Which movie is the worst? Personally, I enjoyed the 1994 version because it was Raul Julia's last film and he was brilliant in it. Also, Van Damme is much more entertaining than Chris Klein.
from bed stuy puttin the swellin on ya eye
Both are pretty bad, but the first had a more entertaining value. So 2009 one is worse.
For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
I don't know how they could make this one worser than the 94 version. At least the 94 version did feel like SF at times, I hardly could picture this one SF at all.
share@blackheart 981
It doesn't matter if a movie feels like it's source material. What matters is whether it works as a movie. And SF 94 did not.
It was amateurish.
Even though SF 09 isn't a good movie either, at least there seemed like there was effort put into it.
SF 94 didn't even have that. It felt like it didn't even have a script. It felt random, without any indication anyone involved in the production, or the viewer watching it, knew what the plot was to begin with.
The plot seemed to be just Guile's team versus Bison. That's it. No further explanation. Just shallow, face value set up.
At least there was a plot with SF 09. Chun Li going on a mystery to find her father. At least that simple description showed there was more story than the 94 version.
It frankly doesn't matter if the characters in the 94 version wore their costumes from the game.
How is that relevant when someone's watching a movie?
When they might not know about the source material, or even if they do, care more about how it is relevant to the movie because that's what they're doing, not playing the game.
If you want a faithful Street Fighter, stick to the games.
A movie version of the game is treated the same way as any other movie. Whether an adaptation of an IP or wholly original.
The general audience do not care about the faithfulness of a movie to its source material. They care about whether the movie is good as a movie.
If you can't do that, people won't take your opinions seriously.
As such, you need to say why you think the SF 94 movie is better as a movie than the 09 version.
If your answer relates to things from the games, as in the costumes etc, you're not giving a valid reason.
You're just losing people's interest and people will just tell you to be quiet or give them a better reason. Something that's more helpful.
Because if you gave the reason you mentioned here to someone's face, they'll just ignore you. What you said isn't as important to people as you think.
Chun-li takes itself far too seriously
Street Fighter '94 is silly as heck on face value and probably is on most people's little own B movie list but for what it's worth, it has a bit of a cult film like quality to it and if you watch it in the right light, it can be pretty fun to watch and on top of that it has the final performance of Raul Julia. RIP.
So with that said, Chun-li is the worse of the two.
With that explanation, you're saying Chun Li is worse because it felt like there was effort put in?
That the film where the filmmakers acted like they were professionals and tried to make an actual, valid, legitimate movie, is actually worse than the version that felt like it was made by people who were stoned throughout the production?
No member of the general audience would like Street Fighter 94, let alone think it was better. Because that movie doesn't have the standards that people expect from a movie.
When people watch a movie they expect certain things. Certain qualities. Acting, story, direction, writing, things that make a movie a movie.
Street Fighter 94 didn't have that.
Frankly, you can't answer this question. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Chun Li is a bad movie, but Street Fighter 94 isn't even a movie. You can't even qualify it as a movie. It's just a 90 minute series of random images.
The only effect Street Fighter 94 has of having characters wearing the same costumes as the games is that it's nothing but a fan film. Starring cosplayers, that got lucky to be distributed by a Hollywood studio.
[deleted]
I liked the storyline in the 1994 one way more than the 2009 one, but I liked the actors in the new one wayyyyy more than the 1994 one. But I also get why they tried to make this film more "realisitic" than SF itself, purely because its worked for so many other action films.
shareThat's another reasons why the team behind this were so retarded. You can't make SF realistic. The story in the game is pretty absurd to begin with, but the fans love the characters and plotlines. And that's why the anime movies are so good, they stick to the source material. You can't make a SF-movie for a mainstream audience. It's about as retarded as making a realistic Super Mario movie.
But back on topic. Even though SF94 was horrible, it's still better than SF09. The old one had at least some resemblance to the game. The new one they didn't even manage to cast a chinese looking Chun Li. Talk about failure. Not to mention irish Bison, Black Eyed Vega etc etc etc etc etc...
[deleted]
naw, actually I think your on to something. a super realistic Mario is exactly what this country needs.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
@Dash99
What storyline are you talking about?
There was no storyline in that movie other than "Guile and his team have to rescue hostages from M Bison's secret compound".
That isn't a storyline. That's something a 5 year old would write.
The "storyline" you are talking about is nothing but an excuse to set up the fights.
You can like it more than the 09 version. But if you are going to give a reason, it needs to be something that's true. Otherwise you invalidate your argument.
I understand what people mean by the low production value of SF09. They casted the biggest "stars" they could afford, i didn't see SF93 in a long, long time but i like 09 better. 93 did have a way bigger budget though.
shareBoth these movies as well as the live-action RE movies are great examples why Capcom should limit their franchises to gaming, maybe comics, and nothing more.
share@liketearsintherain
What low production values?
And you are seriously saying the "93" version had a bigger budget?
If they did, which they didn't, it wasn't shown in the finished version. The finished movie is the dictionary definition of cheap looking.
Cheap looking sets. Cheap looking costumes. Cheap looking fights. Cheap looking special effects. Cheap looking direction.
You cannot say "93 version had a bigger budget" and expect people to take you seriously.
They'll look at it and tell you otherwise.
If the "93" version did actually have a bigger budget, then most of it must have gone on drugs. That's the only logical explanation for what was being shown.
1994 3/10
2009 5/10
2009 is more a Chung Li Origins thingy so I didn't mind the lack of characters just lack of Chung Li costume and Super Kick.
Look at the night sky, where does it end?
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=15368636
I would take the 1994 movie over this *beep* anyday
"I always tell the truth even when I lie"
the characters in the 94 version actually resemble the actual game characters. whereas, the 2009 version didnt. if it wersnt for the title we wouldnve known its a streetfighter adaptation.
both were bad films. however, the 94 version is more entertaining. you have to remember it was intentinally made as a tongue in cheek. also its a kids movie, so the fights were like power rangers without powerrs.
It doesn't matter if the characters in a movie look like their game counterparts. What matters is whether the movie's any good.
Whether the movie has good direction, good acting, good screenplay, good story, or good filmmaking in general.
The 94 version didn't have this.
If you gave your explanation to someone who doesn't know about or care about the game, they wouldn't care.
What matters is whether the movie is good or not. And if you tell them "it wasn't because the characters didn't wear the same costumes as the game, A VIDEO GAME, not exactly a work of high art that people take seriously, then they'll just tell you to provide a more sensible reason, otherwise they'll just ignore you and feel as if they've wasted their time.
The reason you have given is not actually important to the people that watch the movies.
Faithfulness does not equate to quality. Which is what ALL movies, no matter whether they are original or adaptations of IPs, are judged upon.
The thing is, the 1994 SF movie was not that serious....it had a lot of tongue-in-cheek moments, which made some of the awkward plot ok. E.g. the reference to Chun-Li's hair buns, Bisonville, arcade controller for the mines, final shot of the video game winning poses etc.
The 2009 version was made with much higher production values. However it made quite a few mistakes IMHO:
1) Chun-Li is played by someone who doesn't even look asian, let alone Chinese. Yes I know Kreuk is supposedly half-Thai, but she looks white. And she obviously doesn't speak Chinese. This is like casting Jacky Chan or Jet Li as an ABC (American-Born Chinese) in a movie...people can tell from their first sentence that they are NOT. She is not the only miscast though, the actor who played Balrog was much better in the other movies such as the Green Mile.
2) The plot is completely different from that of the video game. Same with the costumes. If the characters were not so named, no one would have ever guessed that this movie was based on the video game. As a result, fans of the video game resented this movie. On top of that, this movie was really nothing special so it never caught on with regular movie fans either.
3) The various minor plot loopholes did not help either. For example, supposedly Chun-Li was raised in Hong Kong....however they forgot to do their research to find out that people in Hong Kong actually speak another dialect Cantonese, which is different from the Mandarin used in the movie.
Similarly when Chun-Li was captured and reunited with her father, they talked in English. Did they get hit in the head so much that they forgot their native tongue? Or were they using English so Bison and his lackeys could eavesdrop on their father-daughter conversation?
4) The character of Charlie Nash was unnecessary....he hardly fought, and contributed very lttle to the overall story. Too bad for Chris Klein, who seemed like a "leading man in the making" back in the days of American Pie. His hairline is receding faster than his acting skills are improving.
To me the only saving grace were the better fight scenes, done by actors with more martial arts training. They are not enough though, since the characters signature moves were all tossed out except for the poor man's version of Chun-Li's Spinning Bird Kick.
I had such high hopes for the movie....but I ended up almost changing the channel several times when I watched it on cable. It was that bad. In contrast, some video games to movie transitions were much better. E.g. Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat 2 (MK1 was just tongue in cheek like the 1994 SF movie).
Kristen is half-Chinese, but I had to agree that she didn't look too much like Chun-Li. The worst part is that Chun-Li was actually an American since she was born in San Francisco. Then she moved to Hong Kong as you said??? So whatever happened to China? Yeah, I know Hong Kong is part of China now, but still, what? Irish Bison? Okay, this movie ain't SF anymore.
share[deleted]
It is interesting how people can assume what other people don't know, when they themselves cannot offer s hred of evidence to prove otherwise.
If you had actually read up on the official material released by Capcom the maker of the Street Fighter series, you would have known that she was born in China and is an Interpol officer sent to investigate a criminal organisation whose boss might be related to her father's death. This was mentioned in many of the endings as well, so you would have known about it if you had actually finished the games as her.
Funny that you don't think a character's background, upbringing, and vocation are relevant to the plot. Chun Li was not the only character they changed in the 2009 movie. The characters of Bison (Vega in Japan), Vega (Balrog in Japan) and Balrog (M. Bison in Japan) were all change beyond recognition both in appearance, and in their backgrounds. The only elements that were left include Bison, his henchmen and his crime organisation being in Thailand, and that Bison was related to Chun Li's father's death (even tho the circumstances were completely twisted). The 1994 version had these as well. Just having the "girl avenging father" story having taken place in Thailand is not enough...I can think of half a dozen other Asian movies with similar plots.
I never said once that the 1994 version stuck to the video game's story. It was more of a spoof along the lines of Spaceballs, the Naked Gun and Scary Movie. It was not as well made as these, but it had its share of tongue-in-cheek moments. What the 1994 version did was to include all of the SF characters, including that dreadful character Captain Sawada (spelling?) that only appeared in the "Street Fighter the Movie" video game. It also has the poor man's version of many of the costumes, along with several signature moves from the game like the Hadouken, the Flash Kick and the Psycho Crusher. The 2009 version didn't even bother to do that.
[deleted]
@akkmok
You have just proven why SF 09 is better.
You gave the story background to the Chun Li character, which made up most of the movie.
As such, the 09 version has more of a STORY than the 94 version.
Plus, you have also proven the 09 version is more faithful than people have made it out to be.
It's based on the background of Chun Li from the game, not the game itself. As such, because it is similar close to exactly the same, it is by default faithful.
Plus, anyone reading the character background, would determine that as a better story than just "people fighting each other during a tournament".
If I was to pitch two versions of a Street Fighter movie to a movie executive, and I described the Chun Li background story, and the game story, the executive would make the Chun Li story.
If I was to describe two versions of a Street Fighter movie to members of the public, the Chun Li version, and the game story, they would also go with the Chun Li story.
Why?
Because there's more potential to the Chun Li story than there is to the game story.
Because people are more interested in human interest stories than stories with nothing but fighting.
If a movie executive had chosen the game story over the Chun Li story, they wouldn't be a movie executive for long.
The 2009 version didn't have the characters' special moves.
So what?
How does that affect the movie?
It doesn't.
It's just an irrelevant exclusion that doesn't have any significance to the movie or the people that watch the movie.
Does it affect the quality?
No.
Would the movie be significantly improved if it was included?
No.
Does it improve or add anything to the STORY of the movie?
No.
Then if it doesn't improve anything, and is not needed to tell the story, then it's not an issue and not a real valid criticism highlighting a flaw in the movie.
You also mentioned the 94 version included all of the SF characters.
So?
What does it matter?..........
It doesn't matter if an adaptation uses all its characters if those characters aren't USED well.
If nothing is done with those characters.
You can't just say the existence and inclusion of a character is acceptable and good enough. It isn't. They need to have a purpose. A reason. And if the only purpose and reason is because 'they are from the game and we need to include them", then you have not used the character correctly. You have not provided a valid reason. You have not justified their inclusion.
You have ignored story and focused on fanservice, which doesn't have the desired effect you want, because people see through this, and conclude the same things I've just said. Fanservice is not praise. It's a criticism. It's transparent. And what you said is surface level shallowness.
Therefore, from the reasons you have given, you have actually proved why Street Fighter 09 is a better movie than Street Fighter 94.
Because the things you've mentioned for Street Fighter 94 aren't things that are deemed important to a movie watcher.
To the OP, the 2009 is far better than the 1994 movie. For one thing, the 1994 movie is racist. It demoted Ryu, who is the main character of Street Fighter, to supporting character and made Guile the main character simply because he was the white American.