Enough of Making Video Games into Movies Already

[happyninja42]

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.

 

[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). 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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

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

 

[Hawki]

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).

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.

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.

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]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

 

[Kahani]

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.

 

[J.McMillen]

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.

 

[Transdude1996]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CritialGaming]

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.

 

[Transdude1996]

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.

 

[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.

Yes, they are making very profitable movies. But a lot of people in the movie review sphere are criticizing Marvel for basically making the same movie over and over. Cookie cutter stories without any real substance to them. Ok, maybe " a lot" is a bit inaccurate, I've never actually counted them, but I know at least half a dozen or so people have been very negatively critical of Marvel and it's movie machine. So even they aren't doing it just "for the love of the material". In fact I would say most people involved aren't in it for the source material, they're in it because it's basically a license to print money.

 

[CritialGaming]

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.

Yes, they are making very profitable movies. But a lot of people in the movie review sphere are criticizing Marvel for basically making the same movie over and over. Cookie cutter stories without any real substance to them. Ok, maybe " a lot" is a bit inaccurate, I've never actually counted them, but I know at least half a dozen or so people have been very negatively critical of Marvel and it's movie machine. So even they aren't doing it just "for the love of the material". In fact I would say most people involved aren't in it for the source material, they're in it because it's basically a license to print money.

Critics are critics, and sometimes a film critic negatively reviews a film that they are clearly not the market for. There is no such thing as a 100% objective review and critic preferences are always going to be at least a little bias. Which is why I like to see a large sampling of "fan reviews" are everything I look at, from movies, and video games, because nobody is more honest than fans.

And yes, there is never ever going to be 100% fan satisfaction. But usually there is an overall consensus on a given thing to provide at least a good enough general feeling. I typically watch a few youtubers play a video game's first 20-30 minutes before I buy a game, in order to judge whether I will also enjoy a game.

 

[happyninja42]

Critics are critics, and sometimes a film critic negatively reviews a film that they are clearly not the market for. There is no such thing as a 100% objective review and critic preferences are always going to be at least a little bias. Which is why I like to see a large sampling of "fan reviews" are everything I look at, from movies, and video games, because nobody is more honest than fans.

And yes, there is never ever going to be 100% fan satisfaction. But usually there is an overall consensus on a given thing to provide at least a good enough general feeling. I typically watch a few youtubers play a video game's first 20-30 minutes before I buy a game, in order to judge whether I will also enjoy a game.

By that logic, Michael Bay films are some of the greatest films ever made xD If we're going by fan opinions and ticket sales.

 

[CritialGaming]

Critics are critics, and sometimes a film critic negatively reviews a film that they are clearly not the market for. There is no such thing as a 100% objective review and critic preferences are always going to be at least a little bias. Which is why I like to see a large sampling of "fan reviews" are everything I look at, from movies, and video games, because nobody is more honest than fans.

And yes, there is never ever going to be 100% fan satisfaction. But usually there is an overall consensus on a given thing to provide at least a good enough general feeling. I typically watch a few youtubers play a video game's first 20-30 minutes before I buy a game, in order to judge whether I will also enjoy a game.

By that logic, Michael Bay films are some of the greatest films ever made xD If we're going by fan opinions and ticket sales.

Actually the average rotten tomato user score for the Transformer movies is only a 51%. The first one was the only one people seemed to like and we can probably chalk that up to it being the first one. Sure those movies made a shit ton of money, but I would argue that they can a very campy feel to them that make them fun, but not good, movies. Much like the video game movies of the 90's.

Also don't you dare start talking trash about Bad Boys 2!

 

[tiamat5]

I don't know when he wrote this but Angry Birds is at 42% on RT It isn't even Fresh anymore.