ROTTEN TOMATOES: Capcom Aiming to Bring More Video Games (And More "Street Fighter!) to the Movies

Capcom Aiming to Bring More Video Games (And More "Street Fighter!) to the Movies

by Scott Weinberg | December 29, 2006

Yeah, it's a pretty disrespected sub-genre, isn't it: the video game adaptation. And for good reason, I suppose, what with "Super Mario Bros.," "Double Dragon" and Uwe Boll among its achievements. But that's not stopping Capcom (creator of "Resident Evil," among many others) from taking a few new chances.

From The Hollywood Reporter: "Japanese video game publisher Capcom, which has licensed its original franchise "Resident Evil" to Impact Pictures and Sony Pictures, recently stepped into the movie production game with an original "Street Fighter" movie due in 2008. It is partnering with Hyde Park Entertainment on a new film that focuses on Chung Li, one of the most popular fighters from the game franchise.

Capcom is exploring the other end of convergence as well. After decades of creating such original game franchises as "Devil May Cry," "Lost Planet," "Dead Rising" and "Onimusha" (which has a film in development at Davis Films), it has hired Germaine Gioia to serve in the newly created post of senior vp licensing in its Los Angeles office. She will liaison with Hollywood to find properties that can work as Capcom games."

Click here for the full article.

Click here for a big list of Capcom's games.

Related Items

Movie:	Double Dragon
	Resident Evil: Apocalypse

	Street Fighter
	Resident Evil
Celeb:	Uwe Boll

(1-20 of 38 posts) | Reply

Banana Kid writes:
on Dec 29 2006 07:11 AM

Will this lead to the Shaun of the Dead guy directing Dead Rising: The Movie? If so, I am IN. I will also be in if we get an animated Viewtiful Joe movie.

But if neither of those are what we get, then this is stupid. I just want to see zombies get run over with a lawnmower or smashed with mailboxes on the big screen.

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Dec 29 2006 07:58 AM

great, more good games turned into shit movies. at least they'd be able to get Jean Reno to reprise his role from the Onimusha games. and isn't Dead Rising pretty much the video game version of Dawn of the Dead? it would be cool to see it approached with a more humorous angle like Shaun of the Dead, though.

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Dec 29 2006 10:36 AM

VIEWTIFUL JOE WOULD BE GRRRREAT!!

(Reply to this)

245_trioxin writes:
on Dec 29 2006 01:01 PM

btw in dead alive, they used a push mower to take out zombies ; D

but i think pegg directing someone else in dead rising would be good like maybe bruce campbell or the guy who played ed in shaun of the dead.

but to see a mega man movie will be too much esp if it was live action

thomas of the living dead

(Reply to this)

AstroZombie138 writes:
on Dec 29 2006 01:46 PM

Y'know what? We don't need a movie based on Dead Rising. Or Viewtiful Joe. Or Mega Man. You want to watch Dead Rising, instead of play it? Go watch your friend play it. Stop whining about Uwe Boll if you pay to see movies based on video games. Why would you want to sit and watch some hack's cornball, watered-down version of your favorite game when you could be playing it?

Here's some advice: Next time you see a trailer for a game-based movie and you think to yourself "that looks cool," don't buy a ticket. GO RENT THE GAME. It costs about the same as a movie ticket and you probably won't feel like your money went to waste. Uwe Boll has a career because people watch his movies.

That's my rant. Sorry.

(Reply to this)

asphyxiatic writes:
on Dec 29 2006 02:02 PM

Phoenix Wright. It could work...

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Dec 29 2006 05:03 PM

In reply to this comment (#851948)
okay, then why go watch the Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter movies when you can just read the books? why not just go to the comic book shop and get a couple Spider-Man comics instead of watching the movies? hell, why watch any movie based on or adapted from any novel, comic book, short story, or game?

we bitch and complain about these movies because we want them to be good representations of the games we love so much, we don't want people watching the movies and saying "Man, if this horrible movie is anything like the games, those games must suck ass!" so it pains us to see hacks like Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson making crap movies out of them. i don't spend a dime on these movies if they look like they're gonna suck, and i'm gonna keep badmouthing these shit movies until directors start GETTING IT RIGHT.

(Reply to this)

alsanali writes:
on Dec 29 2006 08:22 PM

Oh man, a Devil May Cry movie could be as sweet as hell with the right people behind it. In theory it shouldn't be too hard to pull it off... just good special effects and a lot of ass kicking.

(Reply to this)

Muddler writes:
on Dec 29 2006 10:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#851950)
To be fair, books and graphic novels/comics are still much more plot and character driven than video games, thus they have the necessary elements to make a good movie. I mean, at 10 years old I thought video game plots sucked, and I don't think they've gotten better. Moreover, there is very, very little compelling character development in video games - for the most part, YOU are the character of interest, which is sad considering you're likely sitting in the dark in your PJs eating cheetos playing Gears of War. So, unless you completely reinvent the video game for the movie, which will piss off the gamers, you're DOOMed to have a suck end product.

The better route has always been to take a movie and turn it into a kick ass video game.

Just think of it this way - why make these movies at all? I'll tell you why - there is no reason but an instant audience. Nobody sits there playing a video game thinking "man, this plot and character development is so cool, I want to make this into a movie." (yes, those thoughts do cross the mind with books and comics). No, people watch the sales numbers and say "hey, there are enough 13-22 y.o. male idiots out there to buy tickets."

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Dec 29 2006 11:21 PM

In reply to this comment (#851952)
"To be fair, books and graphic novels/comics are still much more plot and character driven than video games, thus they have the necessary elements to make a good movie. I mean, at 10 years old I thought video game plots sucked, and I don't think they've gotten better."

have you played ANY RPG in the last twenty years? they have more character development than most Hollywood films. games like Final Fantasy, Silent Hill, and Metal Gear Solid are prime examples of games with compelling stories and character development. and i think the average game has benefited storywise from the constantly improving game technology. better technology, better graphics, deeper gameplay, more realistic game worlds, more realistic characters, more room for depth and development.

"Moreover, there is very, very little compelling character development in video games - for the most part, YOU are the character of interest, which is sad considering you're likely sitting in the dark in your PJs eating cheetos playing Gears of War. So, unless you completely reinvent the video game for the movie, which will piss off the gamers, you're DOOMed to have a suck end product."

sure, there are plenty of games that are just too damn shallow to be made into feature films. but the examples i've already given are proof that there are also plenty of games that do have enough depth to base a movie off them. talented writers and filmmakers can take the characters and plots from the games and add enough depth to them if needed. that doesn't mean making drastic changes to the story or the characters, just adding to what is already there.

yeah, games have an extra dimension of interactivity that allows the audience to become emotionally invested in the characters that films don't have, but substitute that interactivity with depth like backstories and subplots and character conflicts (internal and external) and the audience can become emotionally invested in their film counterparts as well. and that's where the key to it all lies - the talent to do so effectively.

on a related note, did you know that Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window is based on a simple short story? Hitchcock added a backstory, love interest, and an underlying subtext about the stuggle between a woman's need to settle down and a man's need to roam free, all of which wasn't in the short story. Hitchcock stayed true to the original short story but added character depth and emotional undercurrent that wasn't there before and made it BETTER and made it worthy of making a feature-length film. see what i'm getting at here? surely if a talented writer can take a short story and make a truly great film out of it, that there must be enough material in video games to do it too.

"Nobody sits there playing a video game thinking 'man, this plot and character development is so cool, I want to make this into a movie.' (yes, those thoughts do cross the mind with books and comics)."

nobody, huh? well thanks for speaking for everyone who has ever played a video game. you represent them so well, since you think a majority of them are teenage couch potatoes. just to inform you, i recall a study a while ago that stated that they average gamer is 29 years old.

"No, people watch the sales numbers and say 'hey, there are enough 13-22 y.o. male idiots out there to buy tickets.'"

i don't doubt that's what the production companies and big-wigs think, which is why these films have sucked so far. they just see a built-in audience, so they just throw together a product and slap the game's name on it to lure in the gullible dopes who will see the movie just for the brand recognition, not to mention all the people who will go to see any movie on a Friday night regardless of the reviews or the buzz.

it's sad, really. the production companies churn out crap, gullible people go to see it and then buy the DVD's (DVD sales are a HUGE factor in how much a film makes nowadays since people put together their own film libraries), and that allows them to make even more craptacular films. it's a vicious cycle that doesn't seem to be ending. at least the backlash against Uwe Boll has driven major film distributors away from him so his films can't be released very widely, so i guess that's some kind of consolation.

(Reply to this)

jeremyf1977 writes:
on Dec 30 2006 06:52 AM

I almost Forgot about the Double Dragon Movie and SMB......Thanks RT. Maybe a Mega man........Oh Shit now I'm giving ideas.

(Reply to this)

South_park300 writes:
on Dec 30 2006 08:43 AM

a Dead Rising movie? that's an awesome idea! Just think! Zombies in a mall!...don't tell George Romero though, he may get a little steamed....

it could still be a good movie, but they just need to make it as different as possible from Dawn of the Dead...both of them. then again, maybe we DON'T need a third "zombies in a mall" kinda movie

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Dec 30 2006 08:51 AM

In reply to this comment (#851953)
Your comments are spot on. I've always thought Legend of Zelda had a strong story and, handled well, could make a great film franchise. Also, what's going on with the Halo project? I was hearing good things about in the beginning but then, out of nowhere, the studio pulled out. Talk about no balls.

(Reply to this)

dagreenman18 writes:
on Dec 30 2006 10:58 AM

halo is on the shelf until Microsoft fucking realizes that they have enough money to prouduce every hollywood flick for the next 20 years. Video game films have 2 flaws: the wrong games and the wrong people behind them. it will take a little while longer for people to understand that you shouldn't hand over movie rights to Uwe Boll, or that arcade cabinet shooters turned into movies are an idea that shouldv'e been aborted at conception.

But this new crop of ideas aint so bad. The just need to understand that for them to work they need to hire people that can pull it off. for example put John Woo on Devil May Cry and someone like Mel Brooks on Dead Rising. that would be perfect. Where all the white zombies at?

(Reply to this)

AstroZombie138 writes:
on Dec 30 2006 01:33 PM

The thing that separates video games from other storytelling mediums is interactivity. Games CAN tell great stories, and many of them do. Most modern games also have ridiculously high budgets. Strip away the interactivity and all you're left with is story. Insert big name actors and you lose a big chunk of your budget, which could have gone towards better special effects. Trim the story down to around two hours, including action scenes, and suddenly you have a game-based movie that pales in comparison to the entertainment value of its namesake.

The only exception to the rule (video game movies are trash) that I can think of is FF: Advent Children. This is because, rather than trying to adapt or retell the story from the game, the film is a direct extension of the game. AND it basically amounts to fan service. Noone that isn't already a Final Fantasy fan is going to get anything from that movie.

Halo could be a great movie, IF it doesn't just try and retell the story from the games. I'd like to see a prequel story, perhaps based on one of the novels, fleshing out the start of the war with the Covenant. Zelda could also be good, as long as Link was mute and the film recieved some seriously classy treatment. Street Fighter? Watch the anime.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Dec 30 2006 03:28 PM

I was never a big fan of the Final Fantasy games (mainly because I'm not an rpg kinda guy), but I totally got Advent Children. I recommend it to just about every person I pass in the street. Link doesn't have to be mute for a Zelda film to work. He just needs to not be a fool like he was in that god aweful cartoon. Street Fighter could work too if they treated the franchise with a modicum of respect.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Dec 30 2006 05:52 PM

In reply to this comment (#851952)
Not to take a cheap shot, but how old are you? When I was 10 most video game concepts consisted of dodge the barrel and hit the monkey over the head with a hammer :)

They need to do a Pac-man movie adaption...A fat guy running around a maze eating Cheezy poofs and dodging ghosts. I'd pay money to see that :)

(Reply to this)

PhreazerBurn writes:
on Dec 30 2006 11:12 PM

Will Chun Li wear a bra on her head?

I only ask because that is an extremely important plot point!

(Reply to this)

dylan21484nj writes:
on Dec 30 2006 11:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#851959)
"The thing that separates video games from other storytelling mediums is interactivity."

i've already addressed that. yeah, you lose the interactivity of controlling the characters' actions when you adapt a game into a film, but there's other ways of getting audiences to care about the film characters and become emotionally invested in the film, many of which i've already went on about in the previous post. hell, it happens all the time in movies.

"Games CAN tell great stories, and many of them do. Most modern games also have ridiculously high budgets."

you need to clarify what you mean here. granted, there are a lot of things that happen in games that would cost a fortune to do practically in a film, but that's what good filmmakers are for - finding ways of pulling things off with the budget you have.

"Strip away the interactivity and all you're left with is story."

and that's a bad thing how, exactly? take the story from the game and make it emotionally involving and compelling enough that you don't need the interactivity. good movies involve and engage the audience on a mental and emotional level too.

"Insert big name actors and you lose a big chunk of your budget, which could have gone towards better special effects."

who says you need big name actors? i'm comfortable with no-names portraying the game characters as long as they take the roles seriously and can act well. who the fuck knew who Sienna Guillory was before she played Jill Valentine? she did a couple smaller films and TV movies, but she was by no means a big name, and she nailed Jill Valentine to a T (now don't get me started on RE: Apocalypse, Guillory was one of the only bright spots of that piece of garbage). the gamers are going to see it regardless of who is playing the characters as long as they're played well.

"Trim the story down to around two hours, including action scenes, and suddenly you have a game-based movie that pales in comparison to the entertainment value of its namesake."

it's all about good storytelling. trim the things that aren't important to the overall story, streamline some of the details, and there's still plenty of room for the action and the story. and a good story makes the action more compelling. take the Resident Evil games, for example. there's a lot of solving puzzles, finding keys, and reading files that progresses the story in the games, but is boring as fuck on film. so find a way around that. maybe only have one or two puzzles instead of several. eliminate most of the reading of files and have the characters discover vital information in more interesting ways like from the supporting characters. there are ways around it, you just need to be creative and clever enough to do it.

"The only exception to the rule (video game movies are trash) that I can think of is FF: Advent Children. This is because, rather than trying to adapt or retell the story from the game, the film is a direct extension of the game. AND it basically amounts to fan service. Noone that isn't already a Final Fantasy fan is going to get anything from that movie."

Advent Children was great, but i agree that most people who have never played FFVII wouldn't understand it (although there are clearly exceptions on this very thread). Advent Children was aimed toward the fans who loved the game so much and wasn't aimed at the general filmgoing audience, a majority of whom never touched the game. The Spirits Within, however, was aimed toward that general viewing audience but the gamers felt burned because it wasn't about any of the games, and Advent Children, i think, was Square's reaction to that response from the fans. the whole problem with making Final Fantasy movies is that the games are so long and elaborate and intricate that it's nearly impossible to condense one of them into a single feature-length film, so that isn't a possibility. Square's only options are to aim their films at both ends of the audience spectrum - the casual non-gamer audience (The Spirits Within) and the diehard gamers (Advent Children).

"Halo could be a great movie, IF it doesn't just try and retell the story from the games. I'd like to see a prequel story, perhaps based on one of the novels, fleshing out the start of the war with the Covenant."

ughh, enough with shitty prequels! it's that crap argument of "Why would they watch the movie when they could just play the game?" that position is utter bullshit. we all know how Spider-Man got his powers, but everyone flocked to see the movie anyway. we all know how Superman got to Earth, but millions of people saw that movie too. people are going to see movies about stories they already know about because they want to see the characters and stories they enjoy and love portrayed on the big screen. there's a certain novelty to it. and by making the movie about the actual game, you won't run the risk of leaving the non-gamers out in the cold since you're not leaving out crucial details and plot points from the games since the movies about the games themselves.

and also, going with prequels or side stories to the games is just a cheap way of hack filmmakers admitting they don't have the ability and talent to take the actual game and turn it into a movie, so they have to come up with made-up backstories and side stories to make it easier on themselves and to compensate for their own inability and inadequacy.

"Zelda could also be good, as long as Link was mute and the film recieved some seriously classy treatment. Street Fighter? Watch the anime."

yeah, i can picture a Zelda film with a Lord of the Rings "swords and sorcery" kind of vibe to it. now there's something Peter Jackson can totally knock out of the park, but i dunno if he'd want to tackle yet another "swords and sorcery" film since he's rather reluctant to even do The Hobbit.

i haven't had the pleasure of seeing the Street Fighter anime, but animated series have the benefit of being ongoing and continuous so they can present a lot of character development and storylines. hell, Batman: The Animated Series remains to be one of the best interpretations of the Batman story and is probably one of the best, if not the best, superhero series ever made. films don't have that kind of continuous storytelling ability, they end after a few hours and then you have to wait a year or two (or three) for the sequel.

(Reply to this)

WorldDude writes:
on Dec 31 2006 08:31 AM

I loved Final Fantasy VII yet I thought Advent Children was horrible. It was just a flashy, 90-minute cut-scene that got very old very fast.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Super Mario Bros.

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links