Having seen most of the movie and anime versions of Street Fighter, I'm left with one nagging question: why do video game adaptions often deviate so much from their source material? While I liked most of the Street Fighter movie incarnations as reminiscent to varying degrees of the games I've spent years playing, not a single one of them follows the storylines laid out throughout the series.
Some iterations portray certain aspects but fail on others. The Movie featured themes somewhat related to the actual Street Fighter II game, but the many of the characters were completely unrecognizable from their video game counterparts. Alpha did the opposite, with a fairly accurate portrayal of it's cast but a peculiar storyline unrelated to anything in the Street Fighter universe.
Generations and II V missed the mark almost completely. The main characters (Ken, Ryu, Sakura and Akuma/Gouki in Generations and Ken, Ryu and Chun Li in II V) weren't too far off base, but the plots and most of the other Street Fighter characters were far removed from SF canon. Merely changing some names would've left anime that didn't resemble anything remotely Street Fighter.
There is an American Street Fighter cartoon that, if I recall, takes place after Street Fighter the Movie. Despite that, the characters and the series itself are supposed to be closer to their original forms. I have yet to see it, but all indicators are that it takes several liberties of it's own (and it would have to, if it's based on the Movie's plot).
That leaves Street Fighter II: the Animated Movie. Sometimes mistaken as a sequel to the live-action movie, it's a completely unrelated adaption of the same game as the movie (Street Fighter II). This is the closest they've gotten to successfully putting the game on the big screen, with fairly accurate character depictions and a plot somewhat reminiscent of the game of the same name. It's close in many respects, and certainly more true to it's inspiration than most, but not without taking liberties of it's own.
Street Fighter isn't even the only victim. The Resident Evil movies have little to do with their electronic counterparts. The Mario Brothers movie is some peculiar mix of inspiration from the classic game and an odd, distinctly American Hollywood approach. And just about any game movie Uwe Boll touches becomes something almost unrecognizable (and pretty awful as far as any film goes).
Is it really that hard to translate these storylines into moving pictures? All I want is licensed properties that stay true to it's source material; why would I want one that didn't? I want my Street Fighter to be Street Fighter: is that really too much to ask?
Addendum: A friend just reminded me there's another live action Street Fighter movie dropping soon by the name of "The Legend of Chun Li." Here's hopin' my wish will be granted... but my breath is not being withheld.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skill - Rant/Spoilers
"The Temple of Doom" is thrilled to no longer have to worry about being mentioned alongside the phrase "weakest movie in the series." Despite my excitement of a new Indy movie, I admittedly approached it with a bit of trepidation. The wait for the DVD to hit Cuban shores was painful, but when it was finally in my hands it took a few days to summon the courage to pop it in.
I knew I was about to be treated to more of Lucas' overarching storyline when the first scene from the Crystal Skull took place inside the warehouse from the last scene of Raiders: the vault with all the government's curiosities, like the Lost Ark. Turns out the place is - straight from the barrel of old cliches - Area 51, marking a bit of a disappointment. The mystery of the warehouse's location was part of it's intrigue; now it seems just a little blasé.
During the action that ensures, one of the crates is broken open, partially revealing what is clearly the Ark of the Covenant. It was sort of a cute reference all things considered, but it still harkened to the unnecessary connection to Raiders the warehouse stood for.
Surprisingly, a little further into the movie Indy referred to some of his excursions with Ponco Villa, as shown in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Up to this point I had thought the Chronicles had been more or less dismissed from Indiana Jones canon. I honestly don't mind well-placed references, when they flow naturally and aren't just examples of trying too hard to connect everything - it certainly felt less forced than the earlier Raiders references.
Skipping further ahead, it turns out Indy and Marian had an extramarital affair. Call me old-school, but part of the earlier movies charm was it's innocence; it never needed to go there to make it's point. Whereas other action-adventure movies, like the Bond series, slap you in the face with innuendo, the Jones movies were much more subtle. The good guys were good guys and didn't fool around, and while there was some blood and guts from time to time, it was always the bad guys who got it.
And while the whole storyline with "Mutt" wasn't horrible, it just seemed too much like a forced passing of the torch.
As for the actual plotline? The movie is fairly exciting and keeps moving, but it suffers from being focused a little too much on the action. It gets even sillier towards the end, when (Spoilers! You've been warned!) it turns out the crystal skull has alien origins. And yes, we actually see the aliens in the waning minutes of the show. Seriously: aliens. They rejected Indy script after script and settled on one that revolves around aliens?
Don't get me wrong, it's not horrible. It's fun and occasionally intriguing, it just doesn't match it's predecessors. It's certainly worth a watch for fans of the original, it's just always a bummer to end things on a low note (unless they decide they want to push out a fifth!).
Indy IV really just seems like typical Lucas fair: some good ideas, but highly unnecessary. Whereas reviving a series is sometimes necessary to deliver a proper finale and farewell (as in the case of Rocky Balboa), the original Indiana Jones trilogy had done everything that needed to be done, wrapping it all up with a nice little bow. Even with my unyielding adoration for the original movies, IV is unfortunately more Indy just for the sake of more Indy. Indiana Jones already had his Last Crusade, and the Crystal Skull is just a little empty.
I knew I was about to be treated to more of Lucas' overarching storyline when the first scene from the Crystal Skull took place inside the warehouse from the last scene of Raiders: the vault with all the government's curiosities, like the Lost Ark. Turns out the place is - straight from the barrel of old cliches - Area 51, marking a bit of a disappointment. The mystery of the warehouse's location was part of it's intrigue; now it seems just a little blasé.
During the action that ensures, one of the crates is broken open, partially revealing what is clearly the Ark of the Covenant. It was sort of a cute reference all things considered, but it still harkened to the unnecessary connection to Raiders the warehouse stood for.
Surprisingly, a little further into the movie Indy referred to some of his excursions with Ponco Villa, as shown in the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. Up to this point I had thought the Chronicles had been more or less dismissed from Indiana Jones canon. I honestly don't mind well-placed references, when they flow naturally and aren't just examples of trying too hard to connect everything - it certainly felt less forced than the earlier Raiders references.
Skipping further ahead, it turns out Indy and Marian had an extramarital affair. Call me old-school, but part of the earlier movies charm was it's innocence; it never needed to go there to make it's point. Whereas other action-adventure movies, like the Bond series, slap you in the face with innuendo, the Jones movies were much more subtle. The good guys were good guys and didn't fool around, and while there was some blood and guts from time to time, it was always the bad guys who got it.
And while the whole storyline with "Mutt" wasn't horrible, it just seemed too much like a forced passing of the torch.
As for the actual plotline? The movie is fairly exciting and keeps moving, but it suffers from being focused a little too much on the action. It gets even sillier towards the end, when (Spoilers! You've been warned!) it turns out the crystal skull has alien origins. And yes, we actually see the aliens in the waning minutes of the show. Seriously: aliens. They rejected Indy script after script and settled on one that revolves around aliens?
Don't get me wrong, it's not horrible. It's fun and occasionally intriguing, it just doesn't match it's predecessors. It's certainly worth a watch for fans of the original, it's just always a bummer to end things on a low note (unless they decide they want to push out a fifth!).
Indy IV really just seems like typical Lucas fair: some good ideas, but highly unnecessary. Whereas reviving a series is sometimes necessary to deliver a proper finale and farewell (as in the case of Rocky Balboa), the original Indiana Jones trilogy had done everything that needed to be done, wrapping it all up with a nice little bow. Even with my unyielding adoration for the original movies, IV is unfortunately more Indy just for the sake of more Indy. Indiana Jones already had his Last Crusade, and the Crystal Skull is just a little empty.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Rethinking the Legend of Drunken Master
I originally saw The Legend of Drunken Master (Drunken Master II) in high school, and it may have even been the first time I saw a first run movie in the theatres. I had heard for years how amazing it was, the pinnacle of Chan's career. Naturally, when it finally made it's American debut, it was with rapt anticipation that I forked over the dough for an over priced movie ticket just to see it.
I was a little let down. I had seen so many Chan flicks by that time and heard so much praised being lavished on the film from other JC afficionados that I approached the movie with such a reverence that I think the only result could have been disappointed. I enjoyed it well enough, but in my mind it was just another halfway decent kung fu flick.Having recently watched it in it's entirety in the first time in years, I'm much more impressed this time around. With a mind freed from all the hype and a little less expectant, I found I thoroughly enjoyed the flick, enough so that it may have climbed drastically up my list of favorite Jackie movie.
The Legend of Drunken Master is something of an homage to early kung fu entries, which I hadn't appreciated the first time around. While newer martial arts entries tend to be over the top special effects fests that almost seem to deviate or even shun what originally made the genre (including "tributes" like Kill Bill), Chan's tribute reveles in it's source material. The plot, the sets, and the music all adds to the feel of a vintage chop socky movie, with Jackie showing just how much you can do within the confines of the genre.
There's some wiring used for the occassional spectacular fall, but the actual fighting is vintage Chan: impressive, real deal physical feats combined with that light-hearted humor that Drunken Master's 1970s ancestors were so fond of. In that regard, this may indeed be Chan at his best, at least in terms of amazing, traditional kung-fu action.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The Return of VALIANT Comics
(Or, "I timed that right!")
It's with some irony that I decided to pull out my tiny collection of VALIANT comics somewhere towards the end of '06, mostly due to a wave of nostalgia and genuine curiosity as to their quality. I remembered the comics fondly, having purchased a bunch in three-for-a-dollar packs at a local dollar store, but I also knew my original indulgence was through a young teenage mind. Surprised by the strength of the storytelling and the art, and admittedly that nostalgia, I decided to hit the streets in search. After invading mostly the bargain bins of some local comic shops, my collection grew notably, and I found myself trowling about VALIANT forums.
Of course, VALIANT hadn't had a new comic release since 2000. Rising up to rival DC and Marvel around '93 and '94, a string of bad business decisions combined with sheer bad luck (the comics industry hit hard times in the mid-90s). Acclaim, one of the most notoriously awful video game companies, took over VALIANT around '95 and went on to surgically remove the heart and soul of VALIANT comics, the slightly more scientific basis, the down to earth characters, the strong plots that connected the entire universe, and rebooted their comics line with mostly watered-down variations of their heroes that tried too hard to be hip and funny.
And then, within half a year or so, a new company called VALIANT Entertainment secured the rights and promised new releases. Two hardcovers later, reprinting the first several issues of Harbinger and X-O Manowar, and less than a year and a half after returning to the fandom, a Harbinger movie backed by Paramount is announced, with a third hardcover based on Archer & Armstrong revealing itself shortly after.
Sort of funny how that works out. My little collection lay dormant for probably close to ten years before pounce on it, probably tripling it's size, and shortly afterward the comics line makes it's triumphant return. Purely coincidental (no insider information here!), but it worked out rather well!
It's with some irony that I decided to pull out my tiny collection of VALIANT comics somewhere towards the end of '06, mostly due to a wave of nostalgia and genuine curiosity as to their quality. I remembered the comics fondly, having purchased a bunch in three-for-a-dollar packs at a local dollar store, but I also knew my original indulgence was through a young teenage mind. Surprised by the strength of the storytelling and the art, and admittedly that nostalgia, I decided to hit the streets in search. After invading mostly the bargain bins of some local comic shops, my collection grew notably, and I found myself trowling about VALIANT forums.
Of course, VALIANT hadn't had a new comic release since 2000. Rising up to rival DC and Marvel around '93 and '94, a string of bad business decisions combined with sheer bad luck (the comics industry hit hard times in the mid-90s). Acclaim, one of the most notoriously awful video game companies, took over VALIANT around '95 and went on to surgically remove the heart and soul of VALIANT comics, the slightly more scientific basis, the down to earth characters, the strong plots that connected the entire universe, and rebooted their comics line with mostly watered-down variations of their heroes that tried too hard to be hip and funny.
And then, within half a year or so, a new company called VALIANT Entertainment secured the rights and promised new releases. Two hardcovers later, reprinting the first several issues of Harbinger and X-O Manowar, and less than a year and a half after returning to the fandom, a Harbinger movie backed by Paramount is announced, with a third hardcover based on Archer & Armstrong revealing itself shortly after.
Sort of funny how that works out. My little collection lay dormant for probably close to ten years before pounce on it, probably tripling it's size, and shortly afterward the comics line makes it's triumphant return. Purely coincidental (no insider information here!), but it worked out rather well!
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Street Fighter IV: Americans Unsurprisingly Love Abel
Americans prefer new SFIV character Abel over the others.
You'd think this was some kind of shock: Street Fighter fans like their Street Fighter cast to look like Street Fighter characters! This sort of thing always boggles my mind. So many Japanese companies decide they need to make their games "American" to sell, when it's the original feel of the game that attracts people in the first place! Street Fighter II wasn't a huge hit because it was Americanized, it was a huge hit because it was a great game, no Americanization necessary.
Time and again we see this happen. Games like Disgaea, a fantastic series of entertaining, deep strategy games, got overlooked for a US release until Atlus decided to "take a chance" on it. The game became so rare that it was selling for more than it's original price when it disappeared from shelves and other American companies swooped in to snap up other, similar titles from the same developer that were previously overlooked as being unmarketable to US audiences. The games we so successful that the developer shortly opened an American branch so they could cash in on distributing their own releases!
That's not the only instance of such a thing happening. With the success of the wacky Guilty Gear, numerous over the top fighting games, again previously overlooked, are garnering North American releases. Schmups - "shoot 'em ups," long regarded as catering only to a tiny niche audience - are starting to reemerge through console releases and online downloads. More and more obscure (to us, at least) Japanese titles are being picked up, ranging from the long-running Fire Pro Wrestling series, the quirky kissing-based Chulips, and numerous role-playing games, from Magna Carta on down.
So why does Capcom feel it necessary to tailor a character to the American audience, and why are they so surprised when gamers pass on the almost patronizing result for a fighter more akin to what you'd see in Street Fighter?
You'd think this was some kind of shock: Street Fighter fans like their Street Fighter cast to look like Street Fighter characters! This sort of thing always boggles my mind. So many Japanese companies decide they need to make their games "American" to sell, when it's the original feel of the game that attracts people in the first place! Street Fighter II wasn't a huge hit because it was Americanized, it was a huge hit because it was a great game, no Americanization necessary.
Time and again we see this happen. Games like Disgaea, a fantastic series of entertaining, deep strategy games, got overlooked for a US release until Atlus decided to "take a chance" on it. The game became so rare that it was selling for more than it's original price when it disappeared from shelves and other American companies swooped in to snap up other, similar titles from the same developer that were previously overlooked as being unmarketable to US audiences. The games we so successful that the developer shortly opened an American branch so they could cash in on distributing their own releases!
That's not the only instance of such a thing happening. With the success of the wacky Guilty Gear, numerous over the top fighting games, again previously overlooked, are garnering North American releases. Schmups - "shoot 'em ups," long regarded as catering only to a tiny niche audience - are starting to reemerge through console releases and online downloads. More and more obscure (to us, at least) Japanese titles are being picked up, ranging from the long-running Fire Pro Wrestling series, the quirky kissing-based Chulips, and numerous role-playing games, from Magna Carta on down.
So why does Capcom feel it necessary to tailor a character to the American audience, and why are they so surprised when gamers pass on the almost patronizing result for a fighter more akin to what you'd see in Street Fighter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
