Computer Games Vs Film.....?

Quote:

---

You saying there would be no piont in having a director in such a movie doesnt make sense to me becos you still need someone to tell the story even if the audience get a chioce what happens at key pionts.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But that's exactly my point... what story is the director telling if the audience choose what happens at those key points? What story does the director have to tell- the audience themselves are dictating the story. Does that make sense?

All the director would need to do is actually shoot loads of alternatives to everything, which raises doubts over the title; 'director'.

I also don't think it will ever be the norm, but my main point remains; there is no point in it because computer games supply you with a much more complete control and interactive experience in a fictional environment and storyline; a far deeper experience than an 'interactive movie' could. Like you said it might be entertaining, but I imagine it would be quite frustrating!

the director would still have to direct the actors, they would still have to direct the art department, they would still have to create mood and tension. i see the piont about it never being the norm, i agree with you. But the director is still directing... when Tim Burton made Planet of the Apes (sh1t film in my opionion) he filmed multiple endings and its only after audience research that they picked which one to use. Just becos he directed those different endings doesnt mean he in any way stopped being a director

Yeah you're right, he didn't stop being the director, but (if that is true)I think it makes him sound a very weak director.

My point wasn't that in an interactive movie the director is no longer the director; I said it raises doubts over the actual title itself- meaning the director is not actually directing the storyline from it's beginning to its end- which is what he/she is supposed to do. Of course they're still shouting action and cut- but the interactivity element takes away their biggest responsibility- to tell a story.

Let guys like Hideo Kojima does exactly what you're talking about only with computer games- so there's my point again- 2 separate entities; film and computer games, both work well in their respective field... so why try to mix them together?

I'm not trying to change anyones mind, I actually do think that 'interactive movies' will come about some day, but it's so gimmicky because there's no real advantage in combining computer games with film.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by belovedmonster:
im not saying interactive plot lines would become the norm in the future, but i think it would be an interesting thing to both be involved with and to watch. You saying there would be no piont in having a director in such a movie doesnt make sense to me becos you still need someone to tell the story even if the audience get a chioce what happens at key pionts. Like i said, if the story was well written enough and acted good enough theres no reason why it couldnt be entertaining.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you've just describe reality television.
[img]graemlins/shhh.gif[/img]

im not saying interactive plot lines would become the norm in the future, but i think it would be an interesting thing to both be involved with and to watch. You saying there would be no piont in having a director in such a movie doesnt make sense to me becos you still need someone to tell the story even if the audience get a chioce what happens at key pionts. Like i said, if the story was well written enough and acted good enough theres no reason why it couldnt be entertaining.

it's all entertainment

my personal preference is for watching somebody's message or opinion rather than interacting for my own self gratification.

but i think there is room for any form of innovation.

i wonder why interactive music making hasn't killed off chilling to your favourite tunes?