DevinR127

Please ignore the first "the" in the 24th line. I edited that sentence later and left a wayward word =).

Also, I agree with what you said about the possibility of making this a movie that will have people asking: "this was a video game first?" It's better than taking a "franchise" like Hitman and trying to turn it into a movie version of the video game. Hitman actually resembled a Bourne movie in places, which was to it's credit... but sooner or later "video game moments" would find their way into the equation and make me gag, roll my eyes, and caused my soul to scream in agony. BioShock has hope because instead of taking a game series that has been years in the making and putting all the familiar elements into a movie that producers shamelessly market to fans of the game this particular film was conceived, in principle, by people playing the game, taking a step back, and saying "Wow, this game is both artistic and theatrical." This game came from someone's mind, but before making it's way onto a gaming platform, it passed through several works of classical existential literature. Writers and directors need to figure out the thematic literary content that they want to convey in a film based on Bioshock, in order to give it the purpose and meaning; this will advance the quality of whatever film they make by leaps and bounds. Secondly, they should go through the game piece by piece and determine exactly what aspects of the game make it "cinematic," for example, avoiding the pitfall of turning the splicers into an army of 'zombies' is crucial to perpetuating the dramatic tension that ran throughout the game. The enemy cannot be some 'virus' that 'zombifies' individuals, it has to be clear that they willingly spliced and that the antagonist is all too human. Everything that made the game more than just a first person shooter with an emphasis on exploration should be made obvious. The idea of choices, and the divergent paths such choices lead us on, the tragedy of the commons, and the destructive force of greed on logic and wisdom should be felt by the viewer the way it was felt by the player. Flashbacks based on the journal entries should be an intricate part of the story. Men like Mcdough and Sullivan should be juxtaposed to men like Steinman and Cohen. Ryan and Fontaine's civil war, as well as the Atlas/Fontaine double cross should be the foundations of the thematic development of the story. One of the most important parts of production will be translating the first-person perspective of the game into a third-person perspective; I would even consider having two protagonists, one with a tragic downfall, the other with an uplifting story of redemption, but they must both be portrayed as equals in the beginning, this would be of paramount importance to such a story (think: Cain and Abel)(I think Josh Hartnett, or maybe, MAYBE Christian Bale would make good candidates). And of course, the Little Sisters and the Big Daddies need to be intelligently integrated into the story, the idea of Big Daddies transforming from enemies to friends as the story progresses would be an intriguing plot twist that would not be lost on the General Audience. A lot needs to be done, but I imagine making such a movie work, or even making it good, would be within the realm of possibilities, so long as it's not shot in first person =). It would certainly be easier than trying to make a good movie out of the game: Silent Hill (seriously, what were those people thinking).

In response to your question about 300: yes, people who didn't like that movie are a lonely breed.