You should already know, by reading all the comments, that Wing Commander is a horrible conversion of the games.
Game to movies have never really worked (the best of which was Mortal Kombat - or something). And likewise, movie-to-games haven't really done so hot either.
Why? It's easy. Those who can actually create substantial creative plots aren't making computer games. If they *could* then they'd be be creative making big bucks with movies.
I love computer games. But 90% of them are essentially movie-plot ripoffs and wanna-bes (ie. Duke Nukem = stereotypical action Stallone/Arnold, Laura Croft = Brit Indy with cones for breasts, Resident Evil = zombie b-movie). This works out ok for games because it's interactive. Who hasn't wanted to be Luke Skywalker/Starbuck, or Bruce Willis, or a Brit Indy with cones for breasts?
But unfortunately, when you take it to to the silver screen you lose the interactivity of the game which leaves very little substance and a lot of rehash.
Honestly, the makers of Wing Commander (movie) didn't have much to work with. All the good plotlines had already been taken by the interactive games (which are quite decent).
Not only that, but Chris Roberts was on this WWII kick or something. Doing retro-tech is cool and artsy in flicks like Gattaca but when you're doing an action film it doesn't work at all. DOes Roberts really think they'll still be firing torpedos, using sonar, and firing machine guns in the 24th century? Has Roberts been to a modern aircraft carrier lately? Did he *see* anyone loading steel balls into cannons or anyone raising the main sail?
I hope this teaches video game makers a lesson. Unless you've got a REALLY good idea, stay away from movies. Don't ruin for the next guy. I would think the failure of WC has ruined the chance that movies like Duke Nukem, Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil will be released anytime soon. Thank God.
In short, it's a movie. Save your hard-earned (or not so hard earned) dollars for "Tetris: The Motion Picture" later this year.
Game to movies have never really worked (the best of which was Mortal Kombat - or something). And likewise, movie-to-games haven't really done so hot either.
Why? It's easy. Those who can actually create substantial creative plots aren't making computer games. If they *could* then they'd be be creative making big bucks with movies.
I love computer games. But 90% of them are essentially movie-plot ripoffs and wanna-bes (ie. Duke Nukem = stereotypical action Stallone/Arnold, Laura Croft = Brit Indy with cones for breasts, Resident Evil = zombie b-movie). This works out ok for games because it's interactive. Who hasn't wanted to be Luke Skywalker/Starbuck, or Bruce Willis, or a Brit Indy with cones for breasts?
But unfortunately, when you take it to to the silver screen you lose the interactivity of the game which leaves very little substance and a lot of rehash.
Honestly, the makers of Wing Commander (movie) didn't have much to work with. All the good plotlines had already been taken by the interactive games (which are quite decent).
Not only that, but Chris Roberts was on this WWII kick or something. Doing retro-tech is cool and artsy in flicks like Gattaca but when you're doing an action film it doesn't work at all. DOes Roberts really think they'll still be firing torpedos, using sonar, and firing machine guns in the 24th century? Has Roberts been to a modern aircraft carrier lately? Did he *see* anyone loading steel balls into cannons or anyone raising the main sail?
I hope this teaches video game makers a lesson. Unless you've got a REALLY good idea, stay away from movies. Don't ruin for the next guy. I would think the failure of WC has ruined the chance that movies like Duke Nukem, Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil will be released anytime soon. Thank God.
In short, it's a movie. Save your hard-earned (or not so hard earned) dollars for "Tetris: The Motion Picture" later this year.