Forums > Game Talk > What movies can borrow from games?
St. Martyne (3648) on 1/30/2008 8:23 PM · Permalink · Report
I've just been to the Colverfield movie the other day, and obviously, being a gamer, I couldn't notice that it felt just like watching some guy playing a highly realistic FPS in the vein of F.E.A.R. and Half-Life 2. I doubt, that the creators of this movie were inspired by video games to choose the format they did, but the idea stayed with me.
Games have been relying on movies' techniques for who knows how long. So, what do you think? Is there anything movies can borrow from games? Whatever it may be.
I find myself answering "No", because whatever new stuff the games has invented is usually connected with their interactivity, so no movie can benefit from these findings.
But then I remember the impact the Cloverfield is making on its audience, which claims that it feels as if they were "inside a movie" and, of course, the uber-cool FPS scene in Doom.
But is there more?
Sciere (930490) on 1/30/2008 8:24 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Let's quote überdirector Uwe Boll:
A lot of video games have no story. I did the movie House of the Dead and got bashed and I said, what were you expecting, Schindler's List? I showed zombies chasing people and this is basically what the movie delivers. I don't know what they were expecting if you make a movie based on an ego shooter where you kill ninety minutes of people non-stop.
Games still have to learn a lot from movies. Heavy Rain is the single future game I can think of right now to really move things forward.
BurningStickMan (17916) on 1/30/2008 8:28 PM · Permalink · Report
As every effort so far has failed, I'm going to say no.
1) Movies that borrow their plot from games = bad movies.
2) Movies that add the interactivity of games (e.g FMV titles) = bad games.
Indra was here (20755) on 1/30/2008 8:56 PM · Permalink · Report
My kingdom for a film based on Warhammer 40,000.
Steely Gaze (208) on 1/31/2008 12:29 AM · Permalink · Report
I don't think so. I haven't seen Cloverfield, but every time I see a commercial for it I don't think of a video game; I think of the Blair Witch Project. And that Doom scene you mention, well I thought it was neat, but it didn't make me feel like I was any closer to the movie and its characters than if the scene had been shot traditionally.
Personally, I cannot find any one thing video games could do to help make movies better. So far, both of these are completely different forms of entertainment, and each is enjoyable for vastly different reasons.
Of course I think this applies both ways; I don't think movies have much to contribute to video games. At least, not nearly as much as some people think.
Zovni (10504) on 1/31/2008 12:37 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't agree there. And it only makes sense, motion pictures have had over 100 years to become a true art form, videogames are merely the new kids dining at the kiddie table, and so far everything they've done is copy the elements what work in movies.
Steely Gaze (208) on 1/31/2008 2:19 PM · Permalink · Report
How do you figure that? Games tell a story that focuses around the player and his or her actions, and the really good games will allow that player to change the outcome of the game by doing a certain action thus changing the end result. You can't change the ending of a movie, you have zero control over a movie.
The closest you could try to convince me otherwise would be with an adventure game, but that wouldn't apply because of what I already noted; you have the final say of what happens in the game, or at least you have the illusion that you do.
Games and movies are two completely separate entities.
What elements could a movie possibly give to a game and make it fun?
Zovni (10504) on 1/31/2008 2:49 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't know where to begin, take a look at any game and you'll see narrative techniques, stylistic choices and even blatant ideas and plot-points that are lifted from most movies. I think we are talking about different things here, you make it seem as if games are interactive and movies not, and that's the only connection between them thus "since you can't change the ending of a movie" there's nothing you can take from it. I was talking about elements in a more global perspective and the reality is that pretty much 99% of what happens in videogames is directly influenced by motion pictures.
Steely Gaze (208) on 1/31/2008 3:35 PM · Permalink · Report
Okay, if you're going to use some pretty broad terms like that, then you might as well say that all video games owe something to movies, which in turn owe something to books, which in turn owe everything to the entire human race.
You can't have any form of media and not have it copied in some way.
I was talking about from a more individual perspective. What could you honestly point to, in a game, that was made better by being in a movie first? There might be something, but I doubt it would be specific to movies, and that was kind of my point in the first place. Movies don't use anything really unique to them, and neither do video games. It's all been done, in some form, before. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly.
Zovni (10504) on 1/31/2008 5:48 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Steely Gaze wrote--] Movies don't use anything really unique to them, and neither do video games. It's all been done, in some form, before. Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly. [/Q --end Steely Gaze wrote--]
No, that just isn't right sorry. I studied this shit and posted about this on one of our long-winded "are games art?" threads. There is something unique to the motion picture that makes it stand on its own as an art form and a language and its got to do with the photographic reproduction of a reality in motion. You are correct when you say that movies "owe stuff", in fact movies on the early days where nothing but filmed theater, and that's why they weren't considered a true art form (since as you say: they didn't have anything unique to them). Videogames are right now in this state: interactive movies. With their primary direct influence being motion pictures. Yes there are games that seem to push the boundaries to define what the true nature of the videogaming medium might be (my money is on games like Rez) but if you look at 99% of what's out there you'll see the same scripting and visual techniques used for movies. And by this I don't mean that they both have stories, or that both have X or Y visual themes. I mean that they deal with these elements using the same techniques of representation. From everything regarding the way the plots are developed (exposition, act separations, script theory, etc.) to stylistic elements (think the first person-view is an invention of videogames? Ever heard of movies like Rear Window? Peeping Tom? Blowup? Heck, even Evil Dead :D or Aliens).
St. Martyne (3648) on 1/31/2008 6:17 PM · Permalink · Report
It's true that games have not yet formed a flexible language of their own, but, come on, let's not diminish the things they have already achieved. It's not just Rez, you know.
For example. Many games reevaluated the importance of text in them, without borrowing directly from books. They've made an interesting format for comedy, in which your own exploration yields the results, so that you're not exactly fed the jokes. Some comedy titles are unimaginable at all in other media, like Nord & Bert.
As for plot development, many games have successfully violated the formula of four parts (exposition, complication, climax, resolution) plot structure. Do Fallouts or Ultimas follow it? No, they're just a conglomeration of separate episodes bound to flesh out the world they're trying to portray, and they're not relying on movies' tricks.
Stylistically, games are usually being presented from only one viewpoint. That in its turn calls for some unconventional treatment. Whereas movies are not bound to it.
There's more, but I know, that you're aware of all that stuff. It just bugged me, that you consider psychedelic music games as the most promising continuation for games developing their own art form language.
Игги Друге (46653) on 2/1/2008 1:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]As for plot development, many games have successfully violated the formula of four parts (exposition, complication, climax, resolution) plot structure.[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--] That's hardly something pioneered by games, and what's more, I'm inclined to believe that the traditional intrigue is something games could learn from film.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 1/31/2008 6:28 AM · Permalink · Report
I find myself answering "No", because whatever new stuff the games has invented is usually connected with their interactivity, so no movie can benefit from these findings.
Agreed.
I hope that at least they stop making crappy movies based on games that don't fit the movie format, and begin making good movies based on games that do fit it. Good movies, not like Advent Children.
Maybe this will never work?
Indra was here (20755) on 1/31/2008 9:00 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start JazzOleg wrote--] I hope that at least they stop making crappy movies based on games that don't fit the movie format, and begin making good movies based on games that do fit it. Good movies, not like Advent Children.
Maybe this will never work? [/Q --end JazzOleg wrote--]
It'll never happen. It's a against any capitalist industrial principle of economy. Maximum income at minimum expense...and since faiboi teenagers usually tend to have half-a-brain when it comes to taste and art, the industry will almost always seek to make a hit game a money making movie franchise (money first, everything else, later).
I'm surprised they didn't make Sonic vs Teletubes: The Movie, yet.