What kind of impact does Hollywood have on video gaming

This is something that's been festering in my mind for quite some time now. I've noticed that so many people out there are willing to believe Hollywood is covered in creative power, and video games simply leech off of their success.

Here's what i mean.

I recognize that movie games (e.g. Finding Nemo, Shrek, The Da Vinci Code) get made, and i recognize that game movies get made (e.g. Resident Evil, Silent Hill etc...). Attitudes towards movie games are never very high. Myself included, as well as my entire family. Once me and my sister were renting a movie, and she noticed in the video game section there was a Finding Nemo game. She was disgusted and was a little mad that they "ruined" a perfectly good movie.

This attitude spreads further than it should though. There are many people out there who don't believe in game movies. Just a month ago i was at the mall with a friend who doesn't know jack about video games. We walked into the Sony Store, to browse around for new stereo systems. There was a display case for the PS2 Slim, and a few games displayed along with it. One of which was Silent Hill 3. The first thing out of my friend's mouth was a disgusted "They've already made a video game out of Silent Hill?" I thought he was joking at first before i remember that he doesn't know jack about games, and came to the shocking realization that he was serious. I had to educate him.

Another example was when me and some friends were renting a movie, and she saw Resident Evil for the gamecube. The first thing she said was, "They shouldn't have made Resident Evil into a game, it was such a good movie." Once again, i had to educate.

Long ago, i had friends musing over "Why they made a Final Fantasy game out of Final Fantasy: Spirits Within, it wasn't even that good a movie." Once again, i became teacher and had to to teach them which came first.

A lack of simple research due to a lack of interest in video games obviously creates the idea that video game studios constantly leech off the creativity of Hollywood, when it is not the case. As Hollywood continues to make more and more game movies, this will continue. Am i the only person who notices this/cares? Or am i over reacting?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

My motto regrading this issue is:

"Games of movies and movies of games are a massive big NO!"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I know what you're talking about. The main problem is, Hollywood often picks games that have little to no plot, or else they throw out the plot in the game, and come up with something so far-fetched that by the time the movie comes out, it has little to do with the game (such as Resident Evil).

While I understand a straight adaptation that essentially follows the game point by point may also not work, I wish game developers and/or filmmakers could get a little more creative. I hated how the first Final Fantasy movie had nothing to do with the games, besides a vague reference of the 8 spirits (which could equal the 8 crystals in some FF games), and a guy named Cid. Beyond that, there was nothing else that you could really relate to the movie as from being in a game. Great graphics, but terrible storyline, which kind of hurt it a lot (Advent Children doesn't have much more of a storyline either, such as the extra characters coming in at that dragon battle, but not doing much besides throwing Cloud up higher. But at least it's in a familiar FF setting, so it's more forgivable).

Something I'd like to see them do more is something along the lines of the Matrix movies and Enter the Matrix. Yes, the 2nd/3rd movie sucked, and the game had many flaws with it as well (I played for a short while, and was kind of laughing at how Ghost ran like he had a stick up his butt), but the concepts they had was pretty interesting. Tell other parts of the story, so that, when taken together, they tell a more complete story. In Enter the Matrix, you get to see stuff that runs parrallel with the movie, and it's kind of interesting to see that stuff (but again, it was done kind of poorly, so it doesn't work out in the end). Personally, I would've rather played Neo, Morpheous, or Trinity, but I suppose 2ndary characters are okay, so long as they're actually helpful in the movie (for instance, I don't think anyone would want to play that fat guy who gets blown up fighting alongside Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, they want to friggin be Luke Skywalker and blow that Death Star up themselves).

Another problem that seems to be going on right now in Hollywood is that they seem to have run out of fresh ideas for movies. I know movies come out all the time, but it seems they don't want to risk investing in new concepts, like maybe the next Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings or even Titanic. Instead, they just look at what else is selling well, in terms of games/comics, or they just do remakes of other movies (which it seems, has been largely backfiring, as not many people wanted to see remakes of old tv shows for the most part. Seriously, how many of you watched the Honeymooners, or Bewitched? It didn't perform as well as Hollywood was hoping).

On the reverse side, a game being made from a Hollywood movie, it often also looks like they rushed the game out just to coincide with the popularity of the movie. The only "movie-based game" that I truly enjoyed was Goldeneye on the N64 (not the newer one that simply tried to ride on the fame of the first game with the name).

I think the problem here largely is that the game can't deviate too much from the movie, or else it suffers ("Man, that didn't happen in the movie!"), although if the game is fun to play, gamers are usually more forgiving (again, such as in Goldeneye. I played the game first, then saw the movie, and saw how the game does make a lot of stuff different, although the gameplay is very fun, so I ignored that). A fun game can often do what it wants, and players probably won't mind too much (and when it starts getting lame/boring, then peeps tend to start nitpicking every little thing).

The solution would be probably to start making the game right before they start filming, when they have the cast and what not ready, so the game devs can start developing the game based on the movie. And allow some creativity, so that if it doesn't happen in the movie, hopefully what they put in the game will be interesting enough so that gamers won't really care about the discrepancies. The King Kong game had a lot of stuff that didn't happen in the movie, but I was okay with it for the most part because when you get to play Kong, it's really fun (like beating up the V-rexes. My only complaint is that you only get to play him for like maybe 30% of the game). Plus you can unlock an alternate ending which is "happier" than the way the movie/game traditionally ends, which is a nice feature (I'm all for multiple endings).

I've babbled on long enough, but I'm sure others here can add some useful stuff too.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What you've said above is interesting, and has much merit, but it's not quite what i'm asking.

I'm bringing to attention the fact that people who avoid video games see game movies come out, and don't realize that it was first a game. Later on they hear that there's a game of it, and they immediatly assume it's one of those rushed out games to try and feed off the popularity of the movie, thus perpetuating their distaste for gaming. Does that make sense?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?