Point-Counterpoint

The King of Fighters

Synopsis

A stylish, high-octane, live action feature based on the highly successful video game franchise, in which the last surviving descendants of three legendary clans are continuously transported to other dimensions to test their martial arts skills against an evil force that seeks to invade and infect the real world.

EDCO's Point:
It would seem to have a great team and best of intentions behind it... on the surface.

But when I hear things about taking "license" with story and looking to expand appeal to a wider audience, the alarm goes off. I think it's just lazy (and on a small level insulting). What's the point of making a King of Fighter's movie if you aren't going to embrace and exploit the things that found a fanbase in the first place?

Japanese videogames typically have ludicrously deep storylines behind even the most esoteric details. Some may find them thin or non-consequential, but to think that they need to be bypassed to adapt to a film, well you're just not trying hard enough. If they are weird, the goal should be to present them just as weird! Else why wouldn't you just create something of your own? Marketing wants to trade off the name, yet has no reverence for what the name represents.

Also KOF has one of the longest pedigrees of balls-out fantastic character designs. To not try and translate that costuming verbatim is folly, I hope they just gave a drawing to the costume dept. and said "make this." Maggie Q as Mai? Fail. What is Mai's well known and game-iconic body type? Is Mai the character that should be cast lithe and tone with a petite, dancer's physicality? Ugh, a casting call would have done well, even [after you] take away all the models and fluff. Like there aren't 10 other KOF characters MQ could have played.

BD's Counterpoint:
The fact of the matter is that [EDCO's] eval of the "crimes" against this kind of material has plagued videogame adaptations since their inception. However, I also have to acknowledge that films needs to attract investors to get made and that means building into it features that increases its ability to open wallets, secure distribution deals, and get the folks who will exhibit this excited about it at trade shows like the lovefest going on in Vegas now called ShoWest.
Ultimately, however, producers [have] only [cared] about developing a way to bring the characters together rather than developing a story that makes said encounters a matter of fact. ["Ludicrously deep storylines" are] only esoteric to the uninitiated; it's your job as a producer to find a way to explain it to them. Projects that strip the meat away from the original property only leaves a bare bones idea that alienates the core fanbase, effectively eliminating the word of mouth they can generate. On the other hand, a project that adheres rigidly to all the original's details, stands to please only its niche audience and alienate the general audience, making it difficult for investors to hop on board.

The problem is time. Asian production timelines are extraordinarily fast--1 to 1.5 years from initial idea to premiere. That's not enough time to develop a proper script or find the right cast that will both serve the demands of the original material and the demands of investors. I agree that there could be a better choice for the character of Mai, but MQ is a face and a name you can slap on a poster, a presskit, or PR video. If you find a great gal who fits the physique, can she act? Can she fight? If she lacks either, you need time to train her. But if MQ can attract the investors, then there's nothing a prosthetic appliance couldn't fix to match Mai's game-iconic lines.

Summary:
Jim Jarmusch's rule #3 is absolutely right. However, Jarmusch has the benefit of making small scale films that neither involve complex action set pieces, effects work, nor a large amount of sets to be built. These kinds of genre films involve a large sum of money to get made. Unfortunately, the rule of thumb has been to develop a film that only vaguely resembles its source material and in extreme cases may only share said material's title. On the other hand, films that have tried to adhere to the source's ideas without developing it effectively for the different medium in which it will be exhibited tend to only appear as "inside jokes" to those unfamiliar with it.

Our wish is that filmmakers have the courage to adapt material with an eye on telling the story in as close to the same form that made it popular in its previous medium. Alongside this, we hope for the existence of producers who will believe in the material and the filmmakers' vision of it without resorting to demanding that, in order to have broad appeal, the material be changed and diluted so it becomes a theft of the concept and a robbery of the fan base's money. All we have ever asked is that they do it right; I think films like The Dark Knight, Iron Man, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy prove that fans are willing to accept certain changes as long as the adaptation gets the characters, the story, and a number of details right. And the box-office figures of these films prove it is worth it.