oniyide said:
Joelcool7 said:
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.
|
im sorry but none of those movies are really good, decent at best IMHO. Hulk and RE comparison sucks, because there have been two Hulk movies and like 5 RE ones. Comparing comic books is crap too, that is a completly different type of entertainment. Most comics have compelling characters and stories in the first place thats why people buy them and thats why half the battle in turning them into films is already done. Video games is interactive media most of them dont have great stories to begin with. Also i dont think video games get the same respect as comic books otherwise they wouldnt be throwing lame directors at them.
You say that Sony could draw in more users. How?? Even those movies you called "good" didnt increase the sales of their respective video games, not one. Fans are not stupid they know crap when they see it. I would argue that the people who watch these films are already aware and play the games already. everybody else probably doesnt even know its based on a game
|
RE films are one of those series where it's actually growing in terms of its box office gross. i think the movies helped spread awareness of the game and that made RE5 the most successful RE game ever. And after RE5's success, Resident Evil Afterlife became the most successful film of the series. It's like a perfect example of symbiosis. I think it helps more than you think you're giving it credit for.
I think for whoever made the RE films, they know the ins and outs of the business. You see, in making movies especially based on something(a book, comic series, or games) you don't think of catering to the fans, movies won't profit from fans. It's like those guys complaiingng on why the movies doesn't feel as complete as the adapted book without even thinking why it didn't make the cut like the film is over 3 hours runtime. And you know what? That makes the people who didn't read the book become curious about the cut scenes. And that's how they end up buying the source material because they want to know more.It's just genius marketing.
Whoever made RE film pictured the best case scenario on how to make the film "commercial", know of its strengths and weakness, RE films catered to action and zombie flick lovers , that's a fact. No one does it better than the Resident Evil films so they got their crowd and made MONEY, I know it was terrible for you but it don't have to be a critical success. It just have to print money.
With what you're saying, Sony should closed off opportunities and that's keeping some Sony franchises from becoming bigger than their real potential. It's a shame but I guess Sony does hate money sometimes... Oh well. 
PS. Did you just compare game-based film to movie-based games? LOL It's a similar concept just the opposite but the process is completely different.Also, bad films can still be watchable despite it's obvious flaws and still gain a cult following...Bad games with terrible gameplay or story is just hard to sit through because it's an interactive experience with a need of a player(ofcourse) while watching films is just us, the audience observing without inputting any commands at all... Am I right? 
