It's December 2007 and Hitman - the latest video-game tie-in is hitting UK screens.

And I'm holding my breath.

Because as with Super Mario Bros, Street Fighter, House Of The Dead, Doom, Dead or Alive, Mortal Combat, Final Fantasy, <pause for breath> Resident Evil, Silent Hill and many other titles, I really don't want another fun and credible franchise ruined by an awful movie.

Seriously, does anyone know of a film based on a video game that was genuinely good? And anyone to respond, "Tomb Raider wasn't THAT bad," gets shot.
 
The thing is, I can tell you exactly why video-game films don't work. When video games enter concept design stages, the creative team isn't interested in story, they care about gameplay mechanics and the capabilities of the engine. So by the time they reach narrative-penning o'clock they already have a framework they must adhere to:

"It's a third-person squad-based shooter between two rivalling armies, set in a deserted city. Write me a story."

The story may even change through the course of development to adhere to financial or technical limitations. Characters may be lost, locations may be changed, set-pieces may be cut. It goes on.

Film, however, is completely different. Concept begins with a protagonist and scenraio, not aesthetic limitations. And this NEVER changes. Finances and technicalities affect the sound and visuals, never the plot. You'll never watch:

"Sorry Cinderella, we couldn't properly render the Prince's Castle so you're gonna be peeling spuds again."

In film, story takes precedence. In video game, it's the gameplay.

So why is it game-to-movie writing teams never stray from the source material? It's certainly not to appease the fans... Luigi gets the Princess? Doom's bad guys are aliens, not demons? Claudia is somehow empathic is Silent Hill? If a forumla won't work on-screen, it shouldn't be forced and compensated by these irritating little 'twists'. I appreciate producers have an aesthtic to maintain, but defaming heroes is not the way to do it.

Case in point - Silent Hill. The town was incredibly foggy because the draw-distance wouldn't allow open environments without horrendous pop-up, not because of a coal fire. If creating contrived backstory won't work, change the material. We (the fans) won't mind if it makes the film GOOD. Besides, that snow looked foul in both game and movie anyway. Here's a wacky suggestion: blame the weather. It's a lot quicker than, 'They thought the girl was naughty so they burnt her but the fire tipped over and burnt the building, then the building burnt the town, then the twon burnt the coal mines.' What's wrong with, 'It's foggy today. Now on with a better story.'

So to the crux - video-game-films are essentially based on narratives that are not intended for that medium. That's not to say video games narratives are inherently bad; their priority is simply to entertain in a different way. Video games often pave the way for some great story-telling -- Farenheit, Zelda, Metal Gear Solid -- but that does not necessarily mean the story is capable of working in a feature film context. 

So please, someone tell I'm wrong and that Hitman WORKS as a feature. I like Agent 47, but I struggle to imagine how they've turned a remorseless, cold killing machine into 'the good guy'.