I agree with pretty much all your points, but I have to say that adaptations of video games are not only annoying but resolutely DO NOT make sense, as narrative is purely incidental to the video game art form-- something to give the game context, perhaps provide a little window dressing, but nothing more. Adapting a video game because of its narrative would be like adapting the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because of its narrative: concentrating on the "story" misses the whole point of the paintings and misses the whole point of whatever video game is being adapted.

In fact, I think video games are *especially* ill-suited for this kind of adaptation because unlike every other art form it does not require a passive audience but an active one. Its main defining features are player autonomy, player choice, and systemic cohesion-- none of which can really be exercised in the cinema, which requires a passive (if involved and passionate) audience.

Peter Watkins talks a lot about how he attempts in his films to involve the audience in the process, to break down the "hierarchal" relationship between author and viewer. I actually wrote him about a year ago suggesting he look into the video game art form, as I think they'd be a good match-- here's a genius filmmaker who wants to break down the barriers between the filmmaker and the audience and here's an art form that thrives on two authors (designer and player) and is in need of a serious and iconoclastic creator; he agreed with my point about the potential of it* but said something to the effect that he imagines it'd have a steep learning curve, to say the least. (Which can be true.)

[*-- The important word here, of course, is potential. As a gamer, I play all sorts of games-- shooters, action games, RPGs, strategy, pretty much everything but sports-- and am happy to do so but as someone who cares about the art form, I feel a sadness at knowing that the art form's potential is not even close to being reached, that no game has created deeper and more complex meanings through the language of its own art form-- the thing that EVERY OTHER ART FORM can do and has done.]

Video game adaptations, and game adaptations in general (even if I'm oddly looking forward to Ridley Scott's Monopoly in the hopes that he might provide some trenchant-if-family-friendly commentary on those responsible for our current economic climate) are always doomed to fail because the thing that makes them different, entertaining, and engrossing-- the experience of playing the damn thing-- can never be translated to film.

How does Monopoly become a movie, could someone explain? Dueling real estate titans holding the world's capital in their grip, I mean what?

LOL! That's hilarious! I vote for 'Punk Rock Clue' with the ghost of Joey Ramone, in CBGB’s with the mike stand! wait, first maybe I should make that board game...anyone wanna help?

The real question is who will play the thimble and the top hat in the Monopoly film. Might I suggest Gerard Depardieu as the latter, and perhaps accomplished thespian William H Macy to add some Mamet-esque cadence to the former role.

Rosie O'Donnell could star in an adaptation of Hungry Hungry Hippos...

As bad as all this is, I can't totally blame the studios. They're simply doing what they've always done: churning out whatever they think people will pay to see. The blame lies with moviegoers who continue to go see crap like this because they don't want to seek out more alternative forms of cinema. And they're perfectly entitled to do so if that's how they want to spend their hard earned money. But if you voluntarily pay to see Monopoly The Movie you relinquish all rights to complain about the quality of movie Hollywood puts out.

Well, it's no surprise... they've already milked video games (and still are), so why not board games too? And when that well starts to dry up, what next? Real-life games like Tag? Pin The Tail On The Donkey? Musical Chairs?

And will people pay to see them? Of course!

As a screenwriter who bangs his head against the table almost nightly after working hard on original specs only to hear stories like these, that studios are gobbling up franchises of all sorts and shying away from anything original, I can only shake my head and sigh at this point. But I really did think "Ridley Scott's Monopoly" was just a wry joke on your part, Aaron, had to look it up to confirm. And Candyland? I mean, these are franchises with no actual character attachment or depth of any kind. On the one hand, that means writers/directors are free to go off and do as they please, so some creativity will still be required, but on the other hand... what on earth is the point?

Right now the only board game I can think of adapting is SORRY because that's how I feel about the whole lot of these projects.

cp

narrative is purely incidental to the video game art form

That sounds like a man who's never played BIOSHOCK. In fact, the major narrative twist is so strongly linked to the form there that I don't know how the movie adaptation will survive, and the narrative in general is more interesting than most studio films of the past few years that come to mind.

Admittedly, that's an exception to the rule, but as somebody who dismissed videogames for 15 years for reasons like yours, the fact that there are exceptions now is significant.

Having said that, I can't look forward to most adaptations, which I believe only exist because most studios are controlled at their highest levels by corporations who don't understand or care about film, but don't need to be sold on "leveraging an existing brand across platforms to synergize marketing opportunities".

The good news (or silver lining, perhaps more accurately) is that this may be an interesting chance for termite art to sneak in. Call me crazy, but in the right hands, the CANDY LAND movie could be a subversive, beautiful thing.

BTW/ That picture to the right of Natalie Wood is giving me...

I have heard the praises of Bioshock but I do not as of this moment have the machinery to play it. I am willing to admit that the potential is there, and perhaps that a few games have reached (or started to reach) that potential, but that I personally haven't seen it _just_ yet.

I will note to clarify that I would never ever ever dismiss video games as an art form (though I consider them to be an essentially non-narrative one, like music and some film), and in fact I have written about them quite extensively, positively, and passionately over the course of the last year. (plug)You can download all five issues of Russell's Quarterly, The Free Online Magazine of Video Game Design, over at eliteindie.com though I would recommend starting with 3, 4, or 5 as 1 & 2 are a little too messy in retrospect.(/plug)

There's a difference between stories and experiences. Movies have stories. Games offer experiences. A story is something one person tells to another. An experience is shared.

Bob and Dave predicted the future:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NZvQzeDg28