Spielberg: Games and films will converge News

"So far, there hasn't been a major success in the videogame industry based on a motion picture, nor has there been a very successful motion picture based on a videogame,"

He's not wrong, you seen that Star Trek game. Made me reach for Legacy! But then again Riddick, Hopefully Ghostbusters, Robocop 3/Totall Recall Hudson Hawk (Hey the game was good!) on Amiga, Deathwish 3 on Speccy, there's been a few goodies over the years!

As for movies, we've had few OK ones like SH and Hitman.....er....and Mario Bros...

Spielberg is way overrated.

Agreed. There have been some very good movie based games (Bladerunner to name another one) but the tendancy is to be lazy and use the license to make a cheap, mediocre game with guaranteed sales.

I think it's the same with movies. If a franchise has a guaranteed audience you can make any old crap and it will still make you profit.

"Spielberg is way overrated. "

He's lost his touch for sure but Spielberg has given us some of the greatest film making ever. Sugarland Express, Duel, Something Evil, Encounters, Jaws, the Indy movies, Colour Purple, Empire Of The Sun, Catch Me If You Can. Awesome stuff IMO.

(not to mention the huge amount of classics he helped make as producer)

" Spielberg: Games and films will converge News"

Well he can kindly fuck off. There is a reason why I play so many games and rarely watch a film.

"So far, there hasn't been a major success in the videogame industry based on a motion picture, nor has there been a very successful motion picture based on a videogame,

What about Goldeneye on the N64 selling over eight million copies...

@Xerx3s

Not having at go at you - what you like is what you like, and your business- but that's a bit of a sad comment. There are so many great movies out there, to disregard them like that seems like you're really missing out.

There are plenty of people out there who like both games and films, so a genuine "best-of-both-worlds" case would really be something special.

There is a reason why I play so many games and rarely watch a film.

Yeah, it's called a personal preference :)

I think the biggest issue with movie based games is that they often try to recreate the movie experience. I think the Riddick approach is a far better solution. In many respects the first Medal of Honour could well have been a Saving Private Ryan game, albeit a prequel, had it included characters from the movie. The main problem with this example is that it doesn't have a title that allows for a generic game use as the Riddick series has.

Movies, books and games can tell the exact same story with the exact same characters, but the people involved in the production of each format needs to understand and respect the limitations and requirements for each. This is why I think taking characters on a completely different adventure specifically designed for each medium works best. The skill and passion of those involved in the production inevitably has some effect on the final product too.

It's almost more surprising that movies based on games often fail. A game usually presents the embryo of a character that should allow writers and directors to take us on as interesting and amazing an adventure as we've seen in the best of action based movies. There's clearly a stigma attached to movies based on game characters. The writers and directors who created such poor movies in the past haven't done this genre any favours.

Comic book characters in decades past were generally treated as game characters are today (with one or two exceptions). What's changed for comic book based movies is they're treated with respect and in return can make movie studios very rich. They're given decent budgets, but more importantly have passionate and talented people involved in their production. I'm convinced in the future when new talented directors and writers, who've grown up with games enter the industry they will change the depressing state of game based movies.

For me there's no reason why a movie based game, or game based movie can't be as good as the best in it's medium. Movie sequels are similar in this respect. Sequels like Empire Strikes Back, or The Godfather II, or Aliens show how amazing a sequel can be. They take the characters or story-universe and create an interesting new story around them. Equally, bad sequels can show you that without passion or ceativity, purely replicating an original story often completely fails.

Not just that Goldeneye sold 8million copies, but also the fact that it's fookin' ace! We still break out Goldeneye every now and then.

He doesn't talk about TV Shows. Have any games been based on TV Shows or TV Shows been based on games?

Also, Spielberg has had his hand in creating some TV Shows that have been pretty good.

Yay, does that mean we'll get to shoot George Lucas in the face?

Sorry. I just read the headline and got excited.

"So far, there hasn't been a major success in the videogame industry based on a motion picture, nor has..." STOP RIGHT THERE, STEVEN!

GOLDENEYE.

In one sentence he manages to completely destroy his credibility when talking about films and videogames. He's acting like films based on games and vice versa first started appearing when he decided to make Boom Blox.

I think it's safe to say he was generalising. In a way Riddick and Tomb Raider have some success in their attempts to cross-over. But it's fair to say the general state of movie related games and visa versa are pretty poor.

No one can ruin a Steven Spielberg movie like Steven Spielberg. Please stay out of the games industry Mr. S, or we'll be stuck with a bunch of games that really crack along for most of the duration, then fall apart in a pile of sentimental/'redemptive' mush, a la Minority Report, War of the Worlds, Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan,etc etc

I still love Duel and Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark - but they were made a long, long time ago. Spielberg won't ever make a proper grown-ups movie again, unless fate throws him some horrible trauma for which he can seek artistic catharsis....

I love Spielberg. Possibly a scary amount. But he's wrong about this.

There will always be a demand for passive entertainment. They may form one product with interactive and non-interactive options, but there will always be versions that play out in front of people.

Eoin

Goldeneye says hi.

I remember a little thing called X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter...

And KOTOR...

And pretty much a whole load of other Star Wars games.

ExplodingClown,
While I totally understand that you don't like the director, I don't understand why you seem to keep going back to see his films.

There's over a ten year gap between the recent films and first that you list as hating! It's a bit strange to dislike a director but continually watch his movies! I understand disappointment or even upset when a director or actor who you like suddenly makes a movie you hate.

So, how many more movies, over how many more decades, are you going to keep watching Spielberg films, and continue to realise you don't like his work? Surely there are enough films made, enough directors out there making them that you're not forced to watch his films? It's easy, not to mention more pleasant for you, to just avoid his work.

@ JensonJet:

Wrong end of the stick. I don't dislike Spielberg - he just exasperates me (and I don't go to see his movies anymore, just wait 'til they show up on TV). He's a completely schizoid filmmaker.

To take another of his peers who cut their teeth in 70's filmmaking, Martin Scorsese. A Scorsese picture will either be Marty on top of his game, e.g. The Departed, or a hopeless mess, e.g. Gangs of New York.

Spielberg movies wind up a horrible jarring combination of tight work that punches above its weight, and puppies-in-a-shoe schmaltz: let's look at Minority Report as an example. Up until the hotel room encounter it's a thundering engine of a movie, very true to the Philip K Dick source material, with a flawed, wounded protagonist upholding a system that is basically a kind of friendly fascism, until he himself becomes a victim of the same machine he's been running. BUT instead of "Goodbye Crowe"-gunshot-screen goes black-credits roll, post-hotel the picture bogs down in some tedious nonsensical conspiracy culminating in the restoration of Tom Cruise's nuclear family, a horrible voiceover (never a good sign), and the psychics all going off to the Little House on the Prairie. It's a ludicrous disservice and a clanging tonal shift.

AI should have ended with the submarine trapped under the Ferris Wheel, the robot boy praying to the statue until his batteries run down. Hope/futility. That's how Kubrick would have ended the film if he'd lived to make it. What we got was 40 more minutes of saccharine fluff where via the miracle of 'magic' science David got his big wish and the audience got a DVT and pressure sores on their buttocks.

It just seems like he's afraid to embrace the harder, darker filmmaker that makes the solid parts of his movies. I'd like to know: does he stick in these constant adorable moppets and cosy-family codas to reassure his audience, or himself? He wants to be Peter Pan, but it's a Captain Hook world.

War of the Worlds must be the most ridiculous and annoying. Consider the sequence with the son running to join the soldiers and an obvious death. It is a powerful emotional moment - the father's agony, torn between protecting his helpless younger child and saving his reckless elder from his own youthful impetuosity - skillfully crafted, their shouted exchanges largely drowned out by the chaos of the hopeless battle. And it's all for nothing, as lo and behold, at the end of the movie, junior and the folks have made it safe and sound to the homestead, where the whole family is having a big reunion and look like they've all had a lovely time. So millions of people have died so Tom Cruise can be a better Dad. Ludicrous, insulting stuff. Because you can't have it both ways. You might as well have Jaws ending with Alex Kitner springing unharmed from the shark's corpse and towing Chief Brody home on a big rubber ducky.

Don't even get me started on the bastardisation of Hammond's character in Jurassic Park. I loved that book. And THAT's my problem. He keeps doing projects I'd love to see done by other directors. Hell, I'd be happy to see them done by him - if only he'd grow the fuck up. At least George Lucas has only ruined his own work.

He ruined Indiana Jones. Stop talking to him, Euro gamer.

He tried it with The Dig and failed, move on.

"Games and films will converge"

This sounds so 1996.

ExplodingClown,

I understand where you're coming from. So often books turned to movies are no better than video games turned to movies. As you found with 'Minority Report', I have also found with Stephen King's 'Christine' and Issac Asimov's 'I, Robot'.

Movies made from books are probably best appreciated by people unaware of the source material. When you're familiar with a book you actually see Hollywood for what it is. The industry of making money, where creativity and art have to serve that purpose and story telling has to reach the masses, or at least as large a niche market as possible.

But more than that, books will always be the ultimate medium for story-telling. They allow your imagination to create unbelivable worlds. Movies can't leave anything to your imagination in a visual sense, so you're forced to have other people imaginations spoon fed to you. Which is fine if you don't know of, or care about the source material. Added to that books are more likely to be created out of passion than movies. They're expensive to produce, and they have to make profit. Directors and actors can (and often do) apply their trade to anything sadly, so long as they're paid enough. I'm not suggesting writers aren't the same, as I think many Hollywood scriptwriters prove this, but book writers I think are more passionate because it's their creation, their world, their rules, and their reputation on the line.

So I totally agree with you in principal. But where you're suggesting an issue with Spielberg, I actually think the same critism applies to everyone in that industry.

The way I look at the industry is to keep reminding myself that the very best films, my absolute favourites are complete flukes. For some reason the director cared for the project, as did the writers and many of the other collaborators. I try not to take movies seriously or care about them. Occasionally we all get swept along with a story or character we love, but as long as we don't lose sight of the fact, to Hollywood, it's a product to make as much money as possible, it does make watching most Hollywood movies a lot easier. When it comes to movies of your favourite books (or games for that matter), it's undoubtly best to steer clear of them to avoid disappoint (or upset!).

Good point about Martin Scorsese and Gangs of New York. I have no idea how he made such an abysmal movie. But in my eyes, he's more than earned forgiveness for the quality of his better movies. When favourite directors make poor films, and let's be honest, they all do eventually, I always assume it's because they're under contract, in order to be let loose on the projects they really love, the ones that turn out to be our favourite films. Probably not always true, but I prefer that idea than to believe they're all just a bunch of money-grabbing wh*res!!

People keep saying Goldeneye, but that's hardly a convergence. There was nothing intrinsic about the game that made it especially convergent with the film; rather, it was a superb game that happened to use a popular film license. It's simply the form that "Finally, I Can Be James Bond!" took. Yes, it was successful, but not because it and the film were in any way linked. Yes, it's based loosely round the film, but people remember it best for its purely game-like qualities - the multiplayer, the basic gameplay details such as weapons and levels, and the comedy value of mismatching characters from the entire Bond canon. The singleplayer, the only part that could really be said to converge with the film, was good, but not that hugely amazing.

Star Wars games, as well, aren't quite what he means - X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter, KOTOR and so on don't actually tie directly into anything, they simply use the universe the films established. The official games for the fiilms haven't been much removed from standard licensed games - I can't think of any direct film tie-in Star Wars games that have been decent (unless you count Lego Star Wars, and I wouldn't, as the films are not made with Lego).

In all these cases, someone made a story in one medium, and then they made one in the other, whether that's film to game or game to film. I suspect Spielberg is meaning games which are simultaneously created in order to complement films and vice versa; in this regard Riddick would a good example, except that the film was a bit dodgy and the game wasn't really released in the same timeframe. Another would be Watchmen: The End Is Nigh, or Enter The Matrix, if the games in question had not been heaps of shite. However in all cases the films and games are different, and attempt to tell different stories within the same universe and using the same characters. In this, he's right, this is eventually going to happen. That much is obvious.

What exactly he means by it being dynamite I don't see so clearly, though. Good games and good films sell a shit-ton - this happens already. Things selling shit-tons does not necessarily translate into a good thing for the consumers, though - the next step usually ends up being a general cockup for all concerned as the story and universe are fucked up in all possible ways.

ExplodingClown +1