Enough of Making Video Games into Movies Already

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Enough of Making Video Games into Movies Already

Video games are better than films, and continually get better, while films are stuck in the two hour linear story format forever.

Read Full Article

.Hack manged to spread itself successfully across multiple forms of media; the fact it takes place in an MMO was likely to it's advantage.

I would like to see a video game adapted into a successful TV serial. But not a kids' cartoon like Pok?mon. Something serious that you might see on AMC or Showtime.

P.S. Thanks

Would Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy count? It came as a book series, a radio show, TV show, and a movie - all of them different enough that I might give them a pass.

I always look at Street Fighter 2: The Animated Movie as one of the few examples were a videogame movie can deliver some entertaining fluff. But yes, as time goes one, rendering technology becomes more advanced, and performances more believable, there's even less of a point in trying to adapt games to film.

I wouldn't say games are better than movies, because I like the idea of having a quick, well-paced story play out infront of me at about a two hour running time. But when it comes to the action blockbuster games certainly seemed to have surpased movies. Mad Max: Fury Road is the one exception, but summer action epics do fuck all for me anymore. Uncharted 4 has given me greater satisfaction in that regard than almost the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe combined.

And I think I heard that the Uncharted movie was actually canceled. *crosses fingers*

Are films really a mark of prestige for these IPs? Or are they more about reaching to a wider audience, like a gateway drug to videogames? I know some people who watched the Hitman film and were inspired to try the games. Granted, these were females who inevitably fancy the pants off bald Timothy Olyphant, but it's a bloody start, right? They found themselves enjoying the games, so i'd chalk that up as a positive. I think maybe you're getting a little over defensive of your videogames, they don't need protecting from the big bad movie business. There will always be cash grabs, but that does not mean it cannot be done well, it's just the reasoning going into these projects are often cynical. And what was wrong with Prince of Persia?? Ben Kingsley frowns upon you!! :)

Pokemon has successfully built a cannon over several forms of media but that might have something to do with the fact that animation is an integral part of game design. also pokemon was created with a multi-media focus from the beginning. the animated pikachu will always be the icon of the franchise because it managed to fully and authentically realize the vision of the creature before the games could get close to making it so real. with the exception brnding the rules in favour of the protagonist when drama demands it the anime is also 99% faithful to the games

Xsjadoblayde:
Are films really a mark of prestige for these IPs? Or are they more about reaching to a wider audience, like a gateway drug to videogames? I know some people who watched the Hitman film and were inspired to try the games. Granted, these were females who inevitably fancy the pants off bald Timothy Olyphant, but it's a bloody start, right? They found themselves enjoying the games, so i'd chalk that up as a positive. ...

I think this is a good idea, using films as marketing tools rather than a point of prestige. Kind of like how toy makers used TV series as ads for their figurines.
It might help filmmaker's narrow the focus and actually make a decent film. This could be the 'Glorified toy commercial' for adults.

Nazrel:
.Hack manged to spread itself successfully across multiple forms of media; the fact it takes place in an MMO was likely to it's advantage.

But the problem with .Hack is the games were pretty bad, with a disastrous premise from the start. Simulating an MMO in a game gets you a half baked RPG and a terrible MMO.

When it comes to the association between films and video games, it's one I think can become a mutually beneficial relationship, but only when the participants in these two different mediums have mutual respect, and don't turn it into some kind of dom/sub relationship akin to 50 Shades of Grey. Overall the prevailing attitude among film producers seems to be looking down at video games like some bastard child they're embarassed to acknowledge no matter how talented they are. The producers, writers and directors seem to have little to no respect for the audiences that enjoy video games because they tend to keep to the attitude that there's nothing thought provoking in what they continue to see merely as an electronic kiddie toy. Among Hollywood actors, there seems to be somewhat more respect for the medium, at least with newer generation actors, most likely because over time some of them have actually helped work on video games, providing voice acting talent, and so they've gotten exposed to the actual thought and craft put into writing plots and stories for games.

Meanwhile, on the game devleopers' side, as Yahtzee said, they seem to put a lot of stock in getting their franchise or individual game made into a film. My reasoning, and I think Yahzee himself may've been pointing to this too, is that reason so much stock is put into having your creation made into a film can be summed up in one word: validation. To some game makers, it seems as though the game-to-film treatment is the only way possible to get the world at large to recognize them as a "real artist." Although sometimes I suspect there may be some haughty attitudes on the game developer's sides as well, since often games made as tie-ins to films show a distinct lack of effort that mirrors the lack of quality in game-to-film adaptations. However, nowhere on the film industry side does there seem to be a mirror for the more submissive attitudes sometimes seen among game developers toward film companies.

Thankfully this doesn't seem be an across-the-board attitude, as some game developers like Hideo Kojima have shown they have more self-respect for their work. In fact, the not-too-long-ago cancellation of "Silent Hills" takes on a new level of tragedy when you consider it was being co-developed by both Mr. Kojima and Guillermo del Toro. It was a sign of mutual respect; a renouned film director working together with a renouned game designer. Thankfully there were reports after the cancellation that the two would be working together on a different project, so there's still hope, but for the corporate heads to have killed this project was a terrible decision (as Jim Sterling likes to say, "Fuck Konami!"), both for the franchise and for the game industry. Silent Hills could have been a bridge between the film and game industries that showed when the creative minds of the two industries regard each other as equals and cooperate on those terms, they can produce something great.

Now, personally I'm not down on films as a medium. While games do provide interactivity to open up all sorts of ways to reach an audience, sometimes a passive role is needed in order to ensure the desire message is brought across. The gravity of a scene could be lost if during dialogue between characters you could make the player-character jump on the NPC's head and do an Irish jig. Also if one maintains constant control of one's character, it can be possible to miss critical moments by looking in the wrong direction. Game developers can try to avoid this by drawing attention to setpiece moments, but no guarantees can be made unless control is taken away from the player momentarily to ensure they're not going to miss something critical. That's partly why I don't mind cutscenes; they ensure key plots developments don't get lost. They also allow a player-character who has a voice, face and personality of their own to be seen and to act as they naturally would (as opposed to the teabagging douche they may act like, depending on who's controlling them). If it's in service to the plot and is well done, I don't have any objections to cutscenes. Conveying a desired message is worth a moment of non-interactivity, in my opinion, as long as opportunities to take advantage of a game's interactive nature aren't squandered in the rest of the game.

First the complaint about a lack of backwards compatibility and now a games to movie complaint? What is this, 2006?

:)

Let's not pretend that a genuinly good movie based on a game is impossible to make, but instead recognize that everything we love is being mashed into the gray pulp known as the mainstream, purely for monetary gain with no vision or soul behind it.
The sooner people start asking for niche content, the better. I'd rather play a game or see a movie that I didn't completely understand, than being bored out of my skull.

I think most movies based on video games are pretty good.

Casual Shinji:
I always look at Street Fighter 2: The Animated Movie as one of the few examples were a videogame movie can deliver some entertaining fluff. But yes, as time goes one, rendering technology becomes more advanced, and performances more believable, there's even less of a point in trying to adapt games to film.

I wouldn't say games are better than movies, because I like the idea of having a quick, well-paced story play out infront of me at about a two hour running time. But when it comes to the action blockbuster games certainly seemed to have surpased movies. Mad Max: Fury Road is the one exception, but summer action epics do fuck all for me anymore. Uncharted 4 has given me greater satisfaction in that regard than almost the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe combined.

And I think I heard that the Uncharted movie was actually canceled. *crosses fingers*

I agree with you. Yahtzee statement comes off as elitist; something he chastised Robert Ebert (the old fucking prick) for. There are movies I don't like nor would I ever spend $6-$10 at at theater, let alone at a standard price for a DVD/Blu-Ray. But at the end of the day, I don't mind sitting on my ass and watching a movie; especially if it's good or entertaining in the "so bad, it's good" territory.

As far as good video game to move adaptions, here's my list:

Street Fighter II: the Animated Movie

Fatal Fury I & II - The third movie is just meh and boring

Mortal Kombat

Bayonetta - Yes, there was an anime movie adaption.

Resident Evil: Damnation & Degeneration - They're not perfect, but both films are leaps and bounds above all of the live-action movies.

Double Impact - The last one I'm cheating, but it's a better Double Dragon movie than the "official" licensed movie. It's obvious whoever made this movie had to be a closet fan of Double Dragon. There are too many similarities for it to be a huge coincidence. Also, it's one of the Van Damme's best, and showd that he's does have good acting range.

The Phoenix Wright movie is probably the best video game adaptation I've seen - but considering the games were barely a step up from a visual novel already, it's not much of a stretch.

The first Tomb Raider movie at least had some interesting visuals and not much pretense. I never saw the second, but I might like to some day, if I have nothing better to do.

Smilomaniac:
The sooner people start asking for niche content, the better. I'd rather play a game or see a movie that I didn't completely understand, than being bored out of my skull.

Have you seen the Super Mario Bros movie? It doesn't get much more niche or incomprehensible than that. Probably the best thing that can be said about it is that they at least started out with the guts to try to make something genuinely creative and different - but they lacked the guts, talent, and budget to see it through to the end. We will almost certainly never see the likes of it again.

"There is something to be said for the Assassin's Creed solution, of doing a side story within the game universe. But I can't think of any franchise that successfully built a canon spread across multiple forms of media."

Um...

-Assassin's Creed (in that it had an EU long before the film)
-Dead Space
-Defiance (not sure if "successful" is the word though)
-Diablo
-Dragon Age
-Fable
-Final Fantasy
-Gears of War
-Guild Wars
-Halo
-League of Legends
-Mass Effect
-Metroid
-Mortal Kombat
-Overwatch
-Perfect Dark (might be stretching "successful" though)
-Resident Evil
-Sonic the Hedgehog
-StarCraft
-Warcraft
-Warhammer (both branches)
-Wing Commander

Bear in mind, that's only off the top of my head, and only confined to games. Expanded universes are very prolific.

Jorpho:
The Phoenix Wright movie is probably the best video game adaptation I've seen ? but considering the games were barely a step up from a visual novel already, it's not much of a stretch.

The first Tomb Raider movie at least had some interesting visuals and not much pretense. I never saw the second, but I might like to some day, if I have nothing better to do.

Smilomaniac:
The sooner people start asking for niche content, the better. I'd rather play a game or see a movie that I didn't completely understand, than being bored out of my skull.

Have you seen the Super Mario Bros movie? It doesn't get much more niche or incomprehensible than that. Probably the best thing that can be said about it is that they at least started out with the guts to try to make something genuinely creative and different ? but they lacked the guts, talent, and budget to see it through to the end. We will almost certainly never see the likes of it again.

Yeah I saw it, but that's not what I meant. By niche I mean stick as much to the game as possible and cater to the specific fans of said game.
Not sticking to it and making it niche is how unholy abominations are made.

Also, might as well make this a second post as they deal with different aspects. The demand "stop making games into movies" on the basis that movies will always be inferior to games.

Few points:

-Declaring any medium to be superior to another is always going to be based on preference.

-How many movies can you say are superior to the books that they're based on? What about movies adapted from stage plays? Speaking personally, there's only a few movies I consider superior to their novel sources, and movies based to stage plays tend to be on the level, since a stage play leaves more room to interpretation (e.g. compare Brannagh's Henry V to Olivier's). That said, I don't recall anyone demanding to stop adapting novels. Yet games should stop because...reasons. If the reason for not adapting something is that the adaptation will never be as good as the material it was based on, then the rationale is that adaptations should stop altogether.

-This isn't even confined to those mediums. I can name only a few movie novelizations that surpass the movie they were based on. I know only a few games based on movies that are genuinely great. There's a reason why "lost in adaptation" is a phrase in the first place.

-I don't think people seeking to adapt games into movies is a sign of insecurity. I can grant that part of it may be based on the idea that "this is popular, lets make a movie" (lord knows that might explain Tetris or Fruit Ninja), but that's a poor reflection on movie studios rather than the games they seek to mimic (as the saying goes, "imitation is the greatest form of flattery"). Also, I'd argue that there's plenty of decent videogame movie adaptations, but yet to be a "great" one. It's that rarity like films surpassing the source material, or the even rarer instance of a novelization surpassing its film. If an Uncharted movie fails, it doesn't reflect poorly on Uncharted in of itself, anymore than, say, failing to adapt His Dark Materials through The Golden Compass reflects poorly on the book itself.

Interactive entertainment being made into a source for uninteractive entertainment is a bad thing. Very few exceptions.

Well, ok. Some things lend themselves well to movie adaptations [Anything with story>everything else], while others don't [gameplay>story>everything else].

I think it'd be great if 'walking simulators' were instead short movies, since then it'd be easier to see if anyone wants more of that story. But you can't really take something like No Time To Explain and make a movie from it.

The solution of, rather than converting a game to film, making a film based in the same universe could be the better solution. As long as it doesn't violate the established canon, it can be as ambitious as needed.

Hawki:
"There is something to be said for the Assassin's Creed solution, of doing a side story within the game universe. But I can't think of any franchise that successfully built a canon spread across multiple forms of media."

Um...

-Assassin's Creed (in that it had an EU long before the film)
-Dead Space
-Defiance (not sure if "successful" is the word though)
-Diablo
-Dragon Age
-Fable
-Final Fantasy
-Gears of War
-Guild Wars
-Halo
-League of Legends
-Mass Effect
-Metroid
-Mortal Kombat
-Overwatch
-Perfect Dark (might be stretching "successful" though)
-Resident Evil
-Sonic the Hedgehog
-StarCraft
-Warcraft
-Warhammer (both branches)
-Wing Commander

Bear in mind, that's only off the top of my head, and only confined to games. Expanded universes are very prolific.

Thank you.

There's also Streets of Rage 2 comic and novel adaptions, though you have to live in the UK for that one, but thanks to the Internet; you can read it on fan sites.

Also, with the Sonic example, they did a special crossover by having characters from other classic Sega franchises suchs as Golden Axe and Billy hatcher. They even included Capcom characters too. Speaking of which, Mega Man. The recent comics, and the cartoon from the mid 90s. Though the latter was cut-short despite good ratings.

Udon's Street Fighter comics and side-stories are held in high-regard as well. The Viewtiful Joe anime was great as well, but for some reason, whoever dubbed the first season never bothered with an English dub for the second season.

Just because they are bad doesn't mean it cant be done well. First though, movie makers have to fucking RESPECT THE SOURCE!

I'm still hoping for a Hitman movie. What? You say they already made two of them? Yeah, and Edward Cullen is a true vampire. A Hitman movie is easy. Step one: Cast Agent 47's game voice actor a Agent 47. He already sounds like him and guess what! He was 47's visual basis, so he looks like him too. Step two: Original plot in the game's canon. Hitman is set up to keep going. 47 just keeps working. Hes not trying to destroy the One Ring, defeat Ultron, or find his family. As long as he is willing and able, and people need elaborate killing, hes got a motivation. Step three: DONT MAKE IT AN ACTION MOVIE! If Agent 47 is in the middle of the street shooting people in day light with explosions, you're doing it wrong. Make it a thriller, make it suspenseful, hell make 47 the antagonist. Blood Money framed the plot as an FBI agent telling of 47's jobs to a reporter. That could work for a movie too.

The problem is people who don't care about the source are making the movies. My favorite movie is Perks of Being a Wallflower, a movie adaptation of a book. The movie version though, was written and directed by the fucking author of the book! He did have to modify things from the book, but being the guy who made it, he knew what he was trying to say, even if it was said differently. If they ever were to make a Metal Gear movie, Id want Kojima in charge of it. (Yes I know it wont happen for numerous reasons, but this is all about hypotheticals anyways)

Considering how often you can have a cool idea for a story, stuck in the middle of a shit game, I have zero issue with someone trying to make a movie out of it, without all the crap game mechanics that might be dragging the story down. I love the concept of AC, but I fucking hate the actual game itself in most examples of the franchise. They take what could be a cool premise, and do nothing with it, just constantly stretch it out over and over, so they can make more games, without any actual payoff to the plotline. Screw that noise. If they can make an interesting and compelling movie out of the AC story, more power to them.

I agree and disagree. I don't believe anything is impossible, and I actually like the Super Mario Brothers movie (I seriously can not understand why it's seen as the worst). However at the same time, I know these game movies are only being made because of the popularity/easy money, and because Hollywood is kinda bankrupt when it comes to idea's and their dignity.

I don't see video games being better than movies at the moment (since a lot of those classics really are unique and powerful), but I do believe video games can become more so.

Hawki:
How many movies can you say are superior to the books that they're based on? What about movies adapted from stage plays? Speaking personally, there's only a few movies I consider superior to their novel sources, and movies based to stage plays tend to be on the level, since a stage play leaves more room to interpretation (e.g. compare Brannagh's Henry V to Olivier's). That said, I don't recall anyone demanding to stop adapting novels. Yet games should stop because...reasons. If the reason for not adapting something is that the adaptation will never be as good as the material it was based on, then the rationale is that adaptations should stop altogether.

With those types of adaptations you're always adding something though. You're adding visuals, sound, motion, budget. Some things might get lost in the translation, but the added benefit can even that out, or maybe even make it better.

Videogames already have visuals, sound, motion, and budget that rival Hollywood. Plus the most important aspect of all; interactivity. The only thing a movie version can add is the lack of interactivity and actors that don't much look like the videogame characters they're supposed to portray.

Can a videogame movie work out? Sure, but I don't see it being anything besides either a goofy, self-referential animated comedy, like Angry Birds, or (if based on a more "serious" property) a bonus side story at best.

Here's an idea I like about the various forms of entertainment:

Books are the most explorative
Games are the most inventive
Films are the most efficient

CoCage:

There's also Streets of Rage 2 comic and novel adaptions, though you have to live in the UK for that one, but thanks to the Internet; you can read it on fan sites.

I've read some of the Streets of Rage comics - at least the ones done by Eggmont that were attached in issues of Sonic the Comic. Admittedly Streets of Rage was never really my jam, but I'm wary of including them for as far as I'm aware, there was never an attempt to integrate them canon-wise (as opposed to Sonic, which has had some crossover between its own continuities, as you pointed out).

Saelune:
Just because they are bad doesn't mean it cant be done well. First though, movie makers have to fucking RESPECT THE SOURCE!

I'm going to stop you there. Respecting the source material is usually a good thing, but it's not the key for a successful movie in of itself. Plenty of movie adaptations that are good in their own right, are horrible if viewed as adaptations. These movies include Starship Troopers, obstensibly The Shining, arguably Apocalypse Now (you could argue that Apocalypse Now isn't even an adaptation at all given how much it veers from Heart of Darkness), etc. To cite a videogame example, the first Resident Evil film. If viewed as an adaptation, it's lacklustre. If viewed as its own thing, it is, IMO, fairly decent. Certainly I think it's one of the better videogame movies out there.

Nazulu:
I agree and disagree. I don't believe anything is impossible, and I actually like the Super Mario Brothers movie (I seriously can not understand why it's seen as the worst).

I actually enjoyed the SMB movie when I was a kid. However, as a kid, I also enjoyed the second Mortal Kombat movie more than the first because it had more action in it.

I wouldn't call SMB a good film, but it's hardly the worst adaptation out there.

Casual Shinji:
With those types of adaptations you're always adding something though. You're adding visuals, sound, motion, budget. Some things might get lost in the translation, but the added benefit can even that out, or maybe even make it better.

Videogames already have visuals, sound, motion, and budget that rival Hollywood. Plus the most important aspect of all; interactivity. The only thing a movie version can add is the lack of interactivity and actors that don't much look like the videogame characters they're supposed to portray.

You're always going to gain and lose something in the adaptation process regardless of medium:

-Book to Film: Visuals and sound, at the cost of a more detailed narrative and internal character voice
-Stageplay to Film: Ability to move beyond the stage, at the cost of audience intimacy and length.
-Game to Film: A more story-focused, carefully controlled experience, at the cost of audience interaction.

Hawki:

CoCage:

There's also Streets of Rage 2 comic and novel adaptions, though you have to live in the UK for that one, but thanks to the Internet; you can read it on fan sites.

I've read some of the Streets of Rage comics - at least the ones done by Eggmont that were attached in issues of Sonic the Comic. Admittedly Streets of Rage was never really my jam, but I'm wary of including them for as far as I'm aware, there was never an attempt to integrate them canon-wise (as opposed to Sonic, which has had some crossover between its own continuities, as you pointed out).

Saelune:
Just because they are bad doesn't mean it cant be done well. First though, movie makers have to fucking RESPECT THE SOURCE!

I'm going to stop you there. Respecting the source material is usually a good thing, but it's not the key for a successful movie in of itself. Plenty of movie adaptations that are good in their own right, are horrible if viewed as adaptations. These movies include Starship Troopers, obstensibly The Shining, arguably Apocalypse Now (you could argue that Apocalypse Now isn't even an adaptation at all given how much it veers from Heart of Darkness), etc. To cite a videogame example, the first Resident Evil film. If viewed as an adaptation, it's lacklustre. If viewed as its own thing, it is, IMO, fairly decent. Certainly I think it's one of the better videogame movies out there.

Nazulu:
I agree and disagree. I don't believe anything is impossible, and I actually like the Super Mario Brothers movie (I seriously can not understand why it's seen as the worst).

I actually enjoyed the SMB movie when I was a kid. However, as a kid, I also enjoyed the second Mortal Kombat movie more than the first because it had more action in it.

I wouldn't call SMB a good film, but it's hardly the worst adaptation out there.

Casual Shinji:
With those types of adaptations you're always adding something though. You're adding visuals, sound, motion, budget. Some things might get lost in the translation, but the added benefit can even that out, or maybe even make it better.

Videogames already have visuals, sound, motion, and budget that rival Hollywood. Plus the most important aspect of all; interactivity. The only thing a movie version can add is the lack of interactivity and actors that don't much look like the videogame characters they're supposed to portray.

You're always going to gain and lose something in the adaptation process regardless of medium:

-Book to Film: Visuals and sound, at the cost of a more detailed narrative and internal character voice
-Stageplay to Film: Ability to move beyond the stage, at the cost of audience intimacy and length.
-Game to Film: A more story-focused, carefully controlled experience, at the cost of audience interaction.

Gordon_4:
Here's an idea I like about the various forms of entertainment:

Books are the most explorative
Games are the most inventive
Films are the most efficient

I pretty much agree. The analogy doesn't cover every medium (poetry, visual art, comics, stageplays, etc.), but it's a nice reflection of the strengths of each.

Hawki:

Saelune:
Just because they are bad doesn't mean it cant be done well. First though, movie makers have to fucking RESPECT THE SOURCE!

I'm going to stop you there. Respecting the source material is usually a good thing, but it's not the key for a successful movie in of itself. Plenty of movie adaptations that are good in their own right, are horrible if viewed as adaptations. These movies include Starship Troopers, obstensibly The Shining, arguably Apocalypse Now (you could argue that Apocalypse Now isn't even an adaptation at all given how much it veers from Heart of Darkness), etc. To cite a videogame example, the first Resident Evil film. If viewed as an adaptation, it's lacklustre. If viewed as its own thing, it is, IMO, fairly decent. Certainly I think it's one of the better videogame movies out there.

Yeah but that's the problem. Fuck watching it as its own thing. That's counter to the whole point of an adaptation. And just because of a few flukes, doesn't erase the far more mounting examples of failures, often disregarding the source almost entirely.

Hawki:
You're always going to gain and lose something in the adaptation process regardless of medium:

-Book to Film: Visuals and sound, at the cost of a more detailed narrative and internal character voice
-Stageplay to Film: Ability to move beyond the stage, at the cost of audience intimacy and length.
-Game to Film: A more story-focused, carefully controlled experience, at the cost of audience interaction.

Again though, most videogames that get a movie adaptation already are story-focused and carefully controlled experiences. That's typically why they're thought of as being perfect for the silver screen. And with the ones that aren't story-focused you have to wonder why they even bother since there's practically no story to tell.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
But we can surely agree that games and movies are completely different forms of storytelling with many subtleties that make them incompatible

No, we definitely can't agree on that. All forms of media are completely different forms of storytelling, but that doesn't mean they must always be so incompatible that adaptations can never work. Games are different from films in being much more interactive, but even that isn't unique - some forms of theatre and books are also interactive, and there are plenty of games that are little more than films that require you to hold down the play button. Whether an adaptation works has nothing to do with differences in media, and is really just down to how competent the people making it are. Some works cry out to be adapted but end up flopping or never happening at all, while others don't seem as if they could ever work but end up surprisingly good.

And of course, it's worth noting that there are a great many very successful examples of works transitioning the other way, from some other medium to games. If games were so incompatible with other media, that wouldn't be possible. Why should things like Lord of the Rings or Warhammer be able to start with a single medium and spawn franchise covering pretty much every other form of media, and doing so in both commercially successful and critically praised ways, but nothing could ever do the same starting from a video game?

The problem with video game films so far is very simple - they've almost all been cheaply made cash-ins. Super Mario Bros didn't fail because it was based on a game, it failed because no-one involved gave the slightest fuck about making a good film and just assumed they'd make money because it had a name people recognised. Even some of the less bad ones like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil are there because someone wanted a famous name attached to a mediocre action film, not because anyone was actually trying to make an Oscar-worthy epic.

So yeah, games are not some magic thing that can never interact with or be adapted to any other medium. They already do so successfully, in both directions. It just needs two things. Firstly, for the people involved to actually care about what they're doing, rather than just seeing it as a cash-in for a children's toy. And secondly, time. Books and plays have been adapting each other for thousands of years, and even film has over a century of history. Video games have been with us for barely more than a single generation, and for most of that time they've been seen as largely pointless and childish. We've learned a lot about what does and doesn't work when transitioning between other media, we simply need more experience doing it with games, and we may finally have reached the point where people take games seriously enough to actually start learning.

Why Are There No Good Video Game Movies? - Extra Credits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnP2boSC-FM

If you haven't seen this, it's worth watching. Especially starting at 4:49.

Since I know this comment is going to be a slight breeze in this feral wind of a discussion, I'm just going to list what I consider to be a few of the best film adaptions of video games, and leave it at that.

-Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
-Wing Commander
-Pokemon Heroes
-Need for Speed
-Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

I'd like to also say that Resident Evil (Yes, the live-action ones) is the best series of film adaptions, but, then again, it's the only series that has more than two films, except for Pokemon, ITNOTK, Persona 3, and Halo. However, with the third series, I haven't seen any of them, and, with the final series, I've only seen Legends and FUD. Have yet to see the other two.

I think a lot of people are missing the overall point here. Yahtzee is more referring to the Hollywood created movies in which they have proven they are more about money than anything that can resemble giving an actual fuck about the source material. As a result everyone quoting Japanese anime films are exempt due to the fact that they are often created in conjunction with the original creators of the video game work.

So thing like the Pokemon movies, Street Fighter anime films, etc. can't apply or even compare to the trash Hollywood vomits up.

As campy and awful as some game movies are, there becomes an almost sick enjoyment factor to them. I wonder if that is kind of the point. Things like Street Fighter Van Damme, Mortal Kombat, and Mario Bros, all are so bad they are good.

What I really worry about is this latest wave of video game films that are trying to take things too seriously. Warcraft looks visually impressive, but the lore in that universe is so fucking convoluted that the film has ZERO chance of actually being good, much less make the Warcraft fans happy. The Assassin's Creed movie has shown nothing in the trailers to hint that it isn't just a shitty cash-in on a name. And nothing is known of the Uncharted movie other than it is happening to even begin to make any guesses. But since the games are basically movies with shooting galleries in between scenes, one could argue that we've already had four Uncharted movies.

What the Warcraft and the AC movie appear to be doing though, is taking their world's too seriously. Warcraft is widely known for it's joking behavior, and pop culture references. As dark as Warcraft's world can be, there almost always remains a veil of light hearted fun to the whole thing. Which is something I feel the movie might forget.

We can look back on the video game movies of the 90's and enjoy them because the shitty-ness of them was play across as a joke or satire of what they were doing. Every single one of those movies was filled with jokes, and goofy nods towards the games they came from. But looking at Warcraft, or AC, can you honestly see any of that from the trailers?

I could be wrong. These movies could be amazing, and in the case of Warcraft the film makers and actors all seemed to be genuinely passionate about the games.

But I'm not holding my breath. And I don't even think it matters to anyone, because both of those movies are going to make fuckloads of money, and nobody in charge gives two shits about anything but churning a profit.

CritialGaming:
I think a lot of people are missing the overall point here. Yahtzee is more referring to the Hollywood created movies in which they have proven they are more about money than anything that can resemble giving an actual fuck about the source material.

You've just described pretty much any Hollywood movie ever made. It's a business. The fact that they are using IPs to try and make money off them, without actually giving a fuck about the source material, doesn't automatically exclude the movie from being good. That's up to the writer/directer/actors to accomplish.

CritialGaming:
What I really worry about is this latest wave of video game films that are trying to take things too seriously. Warcraft looks visually impressive, but the lore in that universe is so fucking convoluted that the film has ZERO chance of actually being good

Being convoluted and being good aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, the movie has the luxury of kicking out all the stupid, contradictory stuff, and just focus on the elements they find compelling. Trimming down the fat to get to the meat of the story.

CritialGaming:
much less make the Warcraft fans happy.

Nothing ever makes them happy. They are in a perpetual state of nerd rage over everything about the thing they love. Do something to appease this part of the player base, the other portion loses their shit and cries to the heavens that the game is dead.

CritialGaming:
The Assassin's Creed movie has shown nothing in the trailers to hint that it isn't just a shitty cash-in on a name.

You mean the fact that they've shown us exactly as much plot as Ubisoft has ever done with AC? Seriously what is missing?
1. Dude is captured by Abstergo so they can get to his memories to find MacGuffin.
2. Dude relives historical events, killing people in impractical outfits, and in impossible ways.
3. Dude will eventually absorb these memories and skills, and use them in the future to fight Abstergo.

That's exactly as much plot development that Ubisoft gave us with AC 1 & 2, and all the sub-2 games they made. So I fail to see what they left out compared to the about 4 games worth of storyline that makes the movie premise inferior to the game. I mean, it was apparently good enough for the playerbase to buy half a dozen games with just as thin of a plot. At least the movie has the courtesy to condense it down to a more cohesive narrative, and probably actually give it a resolution that isn't shit, and takes 40+ hours of gameplay to get to.

CritialGaming:
And nothing is known of the Uncharted movie other than it is happening to even begin to make any guesses. But since the games are basically movies with shooting galleries in between scenes, one could argue that we've already had four Uncharted movies.

Considering the Uncharted games are basically just action adventure movies in game form, I would say we've had dozens of Uncharted movies. It's so cliche and formulaic that you could drop just about any action movie in the last 3 decades into Uncharted, and it would fit fairly well.

CritialGaming:
What the Warcraft and the AC movie appear to be doing though, is taking their world's too seriously. Warcraft is widely known for it's joking behavior, and pop culture references. As dark as Warcraft's world can be, there almost always remains a veil of light hearted fun to the whole thing. Which is something I feel the movie might forget.

There is a huge serious undertone to Warcraft, hell all of the cinematic trailers are dramatic epicness in sonic/visual form. Sure there are jokes, and I guarantee there will be jokes in the movie too. But I wouldn't say that Warcraft the game line is a comedy, with bits of seriousness. The other way around in my opinion.

CritialGaming:
We can look back on the video game movies of the 90's and enjoy them because the shitty-ness of them was play across as a joke or satire of what they were doing. Every single one of those movies was filled with jokes, and goofy nods towards the games they came from. But looking at Warcraft, or AC, can you honestly see any of that from the trailers?

No you can't, but you also can't say it's not in there, we don't know how much comedy is in there at all. It's a trailer. It's 2 minutes of footage, hardly a fair indication of the final product. But since I've never seen a movie that didn't have at least some comic relief in it, I'm not too worried that they didn't show any in the trailer.

CritialGaming:
I could be wrong. These movies could be amazing, and in the case of Warcraft the film makers and actors all seemed to be genuinely passionate about the games.

But I'm not holding my breath. And I don't even think it matters to anyone, because both of those movies are going to make fuckloads of money, and nobody in charge gives two shits about anything but churning a profit.

That's pretty much every movie studio ever.

Happyninja42:

That's pretty much every movie studio ever.

And sadly it is also become every game studio too.

Although to be fair, I'd say Marvel is doing a pretty good fucking job of making awesome comic book films. Warner Bros and DC....not so much.

CritialGaming:
I think a lot of people are missing the overall point here. Yahtzee is more referring to the Hollywood created movies in which they have proven they are more about money than anything that can resemble giving an actual fuck about the source material. As a result everyone quoting Japanese anime films are exempt due to the fact that they are often created in conjunction with the original creators of the video game work.

I'd like to point out that a number of Hollywood adaptions have done the same thing (Wing Commander is a prime example), and the critics still hated it. So, no, that has nothing to do with it.

Also, that brings up another point, why are people so desperate to please the critics? What about the audience, or the fans? You know, the people that actually pay money to see this s***. Michael Bay has his movies panned by critics, almost as if it were a hobby, and the films still make money hand over fist. The Fast and the Furious franchise is all over the place in terms of quality, and it's one of Universal's most successful IPs.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here