Director Paul Anderson: Not playing games before adapting them is disrespectful

GamesRadar: At one time we’ve all done it, or seen it done. We’ve stood in front of the class and delivered a report on a book we’ve never read. Rarely was it ever successful, and even when it was, we all knew the report would have been better had we actually read the damn book. Yet Hollywood has been doing the same thing for years according to Paul Anderson, director of Resident Evil: Afterlife.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
sinncross2727d ago (Edited 2727d ago )

Its the same like not reading the novel which you are adapting as well:

Without some knowledge of the source material how do you expect to adapt it at all.

Army_of_Darkness2727d ago

was a big disappointment. Way to much RE5 in there at should have never been.

Omega Archetype2727d ago (Edited 2727d ago )

He says that, yet I'd say making crappy movies based on a source material is even more disrespectful.

Let's just put it this way:

Didn't play the games Prince of Persia > Did play the games Resident Evil: Afterlife

Don't get me wrong though, if you're basing a creation on certain things, you have to do your research. Of course most of the time it's simply about the name and not keeping the series' integrity.

Hairy Chewie2727d ago

I thought the Prince of Persia movie was a pretty good interpretation of the games. Obviously there's going to be some major differences, no one wants to watch a movie of a guy running around a castle solving puzzles with hardly any dialouge. I think they did a good job of taking some of the main story points for the game and adapting to make it work for a movie.

lzim2727d ago

it is different media for different audiences. Frankly most games can't be adapte to other media and interest the core gaming audience.

I can't take my controller to the theater but I DO want to see Rayne on the big screen, in something that was done by a serious studio that knows how to make movies, not pointless set pieces.. to tell the story not told in the game because that would be boring.

Quagmire2727d ago (Edited 2727d ago )

In all fairness, the Prince Of Persia film never was actually based on the game. My guess was that Newell took elements he liked, and crafted a film out of that, rather than making you watch the entire game in 3 hours, and I think thats why its more successful than say Resident Evil who try too hard to give a fan service, rather than actually making a decent film outta elements from the game.

Movies were never meant to be played, Games were never meant to be watched (Heavy Rain is an exception).

sinncross2727d ago

That is because POP is more a target-adaptation rather than a source-adaptation.

This is to say that POP was adapted to appeal to a movie-goer target audience rather than be adapted so as to remain faithful to the source material.

A prime example is Silent Hill. One of the changes made was putting a female protagonist over the male from the game. This is target-adaptation as a female is more identifiable in a horror film as being vulnerable as opposed to a male (stereotype yes). It didn't devalue the film in any way as the core themes were still represented adequately.

Personally I prefer target-adaptation as it allows the adaptation to be different and thus allows interext to occur between the original and adaptation. Source is always nice though, when you've got someone good enough to do it properly.

oilahize2727d ago

but Prince of Persia, while still far from what I want in an adaptation of a video game, was the best adaptation I've seen of a video game and it was made by someone who didn't play the games. I'd saying making a shitty adaptation of a well known franchise such as Resident Evil is a little more disrespectful.

Omega Archetype2727d ago

Exactly what I said a few comments higher! It's far more disrespect to make a crappy movie based on a property then to not play/read the source material.

oilahize2724d ago

missed your comment. Spot on though. Lol.

newhumanbreed2727d ago

His assistant played the games and showed him the main key points of them. lol

OhReginald2727d ago (Edited 2727d ago )

i am guessing this article is pointing fingers at scumbags like uwe boll

jony_dols2727d ago

Because Paul Anderson has done video game adaptions justice?

Krimmson2727d ago

Eh... Mortal Kombat wasn't bad in the sense that he atleast made it fairly accurate and stayed somewhat true to the source material.

And no, I'm not talking about Annihilation.

OhReginald2726d ago (Edited 2726d ago )

Paul Anderson produced, wrote, and directed them. So the films did not exactly copy the games. Which is a good thing since, I already played the games, why make a movie on something I already played. Instead this is aimed at an audience that never played the games, and to those people that have played the games. This is were originality comes in. Its what sets it apart from the films and games. Resident evil movies are by no means bad. They aren't citizen kane or godfather, but they are entertaining none the less, just like the resident evil video games. And im not saying Paul Anderson has done video games adaptions justice either. There still has a lot of work that need to be done to create a perfect video game adaption.

However, Uwe Boll, the person that said even himself that he never plays the games he makes into "movies". He is a scumbag. He takes tax payers money to make shitty ass movies. So that makes him a scumbag thief. I have seen most of his "movies" and found them to be extremely awful and offensive.

Show all comments (34)
The story is too old to be commented.