games are weak, and get horrible reviews.

    Why doesn't Disney just fund companies like id or epic games so they can have more developers who can turn around games quicker, create better engines, etc
  • Great (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy@AAAtpno ... inus threevowels> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:41PM (#9188555) Homepage
    That's just what I play video games to see:

    Stuck up "actors" I don't like doing their normal piss-poor job of acting on high budget, yet poorly designed ( technologically and cinamantically ) games that I will never play, opting for net hack.

    Further, let's turn a cheezy game into a movie! Yeah, it'll be slop, so people will pay us MILLIONS to bad mouth it.

    And you know what? We will. At the end of the day, the execs know that we will fork over our cash for crap because we are told to do so.

    In closing, let me leave you with this thought: Moo.
  • by musikit ( 716987 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:42PM (#9188586)
    some games aren't really games.. more like interactive content sold for $50.

    MHO is that hollywood is seeing the dollars. you make a bunch of CGI movies or even real movie like ROTK and TTT and you add some animated version of the main hero that you control doing some punching/sword swinging and they get $50 for their DVD/Movie vs $15-$30 for their movie.
  • we already have seen millions of dollars invested in videogames, like doom 3 and half life 2,but 5 years ago from now they would be able to relase new versions of games within 6 months of the original relase.

    With the level of detail and complexity of new games this will slow down to 3 or 4 games a year per company. Time will tell when small computer game developers will join efforts in order to deliver huge games quick ($$$) ending with like about 4 mayor gaming factories, with fictional characters, some celebrities and some young programmer waiting to get his(her) big break. Is this where games are going?
  • by James A. R. Joyce ( 780824 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:45PM (#9188629)
    ...I still think that other movie tie-ins like promotional fast food offers, action figures, jillions of DVD and VHS releases, etc. etc. will bring in more money. I mean, if the total market is $11 billion then that generated by tie-ins from other media must be only a few tens of millions.

    irc.gnaa.us #gnaa
  • On the Van Helsing [vanhelsing.net] movie site's front page, only one link actually goes to the movie's page. There's links for a video game, a cartoon, repackaged versions of old monster movies, and even Van Helsing merchandise.

    If shitty advertisements disguised as films are the best Hollywood can put out, it's no wonder they need the video game industry. I'll take an Enix or Blizzard (well, make that ArenaNet) game over another Matrix sequel any day.
  • by RobDogAlpha ( 739240 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:47PM (#9188668)

    Having quality voice talent in games is a plus.

    Having bad action movies based on games is a minus.

  • by WordODD ( 706788 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:49PM (#9188693)
    Instead of doing both the movie and the game in the piss poor fashion of late how about trying to at least get one or the other done properly. Games like Van Heilsing are horrid and the movie really isn't much better. Both were released the same day and really all you see featured about the movie is the "amazing" special effects. I don't know about everyone but for me the special effects ridden movies of late have failed to deliver. The main reason I go to see a moive a "story" or "plot". Instead its just one big effects shot then some poor dialog and/or character development then another enormous effect. How long trend will this continue? I guess as long as they can make enough money at the box office to cover it. Or if not at the box office then from the game revenues, after all it probably takes very little money to make one of these "movie" games.
  • by baudilus ( 665036 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#9188734)
    Some of you will berate me for saying so, but some movies based on video games are actually good [tombraidermovie.com]. By any financial account, some have been VERY successful.

    This does not follow when the roles are reversed; I have yet to witness a game based on a movie that was successful in any respect (unless someone can convince me otherwise). Even as a huge matrix fan, I have not been the least bit interested in playing Enter The Matrix [enterthematrixgame.com].

    As long as the movies make money, Hollywood will still make them, even if they are raffish.
  • It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xenostar ( 746407 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:51PM (#9188750)
    that with every year, commercial game development is becoming more and more out of reach of smaller/indie studios. The expectations are being raised with every Doom3 and HL2 that comes out. Nowadays, the models have to be on par with movie-quality standards, the sound has to be done in a professional studio and etc. Gone are the days when a small studio could write a game and hit it big in the industry. Mods seem to be the only way the little people could make themselves known, and even those have to be on par with the modded game (level are not designed from blocks anymore, they are their own complex 3d models). And eventhough i drool everytime i see a new screenshot of HL2/Doom3 and see the new ATI demos, I also long for the days when people got excited by 16x16 pixel characters and 8 bit sound.
  • by mobiux ( 118006 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @04:55PM (#9188801)
    I had a blast playing Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

    If they can make games like this that actually have depth to them, instead of a shooter with just a level from each scene of the movie, I am all for it.

    But I think there is going to be a problem seeing a movie based on a video game. You already have in your mind, a set perception of the game and how it should go.
    Kinda like reading a book and then seeing the movie. It always seems like the movie sucks compared to what you had read.
  • by shrapnull ( 780217 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:02PM (#9188890)
    So people don't watch as much tv, and all the junk they used to sell you to play with has been replaced with electronic boxes.

    You can bet damn sure they're going to get that $20 out of your wallet one way or another. Even if they have to devour another market to do so.

    Ironically, you'll pay more for them to do that.
  • Re:Oh dear god... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by baudilus ( 665036 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:02PM (#9188911)
    Everyone knows that true "gamehouses" value quality over deadlines. Imagine waiting for that new "Chronicles of Riddick" game for over a year because of release date pushbacks....
  • Re:Courting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Total_Wimp ( 564548 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:03PM (#9188923)
    Yeah, we need some more boring, crappy games based on movies and boring, crappy movies based on games so people will get jaded about the games and the industry will go into recession like it did post-Atari. Then maybe the people that are in it for the glitz instead of the games will go find something else to do.

    What would we have gotten if Atari had continued to dominate back-in-the-day? More Atari 2600 Pac-Man probably. That brief recession allowed us to get the NES. Cool upgrade, eh? But,now we're getting yet another stupid James Bond game on PS-2. It needs to die so people will at least try to reinvent gaming into something better instead of continuing to push hollywoodfied, star-studded crap.

  • by sckeener ( 137243 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:11PM (#9189011)
    MHO is that hollywood is seeing the dollars. you make a bunch of CGI movies or even real movie like ROTK and TTT and you add some animated version of the main hero that you control doing some punching/sword swinging and they get $50 for their DVD/Movie vs $15-$30 for their movie.

    yeah, but hopefully you'll get more than 2 hours of enjoyment out of the game.

    My fear is when real high speed broadband is every where. Then I think video games and movies will be on a pay per play/view system.

    Imagine $$$$/month forever because they've linked your cable, internet, home security,phone and your video games into one providor.

  • Bah! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Random Guru 42 ( 687672 ) <{chris} {at} {coldacid.net}> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:26PM (#9189196) Homepage Journal
    Sure, we get compared a lot to the movie industry, but we don't get much credit [igda.org] for our work.

    We still have a long way to go before we're really like Hollywood, and not just for recognition. There's also the model used for game development and marketing. But I've not the time to go on a complete diatribe, so you can Google about it.
  • Re:It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wobblie ( 191824 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:29PM (#9189240)
    Not really. They're doing the wrong kinds of games. The 3d thing is saturated now anyway, and most of the games are awful. Games don't need good graphics ... say it a thousand times. Does chess have good graphics? Illuminati?

    Has anyone ever designed a computer game with the same design principles that go into board games? (replayability, consistency, good rule sets, etc) Nope. Computer games don't even publish any rules because they're only meant to last 2 months anyway. Seems like there some kind of market there.
  • Re:Oh dear god... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by clichekiller ( 665320 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:44PM (#9189411)
    The Spiderman game on the PS was excellent. The movie version for the PS2 was even better. It really went a long way towards making me feel like I was actually spiderman. The game was very polished with decent voice acting. Bruce Cambell lent his talent to it.

    Another title that has transitioned well from movie to game is the James Bond series. Back on the N64 Goldeneye rocked.

    Another title the Alien vs. Predator series got its start with two movies. The second game was awesome. I especially loved playing as the face hugger looking for a victim and then getting to burst from his chest. The marine campaign actually managed to make me jump out of my chair.

    My $0.02!
    The truth of the matter is this. All the love, attention and skill you turn upon mud pie will not make it into an edible concoction. Inversely, the most succulent ingredients in the hands of an inept chef will render the results inedible. Sorry Heinlein. A long winded way of saying that start with crap you're pretty much guaranteed crap at the end, but start with the best of material and you can still end up with crap if you're not careful. Nothing is a guaranteed formula for sucees.

    The latest debacle of the Tomb Raider movie people claiming the video game people killed the movie with their poor game illustrates the point nicely.
  • Re:Sims movie (Score:3, Insightful)

    by radixvir ( 659331 ) * on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:57PM (#9189583) Homepage

    it sounds like the early days on the movie industry where studios would sign actors/personalities and they wouldnt be allowed to go work on things outside the studio's movies.

  • Re:Oh dear god... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tgibbs ( 83782 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @05:57PM (#9189588)
    The problem in the past has often been that game developers companies spend much of their budgets on expensive media licenses and have little left to make the actual game. But as movie producers are realizing that games can bring people into the movie, this may be changing.

    Another example of an excellent game adaptation is the first Buffy game (although the second was not as good). And the Matrix games seemed like a decent effort, with serious support from the movie producers, even though the games didn't quite come off.
  • Not only do we not get to reap the rewards of what we've sown, but we barely get any credit for our work, either. Unless you're very indie (like myself), in which case almost nobody ever plays the game anyway.
  • by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:27PM (#9191180)
    I think that a lot of people here are missing the point.

    Both video games and movies are basically 20th century mediums. And as such they are now halfway steps to a new 21st century medium: an interactive digitally-generated photography.

    Combine synthetic animation such as the AnaNova newscaster with quasi-AI like the classic Eliza program, voice recognition, on-line anonymous interaction with thousands of strangers presenting their image to you as 'avatars'. Have it semi-scripted by Hollywood screenwriters and directors. Run it on multiprocessor systems that are 1 or 2 orders of magnitude more powerful than today's systems.

    You get an entirely new medium that makes today's movies and games look as dull as Super-8 family movies and silent film tricks from a hundred years ago. There are some people in Hollywood that realize that movies are about to go the way of Vaudeville in the next twenty years
  • by r3001 ( 659838 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:24PM (#9191983)
    Although I do agree with you that new technological mediums will undoubtably unfold within the next 20-30 years I highly doubt that film will be going anywhere. Films, are much like books, in that they allow the reader to escape in a different manner than video games. Video games, and really any sort of interactive medium, require the user to be focused, alert, and awake. This is quite to the contrary of movies where, since the user is not a participant but merely an observer, the user is a less mentally taxing role. This is an important distinction between video games and movies. So although movies may decline somewhat in popularity they will never be completely phased out. I should also make one other point about video games. In order to evolve as a medium and truely become better than movies they must allow for moments of tension and drama to occur (If you don't get what I mean then let me give you the example of when the hero confronts the villian: in a video game the player kills him immediatly (even if the developer forces the player to wait for a moment it does not matter becuase it must be the initiative of the player in order to be effective) while in a movie they often talk for a moment before the fighting begins [If you dont get what im talking about still go watch Goldeneye]). Right now video games are unable to accompish this and in doing so it takes away from the purpose of the game and it severely hampers their effectiveness and as a medium. Before gaining true popularity they must overcome this final hurdle.
  • by Retired Replicant ( 668463 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @03:53PM (#9197869)
    Full-priced video games may be on a par with movies in terms of how much total money they are generating, but they are still far less popular than movies. A full-priced video game costs 4 to 5 times as much as a movie ticket, and 2 to 4 times as much as a DVD, despite the fact that the average video game has a much lower production cost than a widely-released Hollywood movie. Maybe if games cost less, the audience would expand, people would buy more games, and there would be less savings to be had by pirating games.

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.