Nowadays, virtually all films are based on a prior story — whether it's a book, graphic novel, Broadway show or an "amazingly true" tale. Movie executives are desperate for ideas and, in their search to find original concepts, they have turned to the video game industry.
From "Pong" to "Halo 3: ODST," video games have entertained generations of overweight, acne-ridden and antisocial teenagers who don't change out of their sweatpants for days at a time. Don't get us wrong, we are big video game players. We've probably logged over 100 hours of "Super Smash Bros." this semester alone. And in case you're on the slow side, we take our movies pretty seriously, too. So, by the law of syllogism, we should love movies based on video games — but no. In fact, we've gotten pretty frustrated with Hollywood's inability to do justice to any video game.
Video games get more cinematic as time passes, but the quality of their film adaptations has remained woefully stagnant. What's to blame — poor writing, low budgets, horrible acting or simply bad concepts? Try all of the above.
All video game adaptations thus far have been dependent on the source material, which turns out to be a real issue when the plot of the game is "get from point A to B and kill some bad guys along the way." Look at recent adaptations like "Doom" (2005) or "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li" (2009). Then look at the source material — the only character development in "Doom" occurs when your mute, nameless character acquires new guns. The plot to "Fighter" consists of punching and kicking your opponents into submission until you run out of quarters. Though loyal gamers may protest, we think these films should take some creative risks while also capturing the games' core essence.
It sounds painfully obvious, but it needs to be said — a good adaptation should stand on its own; it should be a good movie in its own right. Screenwriters need to approach video game adaptations as if they were any other movie. "The Dark Knight" (2008) worked not only as a comic book film but also as a crime saga. It appealed to the Comic-Con attendees as much as the erudite cinephiles.
Indeed, the trajectory of video game adaptations could very well parallel that of comic books, which used to be the bane of film reviewers. It was only once they put franchises in capable hands, like those of directors Christopher Nolan, ("The Dark Knight") and Bryan Singer ("X-Men," 2000, "X2," 2003), that quality improved. Video game adaptations will only get taken seriously when a good one gets made. The success of "X-Men" and "Spiderman" (2002) in the early 2000s reignited Hollywood's urge to adapt, just as Joel Schumacher's take on "Batman & Robin" extinguished it in 1997.
We'd almost given up on these films when we caught the trailer to the upcoming "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" (due 2010). While this film won't break the box office or win Oscars, we're sure that it will boost the credibility of video game flicks. Executives handed the franchise to the man with the cinematic Midas touch, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and to the able director Mike Newell, known for his work on the fourth "Harry Potter" film (2005).
The trailer makes no allusions to the Ubisoft game, but incorporates enough game-specific details to appease fans. What we've got on our hands is a middling action film that looks like the lovechild of "Pirates of the Caribbean" (2003) and "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962). And we're fine with that. At this point, anything is better than what we've got.
If "Persia" flops, we'll cross our fingers for Martin Scorsese's "Grand Theft Auto XVII: The Streets of Medford," starring Leo DiCaprio as the ski-masked antihero who chases a group of girls walking back from Davis Square.
--
Zach Drucker and Chris Poldoian are sophomores who have not yet declared majors. They can be reached at Zachary.Drucker@tufts.edu and Christopher.Poldoian@tufts.edu, respectively.
