In July it was revealed that Rovio, the company behind the mobile and browser
game phenomenon, was preparing to bring Angry Birds to the big screen. How? I haven’t a clue. After all, this is a game with a simple premise and very little plot. All we know is it will be animated. Naturally.
This week saw the Angry Birds movie confirmed, and The Guardian, a normally sensible British newspaper, has set about analyzing how the company could get this right. Or, as is more likely the case, get it very, very wrong.
Stuart Heritage insists Angry Birds: The Movie take place not on Earth but on the birds/pigs own universe, that the simple story – pigs stealing birds eggs, eggs wanting them back – be retained, the violence (albeit comic violence) be retained, and for there to be no rapping under any circumstances. Which all makes sense.
I’m guessing Heritage wrote this article with his tongue firmly in his cheek, so let’s not take it too seriously. And actually let’s not take the film too seriously either. Millions of us may play Angry Birds because it’s both fun and free, but that doesn’t mean we want to see a movie version. Does it?