SR
With Tomb Raider now released, Screen Rant takes a look at exactly why so many video game movies end up in disaster.
Fight For Paradise Review: This reality show is nothing new but there are so many uncomfortable moments that will definitely give you the ick.
Bros Review: The series, as the title suggests, is about two adult men who want to behave like children and we are not here for that.
Going Home With Tyler Cameron Review: This is a simple, no-nonsense but cliched watch, with Cameron's boyish charms taking centre stage.
As someone who was on hand for a few of them being made into films and on set to see the creative process, it is very simple. Game studios will sell the rights to the game but in many cases limit what can be done. "Wing Commander" could not use the designs of the ships, uniforms, or Kilrathi nor any storylines from the game series. "Far Cry" was allowed to use the names of the characters and an island setting, but it could not be a Tropical island and the look and names of the creatures had to be changed and no reference or part of any of the game storylines could be used. Same for many others. They suck as they are limited from what they can do. The ones that have had a bit more creative freedom have done better.
Well i wouldn't say they suck. They only suck to those comparing them to the game under a microscope. The latest Tomb Raider was pretty good if looked at as a female lead Indy. Assassins Creed was a pretty good scifi movie. Resident Evil was a pretty good Zombie flick. People have to remember video games are 6 to 30 hours of story. A movie is condensed to 1 hr 30 or 2 hrs. As a player you develop a connection with the character you are controlling. Also games are Voice acting and CGI on the cheap compared to movies.
They don't follow the source material and make unneccesary changes
That's all there is to it really.
WOW! I have never seen an article like this before! Did you run completely out of ideas?