Well sellotape my shoulders together and call me a stickleback. I'm so angry this week I could burst all over a crone.
In case you've missed the news over the last couple of days, Sony has been hacked big stylee, by a North Korea-sympathising group of (I assume) super-heros going by the name The Guardians of Peace. The hack - which led to gigabytes of confidential emails pulsing out online - was apparently in retaliation for the upcoming Seth Rogen and James Franco comedy The Interview, which revolves around the imagined assassination of pouting bad hair man-baby Kim Jong Un (please don't hack me, North Korea - it's just a joke... plus he really does look like a pouting bad hair man-baby).
If this is the future of warfare - striking at the Western capitalist dogs by embarrassing their beloved celebrities and powerful Hollywood types - then this pig is all for it. It's got to be better than, y'know, dropping drones on wedding parties and that.
Anyway, tucked away in among the stuff was the revelation that Sony is working on a Super Mario movie, produced by Avi Arad. Negotiations with Nintendo were reportedly completed in late October. And it just got me thinking, in the part of my brain that isn't clouded by raw bacon: does anybody need that? Who cares about where Mario came from, or what he thinks: he's just meant to be a funny little Italian jumping guy who eats mushrooms. He's not remotely engaging as a character, but as a corporate icon and an avatar he's perfect.
More to the point though, does anybody need any movie based upon a video game? Of course we don't - but that doesn't stop bloated Hollywood idiots trying anyway.
In case you've missed the news over the last couple of days, Sony has been hacked big stylee, by a North Korea-sympathising group of (I assume) super-heros going by the name The Guardians of Peace. The hack - which led to gigabytes of confidential emails pulsing out online - was apparently in retaliation for the upcoming Seth Rogen and James Franco comedy The Interview, which revolves around the imagined assassination of pouting bad hair man-baby Kim Jong Un (please don't hack me, North Korea - it's just a joke... plus he really does look like a pouting bad hair man-baby).
If this is the future of warfare - striking at the Western capitalist dogs by embarrassing their beloved celebrities and powerful Hollywood types - then this pig is all for it. It's got to be better than, y'know, dropping drones on wedding parties and that.
Anyway, tucked away in among the stuff was the revelation that Sony is working on a Super Mario movie, produced by Avi Arad. Negotiations with Nintendo were reportedly completed in late October. And it just got me thinking, in the part of my brain that isn't clouded by raw bacon: does anybody need that? Who cares about where Mario came from, or what he thinks: he's just meant to be a funny little Italian jumping guy who eats mushrooms. He's not remotely engaging as a character, but as a corporate icon and an avatar he's perfect.
More to the point though, does anybody need any movie based upon a video game? Of course we don't - but that doesn't stop bloated Hollywood idiots trying anyway.
WHY DO THIS?
There are dozens of video game movies in development. They've been trying to get a Halo movie off the ground for years (now it's becoming an Xbox Live series), and Hitman (retitled 'Agent 47' for the large screen) is out next Spring. But also brewing their thighs in the sweatbox are - among others - films based around Angry Birds, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Heavy Rain, and most absurdly of all, Tetris.
I get why movie studios do it - there's a built-in brand awareness with an existing property, so you're guaranteed a certain number of buttocks on seats. But it just seems to cut against the entire idea of games - all the more so now that games are sometimes bettering the storytelling available at the so-called "cin-e-ma".
A game like Uncharted (also in the works as a movie) is already a brilliant, cinematic work of fiction - with the added bonus of also being a game. I honestly don't know how interested I'm going to be in watching that as a linear, non-interactive experience.
Worse still, it makes me weep and shake like a goon to hear they're planning a movie based upon The Last of Us, because The Last of Us has better characterisation, acting, and storytelling than a huge majority of the guff Hollywood regurgitates into our faces. It's been years since I gasped at a film, because I was so involved with the characters: I did that twice in The Last of Us. Twice!
I repeat for unnecessary emphasis: How can a movie of The Last of Us possibly be better than the game, or add anything to what is already on offer? It can't - that is the answer to your (my) question.
There are dozens of video game movies in development. They've been trying to get a Halo movie off the ground for years (now it's becoming an Xbox Live series), and Hitman (retitled 'Agent 47' for the large screen) is out next Spring. But also brewing their thighs in the sweatbox are - among others - films based around Angry Birds, Assassin's Creed, Far Cry, Heavy Rain, and most absurdly of all, Tetris.
I get why movie studios do it - there's a built-in brand awareness with an existing property, so you're guaranteed a certain number of buttocks on seats. But it just seems to cut against the entire idea of games - all the more so now that games are sometimes bettering the storytelling available at the so-called "cin-e-ma".
A game like Uncharted (also in the works as a movie) is already a brilliant, cinematic work of fiction - with the added bonus of also being a game. I honestly don't know how interested I'm going to be in watching that as a linear, non-interactive experience.
Worse still, it makes me weep and shake like a goon to hear they're planning a movie based upon The Last of Us, because The Last of Us has better characterisation, acting, and storytelling than a huge majority of the guff Hollywood regurgitates into our faces. It's been years since I gasped at a film, because I was so involved with the characters: I did that twice in The Last of Us. Twice!
I repeat for unnecessary emphasis: How can a movie of The Last of Us possibly be better than the game, or add anything to what is already on offer? It can't - that is the answer to your (my) question.
SERIOUSLY - WHY DO THIS?
Of course, all of this is somewhat moot given that - as a pig (and not even a real one at that) - I'm not allowed in the cinema, and can't remember the last time I watched any movie based upon a game. Oh wait - yes I can: I watched Battleship. Admittedly, that was based upon a board game, but completely justified my point nonetheless.
It was like someone had made a movie by stitching together bits from the corpses of Michael Bay movies. Unfortunately, the body parts they harvested were all from the lower digestive tract.
In saying all this, it's also completely pointless; what does it really matter what they make a movie of? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Churning out populist, identikit, guaranteed theatre-fillers is what helps fund stuff that can be more experimental and interesting.
Yet I suppose it just slightly grates that cinema is seen as the pinnacle of entertainment - its messed-up actors and creators unjustly positioned as the gods of our modern era - when it's becoming increasingly clear that games can now make a legitimate claim to that crown.
Now get your faces out of my sty, you ghastly voyeurs: It is time for Fat Sow to make sweet, sweet romance with herself.
THE VIEWS OF FAT SOW DO NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDE WITH DIGITISER'S OWN.
Of course, all of this is somewhat moot given that - as a pig (and not even a real one at that) - I'm not allowed in the cinema, and can't remember the last time I watched any movie based upon a game. Oh wait - yes I can: I watched Battleship. Admittedly, that was based upon a board game, but completely justified my point nonetheless.
It was like someone had made a movie by stitching together bits from the corpses of Michael Bay movies. Unfortunately, the body parts they harvested were all from the lower digestive tract.
In saying all this, it's also completely pointless; what does it really matter what they make a movie of? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Churning out populist, identikit, guaranteed theatre-fillers is what helps fund stuff that can be more experimental and interesting.
Yet I suppose it just slightly grates that cinema is seen as the pinnacle of entertainment - its messed-up actors and creators unjustly positioned as the gods of our modern era - when it's becoming increasingly clear that games can now make a legitimate claim to that crown.
Now get your faces out of my sty, you ghastly voyeurs: It is time for Fat Sow to make sweet, sweet romance with herself.
THE VIEWS OF FAT SOW DO NOT NECESSARILY COINCIDE WITH DIGITISER'S OWN.
RSS Feed
