As I was writing my last “spacies” post, The Hollywood Reporter was revealing that producers Lorenzo di Bonaventura and Odd Lot Entertainment’s Gigi Pritzker were bringing Space Invaders to the big screen.
The announcement certainly engendered a lot of discussion on the wisdom of this move, so I thought I’d share some of my favourite viewpoints with you.
In the negative corner, with a they’ll-just-screw-this-one-up-too approach, is Mike Fahey at Kotaku. His is a valid reaction, given Hollywood’s patchy track record in adapting video games for film. Also in this corner is Pete Davison of GamePro who offers the following insight:
In some ways, basing a movie on a game with no backstory might be a brilliant idea, as it will make it very difficult to upset those who are invested in the game universe and its characters — because there aren’t any. If that’s the case, though, why call it Space Invaders at all?
The Guardian newspaper, with their post: What does Hollywood want with old arcade games?, falls into the Hollywood-must-be-stuck-for-ideas camp, and suggests more arcade classics for their attention. Here’s an example:
Frogger (Konami, 1981) John Lasseter directs this magical story of an amphibian hero who just wants to find his way home. Thri
ll as he dodges busy traffic in the exciting freeway sequence; become confused as he loses a life for drowning in the river, despite belonging to a species that practises cutaneous respiration; leave the cinema when it becomes clear that the film re-starts the moment you eventually make it to the other side…
Over at the IFC, you can find a link to Futurama‘s fabulous Space Invaders’ parody, plus this (air quotes here) insightful description of the game itself.
… “Sp
ace Invaders” sees the player take control of a small, mobile, gun-thing at the bottom of the screen. The gun-thing (technical term) can be moved side to side as you fire off rounds at the titular space invaders, who move consistently down the screen.
Screen Rant states: “what is undeniably frustrating is Hollywood’s obsession with only developing projects that have some sort of pre-established standing or brand value.” But, even so, they have a more positive outlook on this commonly held view …
Bizarrely enough, though, a lot of these board game movies (like Battleship) or arcade game pics (like Space Invaders or Asteroids) don’t sound quite so blatantly unoriginal or lame in execution as they do upon their initial inception.
Screen Rant’s post also has some great links for those interested in further reading on the movies-from-brand phenomenon.
Lastly, and still in the positive corner with “Nostalgia fans rejoice”, is moviefone. They
show a great YouTube game play video, which includes that unmistakable Space Invaders’ sound.
In summary, many commentators think Hollywood is stuck for ideas, and that movies-from-brands are generally bad … maybe even worse than bad. As for my take on all this, I don’t think that Hollywood is running out of ideas, they’re just risk averse.
It makes sense, in the high stakes world of big budget Hollywood filmmaking, to develop films from existing properties. These properties come with a track record and a fan base, thus making them easier to finance and market. They have a built-in audience. Check out the buzz around Comic Con if you doubt this line of thinking.
However, in other business sectors, where there’s the potential to reap big rewards you must also be prepared to take big risk. In Hollywood … not so much. Hollywood tends to use these brand-to-film properties as vehicles for pushing the VFX boundaries, whereas the real innovation, and risk, would be in telling the story from a completely new perspective … and expanding on the existing universe. In other words, take a transmedia approach to storytelling in these films, not just with the marketing of them.