Action-Adventure In the Sands of CGI Eye Candy!

I think I'll wait for the DVD and such, great review WP.

Very interesting and while +3 may be a substandard score to most genres, I have to say that for a video game to movie entry, it might as well be an A+. Great review and in a sense, what I kind of expected out of it. I would probably rate Pirates about the same (despite the hype surrounding that franchise). Great review as always and I will be by to enjoy the rest of your new reviews as soon as life slows to mudslide pace.

I wrote in my write up of Video Games that there are actually pretty good reasons that video games just don't make good adaptations in general.  And it also why I keep sticking to my rule of "Don't Compare Mediums."  Video Games is probably what best proves my rule. 

One of the reason, I realized is that there are a lot of video games that, for the most part, don't give movie producers much to work with.  Everyone keeps being surprised at how Mario turned into such a disaster... of course it did.  What exactly did Super Mario give producers to work with?  There's literally no story and no plot!

Prince of Persia falls into the latter category, though.  That being that there's just too much game.  The game is a pretty lengthy expenditure that, once again, doesn't give producers a whole lot to work with in terms of plot (though given when it came out, much more than games in the 8-bit and 16-bit era).  There's usually more game than actually story telling in a video game.  In the case of The Prince, there actually is something there they can use.  Can't tell you if they used it, but it sounds like they did what they always do: Pull bits and pieces while overall putting it into a story that they've written instead of lifting it from the game.  Perhaps.  And I don't mind that.

But that also brings about the last reason that video games don't make good adaptations: They think most gamers are teenagers, still... and they think most teenagers are stupid and don't care about story (you'd be surprised how many I've found who do).  They think the teenage gaming crowd just wants special effects and something pretty.  Because they think the graphics is why a lot of these games sell so well.  It's not.  It plays a role, but it's not the reason.  If that were so the Wii shouldn't be as big as it is.  Neither should the Playstation 2... or the original Playstation for that matter.  In short, Hollywood just doesn't take the medium of gaming seriously.

Gamers don't help the situation much either, though.  Most of them are acting like little immature idiots that it's no surprise to find out that, yes, people DO think most gamers are teenagers (the average gamer is in his mid 30's, a fact that people still refuse to accept... in short, I'm pretty damn young compared to the average!).  Not to mention networks like G4 only push already untrue stereotypes such, "We only care about something shiny and hot ladies."  Works... IF YOU'RE TRYING TO APPEAL TO YOUNG GAMERS!  It doesn't if you're trying to appeal to the gamer that actually cares about story.

Unfortunately many of the most story driven games aren't the ones selling and the reason most would buy something like Modern Warfare 2 is mostly because of the multiplayer not exactly the story.  When they see that Modern Warfare 2 has sold, oh, 18 million copies worldwide and see what it's about.  Modern Warfare is a great game, but it's story is not the greatest reason you'd want to buy it--and it IS a pretty good story, but I assure you when they decide to make a Call of Duty movie, it's going to be about guns blazing, big explosions and being pretty... but it will ignore the complexities of the story that even the games themselves actually have.

Likewise, there's just this sense that most people in Hollywood... don't play video games.  And much of the movie going public doesn't play video games (or so it seems, there are a lot of closeted gamers out there).  These video game adaptations aren't made for gamers... they're made for movie goers, and a good deal of them have no knowledge of the game and don't WANT to need to have that knowledge when they go in.  Likewise, those teenage ones that they want to get into the theater who might've played the game... are giving them the characters at the least.  And maybe some obscure references.  Sometimes that works but I think for most video games... it doesn't.  Some video games could probably get by with a straight shot adaptation, but the number of video games that could can be counted on one hand.  Even the ones with a narration couldn't be done unless they're willing to make several movies... but there's no guarantee that'll work.  It's not profitable enough to do that for Hollywood (the highest grossing video game adaptation is Tomb Raider... the only one to break the $100 millon mark... it's sequel?  Less than $70 million... and with how much it's starting to cost now they don't want to take that risk).  

In short, I think the mediums are a bit too different to actually do it.  With adapting a graphic novel you can at least... well... use the graphic novel itself as a storyboard.  And books can work in a similar way (although you have to cut A LOT of stuff out) but gaming in and of itself doesn't have a happy medium with "Too much plot and story" (that would be games like Metal Gear Solid that drown you in hours upon hours of cutscenes) or "Too Little Plot and Story" (games like Mario, Metroid, Mega Man and even games like Devil May Cry--hell almost ANY action game, even the 20 hour long ones). 

You want to know what I think would work?  If you adapted video games into television shows or a short series rather than films.  Since film is hampered by time restraints... it's nearly impossible to see some of the best narrative video games turned into movies (the idea that you could make a two hour long movie based off a 40 hour long game--or even a mere 10 hour long game--is absurd!).  So do a TV series instead.  In Japan this little tactic works!  And it works VERY well for most games (Pokemon, anyone?).

Sorry for such a long comment.  I just think that the two mediums just don't mesh well together... at least in movies.  When video games incorporate film into their games they work because they actually have the time for it.  A big movie doesn't.  That, and the topic fascinates me to no end because I'm a huge gamer.

I'll probably see Prince of Persia.  It looks like it'll be better than most game adaptations.  Although some of it is my bias... because if Jerry Bruckheimer could turn a theme park ride into a fairly good movie.... you'd think a video game would be no problem if he made a similar approach to it.  Sounds like it might be better than most (although, I really think they're just godawful films in general... as I said, "They're horrible films but even WORSE adaptations.").  Even if Prince of Persia is nothing like the game (and I'm guessing the similarities are very subtle) I'm hoping that at least it utilizes good techniques of the film medium.  Not sure when I'll see it, however.  I just think the mediums are... way too different to ever expect a movie to be like the game.  Most games a plot moves forward because you've done so... when the bad guy gets his comupence it's because of what you may have done in the battle.  A movie... can't do that.  The loss of interaction makes adapting a video game much more difficult than we previously thought.

Amazing review I am planning to see this either this week or next week it looks very good in my opinion and is to date the best video game adaption ever made so that is a plus for me. Nice work.