Untouchables and Die Hard 2 movie scenes vs Amiga game levels

[dreamkatcha]

To illustrate the text reviews I've been working on I've compared game segments to the movie scenes that inspired them. Much harder to do than with Roger Rabbit to condense them into short clips, which leads to copyright issues. YouTube/Fox were real Nazis over the Die Hard luggage hall video, but not the others. Very weird.

Die Hard 2 playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...vchl91iKgQyEqM

Untouchables playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...nmE0MrIC-nfrdl

[Foebane]

Game adaptations of movies hardly ever 100% reflect what the movie is like, and the programmers and artists will make countless changes to the games, and a lot of the time, especially on old 8-bit systems, the games are almost nothing like the movies.

Most of them tend to suck as well, including these two examples.

Dreamkatcha, I wouldn't really post clips of movies on YouTube, even if for Fair Use, as more often than not, especially these days, they will get taken down. For example, I once made a YouTube video comparing a spaceship/door crash scene in Independence Day with a bunch of mutant soldiers running into a closed door in Mysterious Cities of Gold, and it was taken down within 48 hours, AND this was around a decade ago.

If you want to feature movies, you could always use stills?

[dreamkatcha]

Yes, movie conversions do tend to lean towards the wrong end of pitiful. There's no getting away from that. I don't think it matters so much though from a gaming historian point of view. I still find terrible games interesting, especially comparing the source material to the pixels in the case of licensed property. Then again if a movie bears absolutely no relation to the game I don't think I'd even bother trying to use clips of the source material to compare them. Cliffhanger for instance.

I'll play a bad game as much as I need to, write something about it and then probably never go back. Someone else might spend a few minutes watching a YouTube clip or reading an article and not even pick up the game and still get something out of the experience. It's different now of course because there's no investment of hard-earned cash involved so we don't have to worry about making the right choices.

It would make sense to steer clear of copyright protected stuff, agreed. Someone else's content, their rules, fair enough. I can see why many of the big YouTubers are so careful with that. What passes YouTube's censorship tests today may not do tomorrow if the copyright owner suddenly changes their policy. Then you've wasted the time you spent gathering clips, editing and whatnot. You can obfuscate content to make it less detectable, but that's only going to fool the robots.

I take it your video was reported by a human if it had already cleared YouTube's automated checks? That's weird if YT take those kind of reports seriously. They're already aware you're using protected clips since they've scanned your video and approved the duration/application/whatever. I can totally believe it happens though - so much of the system seems to be arbitrary.

I'm much more careful these days about using movie clips in longer videos with narration where it would be a real pain to have to re-work them if they failed the IP test. It definitely makes more sense to use stills instead there. Plus, the focus there is the commentary so you're not really losing much.