Rockstar has lambasted the BBC's recent documentary on the development of GTA: San Andreas, calling it "made-up b***ocks" on Twitter.
I know right. Red dead redemption 2 should be announced by now.
No one does Rockstar better than Rockstar
I saw this last night and Take2 / RockStar, need to wind their necks in. This was not a documentary and it didn't make any assumptions just going through the timeline with a small amount of dramatisation. It was handled carefully, but... at the end of the day this is a gaming studio who was involved in this, so no matter what they think or say, they need a kick in B*ll*ck* for making a fuss. Take a deep breath and move on.
Somebody works for the BBC.
In the UK they have a saying that goes "to spin a yarn". That is pretty much what they have done here. You've got a news story that nobody cares about in 2015, the antics of crazy person, and that's probably the end of it.
well rockstar are just doing every gangsta and mob movie. you mean no one can do american entertainment better than americans. Watch Power, breaking bad, godfather, menace to society, boys n the hood, blow etc. tv shows and movies is hard without the complete package.
Looks like Radcliffe is a Rockstar now too.
Am still hoping to see him as a new roadie for Amon Amarth
Harry Potter with long hair looks weird
He looks better with short hair (no homo), speaking with experience.
You should have seen him naked on Broadway, its even weirder...
How about "no bigot"?
@Kal853 For ya info no homo is a line in the boondocks, saying that I'm not a homo for saying he looks better with short it was funny on it. Guess ya don't watch it than.
"Bigotry - intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself." I'm not seeing any intolerance here. Oversensativity to a literal reference of sexual orientation? Maybe a little.
That's actually Harry Snape an alternate reality where Lilly married Severus instead
That makes more sense now
I need to vote on this comment more!
When ever has a "based on real life events" TV movie done anything justice?
It also said (along the lines of) some events have been changed "for dramatic effect" - basically an overused caveat for when they want to confuse the viewer as to what is fact and what is pure sensationalist fiction. I had to sit through it as my girl thought it would be good. It was shockingly bad and Radcliffe was awful!
I saw it and completely disagree, Radcliff was pretty good. The story was good and the narrative wasn't clunky or overbearing. If you are on the side of RockStar, you shouldn't have any issue with this. Neither should RockStar
I'm not on either 'side'; I'm probably the only gamer on the planet that hasn't played GTAV! Though, I must admit, I'm never impressed by Radcliffe as an actor. I did think Paxton made a good religious nut and the guy that played Jamie did a great job, but it wasn't enough to save a poor made-for-TV-esque drama that was ultimately designed to court controversy, balanced or not.
Even if it's the BBC's right , why shouldnt Rockstar have issues with a BS movie they never wanted in the first place ? It's fair game that they ridicule the movie for all innacurate it is , and being anyway a bad movie . In a nutshell it's getting the expected reactions you see with dramatized biopics like the one on Aaliyah ...
I see someone doesn't ever watch Lifetime television....:P
Why is Bollocks censored?
Because its a little more aggressive in tone than sweet breads, or testicles lol.
^^^ That and... It'd be censored just like "BS" would be censored in America.
Really? I've got to start saying bollocks more often. How should it be used? Activision is a pile of bollocks. Or Activision can suck my bollocks. What makes more sense?
Both. But it's primarily used for BS.
Well... I heard it was running at 24FPS. :P
UK TV is 25 frames per second.
Yeah, but the frame rate went up during the commercial cut scenes.
Anyone watched here? About the tweet: shots fired!
I did, it was terrible. Radcliffe looked like a little boy with a beard. It was uncomfortable to see him play a character in a position of power. I'll never get that one and a half hours of life back. :(
Did we think Rockstar would be? Pretty sure they were not happy about this project from the get go.
Great article, truly. "Rockstar is mad at a documentary. We wont bother telling you why or trying to find out. Instead here is an ad for it and a tweet they made"
Did you even read the article, garrettbobbyferguson? "Rockstar has been hostile to the project almost from the outset, perhaps feeling that its work might be shown in a negative light"
I happened to catch this earlier and watched about the tail end of it. Didn't seem bad, but I don't know all the facts.
Far as I'm aware rockstarbhad issue with it from the start for whatever reason much as I love their games they are abit odd about somethings sometimes... Unless they are specific about what's factually incorrect about the show specifically and it turns out to be considerably more than you expect from a drama adaptation if events then they are probably just being ott.
Seems like any dramatization of actual events is never 100% like the real events that took place.
@DLC that's because it would be dreadfully boring to watch. Particularly things involving court cases or stuff that goes on in the board room. High drama doesn't play out like that in real life except from those that are crazy and don't know how to handle themselves. Thompson would be the only interesting character in the film, because despite his lunacy, he was at least enjoyable from an entertainment standpoint.
Lol, bollocks had to be censored? Like really? I know this site has some censoring on cursing but isnt bollocks = balls? This is slightly offtopic, I know.
I thought that the show was surprisingly balanced. I initially thought that it was going to be firmly on the side of Rockstar's right to include whatever they like in a a 'Mature rated' game, which only means 17 and above ( http://www.esrb.org/ratings... Jack Thompson's victory was to make GTA become an 'Adults only' game, for adults ages 18 and up. That seems perfectly reasonable to me for a game with this content. It only removes 1 birthday of buying public. If Rockstar got annoyed about not being allowed to tap the lucrative 17 year olds market they need to grow up. 17 years old who really wanted the game would somehow get it anyway but government does not have to condone 17 year olds doing so!
Yeah but they missed loads. Sure gta was created in Scotland. Especially the first 2, gta 4 and gta 5. Missing all of these huge details have angered rockstar.
Thompson's goal was to serve his own narcissistic ego. If his goal was to make it an adults only game, he would have gone through proper channels and worked with the checks in place, put there by the game industry itself, to try and reform what they felt was appropriate for certain ages. He lied, cheated, and persecuted Rockstar for his own gain, and while his actions may have been from his actual beliefs, he went about it in entirely the wrong way. Rockstar isn't entirely innocent either. They played off the controversy to great effect, and used it as a powerful marketing tool to make the game taboo, making even more people want it. GTA didn't become the seller it is today until Jack Thompson gave them the ammunition to make it was it is. Before that it was a respectable seller, albeit it's mostly been a good series after the 2nd one. Rockstar should have been annoyed. Making the game AO would have made the game almost impossible to get for the common consumer...particularly when all this went down. AO games are not sold in any big retail shop, and most indie game shops don't bother. Making the game AO didn't just remove the 17 and under crowd, but effectively made the game a non-seller across the board. Sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture, and I have no doubt that Thompson knew that an AO rating would derive the result of effectively killing the series in it's current form, as no big publisher dumps huge sums of money into an AO project for the reasons stated above. Many even cut content if it is going to get an AO rating, just to get to a Mature rating.
Can't really agree with your take here . For starters , worldwide , most people werent even aware of Jack Thompson , and the general public hardly followed that drama , it's us , readers and viewers , always avid for gaming news and story that were truly aware of his crusade . When it comes to GTA , Thompson entered the picture in 2003 ... way after GTA III was already a juggernaut hit and basically the best selling title every year since its 2001 release , far from a "respectable seller". Sure Rockstar used the clown as a source of PR , but he only had a limited impact on their sales and exposure ... and certainly not nearly as much reactions for the medias and chain stores like Walmart at the time . Hell his crusade against Bully , Manhunt didnt make them as big sellers , and certainly not his previous litagations against other publishers games or rap musics and tv/radio shows
To anyone who doesn't know them, it could be argued that Rockstar's aim is to serve their own narcissistic egos. And who's to say that people know Thompson any better? If a game allow you (not saying you have to do it) to mow down people in a realistic kind of setting I'll always say- that's for adults only. And GTA5 contains torture so it's certainly for adults only. If you can call some of them adults.
Rockstar didn't lie and abuse the legal system to make or sell their game though. I would say that GTA is definitely for a Mature audience that can handle that kind of stuff, but most 17yo's...which is the minimum age for mature content to be able to purchase without a guardian...are often capable of watching the content without having it screw them up. Everyone assumes that as soon as you hit 18 you suddenly don't have a fragile mind or something. Just because some parents are neglectful and misjudge what their kids are capable of handling under the age of 17 doesn't mean it warrants destroying a business, and if one has to lie and make up evidence to try and make that happen, their case was faulty to begin with. I don't need to know the two sides, their actions are what matter. Rockstar made a product in the style that people expected. Jack Thompson soap-boxed for years while tying up resources in the courts, falsified evidence, demonized an entire industry as irresponsible, all while painting those who partook in it's wares as deviants who needed to be controlled through legislation.
I knew these f***tards would do this the bbcc have an agenda against gamers and any chance they get to show games are violent they will seize the opprtunity. I really cant stand that company oh and btw bbc because i only play video games i dont have to pay your stupid tv license hows that for irony :)
Wow, rage much? I don't think they portrayed gaming in a bad light at all here! It was called 'gamechangers', they portrayed Rockstar as intelligent and passionate. They just showed parts of the game, they weren't anti-gaming at all. But Harry Potter wasn't a great choice here, it wasn't very believable for the most part, the script was a bit hammy and overacted which wasn't great - am not surprised that Rockstar called this random as it doesn't seem at all like how things went down.
Why is there an episode of horizon on tonight all about how games don't make people violent according to scientific evidence but they do have many many cognitive benefits it's been shown.... If the BBC hate gaming why would they make and allow such an episode to air?!
You didn't see the programme so don't jump to conclusions. It showed some of the aims of the programmers in GTA to make a game that is both like American films whilst allowing more choices than a film does.
and I'm unimpressed with GTA since GTA San Andreas
Careful, the (I hate the term, but it's needed) fanboyism is strong here.
To each their own , i've only been truly impressed by GTA since IV an V . Previous ones were great games , but to much a "do your thing in a sandbox" thing without a palatable enough storytelling for my tastes .
I'm sure the story in this is 10000x better than anything Rockstar can conjure up.
Are you seriously smack-talking Rockstar? They made the biggest-selling piece of entertainment in history... What's your profile picture of? Looks absolutely appalling
I think the games themselves are a lot of fun. The stories themselves are decent enough, but nothing terribly new or amazing. Just typical tropes and shock moments in the mindset of "Lets see how far we can go". There's nothing wrong with this approach, but they could go even further if the stories and characters were more compelling. Look at things like Scarface. It was pretty shocking for it's time, but the story and characters and actors did such a good job, that that took precedence over the shock value.
Someone's got Daddy issues... And no, I don't think big sales = any of those things. But the campaign and voice acting in GTA are actually at the top of the industry I'm afraid. If English was your strong suit, you'd probably be able to better appreciate the great job done here.
It's the BBC, don't expect much!
You're a game developer Harry.
More left wing propaganda from the BBC. About time they canceled them channels and give up the TV licence
Did you actually see it? And what's left wing to you in this context anyway? A right winger could argue that there should be no age restrictions because it hinders capitalism. Or they could argue that there should be age restrictions to try to conserve the innocence of those aged under 18. The show was sympathetic to both the head of Rockstar and to the desire to protect under 18s (Mature rated only means 17 years and above, Adult means 18 and above, in games ratings). Well, not so much protect the children themselves but not to make such influences so easily available. It IS perfectly possible to see GTA as a murder simulator. It'd be a boring experience if you didn't use that series as one and just admired the blocky textures instead. That's far less contestible than Rockstar's lofty aims to call it 'art' no matter what innovations it makes in a gaming sense. And I do call it art in some respects but I think that Rockstar come across as childish, almost nihilistic, Scots in their lack of care for the conservative, moral majority American, opinion.
Anything from BBC is left wing garbage. They always provide false, one sided information It's time they went.
Game designers judging a film....ha...hahaha.....hahaha hahaha......that's hilarious. Stick to games.The Social Network was based on both Zuckerberg and Citizen Kane, and that was a very good film.
And this movie wasnt anything close in quality despite the few good actors involved . The social Network threw away full realism for the sake of better storytelling ... this movie didnt , it's just their usual average brand of biopics . We've all seen better lifetime tv movies ... yes even including that one with Will Ferrell . And anyone can judge a movie obviously , especially if it's about their own life
You DO realise that you're shocked and comparing the quality of a BBC show made by a student director with David Fincher and his 100 million dollar budget request provided by Sony. I'm simply stating that it happens, that along with the fact that Rockstar hate films (they literally made one called The Football Factory) notoriously.
Actually inadvertently , and for the sake of arguments , you are drawing a comparison . Your point can just be read as "it's ok since it worked out for another great movie" . And my point is simply that it doesnt matter what they are , should they want to criticize a movie , anyone can ... especially if it concerns them . I don't get the kind of balooney about "gamee designers judging a film" .