Why doesn't Sony utilize its properties in film?

[Joelcool7]

oniyide said:
are you kidding me JoeCool?? Most movies based on games suck, hard. I think this is damn smart of SOny not to even think about this. you could argue that it would raise awareness, but if the movie sucks then who would want to play the game?? Mario sales didnt increase after that terrible movie, nor did Wing Commander, Double Dragon, Max Payne, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, hell PoP had a massive marketing campaign, the movie did ok, but the game totally flopped.

Agreed most game based movies do suck, just like most movie based games. But there have been a few great movies based on games and multiple decent ones. I don't think the film would increase software sales rather vice versa and then they together could sell merchandise like books, toys etc....etc...

Also the reason so many movie games suck is because they don't have talent behind them. Especially the crap from Uwe Boll I mean the game is commonly referred to as the worst director in the film industry I don't know why any publishers sold him licenses in the first place. But look at director Paul William Anderson (Mortal Combat/Resident Evil) or Simon West (Tomb Raider) Mike Newel (Prince Of Persia) it seems every time a decent director and writing staff are put behind a film its either really good or good.

Then look at the bad game movies John Moore (Max Payne) Uwe Boll (Almost every bad game movie to date)Andrej Bartkowiak (Doom/Street Fighter) at the time of making Doom he had only directed three movies which none were seen as amazing. Christophe Gans (Silent Hill).

Fact is the directors who directed the films that did poorly weren't big shots most didn't have a single decent movie to their names when they made the video game movies. Others were new to directing and such. Why is it that Michael Bay is doing a movie based on a board game they hire directors who have made big successful titles to direct movies based on all kinds of things. But when a video game movie is being made they hire dicks.

If Hollywood can create great comic book movies then they are more then capable of creating good video game based films. The low quality of the films is do to the publisher just not putting in the effort, when effort is put in the films turn out decent if not great. Which is why I suggested Sony specifically.

Sony's studios are some of the best in the world they have access to some of the best directors and writers. Put a budget similar to a comic based film and you'll see a great video game movie.

The estimated budgets for the Resident Evil start at 33-million for the first film and 60-million for the latest. Where as say Spider man got a budget of 100-million for the first film (Those will argue because it is a more successful franchise, at the time of the first films making nobody could have known how big it would be). Then look at the budget for Hulk (2008) they knew the first Hulk film had bombed so they wouldn't invest as much in the reboot right? Well it got a 150-million dollar budget.

Now lets compare box office take ins. Hulk (2008) 263,427,551 in total  while Resident Evil's first film grossed 102.4 million. But look at the latest Resident Evil film it got a budget of only 60-million dollars but grossed 296,200,000.

If Resident Evil is a more profitable film franchise then Hulk how profitable do you think Sony could be with an actual big property. Resident Evil is big but almost all of Sony's properties have the potential to perform just as good.

Sony could bring in tons of users drawing attention to their brands, they could also bring in millions upon millions in film revenue then add in merchandise and your set. Movies by Sony have the potential to be amazing and television shows could only add to that.

The thing is, Sony is capable of creating the best movies based on games anyone can. Its sure a smarter move for Sony then investing in third party licenses.