The enigma of the video game movie adaptation

My initial thoughts on the announcement of an upcoming Sonic the Hedgehog movie were positive, not only is he my all time favourite video game character. He is also a character that could easily be translated onto the big screen, he has already done it on the small screen, and Sonic is an awesome character, who has a world and supporting characters around him which can be explored. Because if there is one advantage Sonic has over most other child friendly video game characters, and that is slick looks, personality and attitude.

I became a little more sceptical when I learned that it was going to be a cross over between CGI and live action, which to me seems to imply the possibility of an animated Sonic in the real world. Which is intriguing in itself, but I'm not sure if it will work. Either way, the movie is still a bit of risk, video game movie adaptations don't have a very good reputation and although Sonic can translate well into a television series does not mean he'll do so in a movie. The average Sonic does not sell more than a few million  copies, even if die hard Sonic fans like myself, go see the movie, it will have to attract other audiences who are either unfamiliar with the franchise or aren't fans of it.

But, I can see the film being made on a reasonable budget, and most people know who the Sonic character is, he is very marketable, and if the film turns out good, with word of mouth. I'm sure it will attract many people to buy a ticket.

There's a reason why video game movie adaptations have a bad reputation, a lot of them have been pretty bad (Street Fighter is without doubt one of the worst movies of all time), and for the most part they're not very faithful to their source material. However, they're not all bad. Mortal Kombat, while it has dated badly is still entertaining and watchable. Whilst unfaithful, the Resident Evil films are good popcorn flicks, the same can be said for Prince of Persia. The Super Mario Brothers is a guilty pleasure of mine (it's best to think of it as a standalone), the first Tomb Raider was decent. And Final Fantasy: The spirits within is very underrated, not only was it ground breaking for its time but it also had a very good and meaningful story.

And  the biggest hurdle for a video game adaptation is the story and its content. This is not to say the same is not the case for other movies, but the first and foremost important thing in a video game is the gameplay, so there is rightly and obviously going to be more of a focus on the gameplay than the story. One of the reasons why good books can adapt into films is precisely because they have a narrative structure with deep enough characters for us to care about.

As soon as you switch on the power button and pick up the controller, regardless of the story, the video game becomes a sport, you're the hero, so there is very little emotional connection with the character you control and those around them.

But even with these hurdles, video game adaptations should be better than what they have been. You have to wonder whether those who make them have ever actually played the games for themselves. But there ultimately needs to be a compromise between persevering with the source material and pleasing the faithful fans at the same time. While making something which is very entertaining and escapist. Because let's be honest, no one wants to watch a boring Sonic movie where there isn't a super cool speed chase.

It was not that long ago when comic book movies were more often than not laughed at and quite often bombed financially at the box office, but now that has all changed due to technology, higher budgets and better talent getting involved.
It will be much harder for video games to make the transition, but I have a good feeling that may all change with the release of Warcraft next year, a film with a high budget and the talent attached to it. If that is a critical and financial success I hope it is, it could possibly be the turning point for movies based on video games.    









 

The toll that tomorrow takes

I believe that I'm different to most people in many respects, I'm a reasonably quiet person, reserved within large groups, my personality is very reflective. Which is perhaps why I'd rather go back in time than know what the future is.

I'm fascinated with the past, one of the reasons behind this is that there are certain moments in my life where I wish I could go back to, as the person I am now, rather than person I was. There are certain moments in my life, especially when I was young, that I wish I had savoured. Moments or events in which I could relive.

There are also many places in my past I wish could revisit.

I miss Christmas time at my infant school, I miss my old bedroom from my childhood, I miss the old video store I used to go to on Friday nights, I miss the old Toys R Us in Wood Green, I miss my old garage where I used to train, I now miss all of my old University accommodation rooms, I miss sitting in Battery Park and staring across the Hudson river, at dusk.

I become attached to certain places, even if I was only there for a short time. It's one of the reasons why I think the setting in a piece of fiction is just as important as the characters, especially in novels.

But revisiting old places (particularly from your youth) is always going to end in disappointment, without the people you first shared those places with, they end up making you feel lonely and distant.

When you are young, you live through moments, you don't realise the importance of simple and often trivial things in life. Which is why we can only remember our childhood through photographic images, for me it is anyway.

Taking a photograph is a special commodity, although we can't go back in time, by taking a photo we can capture it. For that one second, that one moment becomes a memory locked in time.
One of the best examples of this is with this photo album of the London underground, I can't help but look at these photos and wonder where these people are now,

http://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewtucker/retro-pictures-of-the-london-underground-in-the-70s-and-8

But for me looking back at old photographs is a sad experience, I look at those old photos of myself and wonder what that person would think of me as I am now. And I look at the photos thinking, and wonder how has that person grown to become the person for whom I am today.

I have not been very good at getting older, it's not that I am still childish, I just don't think I have made the transition from a carefree teenager to a responsible grown up adult. The world around me seems so narrow. Perhaps it's my punishment for being a deep thinker, but I believe it has more to do with nostalgia.

I think it is only natural for everyone to look back on their past and wish they could relive certain points, change things. Which is why nostalgia is a double edged sword, it's important to reminisce with our past, particularly special moments and places, because they are what become of our memories, and our legacy.

But nostalgia also takes us away from the present, which is the most important of all. If we're locked in our past, it's far easier to take our eye off of the future, and what is immediately in front of us.