Friday 21 March 2014

Video Game Movies - Game Over?




One of the biggest enigmas in commercial cinema is the failure of video game films. Around 30 films have been adapted from video games and only one film has received a rating of over 50 on Metacritic. That was Mortal Kombat that received an 55. These films don't just perform badly critically. At the Box office they are generally failures. So what's to blame for the correlated failure of video game films? Is there hope for video game films? Or should they just end the game?




Source Material Ravaged?

The first ever video game film, Super Mario Bros (1993), was a massive failure. The biggest criticism for this is the look of the film and the source material looking so polarised to the game. The film took a more 'human' approach. , King Koopa shouldn't of been the main villain and shouldn't of been human. Bowser has been and mostly been the central villain to Mario. The look of the film was nowhere near the resemblance of the fun tone of the game. the only connection the film had with the game was the title of the film and the character names. This is not the only film that ignored the origins of the game. Later on, the film Doom (2005), ignored the actual plot of the game. Doom, the game, relied around an invasion from Hell but in the film a virus was to explain for the monsters of the film.; likely to try and pass itself for the hugely popular horror genre, the zombie survival genre. Even though it had one of the greatest scenes I've ever seen in a film, the 1st person shooter scene, it was a failure critically and commercially. Films ripping up the folklore of games angers the target audience of the film, the fans of the game, without them there is no audience. The more successful video game films have stuck close to source material, in reference to Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001) and Mortal Kombat (1995); both to a sense commercially successful. They are not perfect adaptations and are not completely faithful but does bear resemblance to the video game which is rare commodity. It's trivial why film makers buy the rights of a video game and refuse to use elements important to the video game franchises. It can be argued to aid the failure of these films.




Video Games Cannot be Crossed With Other Media?

The best argument for explaining why video game film fail is because of the interactivity of gaming is an experience that is impossible to replicate on the big screen. Dan Houser, Rockstar Games Co Founder, perfectly describes this by stating about a Grand Theft Auto film, 'We've got this big open-world experience that's 100 hours long......How do you condense that into a two-hour or 12-hour experience where you take away the main things: player agency and freedom?" (IGN, 2013) This explains that video games are not like films, the audience decides what happens to the characters, the way they talk, walk and progress. Films are decided by the film maker. Video Games are a popular media due the interactivity that is foreign to any other medium. Film cannot replicate the interactivity of gaming and an argument that the struggle to create this experience leads to the failure of these films. This argument is the most valid and explains the consistent failure of video game films. However video games are quite popular in expanded media. The Halo, Bioshock and Assassins Creed literature are hugely popular. To conclude that video games films are impossible to be successful is not so simple. The cross over is possible. It just needs the right franchise, right director, right casting and the right story.


The Future?

The answer to the question, is there a future for video game films, you would think by the overwhelming failure of them and the current cinematic climate relying on monetary incentive, the answer would be no; it isn't. There are over 25 games rumoured to be put into production, a massive increase, especially in it's 20 years of the inception of the genre there had only been around 30 films made. The reason for that is that games have become more cinematic. Heavy Rain (2010) and LA Noire (2011) are huge story based games, that have very simplistic game play but the stories are complex and interesting. Story has become an integral part of gaming and normally the games with the complex and original story are successful (minus the big hit franchises - Call Of Duty, Battlefield) Games have become films in their medium and producers are hungry to do the reverse. There is a demand and a future for a video game film market. It only needs one film to be successful to create a boom. Look at the original Spiderman (2002) arguably sparked the Superhero film boom.


Potential Hits.

From the games I've played there are some clear candidates for film/TV adaptations. LA Noire has one of the greatest stories in game history. The game play is poor but the back story and the complexity of the characters would create a perfect TV drama made by someone like HBO. You have the cast already there, as every cast is mo capped and look identical to their character, the story is also there. LA Noire is more of a film then it is a game, it is HBO bait waiting to happen. Also Heavy Rain as previously mentioned would make a great thriller, David Fincher would be a perfect cnadidate to direct due to his film Se7en (1995) sharing a similar style with the Oragami Killer, the main villain of Heavy Rain. moving onto Halo, which has a massive audience already. The Sci Fi connections does create a risk because Sci-fi's either hit with an audience and do well or completely bomb at the box office. Halo has the universe to expand and the temptation of putting the Flood on the big screen is too tempting to become a reality. Neil Bloomkamp would be perfect and should of made the film a few years ago which he was planned too. In a certain quirky suggestion, the recent announced Minecraft film looks to be a repeat of the Super Mario film because the style is so video game like that it would be hard to translate on the screen. However, I'm heavily interested in what they do with the rights of the film because it does have an amazing and wide audience and if it does do well, it could kick start a trend of video game films being produced.


Game Over or Continue?

Gaming is changing, it has become more interactive and immersed then ever. However story has become an integral part of gaming. There are some games that are impossible to make into a film that will be successful for example the open world games are too expansive and free to create into a 2 hour film. However if Hollywood puts all it's eggs into one basket by adapting games such as Heavy Rain, The Last Of Us, LA Noire the more story based games. It would be easier to convey in the cinema to audiences and have a memorable and complex character which makes the film more relatable. In conclusion, there is hope for video game films but the planets need to realign themselves for them to be successful. It needs the perfect franchise, character, director, cast and story. With the boundaries of games and films becoming more blurred, the awaited big hit looks to be close. The question is not will they be successful, it's when and what game?



Jason Blight 2014.

Tuesday 18 March 2014

Has Pixar Caught Sequelitis?

Has Pixar Caught Sequelitis

From a number of sources, Pixar have confirmed that Cars 3 and The Incredibles 2 will be made. I'm normally excited for sequels, sequels can be good ideas if done well and if necessary. In recent years Hollywood has churned out sequel after sequel and the argument of sequels being necessary is blurred and the more explicit incitement seems to be for the money. Hearing news of a sequel is nothing new and I shouldn't be worried, however Pixar is no any old Hollywood studio. Pixar is a trademark for innovation and quality; not quantity. So I thought...

Pixar being under the Disney umbrella, a studio known for it's franchises, (Marvel, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean) it shouldn't come as much of a shock. However Pixar before Cars 2 only made sequels to the highly popular Toy Story franchise but it was done well. Toy Story was an metaphor for the stages of growing up, each sequel was a great message to present about childhood. Cars 2 looked more of a cash grab, even though it was John Lasseter passion project. The idea that the first film made approx. 10 billion dollars in merchandise, two sequels doesn't seem like a productive step in innovation.

Toy Story in 1995 was a huge step in computer animation with every other film after that creating a new universe, unique and the story was original and detailed. From the ocean's of Finding Nemo to the Monster world of Monsters Inc. Pixar created universes that did allow sequels to be a possibility but held back on that possibility because they relished the idea to create something new. However with the announcement of Cars 3 and The Incredibles 2, it adds to the list of sequels of Cars 2, Monster University, the upcoming Finding Dory and there have been a few sources of doing a Toy Story 4.

Now I'm a sequel addict when I hear sequel I start to dribble and make weird noises but for Pixar I'm hesitant. They have always been consistent in their films and Cars 2 and Monster University, not bad films but Pixar can;t be content with not bad. Monster's University was a great films but I see more potential in the idea of the new, original Pixar film coming out called, Inside Out. Coming out in 2015, it will be set in a girls mind and the characters will be emotions. This sounds like an amazing idea and is so 'Pixar-like' It's risky, it's experimental but Pixar seem to hit every time. I'm more interested in that film then Finding Dory. I could probably guess what will happen in Finding Dory but Inside Out; I'm intrigued.

Now I won't stop watching Pixar films, I think they are still amazing. There sequels are much better quality then any shluck that Hollywood throw out. Sequels have a bad name to them, they have a capitalist motive and Pixar doesn't need a legacy of a sequel to 'cash in'. Their consistency record allows to experiment and still be a box office success. 

Pixar is an anomaly in Hollywood. They have so much detail in their films, it's why it takes years to make just one. Pixar is a studio that can experiment and innovate. It does hurt a little that they have announced a flurry of sequels not because they won;t be good films, it's because Pixar creates new environments and new universe that are detailed and unique that a Pixar that doesn't cover new ground seems like a wasted opportunity. The announced films of Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur shows a lot of promise and I hope, on a personal standpoint that Pixar doesn't get to the point where they rely on sequels. Pixar are a trademark of innovation and sequels are not the step forward.

Jason Blight



Sunday 16 March 2014

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Review

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Review.

Even though film reviews are suppose to be impartial but I have a soft spot for Wes Anderson. From a personal stand point his films are comfortable to watch. It has this style which is weird and wacky but it’s colour aesthetics gives a sense of nostalgia and the retro grandeur is a pleasant portrait to cast your eyes upon. 
The Grand Budapest Hotel is no different. Anderson stays to his way of film making. Even on a limited budget the sets and the direction is one of a majestic feeling and the tone is quirky enough to become a joy to view. The huge and acclaimed cast is perfect for this film. It;s huge cast of all era’s and the only downside is that every big star gets limited to a cameo performance.
Ralph Fiennes plays the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel and his character is a unique in Anderson’s universe.  In past films every character plays to Anderson’s world. Wacky in style and peculiar in their speech, There’re normally a calm tone to the characters speech even when they are angry. However Fiennes breaks out of this mould and at times, quoting ‘fuck it’ and loses his marbles. Fiennes breaks out of that mold and it provides a comedic strength to the film. Fiennes definitely shines in this film and that is not putting anything down on the supporting cast. Every actor did their job to the Anderson standard. Especially Ed Norton’s character was also a favourite, now becoming a regular in Anderson’s troupe. I would love if he had a leading role in the next Anderson film.
This is not Anderson’s best film, Moonrise and Steve Zissou is still by far my favourite films. The story had a lot of tangents that wasn't necessary and the cast was too big. Their was a lot of talent on show and not enough screen time. The Royal Tenebaums shows that Anderson can utilise a big cast, in this film some big names had very little screen time. 
However The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the best films I’ve seen this year and would recommend everyone to watch it. It was hilarious, not massive laughs but constant chuckles. I just had a 100 minute smile on the whole time. This film will surprise you, it will make you laugh, make you cry, amaze you though the style and sets. I have yet to come across a Wes Anderson that I’m disappointed by.  
Overall - Wes Anderson creates another masterpiece and if everyone followed suit of how much effort the director put’s into the set and utilise the budget every film would be a joy to watch. Maybe it was over ambitious in it’s cast but Fiennes shines, Norton excels and Dafoe just terrifying. If you love Anderson watch it, If you don’t find your lost soul and watch it anyway. Film Rating 8.5/10

Friday 14 March 2014

Star Wars VII - Disney's New Hope

Star Wars 7 - Disney's New Hope.

How can a company that released one of the biggest blockbusters (Avengers Assemble) of the 21st century top itself. The whole plan of getting six superheroes, three with separate franchises, and fuse them together to make one mega film. Not just pull it off but with large critical acclaim but with a huge box office success as well. Now Disney have pushed forward for the second stage of the Avengers however spending $4 billion on the rights to Star Wars is the smartest move on Disney's side of the deal. 

The timing, the legacy and also the past failure from the short comings of the 'second trilogy' has made this deal a win-win situation for Disney.  After failures from Lone Ranger (2013) and John Carter (2012) Star Wars is not a gamble, research suggests that Star Wars VII (2015) being released in December 2015 will hit the billion mark. I'll repeat it again just because of the Legacy, Timing and Past Failure.

Timing
 2015 is a year for film lovers and cinema-goers. Avengers Assemble 2, Batman Vs Superman and Star Wars VII is the three big hitter in 2015.  Although I don't think Batman Vs Superman will perform as good as the other two due to casting backlash but cannot be sure till the trailer is released. The timing to release the new Star Wars in 2015 is perfect due to the technology being perfect for the film. In the 70's/80's Star Wars film defined a new era of special effects but some could argue outdated as of 2014. The prequel trilogy was a huge improvement in the SFX arena however it wasn't at the stage of realism. The recent advancements in Mo-cap and ILM has set the stage for a Star Wars film to match the technology that it requires. Also with the increase in demand for IMAX and 3D, technology that goes hand in hand with Star Wars. Star Wars VII will be a treat visually due to finally technology, no budget restraints and the viewing experience being ready for a film of this scale. We just have to look at Gravity (2013), a pure space spectacle that was a visual delight. That was just Sandra Bullock floating in space! Think of the Millennium Falcon Mark II, gliding across space in IMAX. The technology is ready.

Legacy
Star Wars fan base is something that every writer/film maker dreams of. The fans are loyal and invest into the universe of the lore. Hundreds of novels, side stories and characters created unofficially. Parodies, songs, animations. The fan base is already there. Even the poor critical performance of the prequel didn't deter fans, all three films were successes at the box office. Just over 10 years since the last Star Wars film and technically 30 years since the last continuation of the Star Wars franchise. (As the last three were prequels and the story was already known to fans) The thirst of knowing what happened after Luke Skywalker defeated the Empire is a long waiting one. Critics will claim sequel overload, but Star Wars has a whole universe to explore and in the medium of film it has only scratched the surface.

Past Failures.
What is the last thing you do before you release a product into the market. You test it on a target audience. Star Wars VII has that luxury. The prequel trilogy was not the trilogy the majority of fans wanted and if Disney had any sense is to not replicate the prequel's style. The criticisms of past should be taken into account and fixed in the 'sequel trilogy'. Poor writing, childish style, slightly racist characters, wooden acting and Jar Jar Binks. Just some of the critiques. Disney being known for it's audience to be children, this may be there downfall but Avengers Assemble was a perfect balance between the two, so they can aim for a slightly older audience. 

Overall, Star Wars VII will be a sure fire hit, with the reliable JJ Abrams at the helm, with his past of Star Trek success, Star Wars VII looks like it's going in the right direction. The technology is ready for this film, the fan base crave for a continuation of the lore and past failures allow the film makers not to tread in the same footsteps. Star Wars is looking to be Disney's New Hope. 

By Jason Blight, 2014.