The question is, how different are
they, really? Couldn't one work as another?
Well, let's examine that. Because,
doubtless, there are stories out there-- simple ones-- where you
could easily have things almost exactly identical as you go from book
to movie, from movie to game. But not all.
The book's opening was very focused on
senses. A boy hiding in the bushes; a girl talking to her father.
Sight. Sound. Holes in shoes and facial expressions. A movie could
probably do everything in there, except, possibly, for going into
Mike's head and seeing how nervous he is. It wouldn't be as
effective, though, because with the differing camera angles it would
be hard to know which of these three characters is supposed to be the
main one. A game could do everything the book did, except in a game,
there's not enough action. The gamer would be watching all this
occur, likely squirming in their seat, bored and waiting for
something to happen. Gamers don't want to be spoon-fed this stuff.
They want to discover it on their own.
In short, a book is able to show the
reader exactly what they should notice, even going into characters'
heads, in order to advance the plot. However, it is incapable of
painting broad brushstrokes of interaction, and offers limited-- if
any-- sense of choice.
The movie's opening deliberately
painted a picture of town and life. Here's the boy's family; here's
the garage, with a microwave and robot, and parents talking
unconcerned. Here's a boy and a girl playing. Here's a shot of a
spooky house. This would be ludicrous as a book. Can you imagine
opening a book that's supposed to be about a kidnapping and reading
all about a blue sky and a peaceful town, then reading about
someones parents, and then
reading about the actual character you want? I'd close the book on
the first page. As a game, starting with an overview of the town
might work, but the
parents are minor characters at best. In a movie, showing that serves
to establish character, but in a game, the first thing I want-- the
first thing most people want-- is to know who
the main character is and to control
that character, in whatever form. This opening, going through a
scripted game of catch only after featuring the town, the parents,
and the scenery, doesn't do it.
A
movie can use a single image in a single brushstroke to give major
impressions of every aspect of the plot, but is limited in that it
can only use images
and sound to portray these things. It is incapable of taking a viewer
into a character's thought process, and offers no sense of choice.
The
game's opening features a strong emphasis on character interaction.
At every stage, Lucy is asking Mike a question, and every point of
the scene involves their interactions. More to the point, each and
every choice you-the-player make is because of Lucy, and that alters
both the outcome of each event and, likely, the information gained
about Lucy. A novel could take a similar tact, but would be forced to
go into the character's head, rather than let the interactions stand
on its own. A movie could also do a similar scene, but would leave
the viewer with an inaccurate picture of the town. Both other mediums
would have to either decide
which of the different events they'd show at each choice, or do a
brief, detached
summary of what else could/would happen.
A
game gives the player a sense of importance, in that their actions
and decisions will alter the plot, and by doing this greatly
increases their attachment to characters and places, but is limited
in that it cannot simply jump around. A game is greatly tied to its
main characters, and cannot simply show the scenery, as a movie does,
or go into detail about things unrelated to the characters that may
be important, like a book.
Each of these mediums could tell this story, and this story would
have the same characters, the same overall plot, and even the same
ending, but they would have drastically different approaches through
necessity. If any of these tried to tie itself to another, as many
book and movie adaptations must do, it would strangle itself. A
book's natural introspection falls flat in a movie or game. A movie's
broad sweeps of setting are dull in books and games. And a game's
sense of choice cannot be replicated in a movie or book.
There are stories that work well in two or three mediums, when done
correctly. However, there are also-- by design-- stories that cannot
be effectively replicated in other mediums. This is readily apparent
by the number of books we love with movies we hate.
But it also applies to games, which isn't really thought about. Games
are still seen largely as either 'educational', 'childish', or
'violent' with little in-between. However, that very element of
choice is key in the best stories it tells... because it makes the
player's interaction key in telling that story.
Next week, I'll go into detail about one game with a plot that I
believe can't be changed into a book or a movie.
What's one movie-to-book you've hated? What's one book-to-movie? Are
there any books or movies you think wouldn't work in the other
medium? How about games? Why?
Happy Writing,
-Alaina
No comments:
Post a Comment