If you don’t understand it, read it twice.
But unfortunately, every new game adaptation movie is always reluctant to make progress, stubbornly guarding the existing assets from the smaller game circle of users, and reluctant to go two more in the direction of a good movie. step. Technological upgrades cannot change the stale concept, and the latter is the absolute key to a successful game adaptation movie.
Why is game adaptation always more difficult than comic adaptation? Without him, two words, interaction.
After removing the traces of popular culture, comics are still a special visual carrier of literature in essence-this has a high overlap with the movie itself. Movies must have literary attributes from beginning to end, but it is difficult to make movies that can be popular with the public if you ignore/despise this attribute. As for all presentation vehicles based on literature, the audience's interaction with them is mostly passive, especially with the participation of visual elements-pure text can still rely on the reader's imagination, but strong narratives will inevitably emphasize the passive acceptance of the audience, even the reader Participation of, also stays on the interpretation of context and meaning. On the contrary, from the first day of its birth, interactivity is the first standard of the game. In recent years, it has even developed a low narrative and high sandbox represented by "Minecraft" and "The Witness", which emphasizes the audience. The characteristics of active participation. At the same time, complex stories and narrative methods are the result of the gradual development of technology and audience needs. When the priority is reversed, it will be difficult to win the favor of the audience-game developers Naughty Dog knows the proportions. "Tuan 1886" is a typical "cinematic" game, so I'm not so lucky.
To adapt high-interaction game products into low-interaction movie products, there will naturally be content that must be discarded. For most audiences, movies are disposable consumer goods. Through the guidance of the audience, the content and ideas that the creator wants to express are emphasized; while games try to avoid becoming disposable consumer goods, focusing on the audience/players’ active exploration and enhancement An understanding of the game mechanics/background world, and a strong emphasis on the role of the inner circle-the amount of information contained therein is very different.
Specific to "Assassin's Creed", it is not difficult to find out what mistakes the creators of the film made. Does the charm of "Assassin's Creed" lie in complicated conspiracy theories? Is it the ongoing struggle between the Templars and the Assassins? perhaps. But its most attractive feature should be the sense of historical participation. Players manipulate the assassin's ancestors to stealthily assassinate, move freely in the grand historical background, and communicate with each other between fictional and real historical figures. For most players, it is these contents that provide most of the fun of the game, rather than the ancient alien technology Apple of Eden, which does not see the beginning and the end most of the time.
So how did the "Assassin's Creed" movie do?
The first thing you need to understand when adapting a game for a movie is whether you want to be a derivative of the game IP or an independent movie. This is important, and there is a clear difference between the two. The former does not need to take care of the lack of background of most ordinary movie audiences. It integrates and extends the existing materials in the original series, and then shows the unique visual elements of the game. It is enough to become a qualified derivative-"Resident Evil" The CG series of "Assassin’s Creed" and the live-action derivative movies of "Assassin’s Creed" can achieve this goal well. They only need to meet the wishes of the fans and do not need to bear more complicated responsibilities and obligations. As a movie, one of the big requirements is to be able to justify itself. The questions can be answered from the inside of the movie, and no external supplements are needed. You can’t ask all audiences to do dozens of hours of homework before watching a movie for 2 hours. Finished movie. "Silent Hill" is a horror/thriller movie that can justify itself without the background of the game; "Prince of Persia" is a fantasy/action movie that can justify itself without the background of the game; "Resident Evil" (1 limited) aside The game background is a loss/zombie movie that can justify itself.
But both "Warcraft" and "Assassin's Creed" rely too much on the crutches of the "game body", the latter even reaching the level of a wheelchair.
How can you expect it to trot and jump?
A good background setting is not equal to a good story design. This principle is as simple as "When a person is killed, he will die", but inevitably, some people just don't understand it.
Out of the willingness to protect IP, as major game companies have built their own labels to break into the film industry, compared with the game-adapted movies of the last 10 years, future game-adapted movies will be more influenced by major game companies. . This impact is two-sided. First of all, more commendable game elements will be preserved in the movie. We will never see the "World No. 1 German game adaptation" Uvi Bauer and others casually ruining the efforts of others, and never see " "Resident Evil" turned the prototype into a twisted wife like this; secondly, the desire for protection of game makers and the existing laws of the film and television industry will inevitably have a deeper collision. Is it game players first or movie audiences first? Do you want to please old fans, or do you want to attract new fans? And the most critical question is, do you want to make game derivatives, or do you want to make movies?
If the practice and mind are the former, but want to get the product and result of the latter, there is only one word that can describe it, that is, the mind is wrong.
In terms of screenwriting composition, we met two screenwriters from "Amazing Masterpiece" "The Pharaoh and the Gods" and Michael Leslie, who worked with director Justin Kuzel in "Macbeth". This lack of experience in the combination of screenwriters and directors is obviously very economical, and it is easier for game manufacturers to convey ideas and exert pressure. One of the primary influences is that the film is a typical McGovern battle, but as far as the film itself is concerned, it fails to explain the importance of the "Apple of Eden" McGovern—we know that it affects Freewill, so we get it. The world can be controlled, but for such a highly abstract and metaphysical concept, how can it be achieved from a physical entity? Danger is danger, but how dangerous and how dangerous? This is a problem for which no clear explanation can be given in an entire three-act movie.
For this reason, in the game of "Assassin’s Creed", the practice of constantly emphasizing the "creed" has turned abstraction and world-scale confrontation into a hereditary and family-oriented sect struggle, weaving complicated for individuals, In other words, the deep bitterness and the magnificent background of life experience are projected into the so-called confrontation between good and evil-but don't forget that the center of the game experience is still history. But in the movie, the historical background of the Spanish religious trial, which accounts for 1/3 of the space, is not necessary at all. It is just to add performance space to a series of cool and highly-reduced ultra-long action scenes-in fact, these The action design with great effort is one of the few desirability of this film. The film party attaches great importance to it even to the point where it affects the normal narrative. The few lines are all Spanish with hard subtitles, which creates a serious gap between the audience and themselves, showing a huge sense of overhead.
What about the other 2/3 of the modern scene? As with the game, the metaphysical opposition between good and evil must fall on personal enmity in order to resonate with the audience. But most of the time in the film is limited to Abstergo's research institute. Like the ancient plot, only seeing a leaf without seeing Taishan will inevitably lead to fragmentation and overhead. A typical example is that although we met the protagonist Carl Lin when we were young Qi, saw the tragedy of his parents, but the highly one-sided and short performance prevented the audience from having any effective emotional connection with him. The entire modern scene is very empty due to the excessive emphasis on the mystery of the story, and tirelessly throws out philosophical and theological vocabulary, but in addition to the Animus kung fu leveling and the swaying lines and postures, it is all for the entire talented actor Cast It's a huge waste.
That’s right, invite actors like Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Michael Williams, Jeremy Irons, and Bradan Gleason to do Shakespeare’s best , But you can only read the lines of the second burst in the bursting world of the second stage. If you can turn a blind eye to this, you are true love, true love is invincible.
There are no rules that prohibit historical movies from running parkour and juggling, but for a movie and movie audience, the superficial fictional world and stupid confrontation between good and evil are not enough to support an ambitious game-adapted movie. of.
Not attractive nor connected. "Assassin's Creed" is "Soul Chariot 2" in the field of game adaptation. The highly stylized visual language is a dangerous move, but unfortunately, the too weak foundation makes this move not effective.
Obviously, the new era of game adaptation movies are not bad money, such as "Warcraft" and "Assassin's Creed" movies, more energy and money investment to convert IP, but the result can make most viewers (not fans) satisfied?
Although "Assassin's Creed" made some useful attempts, it failed to reverse the narcissism of the game adaptation of the movie. The action scene is very interesting, and the scene of the Spanish Inquisition has also been a lot of work. When "Assassin's Creed" wants to be a pure action collection, it is very interesting. But later, it wanted to tell a story. Under the huge and unattractive frame, the movie reveals an inevitable emptiness and chaos. So just like that, "Assassin's Creed" fell into the cliché again-
there is a plot without a story, there are characters without roles, and there is a world without a worldview.
What a pity, what a Possible.
View more about Assassin's Creed reviews
