1917 is not a good movie in my opinion.

But it is worth watching. It's case and point for why the visual storytelling in games and films are fundamentally different, and what goes wrong when you don't know this.

Edit: Nvm, came out early in the US. Weird for a movie shot entirely in my backyard.

But I'm still looking forward to it.

But I'm still looking forward to it.

Imagine an entire movie that's the equivalent of watching someone else play the jeep / volcano section in Uncharted 4.

Uncharted is the game series that I think would work better as a movie than a game. The gameplay actively harms the story of those games.

Uncharted is the game series that I think would work better as a movie than a game. The gameplay actively harms the story of those games.

The section I am referring to is unique in the game.

You need to drive to a volcano. The entire chapter is just driving. You occasionally have to stop to clear paths, find alternate routes, or pull the jeep up by hooking on the wench. All the while, as you drive around the area, you and your brother banter back and forth in seemingly meaningless conversations.

Playing this isn't so bad because you are in navigation and problem solving mode. Watching it is painful since there is no control of dramatic tension and it is rather inert.

I know. I wouldn’t point to that as a particularly strong section of gameplay. It’s just a miniature open world game without a whole lot going on, and it doesn’t really have any notable affect on the storytelling.

But spending eight hours murdering hundreds of bad guys sure does make it silly when a cutscene happens, and the all of the sudden Nathan is scared of a single guy with a gun. Cut all the gameplay sections out and insert generic action movie sequences, and you’ve already got a decent movie.

It’s not like The Last of Us, where the tension of actually playing the game helps to really drive home the story and put you in the mindset of Joel and Ellie.

Edit: To make it clear, I’m agreeing with you. I only just realized we’re having two different conversations here. I have no idea what 1917 is. You saying Uncharted just made me think of that movie, and how it relates to storytelling with both mediums.

I am reading this with the knowledge that you are an editor and the knowledge that this movie is made to appear to be without edits.

Surely something can be gained from that approach, but I imagine you're attuned to what is lost.

I am reading this with the knowledge that you are an editor and the knowledge that this movie is made to appear to be without edits.

This is not true. There is a very intentional edit in the middle of the film which skips time. I would say the movie is made to look like there is only one edit.

Surely something can be gained from that approach, but I imagine you're attuned to what is lost.

Nothing can be gained in net. The fact that there is one edit in the traditional sense should itself be an implication that the one shot thing could not work for this movie. But see the movie and enjoy it on your own terms.

But spending eight hours murdering hundreds of bad guys sure does make it silly when a cutscene happens, and the all of the sudden Nathan is scared of a single guy with a gun. Cut all the gameplay sections out and insert generic action movie sequences, and you’ve already got a decent movie.

No, you'd get a forgettable generic action movie that would compare unfavorably to the things it was inspired by.

1917 is not a good movie in my opinion.

But it is worth watching. It's case and point for why the visual storytelling in games and films are fundamentally different, and what goes wrong when you don't know this.

I really liked it. You’re right that the “one take style” hurts some moments, but I think it helps raise tension in others. It’s pretty incredible on a technical level though, and I can appreciate the chance they took to make it “one shot”.

I’m not real sure about your main point though (I think what you’re saying is exposition when walking is better in a game than in a movie?). I don’t think this would be better as a game, especially if that game makes me walk around for more than 2 hours (Journey might be the exception here).

I’m not real sure about your main point though (I think what you’re saying is exposition when walking is better in a game than in a movie?). I don’t think this would be better as a game, especially if that game makes me walk around for more than 2 hours (Journey might be the exception here).

It wouldn't be better as a game. It would be better if it were shot like a movie instead of like a game.

You’re right that the “one take style” hurts some moments, but I think it helps raise tension in others.

This is why you cut to another shot when continuing would hurt the moment! Duh. When the long take helps, use it. When you need to cut, cut. Do not hurt your story to show off.

Plus doing it in one shot made it feel like they didn't actually go that far.

I’m not real sure about your main point though (I think what you’re saying is exposition when walking is better in a game than in a movie?). I don’t think this would be better as a game, especially if that game makes me walk around for more than 2 hours (Journey might be the exception here).

It wouldn't be better as a game. It would be better if it were shot like a movie instead of like a game.

You’re right that the “one take style” hurts some moments, but I think it helps raise tension in others.

This is why you cut to another shot when continuing would hurt the moment! Duh. When the long take helps, use it. When you need to cut, cut. Do not hurt your story to show off.

Plus doing it in one shot made it feel like they didn't actually go that far.

Agree with breitzen. it was an experiment with mixed results. I really enjoyed it regardless.