[quote]What does that have to do with the writer vs. the quality of the script.
You've been saying the low qualty in recent video game films is because 'the film makers do not care'. So it has nothing to do with the original point of writer. But you brought it up, not me. I just corrected you.
[quote]Alien 3 was meant to take place on earth with Newt and Hicks alive, not in some ****ty prisin. Pretty well known, shouldn't be hard to find.
I've asked you to supply proof for your statement that they delibertly chose a bad script for Aliens 3. Please provide. If it's not hard to find you have no excuse to find me the exact source your thinking of. If you can't it means your making stuff up. And making stuff up is a bad way to strengthen your argument.
Sounds to me like your confusing 'original draft' with 'omg they wanted to make it crap on purpose'.
Give it a rest already, old man. Or I'll have to stop giving it to you in the pooper..
Was this split? :/
[quote=Iris;857957]Was this split? :/
?? :\
Split from the Metal Gear Solid Thread. By Speedfreak, probably.
[quote=Bebop;857908]
I've asked you to supply proof for your statement that they delibertly chose a bad script for Aliens 3.
Judging by all the scripts that were either canned or altered before having the final draft, the case can be made that they deliberatly ****ed the flim up.
[url=http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/alien3/]Alien 3 scripts[/url]
As David Fincher's first feature film I can't imagine he'd want to sabotage his own career. I'm quite sure they genuinly thought they were on to a winner
If they cared they would know the movie is going to be bad. But they figure we're this far into it why not just say "**** it, give me my money." Seriously, if they let that **** go out the door they don't care. Money is money whether they get a good script or not.
Accidently making a mistake is different than setting out to delibertly make a pooey film.
As far as fans opinion on leaked scripts etc: what do fans know? They don't know how to make a film. They can barely agree on games! Are these the same fans who write fanfiction for Zelda? The same people who would happily class 'Silent Hill' as a 'great film' purely because it has alot of fan service? The same people who hated Spirits Within because 'cloud wasn't in it'! The same people who actually paid to see Hitman on release because 'it looks good'? The same people who debate about who should play who in hypothecital film castings for their series, and choosing actors purely on their looks? Fans know nothing.
As with any film if a fatal flaw or mistake occurs during film making you just get on with it. Stick to the original plan. When making a film you have to follow through because if you keep tweaking with every tiny bit of feedback an anonymous online fan has to offer, your film is going to become a bigger jumble of mess you could have ever thought. You can't please everyone, and knowing that a directer is going to stick to what they want.
Films are financial investments. Even when finished and the makers themselves are looking straight at their very own Frankenstein monster it would be dumb as hell to NOT release it. What are you going to say to your invester, your producers? "I really care about the source material and i don't think the film does it justice. Can we just...you know... put this film which cost us millions and millions and millions of dollars in the bin?" What do you think the reply would be vamp? Even you wouldn't be dumb enough to ask that. After production a director has no real legal leg to stand on so even if they wanted it scrapped it's too late.
In these films the acting may be poor, dialouge crappy, action over the top, premise silly and generally pure popcorn lowest denominator entertainment but [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_video_games] that's pretty darn close to the source material wouldn't you think?[/url] Just because it comes out bad you can't deny the amount of research and fan service in the films is very 'caring' to the source. Doom's FPS scenes, the costumes in Redident Evil, even the cute Bob-omb in the Mario Bros film! In all fairness it appears the closer the film is to it's video game series the smaller critical acclaim it gets.
I guess the problem with video game movies is that video games are different experiences to everyone. One player may have spent more time in one area, the other this, all that type of thing. Unlike a book adaptaion where character emotion, development etc is not subjective to who's reading it, but that experience can't be said to be the same for video games so translating that to a medium where it is fixed is a tricky little thing. So what may be the 'raping of a game series' to one may be the 'perfectly re-created on celluoid' to someone else. I know you get that with book adaptations too, but for games I'm betting it's more.
I'll read the rest later, but for the first two sentences I wouldn't call it a mistake at all. And clearly fans know better than the directors who make these films. Maybe not the technical side, but they know what works and doesn't in terms of the source material. They may not be able to adapt their ideas into a proper film, but neither can the director or writers. And usually the director/writers are way off mark on what people want. Alien 3 for example. And pretty much every video game movie.
[quote=The X;857972]Split from the Metal Gear Solid Thread. By Speedfreak, probably.
I only just found this thread. I love you too.
Hey! The title was totally your style, dude.
I think Bebop started it on his own when Vamp told him he'd delete anything else to do with this Bebop posted in the MGS thread.
[quote=The X;858814]Hey! The title was totally your style, dude.
Eh, I'm not really like that anymore. I haven't split a thread for a long time (cause it's the most pointless thing ever).
Better than staying in the old thread.
I agree with Vamp there companies that make purposely ****ty movies, because they know they can just slap a famous name on it and make money.
I agree with Vamp, and the reasons are simple. This isn't about a director wanting to make a good movie, and it isn't about deliberitly making it bad. That's stupid to even argue, and doesn't bring much to the discussion other than avoidance of the real question; how could the director want to make a good movie, and end up delivering a terrible one with full knowledge it would fail. Simple answer: Too much money was tied into the project to just not deliver anything. I don't see why that's so hard to believe. The ethical director would say "NO, we're not sending out that peice of ****" while the realistic director says "meh, It completely sux, but so much money is in this that I can't really deliver nothing". Let's kid ourselves into thinking people don't sell out just for the sake of proving Vamp wrong...yaaawn.
They may be crazy fans, but they're still fans. Perhaps the most dedicated.
Thats the problem. You seem to asserting that because you didn't get what you wanted out of a film they aren't trying to appeal to the fan, or adapt the source. It is a much for likely assumption that directer and writers do give people what they want with films like these because of the market research, the time and money investmant factor, the collabartive process, and the fact they're, you know, wrtiers and directers for popcorn films. That's kind of their jobs. That's what they do.
I don't think all people who have use fan fiction are delusional. Obviously on or two but I'm sure not all of them have carers.
The general public hate everything and watch Big Brother, Doctor Who and listen to Mariah Carey, while critcs were wowed by Leon and hate The Fountain and Iron Man. As for fans? I know a guy whos favorite film is Alone in the Dark. Thing is there are enough people, fans included, who do want and will pay to see these films. For the type of films these are there needs to be a big enough market to get money back otherwise they wouldnt have made them. They're tailoring to that audience and theres enough of them to say they are giving some people what they want.
Alot of critics didn't like Iron Man too.
What does represent "the general public"? Where are you getting your information on what the "gerneral public" does or does not like?
from, you know, sources of information ranging from TV, people around you, critics, radio, internet and so forth. It's not that hard to realise oh hey a lot of people liked shawshank redemption, nor is it hard to get that oh hey a lot of people hated house of the dead
People didn't like House of the Dead? :(
The people who work on them do care even they aren't the most compotent film makers (Uwe Boll). Then again the people who ENJOY the films aren't the most comptonent cinema goers. So we have incomptent film makers making films for incompotant film goers based on incompant games titles. It's no wonder you, me, anyone here in the board or the general public doesnt like the films because we're not the target audience, even if we're familair with the source. They're targetting purly to a breed, if you will, of the fans of the source. Like Meet the Spartans and those type of films. They're making films for the people who enjoyed making the film as well as watching it: idiots. But they're smart enough to stick to the audience they know well. Thats why game adaptations are crappy jock stuff (Dead or Alive, DOOM, Tomb Raider, soon to be Halo and Gears of War, any other game film) and no-ones made a Day of the Tenctale film.
Only reason people like Uwe Boll's films are because they're ****ing stupid and full of opportunities to mock it. Doesn't make the film-goer incompetent, they just like movies they can make fun of. And I believe that's exactly who Boll is going for, because the fan of Dungeon Siege definitely isn't going to see it for it's accurate representation of the source. He's certainly passionate about his films, I'll give him that, but he also gets paid no matter the outcome, so I'm highly skeptical about how much he truly cares about the quality.
Also, crappy jock stuff tends to have a bigger market than relatively unknown titles like Day of the Tentacle. ****, even the majority of hardcore gamers probably hasn't played that game.
I'm not saying going to see a film to make fun of means your an incompotent film goer, I'm talking about people who paid to see the films day of release and enjoyed them. Any person smarter than a guava would hold realistic expectations on any video game film announcement, but I've winessed (both online and off) fans stating how Doom was pretty good becuase of the first person shooter parts. As quite nice as that moment is it doesnt save the film from being dog turd, but if these types of fans are going to come away satisfied and hungry for more films purely because for 5 minutes there was some fan service than you've got question how compotent these people are. I used to work with a guy whos favorite film was Alone in the Dark. When he told me this I did what any smart cinema goer would have done: laugh in his face, question why he liked and give my reasons why it was not good (something like "it was crappidy crap crap"). His reply was something along the lines of "the acting was rubbish but it was about death and i love that type of stuff so i loved it". Wow.
And Uwe Boll certainly doesnt make films for the 'lets make fun of this pile of ****' audience because he is, after all, an idiot. I'm sure he thinks he's doing an ace jobs and it's just the critics and on or 2 fans who hate his work, but every other video game lover thinks he's lovely. Concerning him I think his main problem is his ego. He doesnt see anything wrong with his films so sees no need to make any adjustments (and if you got slandered half as much as he did I'd be suprised if anyone didnt get a dramatic ego inflation), plus the easy funding is hardly a detterent, and of course he makes like 15 in one go.
Like I said, always exceptions. For every person like you described there will be, both irl and online, no fewer than 10 other people saying it sucked. Doesn't matter the film, someone will always like it, but that means jack squat really.
No, I honestly think the man is downright brilliant. He has to be fronting a persona, and if he is, it works wonderfully. He's a total ****ing douche who can't even spell, sets up all these idiotic publicity stunts and makes one laughably bad movie after another, and yet, his films still get made. I swear to ***, he has to be doing it on purpose, he has to know what he's doing, and it has to be a game, otherwise no one would put up with that **** and he would've been out of a job years ago. But as is he creates massive drama and people flock to his films (usually through DVD rentals) to sit and laugh at them.
Actually it seems (it could be an act) That Uwe Boll thinks his movies are actually really good. I personally am 260879 to sign the stop Uwe Boll petition.
It's all speculation one way or another. I just pray to jesus it's an act and he's really a secret genius rather than a ****ing moron who continuously makes terrible movies. The former gives me some hope at least.
It's not an act I am afraid. Because of how the German subsidy system works he only needs to front half the budget of his already quite low budget films. He can do that with DVD rentals and cinema tickets for people who want to laugh, and the few who really like him. I think his main reason for being loopy is he's an active internet user. He always did put him out himself and promote his films himself online. Of course he can't handle the critiscm because he's in essence a 13 year old fanboy who can happen to make films (technically).
Making films and making good films are 2 very different things
Thank you for telling us something we already know. Have a cookie :)
Unfortunately you're probably right, bebop. I think of all the game developers that go on neogaf and flip out on the kids there and I realise far too many people with high-paying, prestigious positions within the gaming community do it that the chances of Boll knowing exactly what he's doing to be very, very slim.
siiiiiiiiiigh