MGM reconsidering practice of adapting all movies into games
This is amazing!
"Hollywood MGM/UA executives are reconsidering a company policy of adapting all movies into video games after a disastrous reception to Hotel Rwanda. Critics, parents groups, and the African Union have all condemned the game based on the fictionalized story of a real man who rescued hundreds of refugees during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. MGM executives countered that the game, which lets players assume the role of Paul Rusesabagina, leading hundreds of Tutsis from threats of slaughter, or the leader of the Interahamwe militia committing the genocide, is historically accurate, educational, and features a kick-ass new graphics engine.
In a bid to become the most technologically advanced of all Hollywood studios, MGM in 2001 adopted a policy of adapting all movies into games, which has resulted in a number of hits such as James Bond: Die Another Day, Agent Cody Banks, and the surprise hit De-Lovely. But few executives at the company thought about the repercussions when MGMs interactive division began developing a Hotel Rwanda game last year, per company policy.
We certainly agree that the policy should be more flexible and should include consultation with affected parties, such as families of the Rwandan genocide victims, in the future, said MGM VP of interactive content Aaron Sanderson. But despite the controversy, I believe this is a thoughtful, historically accurate film. And the graphics are so cool. It looks like you're really in Rwanda.”
Several actors from the film who lent their voice talents to the game, including Don Cheadle, Nick Nolte, and Sophie Okonedo, are now distancing themselves from the game, saying they didnt realize they were getting involved in a potentially inappropriate spin-off.
I thought I was recording dialogue for a Saturday morning cartoon series, explained Cheadle. I had no idea it was for a video game. I would never get involved with something so tasteless.
With nearly uniform bad reviews (save for a rave from the Mobile Telegraph), MGM is now pulling copies of the Xbox and Playstation 2 game from shelves and plans to donate it to orphanages in Rwanda to fulfill a commitment the studio made to give $4 million in cash or gifts to Rwandan charities along with the films release."
of critical importance:
-- they really have a blanket policy of adapting all movies into games?
-- "few executives thought of the repercusions" of making a game based on the genocide, really?
-- "But despite the controversy, I believe this is a thoughtful, historically accurate film. And the graphics are so cool. It looks like you're really in Rwanda."
-- "... actors... are now distancing themselves from the game, saying they didn't realize they were getting involved in a potentially inappropriate spin-off.... I would never get involved with something so tasteless..." they didn't know?
-- "MGM is now pulling copies of the Xbox and Playstation 2 game from shelves and plans to donate it to orphanages in Rwanda to fulfill a commitment the studio made to give $4 million in cash or gifts to Rwandan charities along with the film's release." THIS JUST PISSES ME OFF -- TALK ABOUT TASTELESS! They're going to donate video games (are they also donating the game boxes?) about their country's genocide to orphans of it in order to fulfill their monetary obligations for having borrowed/stolen their stories?! i've been looking online for it, seems like it's no more. i would really, really, like a copy.
Comments
Yes, the jaw dropper is that they are donating the games to Rwandan charities: It's not the ownership of their stories - it could be argued that victims can benefit from their story being told - it's what sort of benefit they get from this version of their story. They don't need to role play their history; they suffered it.
If, however, pulling the game causes demand to rise - maybe the Rwandan charities can turn around and scalp them on eBay! How high a price would you pay for one?
Seriously, this begs the question of defining "games." I haven't seen the product, but I don't believe that "serious" or "documentary" or "historicial" content will or should be forever excluded from interactive media. They probably shouldn't have called it a "game" but, had they considered the subject matter, or at least the fallout, might have been able to plan a properly respectful Hotel Rwanda "documentary" experience and reaped the praise for it. This is still a wide open field.
Posted by: pweil | February 24, 2005 9:49 AM
Uh, I got news for you guys. There's no such game. At all. The Xbox boxcover graphic is a pretty lame Photoshop. The "T" ESRB rating on there is WAY too big. It's also in blue (ESRB is very big on using the correct format of graphic, which is in black, when putting their rating on a product). There's also no publisher logo or developer logo on the cover. And the Xbox logo at the top is squeezed in too tightly. I guess this is an April Fool's joke about 1 month early.
The other reason I say this is fake is because there's no mention of it on any video game news site. Also, a release of that magnitude would've been covered in excess. Whoever wrote that story for Dateline Hollywood is a complete and utter moron for not even ATTEMPTING to do research on his/her story. Even the National Enquirer is more believable than this! I thought for a second that I was reading a quote from The Onion. The part about the graphics made me laugh and it's very much in the Onion's matter-of-factly sarcastic style. :P
Sorry Susana, this isn't saying anything bad about you. You probably don't know much about the gaming press and wouldn't have known the voracity of the story that you quoted from.
Anyhow, a Hotel Rwanda game would be an awesome thing if it were true. I could already think of ways of causing the player to have a deeper understanding of the story by making the player responsible for keeping those refugees alive. And not in the classic "game" sense. It would be moreso of a set of decisions and actions that determine the fate of those people.
Posted by: Josh | February 24, 2005 10:49 AM
On further evaluation of the website, all of those articles are fake. I think it's the Hollywood version of The Onion. Same style of comedy and all. Really funny stuff. :)
Posted by: Josh | February 24, 2005 10:56 AM
And that's "veractiy" not voracity. My bad!
Posted by: Josh | February 24, 2005 10:59 AM
Thanks Josh -- I admit, I fell for it without looking at Susana's link to the site. If you read "About Us" they as much as admit it.
In any case, it sparked a good discussion. YOu may have been referring to the voracity of our appetites for news that makes Hollywood look crass, but I believe the word you wanted was VERACITY.
Posted by: pweil | February 24, 2005 7:09 PM
i've been had. funny someone would do that though - mock the gaming industry in that way. it played right into my deepest fears of a powerful medium used exploitatively and thoughtlessly. it certainly helped, like you say Peggy -- it redirected and refocused passion. thank you Josh.
Posted by: susana | February 24, 2005 10:19 PM
It's not terribly powerful at the moment. But it will be. Sooner rather than later I hope. :)
Posted by: Josh | February 26, 2005 12:26 AM
I want a list of all movies made by mgm/ua
Posted by: gloria ryan Njoku | May 17, 2005 1:36 PM
They are always like that.
Posted by: Sanderson real estate | August 28, 2005 8:37 AM