Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

New Video Brings Portal To Life 137

NaklsonofNakkl writes "The Portal series was an amazing blend of gameplay, storytelling and puzzles, which left players wishing there was a portal gun they could use in real life. A recent YouTube video brings a cinematic view on what it would look like."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Video Brings Portal To Life

Comments Filter:
  • While I wish they had featured GLaDOS, I think its nice that they put a little twist to it with the guards. It reminds me of the Half Life guards, and its nice because Portal and Half Life are supposedly from the same "universe".

    • I realize i am splitting hairs, but i'm assuming you are referring to the solider/grunts? The blue guards were friendly to you (until you hit them with a crowbar, but IRL people behave the same...)
      • Yes, exactly. The soldier/grunts. I played the game so long ago I barely remember. (time to replay!)

    • Yeah, would have been good for GLaDOS to chime in near the end with "nice try, Chell" or something like that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      I liked the companion cube at the end, though. And I agree with other posters, would have been nice to see *how* she figured out where the portal gun was from the writing on the wall. Maybe that comes in the full-length release...
    • by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <> on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @02:26PM (#37194174) Journal

      What I'd like to know is Why the fuck Hollywood don't hire these guys to make game movies instead of the shitheads that made Doom and Uwe fricking Boll? Have you seen "Escape from City 17"? those guys had NO money yet made more engaging cinema than Uwe Boll has done in his entire fricking life!

      Quite being morons Hollywood, hire guys like this that KNOW the material to do game movies. just cut them a check and let them loose. hell I bet that for half of what a Uwe boll flick costs they will make movies that are actually good!

  • by Superken7 ( 893292 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @06:50AM (#37189262) Journal

    Good thing for her that the "landscape wall" is positioned on the building she jumps to, and is not the building itself :)

    • Yeah. In every shooter I know she'd just have hit the skybox.

      • Slightly off-topic, but back when CS:S (that's Counter Strike: Source to you web devs) came out, a few friends and I were messing around in our own server.

        The Skybox partially works by having a miniturised version of the level (if I recall correctly, it's 16 times smaller) hidden from view. I can't remember the details about what this is for, something to do with light calculation or something, but we found out that if you teleport a player into that skybox, they'll appear in the level as an enormous CT or

        • by Asmor ( 775910 )

          There's a TF2 map called Mario Kart which has a hidden portal (one of the warp pipes, of course) to the skybox. That's always fun. :)

    • The way most games are constructed the 'skybox' or 'skydome' is attached to the camera so it is impossible to 'hit it'.

    • by Barny ( 103770 )

      This is why they went through 18 subjects before one finally got the idea.

  • Totally Rad Show (Score:2, Informative)

    by ChocNut ( 791621 )
    Dan Trachtenberg from TRS was responsible for this. It just goes to show that just because you're a critic/fan of movies and games doesn't mean you can't create great stuff yourself! Kudos
  • One word (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nialin ( 570647 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @06:54AM (#37189294)
  • by bobetov ( 448774 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @06:59AM (#37189328) Homepage

    I agree with the YouTube commenter who said "Get this up on Kickstarter and make a full length movie".

    I'd chip in $50 easy. Congrats to the people involved!

    • I would so watch this if it was a movie.

    • >>I'd chip in $50 easy. Congrats to the people involved!

      Ditto. When my wife and I watched it yesterday, she was convinced it had to be a clip from a professional film made by Valve. =)

    • by Yuioup ( 452151 )
      Why? This video is already full-length. It has a beginning, a middle and an end.
      • and yet the plot made little sense. I can think of explanations, but unfortunately one of them is that the writer was an idiot. It would be nice to have more plot and action (though the last scene was pretty breathtaking - I would have chosen a far safer way off of the building).

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          and yet the plot made little senseblockquote>

          So... it's a regular movie then?

        • So it's Hollywood-ready, then.

    • I agree with the YouTube commenter who said "Get this up on Kickstarter and make a full length movie".

      Not going to happen. While Valve is awesome, I'd guarantee you they'd want more money for licensing the Portal property then you could raise on kickstarter.

      • by Cogita ( 1119237 )
        OTOH, Valve typically has been very amenable to fan material before. If Valve was approached as a production partner, with limited oversight over production, one might even be able to encourage them to chip in as a publicity event. Keep the same director, writing and special effects designer as the production leads, let some valve employees chip in additional writing and or settings/special effects.

        the bigger question in my mind is "Is there enough plot to Portal to tell a full length movie?" for all
        • And yet the Resident Evil franchise is... three? four movies deep, and the Matrix hit 3. Dystopian near-future + shadowy corporate / technocrat overlords vs plucky/sexy protagonists in black/gray/vaguely-military-ish clothing certainly seems to be a successful recipe at the box office.

          They could easily expand on the game universe while keeping it true to the feel and premise of the game. Add some backstory to the characters, corporation, and GladOS, a few wisecracks and punchlines, some bouncy T&A, a

        • How long was it from the beginning of Wall-E until the first actual line of dialogue?

          • Or Castaway, for that matter.

            To use the Standard Movie Logic, I'd say that Portal = Castaway + Matrix.

      • Take a look at "Clear Skies" made in Eve and HL2, as far as I heard it was being supported by Valve and CCP.

  • Outside Aperture (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ironix ( 165274 ) <> on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @07:01AM (#37189334) Homepage
    There's another portal video from earlier this year that I also found to be rather enjoying. Watching this new video reminded me of the one I saw earlier in the year. []
  • by Haedrian ( 1676506 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @07:09AM (#37189374)

    Wasn't expecting that ending. At all.

    • I wasn't expecting it either but it wasn't at all surprising. More of an "ah of course, I should have seen that coming"
  • Slashdotted already?
  • by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @07:48AM (#37189556) Homepage

    Created cinematography. Cinema quality, no doubt.

    I want to see the full feature length movie of this now...

  • In all seriousness, if this becomes a full blown movie, I will probably even forgive the second and third part of Matrix (i.e. the last times I was actually at a movie theater) and return to watching movies.

    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

      Are you seriously going to praise this mini-movie while at the same time pissing on the 2nd and 3rd Matrix? While I have several gripes with the sequels to the original Matrix, they were still entertaining and had top-notch production values.

      This movie was mildly entertaining, if only for the novelty of seeing Portal in a live-action setting. The portal sequences were well scripted. However, the pacing in the beginning was repetitive and boring, the actress was homely, and there really needs to be a cast of

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by C0R1D4N ( 970153 )
        Homely? She may not have been the usual supermodel actress but she certainly wasn't homely. I thought she was a good choice for Chess. An everyday woman.
        • by Raenex ( 947668 )

          I guess if you like slightly manly older girls with bad skin, then she isn't so bad.

          • by dasunt ( 249686 )
            Why are you so quick to discount the actress's physical fitness? Not all measures of attractiveness are skin-deep.
            • by Raenex ( 947668 )

              The plain truth is that she wasn't attractive to look at. Of course her physicality fits in with the role, but one of the reasons Hollywood is successful is because they make movies with people we want to look at for over an hour.

              Take somebody like the actress who played Trinity in the Matrix. She wasn't a classic beauty or a glam girl, but she was still attractive. That's why Hollywood goes through tons of auditions to get the right person.

              • Take somebody like the actress who played Trinity in the Matrix. She wasn't a classic beauty or a glam girl, but she was still attractive.

                I disagree. I find this actor a lot more attractive than Carrie-Anne Moss (Trinity).

                It seems you are making your preference of women into a standard. It's not.

              • by Machtyn ( 759119 )
                To each his own, but I thought she was pleasing to look at. Sure, if I was in my early 20's I'd think, "She's old and not attractive." But now that I'm in my 30's she's actually done herself a lot of good keeping in physical shape. Oh, and if you check out Danielle Rayne's website, you'll learn that she's a stunt actress. (I didn't have enough time to see what works she has been in.)
              • by spazdor ( 902907 )

                C'mon, does Slashdot really need more of this post-adolescent standards-based beauty obsession shit? There aren't objective standards of beauty, and if there were, barely any of this site's userbase would personally meet them. There is no subject matter to debate here; nothing to convince anyone else of.

                Just say "she ain't my style" and let's move on.

                • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                  The fact is that you're wrong. While you'll never get everybody to agree on what is attractive, there are common standards, such as youthfulness, clear and supple skin, and for a woman, curves in the right places. The leading women in Hollywood are generally agreed to be attractive for a reason.

                  The director actually chose to go with a closeup shot in the very beginning that shows the actress's skin, which is fairly bad, especially the way it was lit. Maybe this is intentional and they were going for gritty,

                  • by spazdor ( 902907 )

                    It's weird that you are a minority of approximately one, arguing in defense of a "populist" beauty ideal. If these 'common standards' are as common as you say, I'm not sure how you can have managed to garner so many dissents.

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      Easy. Post a negative opinion that comes off as mean-spirited, and those that don't agree will come out of the wood-work. After that, nobody is going to want to defend you, even if they agree.

                    • by spazdor ( 902907 )

                      Maybe the problem is that you're arguing subjective subject matter using objective language such as "The plain truth" and "The fact is."

                      I, personally, fit the stereotype. I'm into thin, young-looking blonde chicks with smooth skin and prominent secondary sex traits, and even I was compelled to call you out on this.

                    • by Raenex ( 947668 )

                      The problem is that while there are subjective differences of opinion, there are also objective generalities:


                      You can't deny that the majority of leading Hollywood actresses are generally considered beautiful. You would never see a mainstream Hollywood movie opening up with a closeup shot that shows an older heroine with bad skin, made to look about as bad as possible with the lighting.

          • by Toonol ( 1057698 )
            Ah. An anime fan.

            Hey, I like it too, but real women have their advantages.
            • by Raenex ( 947668 )

              Ah. An anime fan.

              Not really.

              Hey, I like it too, but real women have their advantages.

              If by "real", maybe you mean "average". They have their roles, but not as the feature role in a film.

              • Hint- She is a real actress, not just someone off the street. She actually looks pretty close to Chell, which is probably why they used her.

        • by CFBMoo1 ( 157453 )
          I like her too, she actually looks believable. unlike most other glamor choices of lead actresses. She looks like she could fit the role perfectly.
          • And the facial expressions were subtle but fully in line with her character and how she should be reacting. If "bad skin" really was a bother, there are remedies for that. All in all, she performed excellently, fit the part, seemed authentic, and I liked the performance. I wonder if the original poster thinks that District 9 was a complete failure because of the lead actor not being 'traditional attractive'? Or what about Rachel Dratch? Does she ruin SNL because she's not a model? Ugh,. I think Hollyw

        • by porges ( 58715 )

          She reminded me a lot of Maggie Q. By the way, the Nikita TV series does not suck.

    • by hawkinspeter ( 831501 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @10:12AM (#37190826)
      What second and third part of the Matrix? That film was really cool, I always wondered why they didn't do a sequel.
  • Five stars if she takes her top off.

  • []

    Based on the original Portal.

  • I love the vid. But, /. seems to be the place to mention, the perspective of the view through the portals when she first creates portals seems wrong and it immediately bugged me.

    If you look at the still image used as a placeholder for the vid, the image you see in the blue portal is from the perspective of the camera, not from the perspective of the other portal. You should be able to see her whole body in the blue portal.
    • and it's too close, in the wide shot the walls are about 5/6 metres apart, but the view through the portals are as if they are closer, like only a couple of metres

    • by Toonol ( 1057698 )
      the perspective of the view through the portals when she first creates portals seems wrong and it immediately bugged me.

      Yep. I don't think it was the angle, so much as it was insufficient depth. Each 'repetition' of the portal should have been recessed by a distance equal to the full width of the room... but instead, it looked like it was repeating every 5-10 feet.

      I'm willing to cut visual media slack, though, because sometimes they do things that are deliberately wrong, in order to make something
      • by godrik ( 1287354 )

        "As long as it only bothers a few slashdotters, it's not a huge problem."

        Who else than slashdotters is gonna look at it? :)

  • Portal? Really? Sorry, was distracted by the fit bird in the vest.

  • Nice, but I've seen 1000 "portal in real life" videos in the 4 years since the game was released.
  • by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Wednesday August 24, 2011 @10:22AM (#37190948) Journal

    Seems very Nine Inch Nails-y, a la Ghosts.

  • 1) Danielle Rayne is HOT.

    2) Awesome effects work, pro or not

    3) It was hard to figure out what she did to the first guard, had to watch it twice.

    4) i have no idea why she was sitting there one moment, and opening the panel the next. i guess it has something to do with the markings.

    5) A Portal movie would be unlikely to have mass appeal. i'd love to see a web series.

    6) Fit women like Danielle Rayne are ten times hotter to me than stick figure fashion models

This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does something child-like. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS 454, University of Washington