Yeah, they've obviously completely revamped the Tomb Raider series into something different than what it was in the 90s and 2000s. Whether or not people like that is up to them, but it doesn't look like Lara Croft is going back to her sex appeal, double pistol, dinosaur-fighting days any time soon.
This isn't supposed to be the Lara from the old games. Not yet anyways. The "Reboot" series, is an original trilogy, telling the story of how she became the Lara Croft that we all free up with.
Sad thing is it's possible they just stray away from the source material and changing things for the sake of it
Like the changes that were made in the new Tomb Raider from the game was basically "whats the point?"
On the surface and cleverly made trailers it makes you think it's a proper adaptation with some scenes ripped straight from the game but that's literally it. It's like in one of the Resident Evil movies an Executioner just randomly pops up to fight Alice, like Paul W.S Anderson saw it in a games trailer and thought "oh cool lets put that in as a cool Easter Egg" when really it has no place in the film.
Games are long but the stories are only stretched out and expanded in most places because it's the developers way to offer more content and make the game last longer. If you take out these moments in most games you cut so much time off it that it could easilly be condensed into a good 2 hour film.
I haven't seen it yet but you make good points dude. I really think that's why these movies fail half the time it's the half assed changes and not like...honouring the actual game or making it make sense within the setting of the actual game.
I really think movies based on games could be done really well, they just don't get someone attached enough that seems to want to do these adaptations justice.
But ya know, I just really want a Halo adaptation super bad so naturally I don't want these types of movies to fail...
Agreed. Not having her friends there. The whole "survival" element is missing. The trailers literally show the movie's ending stinger scene, ruining any and all impact it could have had. The brutality is there, but only for one extended sequence that goes on too long, rather than scattered throughout the film. And don't get me started on the "Oh! It's a color puzzle!" line. It falls into all the trappings of a movie made by people who don't really understand why we like video games.
Gamers don't want cheesy "hey look at me, I'm a video game movie" Easter eggs. They want great stories featuring locations, characters, and scenarios from their favorite games. Don't treat us like we're stupid by making the movie all "gamey."
Both mediums could still work, but it is the studio's fault that those movies, for the most part, fail.
Just about every novel which was claimed to be "unfilmable" was chosen by a director that had a vision and made it work. So then with that in mind, video game movies are still doable, but need to be looked at a bit more seriously before licensing the franchise out. Generally after rights are obtained, and if the author chooses, they can help with the script. Point is, if a video game movie is made there should be a more collaborative effort by the parent company by having the game's creator or writer help out on the ground level, and then bringing in a director who loves or understands the game. If studios cared about their property than getting some money for the quick pg-13 market and walking away then there could be better game-to-movies. Lord of the Rings was considered "unfilmable", as was Blade Runner, whereas the novelization of "Jaws" was horrendous, but the film is great. Know what all these films had in common? A good script and a director with a vision. All in all, if we want better game-to-movies then we need to use the power of social media as a tool to get the most out of a franchise we love, otherwise we can just settle on the same ol' pg-13 grind and complain later.
I think games could translate well into a tv show possibly. Movies have the major disadvantage of cramming a say, 10 hour narrative down to 2. The major problem with game adaptations is the retarded writers and producers that get an IP to adapt due to its popularity and amazing story and then change the story and remove what made it amazing. If people loved the game for an interesting story, character traits and visual flair then perhaps you might want to put it in the movie, ey hollywood?
Side note: Extremely skeptical of netflixes upcoming witcher show
I know, I was just generalizing to make the point. I was more so referring to any long form media that isn't condensed like film is going to be hard to replicate onto a time restricted platform.
The reboot game was more like The Revenant with some action sprinkled in & this reboot movie that was supposed to be like the reboot game was nothing like the reboot game
I disagree, they should stop hiring directors who have no interest in games or the source material. What is wrong with getting the actual game director to direct the movie?
Prolly gonna get downvoted to hell, but I enjoyed the movie. It's fun ride, and it was nice that they actually put some thought into stuff, instead of just going all 'resident evil' with it.
Looks nothing like Croft. Part of Croft's character has always been sex appeal.
Sad thing is it's possible they just stray away from the source material and changing things for the sake of it
Like the changes that were made in the new Tomb Raider from the game was basically "whats the point?"
On the surface and cleverly made trailers it makes you think it's a proper adaptation with some scenes ripped straight from the game but that's literally it. It's like in one of the Resident Evil movies an Executioner just randomly pops up to fight Alice, like Paul W.S Anderson saw it in a games trailer and thought "oh cool lets put that in as a cool Easter Egg" when really it has no place in the film.
Games are long but the stories are only stretched out and expanded in most places because it's the developers way to offer more content and make the game last longer. If you take out these moments in most games you cut so much time off it that it could easilly be condensed into a good 2 hour film.
Both mediums could still work, but it is the studio's fault that those movies, for the most part, fail.
Just about every novel which was claimed to be "unfilmable" was chosen by a director that had a vision and made it work. So then with that in mind, video game movies are still doable, but need to be looked at a bit more seriously before licensing the franchise out.
Generally after rights are obtained, and if the author chooses, they can help with the script. Point is, if a video game movie is made there should be a more collaborative effort by the parent company by having the game's creator or writer help out on the ground level, and then bringing in a director who loves or understands the game.
If studios cared about their property than getting some money for the quick pg-13 market and walking away then there could be better game-to-movies.
Lord of the Rings was considered "unfilmable", as was Blade Runner, whereas the novelization of "Jaws" was horrendous, but the film is great. Know what all these films had in common? A good script and a director with a vision.
All in all, if we want better game-to-movies then we need to use the power of social media as a tool to get the most out of a franchise we love, otherwise we can just settle on the same ol' pg-13 grind and complain later.
what about, stop making movies and books, go do series instead? Castlevania kinda proved there's appeal in this medium
Video game movies can work, stay to the source and story