by Kyle Hebert, guest contributor
Console gaming is big business. In November alone Sony sold over a million consoles. That said, surely most Americans have, at some point in their life, wielded a control pad and with joysticks and a few brightly colored buttons guided a plumber, fox, soldier through digitized terrain. Why is it then that movies and television shows can’t get it right when depicting a character playing a video game?
We’ve all seen it before: players with one thumb repeatedly mashing buttons while the other twirls the joystick mindlessly. If their machinations are to be believed then the best way to enjoy whatever game they’re playing is to watch as the character jumps around in a circle.
Some games have production values and costs on par with big budget movies. The least movies and television could do is correctly portray the industry that is nipping at its heels.
Even shows starring actors young enough to play video games on a regular basis fail miserably at depicting game playing correctly. Nearly once an episode on Fox’s The OCtwo of the main characters, Seth and Ryan (played by Adam Brody, 23, and Benjamin McKenzie, 25, respectively) can be seen playing what appears to be a PS2. These two actors undoubtedly grew up gaming, and have been playing games long enough to know the proper way of maneuvering a character in a game environment. Even from these two though we see the same tragic button mashing that would only result in a quick loss of lives and continues.
Of course I realize that these actors aren't really playing the game, they're acting. The scene isn't about the game, but about the pseudo-tragedies of their harsh teenage lives. What about a movie that is solely about videogames and playing videogames? No question that a movie of this sort would get it right. Right?
I submit to you The Wizard starring Fred Savage and lots of early Nintendo products (remember the Power Glove?). This movie was all about video games. Fred Savage's character was a master of gaming, a wizard in fact, hence the title. He was so good in fact that he ran away from home in order to test his skills in a video game championship. There are lots of scenes of people playing games in this one. They aren't just playing games while something more important is going on either. Playing the game is what is important. Not one single character gets it right, but perhaps the worst foul in the game is the scene when Beau Bridges's character, Sam, finally sees the light and realizes how much fun video games can actually be. His son, played by Christian Slater, bursts into the hotel room where they are staying and is surprised to find Sam playing video games. The camera cuts to Sam whose face is glowing with glee. His hands twitch madly on the controller, fiendishly gouging the A and B buttons, his thumb circles the directional pad. On the television we see that he is playing the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game for the NES. He exclaims "I almost beat the Mecca (Mega?) Turtle!" There are actually two fouls here: the controller use, and the fact that there is no Mecca Turtle in TMNT for the NES, but the latter is a whole other story
Things haven't improved much since that movie was made. Is it too much to ask that actors who are pretending to play video games actually pretend they are playing a video game? Perhaps that is just the movie and television's way of saying to the game industry, "You may be just as big as us, but we can still make you look like a fool."
It's over-acting in the same sense that, by hollywood rule, cars have to detonate on contact with other objects. It just makes it more "exciting". I think the difference here is that 1) if you watch people playing video games they're a bit tame, and 2) the audience for (most of) these intended shows and films are non-gamers.
As a gamer when I think of watching another person play games, and I don't mean looking over thier shoulder at the screen, but watching *them*, it really is dull.
Regardless, I completely agree with your points. I too get a little irritated when I see a character on a TV show bouncing around on the sofa left and right and mashing away at the controller. But that's just another reason why I don't watch TV. ;) I can just go play the games myself.
Posted by: Carter | 02/04/2004 at 02:31 AM
Smacks of paranoia - is this really restricted to videogames? Piano-playing in movies is usually a case of the actor/actress raising and lowering their arms in an octopus-like manner, totally out of sync with the notes being played; connect to the internet on a movie screen and you'll be greeted by an animated "Welcome To The World Wide Web!" animation and spoken message, and a search engine that takes you directly to a DVD-quality video of the megalomaniac you were looking for.
Granted, it tears at your heart somehow to see controllers wielded wrongly on film - but to suggest that it's purposeful victimisation of our upstart industry is clearly wrong. I doubt weapon manufacturers think they're being slapped in the face by Hollywood when someone fires seven bullets from a six-chamber gun.
Posted by: bulletbill | 02/04/2004 at 03:18 AM
They're all playing Decathlon for the Atari 2600.
Hollywood's just trying to bring it back. All the cool, good looking kids play Decathlon these days.
Posted by: Mike | 02/04/2004 at 03:45 AM
Actually, it was Fred Savage's half-brother that was the Wizard.
Posted by: Tablesaw | 02/04/2004 at 04:43 AM
In case no one noticed, people shouldn't be shown playing games on TV or Film anyway. Maybe they play it that way because it looks fucking boring.
Also, in the original TMNT game by Ultra for the NES (not the Arcade style game), there is a Mechaturtle. Though if Mike is right, that would t0t@lly r00l d00dz.
Posted by: Hetty Bembler | 02/04/2004 at 05:01 AM
A person of a craft or hobby shouldn't see a movie about his craft or hobby, because they WILL find errors and they WILL nitpick it despite whether the film is good or not.
I'm sure many a computer geek has complained about the computer tech in Hackers.
And, I'm sure many a gamer has complained about game portrayal on tv or film. Sure, it's generally inconsequential (unless you're talking about The Wizard -- scoring in SMB3!?) but if that's what you know best, that's what you mostly notice when it's wrong.
I'm reminded of an episode of CSI. I don't know squat about forensics so most of that stuff seems feasible to me. And because it's believable, it doesn't interfere with my watching. Then, on one episode, they were talking about tracking down a person through their IP address; there were numerous errors... I have not looked at the show the same way since. Seriously.
So really, to the average non-gamer these representations aren't noticeable. To us, they are.
Posted by: nowak | 02/04/2004 at 05:23 AM
The movie "Swingers" does a decent job, as I recall, of depicting people playing a console ice hockey game (probably on an NES or SuperNES).
Posted by: Rob Mayoff | 02/04/2004 at 05:47 AM
If they want to accurately portray my typical video game experience they will have to have the character yell "F***ING A**HOLE RATCHET!" and then toss my controller across the room in frustration and fury about every ten minutes.
Posted by: Mike | 02/04/2004 at 05:53 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 06:58 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:00 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:01 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:02 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:04 AM
I think it's more interesting that a video game got it wrong. In "Ratchet & Clank: Going Commando" if you leave the main screen alone for a while, Ratchet starts playing various games (Going Commando, Jak & Daxter I & II, etc) but with the same button mashing, not having anything to do with the action in the game, verve that you see in movies and television.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:06 AM
Sorry, the POST button wasn't responding, so I didn't realize I'd posted the message.
Posted by: Lord Javac | 02/04/2004 at 07:07 AM
I don't think we'll ever see it done right unless a Director wants it done right. Two people playing a video-game is typically visually boring. If the focus of the scene is them playing a video-game, it needs to be interesting, lest people lose interest. This is the same reason why fight coreography now resembles a dance and less of a real fight. The mentality of keeping a scene interesting goes beyond video-games. Drivers behind the wheels of cars are constantly turning the wheel ever so slightly, making smallish corrections for a road that isn't turning, people typing at a computer will just start flailing aimlessly at the keys to make it seem as if they know how to type at 90 wpm, etc.
But I have to say I'm on board with your pet peeve. Mine is the umpteen commercials, TV shows, etc, which still use Pac Man and Super Mario Bros. sound effects when someone is obviously playing on a modern console. I think I even heard one that was using Pac Man for the Atari 2600. UGH.
Posted by: Bowler | 02/04/2004 at 08:09 AM
I dunno about the rest of you, but I don't really care all that much. Seems like you're making a big deal out of something that really isn't all that important. You should focus on the significant things, like how many lemon vs. cherry fruit loops come in a box. It's all about picking your battles.
Posted by: Kones | 02/04/2004 at 09:38 AM
We have all to eagerly accepted Hollywood's manipulation of reality. I understand that movies are supposed to be an escape, but something has to give. For instance, how many times have we watched a scene where two people are in a car headed down the steet. Any time the driver says something he turns to the passenger to say it regardless of the length of what he is saying, No one does this for more than a brief second. No one could do it without causing an accident, but we just accept it because thats the way it's been done.
I want more realism in movies. Games are getting more realistic with each major release. Hollywood is sticking to the same formula year after year.
Posted by: Kyle | 02/04/2004 at 09:39 AM
Why on earth would anyone want to limit film to being 'realistic'? Are you joking? Is there a law somewhere besides your mind that says that movies or any other form of media should adhere to any kind of notion of reality you subscribe to?
Hollywood (or anyone else for that matter) has absolutely no obligation to anyone to represent anything in any way other than how they choose. If you don't like it, please make a movie and show people just why exactly it is important to show people playing video games accurately.
Posted by: Hetty Bembler | 02/04/2004 at 09:49 AM
Sofia Coppola got it right in Lost in Translation, both in the video arcade and pachinko parlor scenes. From firsthand experience: spot on. Then again, Coppola got a *whole lot* right in that film.
Posted by: san | 02/04/2004 at 09:52 AM
Might i also point out the two kids playing Final Fantasy 8 in the Charlie's Angles movie as Drew Barrymore slides naked down a hill.
Two kids playing Final Fantasy 8? And they were mashing buttons like they had some sort of control over the on screen action. During that scene I am always staring at the video game instead of naked Drew Barrymore. So yeah, who has the real problem?
Posted by: Scott Frazier | 02/04/2004 at 09:56 AM
Well, if you've seen Drew Barrymore naked once -- and who hasn't? -- I guess that's good enough for an excuse to watch the video game instead of Barrymore in the Charlie's Angels scene. Now watching the Charlie's Angels film at all... That in itself is highly suspect.
Posted by: san | 02/04/2004 at 10:04 AM
It probably has something to do with the fact that when you mime driving a car, you swerve eratically from left to right...
Posted by: Jacob | 02/04/2004 at 11:08 AM
Films themselves don't have to be limited to being realistic, but the driving factor of a movie, or play, or anything that tries to tell a story is suspension of disbelief. Nothing brings me back into the real world as quickly as seeing a normal activity being done wrong. You can have a movie about a furturistic crime fighter who uses noddles as weapons as long as he drives the Noodle-Mobile in a believable way, and in the scene where Noodleman sits down in front of his X-Station for some relaxation actuallly looks like he is playing a game.
Posted by: kyle | 02/04/2004 at 11:43 AM
Well there is a huge difference between your first manipulation of reality comment and the one you just wrote.
Having said that, I'm sure hollywood does it because they know exactly how well they need to portray something in order to get people to believe it. You know, like how they figured out film should run at 24fps. So it may bother you, but I'm sure most people just don't care. And since this is Hollywood we're talking about and not a state-funded artistic concern and that has no intent outside of profit. I'm sorry it gets your knickers in a twist. You could stop watching movies, perhaps watch only those movies that choose to portray video games in a postive light. Or perhaps start a collective intent on sticking it to the man. Of course by that rationale, if I were a hard-core computer guy the only movie I would be willing to watch would be the matrix reloaded and maybe Antitrust- and we know how true to tha' game that movie was.
I would imagine this happens because a) Shooting a person playing a video game is already inherently boring. b) They tried to shoot it with the person playing and realized that it was *really* boring. c) They asked the actor to move their hands a little more to make it look more like they were doing..um...something.
If anyone happend to see 'The Game Before the Game' on Sunday before the Superbowl, you must recognize just how shitty people playing games looks on TV. They even got rid of it on Xplay because it just doesn't come off well.
Posted by: Hetty Bembler | 02/04/2004 at 12:10 PM