TV Shows / movies fucking shit up

Why do TV shows and movies screw up video games or people playing video games? Is it just writers who don't know shit about games or what?
Pic unrelated obviously.

Other urls found in this thread:

allthetropes.org/wiki/Pac-Man_Fever
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Yes.

It just seems too improbable to have a writing staff where there isn't a gamer objecting to shitty representations.

It's the same reason they fuck up hacking. They have to make it look more active and actiony so it's more exciting.

But it alienates the people that are actually knowledgeable in the fields they're portraying. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Four handed hacking

Maybe the people that are indeed actually knowledge about it aren't the intended audience to begin with (IE: appeal to normalfags that don't know better)? Granted, that's not an excuse for not doing the research as to how to handle video games as that's easy enough. Best case scenario, it gets portrayed wrong on purpose for humor, such as Malcolm in the Middle did (Hal's "Nobody beats Sub-Zero" quip, as well as Dewey "playing" a Game Boy that isn't even on and then vocally complaining about how the family can't afford to spare him any batteries). The sort of things where it fits both characterization and/or the scenario and can't exactly be called not doing the research on the writer's end.

According to these games, they don't.
Medal of Honor was the brainchild of Steven Spielberg (Never made a game prior to), and Dragon's Lair was the brainchild of Don Bluth (Never made a game prior to, and on a shoestring budget). Clearly the problem isn't the mere presence of people from different fields of media.

Same reason why games are shit nowadays:
They try to appeal to normalfags, not to their core fanbase

I think you misunderstood what I meant, I was talking about the portrayal of video games/gamers on TV or in movies.

Alright, so the reverse. Well, the main problem there stems from the fact that your taking a project from an interactive medium and making it into a passive medium. With everything that happens in a video game, we unconsciously personalize everything it because of the stuff the player does (Despite how insignificant or repetitive the moment is). With films and TV, the only aspect that you can capture is how you make the audience through the sights they see and the sounds they hear. But, you cannot actually get them involved with it. In a way, you're crippling yourself from the word go to make a film directly based off of a game because you're taking away the one element that made these games special in the first place, the player interacting.
So, this has result in some film companies and writers wising up and deciding to not even bother trying to replicate that game, and, instead, just try to make a interesting film using the tools they're given. However, this then results in the paradox of "Why are you making something so different from the original product?" And, both paths end up causing a "No win" scenario no matter how you play it.

…and, now I just realized you were talking about something completely different. Alright, they reason why gamers and games are so inaccurately portrayed is because society at large still sees games as a "Nerd thing" rather than as a hobby like playing fantasy football or assembling models. However, at the same time, I don't know what "inaccuracy" you're talking about specifically (Since there's quite a few).

This isn't hard to grasp, and this is why you end up with lines like "You hold the high score in every massively multiplayer online RPG out there."

I am pretty sure these are not true anymore

I distinctly remember some show a long time ago that had a kid playing an original game boy upside down and frantically shaking it while mashing all the buttons.


Maybe, but the majority that fit that category probably only play casual-tier or mobile trash or briefly check out whatever the hip "nerds" on their favorite show talk about.

Facebook games aren't real games. You can even hold high scores in facebook mmo games, ironically making the "you hold the high score in every mmo" comment true if you are talking exclusively about facebook games.

Retard playing is fine if the context is there

I might give ground on the first point but I think my second still stands, no one watches TV anymore, not even normalfags

(checked)
those are all rather garbage video games user

Just like the majority of modern developers, the (((people))) that make TV shows don't play games, or like them even.

Pretty sure All the Tropes has an article on this
allthetropes.org/wiki/Pac-Man_Fever

Same reason people in movies take forever searching for shit in a library or looking for a landline instead of just pulling out their smartphone.
Movies need to be be a cirtain way or they just don't work. Bleepy-bloops and hi-scores are just how you portray a videogame, regardless of accuracy to the time period.

There are still plenty of boomers and they love watching tv, more than anyone else probably.

pic is funny, and oh so true

Hackers are treated as the masters of unlocking for tech based locks. They are just sci-fi equivalent to thieves as far as movies are concerned.

They're not the target audience.

Checking those wonderful digits and checking out the tits on that Ecks Vs Sever GBA boxart. Good god she's probably on the run for smuggling a pair of melons underneath that top. While the angle and lighting just makes them stand out even more. I know it's supposed to be an FPS but it looks strange that the man chasing her is reaching out his hand probably to try and cop a feel instead of holding a gun instead.

...

I'm drinking my morning coffee, let me share with you some of the headaches of film.


Writers aren't involved in production choices, although they may be on hand for rewrites. Almost anything they specify is completely subject to change on the ground.

Film crews are good at doing lots of stuff relatively quickly because they are hierarchical and organized into different departments to focus on their respective tasks. Are there people on staff who are gamers? Of course, plenty. Are these gamers in the relevant department and in charge of the decision making? Maybe not. And if something isn't your job, and telling people what to do also isn't your job, then your opinion means nothing. Imagine doing 5 things you already know are compromises from what's written in screenplay and suddenly a know-nothing PA wants to chime in about how they think it should be.

A video game mentioned in a screenplay would probably fall to the prop dept. On a real production they'd find a few options to discuss with the production designer during meetings in advance of shoot. On weekly tv shows or shit movies the union dudes who give zero fucks will provide what the prop house hands to them, case closed. Anyway what "reads" on screen is the most important and usually trumps concern of realism. This default machinery of Hollywood can get nothing "realistic," including basic human interaction. It's why they'll pay so much money to technical specialists for medical or military shows for at least a plausible sense of realism. Everything is completely false. You just noticed one detail out of many.

I don't know how licensing works for consoles and games, but everything costs money to put on screen, so using popular brands/characters could conflict with the budget. You can't show a goddamn book cover or a tattoo without getting dinged so no way games are different. If you have x thousand dollars for this set, you're not gonna spend 60% showing Cash Bandicoot for 10 seconds because a screenwriter thinks its important. Product placement is a REALLY big thing now (if you see an Apple logo apple prob either paid or gave them steep discount), so maybe you can spin a few bucks if a good producer is on it. But if you go the advertising route you're inviting that company into the decision making process. If I was a director I'd rather have a shitty low/no budget stand in than a House of Cards style Sony advertisement. This part requires an intelligent and motivate producer to comb through the little details, which is super uncommon to have.

I'm sure you can see how time affects the quality and amount of decisions production can make. On a big budget film, you have more money and time to think stuff through. On a TV show, sometimes the screenplay is done only a week in advance. On shit like sitcoms or CSI it is a breakneck speed (although they're also written in a boilerplate way to compensate).

Once it is all set up and ready for photography, then yes it is very possible the actor has never touched a videogame before. They're some of the most inept humans on earth. Or the director or producer says 'can you push the buttons faster? I'm not really feeling the intensity.' Why does no one say anything at this final moment? Because it's the fucking producer and director and if they are stupid then you'll just have a stupid film.

Most screens on TVs and devices are added in post production and that's not my realm. You generally don't want to photograph the thing real time for image quality and continuity. The specific game can be picked later. A movie like Her had a shitty game because it was clearly made by a bunch of artists and not game designers.

So, final point, to consistently get the small details done well (like random vidya) you need really smart and dedicated people in all these important positions. And those positions need capable, smart workers under them. Film is overwhelmed by nepotism, bullshit, and people hired because they'll sleep with somebody. This erodes this machinery apart and places lazy and clueless throughout. If you think of your favorite filmmaker, one of the reasons their work looks so good is their ability to collect and retain the talent beneath them.

smh

Basically because all TV shit is written as comedy/parody to some degree.

In other news, Hollywood will keep producing nothing of worth for humanity, and the sooner California sinks into the ocean with all inhabitants the better off humanity will be.

Thank you for this write up user, it confirms basically everything I inferred, but it was still fun to read. Also
This is true everywhere. When I was going to school for machining my teacher said that ideally the dumbest guy in the shop is the boss because that means all the talent is on the floor. That the boss might not know how to do X, but he knows who can.
I suppose this applies more to a producer, rather than a director, if we apply it to filmmaking though.

Yeah. Hollywood is the grossest of the 1% with the best ad campaign in history. It is the cultural equivalent of McDonalds but way less healthy.


No problem. I like to complain.

I think it depends if they're the harmless variety of stupid or not. Producer, as a title, can mean anything. Sometimes they're doing a ton of shit and are like director #2. Some do literally nothing and never show up to set once (but I think that's more about moving money around). The people best at managing are ones who have done the work themselves. So if they tell someone to do x job, they can approximate how much time and energy it would take them to do it. Then they have a realistically gauge for when to push, compliment, scream, ect. Because film is so collaborative, it's worth taking talent off the floor if they can bring the talent out in others. Ideally, in a non-shit timeline, it'd work that way.

TEMPLATE THREAD