Nintendo Interested in Altering Film Adaptation Format

Nintendo Interested in Altering Film Adaptation Format

Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword official art

If a Legend of Zelda film were produced, Nintendo says it would have to make it interactive.

Videogame to film adaptations and film to videogame adaptations lose something from the original medium. Discussing the possibility of a Legend of Zelda film, Zelda producer Eiji Aonuma and Shigeru Miyamoto decided it would not be a traditional film.

Speaking with Kotaku, Aonuma said, "If I were to make a Zelda title, if we had interest in doing that, I think really what would be most important to us is to be able to play with the format of a movie, make it more interactive, like you're able to take your 3DS into the theater and that leads you into participating in it somehow. We wouldn't want to make it the same as any other movie. We want to somehow change what a movie is."

How this would work is up in the air, and while Nintendo has considered ideas for a Legend of Zelda film adaptation, the company has not committed to it. Movies and videogames are inherently different in that there are certain things you can do in games, such as multiple endings depending on what actions you take, that do not work in a traditional narrative arc for a film. As Zelda games have traditionally had one predominant narrative arc in each game, a film adaptation could certainly work, but interactivity would need to have some impact on the film without it seeming gimmicky.

Nintendo has shown the company is not afraid of experimenting. It will be interesting to see how the videogame and film industries evolve as visual media in the future.

Source: Kotaku

Permalink

OK, they've completely lost their marbles. This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. They basically want to make a game that you can play in a fuckin' theater.

So what about the people who go to see the movie without a 3DS? Wouldn't that mean you miss a part of the movie?

And what if nobody with a 3DS went to a particular screening? Would the film be stuck at certain point because it needs at least one person to do something in order for it to continue on?

Adam Jensen:
OK, they've completely lost their marbles. This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. They basically want to make a game that you can play in a fuckin' theater.

No, what you said is an awesome idea, but sadly booking a whole theater to yourself to hook the projector up to your console/laptop/computer would be quite expensive ;P

OT: Yes, this sounds utterly retarded. I can't sadly find a scene from Futurama on YouTube where they go to an interactive movie (if you want Calculon to go save the day, press 1; if you want Calculon to stay and finish his paperwork, press 2). More seriously, you just can't have an interactive movie in a theater, you'd have a possibility of 300 people controlling what's on screen, which is ridiculous. Not that the prospect of making a movie interactive is any less so in the first place.

Interactive movies like this have been tried, and failed. Repeatedly. You'd be better off working with Telltale and making a point-and-click adventure; you'd get a story focus and SOME interactivity, and it would be a thousand times better than this.

Why have the screening in a movie theatre?

A better idea would be a WiiU game but instead of animation it would be live action with various actions you could alter, like one of those old 'choose your path adventure' game books.

Nintendo really is the Willy Wonka of the video game world. When Wonka sees something he asks "Can I turn it into candy?", and when Nintendo sees something they ask "Can I turn it into a video game?".

But I don't understand why they feel the need to limit their scope and handle everything themselves. When Yamauchi wanted to expand his company he took a huge chance and hired Miyamoto and Yokoi to make video games, which Yamauchi neither fully understood nor enjoyed. The market was practically dead and it was a huge gamble, but it payed off for everyone.

The Nintendo of today could certainly afford to expand into making their own movies, animation, and toys. They could build an empire to rival Disney, but they don't even want to experiment in other markets. Certainly they've failed in those areas in the past, but the lessons they learned from those mistakes are invaluable.

I'm 100% certain there's a young filmmaker out there who grew up with Nintendo products and would make a kickass Zelda film that Nintendo could be proud of, but they'd rather devote all their resources to putting Mario in a cat suit. I just don't understand their trepidation.

Damnit Nintendo stop moving us away from the TVs. It was bad enough with the WiiU and the "take the game to another room if someone wants to use the TV" but now throwing us out the house completely to the cinema!? WHERE WILL IT END!?

OT though, I can kind of see what he's saying, and it's stupid. An interactive movie is... well it's just a game with all the gameplay stripped out? Pretty sure Hideo Kojima beat them to it.

This is as close as we'll get to a live action Zelda

That or Legend :P

Thats a hairbrained idea, but i don't deny that SOMETHING should be different to expect to roll zelda into a 90 minute hollywood epic

Wow, Nintendo really loves their gimmicks, don't they? Interactive movies, oh boy. Still, thinking about Zelda, I don't really see a good way for it to be adapted into a film, so ultimately I just hope they never try.

/spit Just what filmgoers need. A stupid marketing pitch that ENCOURAGES kids to f__k around with their handheld, backlit electronic devices inside the theater. Yay.

I can get behind Nintendo on lots of things, but not this. We don't need an interactive Zelda movie, please stick to the games Nintendo, that is what you are good at.

I think the important part was missed. They would do it IF it could work, not that they would actually do it. While Zelda is by far the IP with the most movie potential, I couldn't imagine how they would make an actual movie out of it without making it cliche as all hell, which is something they are definitely trying to avoid.

This is retarded, why would you even want a Legend of Zelda movie? Their stories simply would be awful in a movie. Hell, their not even very good stories to begin with. The only time you should even think about making an adaption show or movie is if the story was already exceptional, and worth it on its own. Kinda like Persona 4 The Animation, which is an alright anime (past the first few episodes) because Persona 4 had a fantastic story. Also because as they got more into it they learned how to change a scene to work better in anime form instead of game form. The anime is actually a fantastic example of both how not to do an adaption of a videogame and how to do one. Early on it tries to be too similar to the original content, and is dry and boring. Later on its got the same story, but is so highly different but in a way that works far better in the new medium then the original version.

Nicolaus99:
/spit Just what filmgoers need. A stupid marketing pitch that ENCOURAGES kids to f__k around with their handheld, backlit electronic devices inside the theater. Yay.

It could be worse, it could be...

ON TOPIC:
Legend of Zelda movie? No.
An ongoing mini-series? That makes more sense, though I somehow doubt anyone could find a way of adopting the scenarios into a format that makes for an interesting film.
Games are...well, games. Not movies...Which is why I shake my head and sigh every time a game series tries to become more and more "cinematic".

There is nothing more annoying than sitting in a dark movie theater trying to enjoy a movie, then some bitch who got bored turns on her super bright cell phone in front of you and starts texting during the movie. NO... No 3DS in movie theaters.

Eh, look, the idea of bringing interactivity to a movie is just as flawed a concept as taking it out of games. I really don't think there's a magic bridge or missing link between the two mediums.

If Nintendo really wanted to experiment with films based on their properties, properties like Mario, Zelda, Kirby, etc. I really think the first step is short films. Here's why; There's a lot less expected of a short film, a lot less boxes that need to be checked then what a business or by-the-book film production would be expected to follow. Going back to a Zelda game adaptation, the one thing easier to do in a short film then a feature is dropping spoken narrative dialogue by the main character. Could an epic narrative be told in a scene where Link and Navi have a conversation about their journey while walking towards their next objective? It could be done. Can you do the same thing except convey everything about Link's motives and goals using emotions and actions, keeping him a silent protagonist? Yes, and in fact if done right it could be even better then having him speak, not only in a narrative sense but in the sense of making it feel more like the games. And great narratives can be told with silent characters; See Wall-E and the Cobbler from Thief and the Cobbler (Recobbled edition) for example. Hell, for a great example of this, turning a video game series into a short film with a silent protagonist, just check out the other side of the pond at what SEGA did with "Night of the Werehog."

I can see a Legend of Zelda movie featuring a voice cast for Zelda and all the side characters, talking and interacting, but Link being the silent protagonist we know him as and emoting and interacting through action, emotion, or maybe the rare about-to-say-something-but-gets-interrupted trope. It'd be a lot more powerful and feel closer to the games then if gone the traditional hollywood route. I could also see studios with the same level of passion and polish as Pixar or Studio Ghibli doing wonders with the franchise.

Also as a side note, I see it being a lot better animated than with live action. This is probably just a bias on my part, but there's a lot more that can be done in animation to emphasise action and emotion then with live action.

Wow you guys really miss the forest for the trees dont you! Interactive can mean many things and does not necessarily mean you control the outcome of the movie ala Mass Effect.

Captain Power from way back in the 90's was probably the FIRST interactive tv show. If you had the toys you could "theoretically" have them interact with the show by pointing them on the screen. I say theoretically because the tech behind it was very nascent and wouldnt work unless your color/brightness levels were just right. When it worked right you could use the vehicles which had a built in lightgun to shoot target at on the screen for a score, when the bad guys shot back in the show if you didnt "dodge" it then your action figure got ejected from its vehicle. What you did had no bearing on the episode itself though.

Interactivity could take the form of a scanable tag that your 3ds reads, it could unlock something in a tie in game or just be a link to an online knowledge base to answer questions about something. Ultimately if they were able to get it to work in the first place I doubt it would have any impact on the way the movie tells it story but be more of an ancillary thing that adds additional value.

If you could unlock a skin, equipment or an npc character in a companion game by scanning it in at the right time/scene then that would be pretty awesome. I see it kind of like that kinnect ad where the boy scans in his skateboard, if anyone could pull it off my money would be on Nintendo since they tend to try anything at least once.

That's a really hairbrained idea.

However as many people have stated, they should try to limit it to a short story. Don't bite off more than you can chew and all that.

I say, regulate it to controlled voluntary movie theaters in Japan.

My idea would be something of a choose your own adventure book in the form of a film.

I'm pretty sure many directors would love to have multiple endings for their film.

I say for those who simply want to watch the film, they can go to their theater number and watch it as is.

However for those who are looking for an interactive they can all go into a separate theater. In said space there would be a miniature booth for every individual and from there like everyone else, they can watch the movie. However during climax and pivotal points they get to choose what the character does. Which can greatly/minorly altar what will happen in the movie.

Ed130:
Why have the screening in a movie theatre?

A better idea would be a WiiU game but instead of animation it would be live action with various actions you could alter, like one of those old 'choose your path adventure' game books.

So, it would be like those full motion video games from the mid 90's? (You know, sega cd, cdi, 3do) Yeah, I don't think anyone is waiting for a zelda version of night trap..

Say what you want about nintendo, they're certainly creative and innovative.

Whether that's a good thing or not...

keniakittykat:

Ed130:
Why have the screening in a movie theatre?

A better idea would be a WiiU game but instead of animation it would be live action with various actions you could alter, like one of those old 'choose your path adventure' game books.

So, it would be like those full motion video games from the mid 90's? (You know, sega cd, cdi, 3do) Yeah, I don't think anyone is waiting for a zelda version of night trap..

Considering their 'bright DS screens in the dark theatres' idea...

saleem:
Wow you guys really miss the forest for the trees dont you! Interactive can mean many things and does not necessarily mean you control the outcome of the movie ala Mass Effect.

Captain Power from way back in the 90's was probably the FIRST interactive tv show. If you had the toys you could "theoretically" have them interact with the show by pointing them on the screen. I say theoretically because the tech behind it was very nascent and wouldnt work unless your color/brightness levels were just right. When it worked right you could use the vehicles which had a built in lightgun to shoot target at on the screen for a score, when the bad guys shot back in the show if you didnt "dodge" it then your action figure got ejected from its vehicle. What you did had no bearing on the episode itself though.

Interactivity could take the form of a scanable tag that your 3ds reads, it could unlock something in a tie in game or just be a link to an online knowledge base to answer questions about something. Ultimately if they were able to get it to work in the first place I doubt it would have any impact on the way the movie tells it story but be more of an ancillary thing that adds additional value.

If you could unlock a skin, equipment or an npc character in a companion game by scanning it in at the right time/scene then that would be pretty awesome. I see it kind of like that kinnect ad where the boy scans in his skateboard, if anyone could pull it off my money would be on Nintendo since they tend to try anything at least once.

I don't think anyone is missing anything, particularly considering every example you just gave of potential interactivity with a movie is utterly terrible.

If you're trying to interact with a movie, then you're not watching the movie. Now this means that either interactive elements were put in over top of the movie and distract from it, or they were added just for the sake of having interactivity and are completely unnecessary. Either way, they spoil the experience of watching a movie, especially in a theatre filled with people.

Movies aren't games. Making them interactive on any level is completely missing the point of making a movie in the first place. You want interactivity, play a game. Movies are a passive experience, and are best left a passive experience. As soon as you try to get away with that, you're getting in the way of the movies ability to tell a story.

Guitarmasterx7:
Say what you want about nintendo, they're certainly creative and innovative.

Whether that's a good thing or not...

They're not even that in this case since interactivity in movies and TV (and other mediums to be honest) has been done before and there's a very good reason you don't see it much anymore.

Well, two very good reasons. The first is adding interactivity to media that's not interactive by definition is stupid. The second is that video games are a thing that exists now and they do a lot better than interactive movies ever will.

This honestly isn't creative or innovative, it's them saying if they did do a movie they'd try to do something that has failed repeatedly in the past. It's really just a dumb statement to make, but we'll let it slide since a Zelda movie with wide theatrical release will probably never happen (another good thing if you ask me).

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here