[merylsilverburg]

Originally Posted by Harry

whenever I watch videogame to movie adaptations I have the feeling they may cause brain cancer.

Oh no, but I don't think any videogame movie adaptation would cause as much brain cancer as the in-production "Dead or Alive" movie.

First off, I never played the games (Silent Hill), so I won't see the movie, so that settles that. But, on the topic of videogame to movie adaptations, it can be a little tricky because it all boils down to one's own opinions and preferences.

There are people, like Bogart, who prefer a more stylized, creative, and independent adaptation of videogame movies while there are others, like Red, who prefer the stays-true-to-the-game feel of the film. But is either of them truly better than the other? Who really knows because there is no definite answer for this. Even though I'm not a huge fan of videogame movies, I can't say that I don't sympathize with the directors and the screenwriters because they have a lot of pressure on them. On one side, there's the group who want to see an adaptation of videogames while on the other side, the group wants to see the actual videogame on screen. So who should they satisfy?

I'm kind of inbetween the two because I feel they should satisfy the "true-to-game" group since, after all, the game is what made people like it...so why wouldn't they want to see the movie stay true to the game? Like the certain camera angles that are similar to the ones in the "Silent Hill" game, I think this provided fans a little thrill and rush because it's these camera angles that created a memorable moment of tension for the gamers. So to see it onscreen and done right, it's like "Wow, that's fantastic!" It's exciting because it brings back the memories of the experience in the game, so it's like reliving it all over again. And doing an adaptation can be somewhat bad if the elements they adapted are totally off. Like in the second "Resident Evil" movie (I didn't see it) where the Nemesis became a good guy (or something like that), this was completely ridiculous to fans of the game because this should not and would not be remotely possible.

But then again, I also agree that certain aspects of videogames are hard to put onscreen since videogames are part of fantasy and certain "fantasy" moments are just ridiculous looking when placed in a realistic setting. Such as, oh I dunno, the "FF" series? Perhaps this is why "Advent Children" was made in CGI because they know it's just not doable. Or, I cannot imagine, no way in hell, the spectacular bosses in "MGS3" with real living people. It's just not possible to exude such coolness if you're a real person, I'm sorry. So when certain things that worked out well in the game come off downright cheesy in the film, this is where an adaptation would come in handy. It creates a more coherent, polished, and generalized plot and feel to the film and the director, if feeling rather stylish, can direct it the way s/he envisions the game or the message behind the game.

I think what would make a good videogame movie is if the director combines a blend of true-to-the-game and adaptation. I don't know if any videogame movie has successfully done this (people might say the "Tomb Raider" movies, but I disagree) but it doesn't mean it can't be done if all the right elements are in place.

EDIT: A little tidbit fact I found from the IMDB: there was no CG used at all during the film of "Silent Hill" except for the fog in the beginning...all the monsters were real actors dressed in latex costumes and make-up. Impressive, especially for films nowadays where it's a huge CG-fest.