[kupoartist]

Originally Posted by Spank-A-Thon

Maybe that's the key? The length of time we spend with these character is lost in Game to Movie translations.

I suspect yes. I think FF has an advantage other some other games, in that its characters aren't as contrived or run-off the mill (well, until Square themselves continually recycled the characters and made the series rather formulaic) as those in other genres... Take Lara Croft. without the player hours a Tomb Raider player puts into her, she's Indiana Jones with boobs.

Games often don't have good characters because a lot of the character development, (through experience, gameplay wise) is part of the player and not the character itself. Take this away and the character is 2 Dimensional. Long RPGs have advantages in this respect, because losing a character comes with the double blow that a) all your levelling up and training of the character is lost (something you certainly never get with films) and b) your accumlated time just seeing or "being around" the character is far longer than in many other types of game, and to lose them is therefore a bigger loss.

I'd also have to say that if a Game to Movie adaptation actually ended up being good, it would come from the RPG genre because the characters have better development already... if Hollywood actually invested some time in "improving" Game characters, films of games could be great. Instead, we're just treated to stereotypes and underdeveloped ones at that, particuarlly as game to movie adaptations typically come from action games and end up as cliched as they can possibly make them. Perhaps that has it's roots in the wider Media opinion that game to movie adaptations have a target audience of 10 to 35 year old males and that no one outside this demographic would be interested in such a movie.

At least Square-Enix isn't Hollywood