lock thread please

[Lufia Erim]

They don't. Well not in comparison to other movies at the very least. You see it's my opinion that, because the movies are based on games we have played, we expect too much from it. We expect the movie to follow the in game logic or story. Which isn't necessarily true , then we are dissapointed.

Take prince of persia for example. I rather enjoyed that movie. It was no worst than any other action movie. But everyone expected it to follow the videogame story and have the price use the dagger every 5 minutes to go back in to to redo his screw ups. And that didn't happen. The name 'prince of persia" actively killed the movie for a lot of people.

That being said, are there movies based on video games that are bad? Sure. But not all of them suck. Some are really good if you just forget it's based on a game. Another example being the hitman movies. They are good action flicks. Just don't expect 47 to be changing costumes every 10 minutes.

Thoughts?

 

[Zontar]

I think the issue people have is the fact that there's a disproportionately large amount of movies based on games which are bad compared to other media adaptations like books or comic books.

Sure, not all are bad, just look at Dead Space. But for every good or even just 'alright' movie based on a game, there are a lot of ones which are crap.

I think one of the issues that has to do with adaptations of this nature is that usually it's done because it's seen as profitable instead of as something which makes sense. Looking at Need for Speed, there was no way to make that a faithful adaptation because there was nothing to adapt. The title was the only thing it had in common with the games because there isn't a story to those games. Then there's things like Hitman which have no connection to the games stories outside of a few names and images (seriously, a game about stealth should not have a guns blazing movie be the result of adaptation) or Red Faction, where the movie was just a boar to sit through, made no sense from a story telling perspective and worst of all was the second act of a trilogy (who the hell thought having a Sy Fy made for TV movie be one of the three parts of the revived Red Faction trilogy was a good idea?)

We've seen in the past that video games can be adapted well to movies, but that the problem is that most of the people making those adaptations had no idea what they where doing. We'll get there eventually, it happened with books and it happened with comic books, it's only a matter of time before people who understand how to make a video game movie actually get in a position to do so.

 

[tippy2k2]

Except they kind of do...

If you're going to draw from a source material, you should draw from a source material. The same thing happens with comic movies; you can (generally) tell which movies had people who cared about the source and which movies are people cashing paychecks.

There are video game movies that are not God awful (the first Hitman movie for example and I personally enjoyed Doom even though it wasn't a great movie and....uh........there's probably a few more, right?) but I can't think of any game based movie that was a "Holy shit guys! You HAVE to go see that!!!!1!".

 

[Evonisia]

I do agree that people expect too much faith from a film adaptation. I understand why, but I think video games are harder to adapt than books or TV for fairly obvious reasons.

That said: how often is it we get a film like Silent Hill that is both faithful AND good? Not very often.

 

[Queen Michael]

I dunno... I know that the quality varies, but it seems like the real stinkers are overrepresented. Super Mario Bros., Dead or Alive, Street Fighter... Sure, Street Fighter is an amazing movie if you're into cheesefests, but you can't call it an example of quality movie-making.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

They kinda do. I've never seen a truly good VG movie.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Generally speaking, video game movies are trash. This has very little to do with where the source material comes from, but simply how its handled by most studios - Poorly.

Googling 'video game movies' comes up with the following results.

Resident Evil - 68% User Rating (Rotten Tomatoes) - A lot of people liked this series of movies (Rating is based on original movie only). Personally, I thought they were average, at best. Cheesy action, deviation from the source material so wide that if you changed the names, you may not be able to recognize what the original concept was, poor actor chooses, bad special effects... but, again, a lot of people like it.

Tomb Raider - 48% User Rating (Rotten Tomatoes) - Most people didn't like this movie because it was just a series of action scenes and Angelina Jolie's assets floating around on a screen, with no real concise plot, story, or anything else you may want from a movie.

Hitman - 57% User Rating (Rotten Tomatoes) - Didn't see this one myself, but here's some comments: 'Only the deadpan delivery of Timothy Olyphant as Agent 47 enlivens the wooden dialogue of this collection of clichés masquerading as a silver-screen adaptation.'. 'Though stylishly shot and occasionally exciting, this adaptation of the popular video game can only go so far with its mindless violence and cardboard characters.' 'A Bourne knock-off, and not a very good one at that.'

Super Mario Bros - 28% user Rating (Rotten Tomatoes) - Well, I mean... come on.

Mortal Kombat - 58% User Rating (Rotten Tomatoes) - A camp B-rated fight flick, with all the trappings of such.

I can go on. The fact is, video game movies are bad because they're being treated like comic movies used to be - with little to no respect. Perhaps there's a few gems (In my opinion, Prince of Persia, 58% user rating on Rotten Tomatoes, is not one of them), but it is what it is.

 

[Andy Shandy]

SOME movies based on games don't suck. A lot of them still do.

If it helps, comic books went through this whole shebang too.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Personally I LIKED the Silent Hill movie as it pretty much capture the game into movie form.

The thing is one of the things I read why some people didn't like it cos it was like watching someone playing the game or acting too game like (like when the main character figure out there was something behind the painting and used a knife to cut a path) but that pretty much how I expect a movie based on a game to be like. Even then what they do want from a good game film? Half game and half doing its own thing?

 

[Casual Shinji]

That said: how often is it we get a film like Silent Hill that is both faithful AND good? Not very often.

That was good and faithful? Pyramid Head and the nurses say hello. So does the all around awful plot and characters.

OT: Prince of Persia had some proper production values and actual serious actors, but apart from that it was forgetable fluff. Obviously some game movies are better than others, but even the "best" barely make it to below average. Even when compared to silly B-movies like The Mummy and The Relic, game-based movies get mercilessly crushed in the quality department.

The only videogame movie I can think of that sort of does its job in translating the game to screen is Street Fighter 2: The Animated Movie, since it's just the characters beating the shit out of eachother.

If I was nice I'd say that the first Tomb Raider movie nearly succeeded in not being shit, but even then it still only reached the quality level of a Van Helsing.

The best we can do seems to be videogame themed movies, like Scott Pilgrim or Edge of Tomorrow.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Prince of Persia did suck because it basically had two plots running at the same time. One of them was completely illogical and the other, important and logical one was in the background until the third act when it became important. If my memory serves me correctly Ben Kingsly had to be stopped because if he were to use the sands of time he could end the world or something, but at the same time the prince wanted revenge and to clear his own name. And it was obvious from the very start that he'd use the sands of time to reverse time and prevent his uncle from killing the king. That was enough for the plot. Just good old revenge and redemption story. Because in the end the prince had to use the sands of time. We knew he would and we knew the world wouldn't end. So what was the point of having the threat of possible end of the world being the reason to stop Ben Kingsly for the majority of the movie? That ruined the entire movie for me.
Did anyone even proofread that script before they gave it a green light?

 

[DementedSheep]

Eh no, they kinda do. Not all of them of course but most. I've seen movies of games I've never played, they still suck.
The Pince of Perisa movie was a fucking terrible to me even without any association to the games. The only good point about it is that the bad guy killing the king with a poisoned robe was unintentionally hilarious.

 

[Dizchu]

Yeah I have to disagree. Even the best video game movies end up being merely "okay", and I think I know the reason why.

Basically, it's the same reason why novelizations of films and video games are typically god awful. When you adapt a book into a film or video game, you're adding an extra dimension to it. That's why film adaptations of novels can often become classics, even overshadowing the source material (Jaws, anyone?) Video game adaptations of novels typically aren't too shabby either. There's exceptions of course, but if you have a good director and screenwriter, you can elevate the source material to new levels. When you adapt films and video games into novels, you're taking that dimension away.

Video games have more in common with film than they do with novels when it comes to production (though in my opinion, they have more in common with animation than live-action, despite the industry's obsession with "realism"). The key difference being player interaction. When you take player interaction away, you're taking away a massive component of that story. The video games that are typically adapted into films usually rely heavily on action or environmental interaction. Without those, the story becomes quite bare-bones. Video game adaptations of films usually fare a bit better.

It also doesn't help that video game movies are usually directed and written by people who have no idea how to make a good film (looking at you, Uwe Boll).

 

[Jack Action]

Yeah I have to disagree. Even the best video game movies end up being merely "okay", and I think I know the reason why.

Basically, it's the same reason why novelizations of films and video games are typically god awful. When you adapt a book into a a film or video game, you're adding an extra dimension to it. That's why film adaptations of novels can often become classics, even overshadowing the source material (Jaws, anyone?) Video game adaptations of novels typically aren't too shabby either. There's exceptions of course, but if you have a good director and screenwriter, you can elevate the source material to new levels. When you adapt films and video games into novels, you're taking that dimension away.

Video games have more in common with film than they do with novels when it comes to production (though in my opinion, they have more in common with animation than live-action, despite the industry's obsession with "realism"). The key difference being player interaction. When you take player interaction away, you're taking away a massive component of that story. The video games that are typically adapted into films usually rely heavily on action or environmental interaction. Without those, the story becomes quite bare-bones. Video game adaptations of films usually fare a bit better.

It also doesn't help that video game movies are usually directed and written by people who have no idea how to make a good film (looking at you, Uwe Boll).

Uwe does know how to make a good movie. See: Postal. He just can't be bothered to make movies when he can use them as an excuse to turn movie funding into mostly free money.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Yeah I have to disagree. Even the best video game movies end up being merely "okay", and I think I know the reason why.

Basically, it's the same reason why novelizations of films and video games are typically god awful. When you adapt a book into a a film or video game, you're adding an extra dimension to it. That's why film adaptations of novels can often become classics, even overshadowing the source material (Jaws, anyone?) Video game adaptations of novels typically aren't too shabby either. There's exceptions of course, but if you have a good director and screenwriter, you can elevate the source material to new levels. When you adapt films and video games into novels, you're taking that dimension away.

Video games have more in common with film than they do with novels when it comes to production (though in my opinion, they have more in common with animation than live-action, despite the industry's obsession with "realism"). The key difference being player interaction. When you take player interaction away, you're taking away a massive component of that story. The video games that are typically adapted into films usually rely heavily on action or environmental interaction. Without those, the story becomes quite bare-bones. Video game adaptations of films usually fare a bit better.

It also doesn't help that video game movies are usually directed and written by people who have no idea how to make a good film (looking at you, Uwe Boll).

Uwe does know how to make a good movie. See: Postal. He just can't be bothered to make movies when he can use them as an excuse to turn movie funding into mostly free money.

When you direct 31 movies, one of them is bound to be decent.

Dude has a 97% shit movie rate. He's a baddie and doesn't know what he's doing. He's also crazy.

 

[Jack Action]

When you direct 31 movies, one of them is bound to be decent.

Dude has a 97% shit movie rate. He's a baddie and doesn't know what he's doing. He's also crazy.

I'm not disputing the fact that he's a psychotic asshat, since I remember all too well his comments about the Bloodrayne movie (guess I've a patriot buried somewhere inside me); BUT, and this is a big but, the way he painted himself in Postal indicates that he's capable of poking fun at himself, which is worth a lot of points in my book.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Where is this shit even coming from? Not a single fucking movie based on games has been good, and I defy you to find one that actually follows its source material properly.

I'm resigned to the fact that the formats are simply incompatible, barring some fucking miraculous levels of talent, which won't happen with the way Hollywood conducts its business these days.

 

[Lufia Erim]

Where is this shit even coming from? Not a single fucking movie based on games has been good, and I defy you to find one that actually follows its source material properly.

I'm resigned to the fact that the formats are simply incompatible, barring some fucking miraculous levels of talent, which won't happen with the way Hollywood conducts its business these days.

Someone didn't read the OP.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Where is this shit even coming from? Not a single fucking movie based on games has been good, and I defy you to find one that actually follows its source material properly.

I'm resigned to the fact that the formats are simply incompatible, barring some fucking miraculous levels of talent, which won't happen with the way Hollywood conducts its business these days.

Someone didn't read the OP.

Out of curiosity, are you ever going to discuss the subject of this thread, which has been refuted by a dozen people, or did you post just to make a statement (Something more appropriate with facebook then a forum [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forum]) and to poke at people who don't conform to absolute letter of your assertion (That source material has absolutely no place in 're-imaginings')?

 

[HardkorSB]

The ones I've enjoyed:

Mortal Kombat - PG-13 sucks but aside from that it's a decent movie
Doom - deviates from the source material but as a cheesy self aware B-movie, it pretty good
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - definitely one of the better video game movies, even though the audiences at the time hated it
Dead or Alive - given how dumb the source material is, I think the filmmakers did a great job
Postal - nothing special but watchable
Resident Evil series - very dumb but entertaining
Need for Speed - an OK movie although quite forgettable
Tekken - also an OK movie, they got rid of the stupid supernatural elements which, in my opinion, was a good decision

Looking up video game movies online, there are a lot of Asian ones.
Ace Attorney looks good, I'm also curious about Forbidden Siren and Fatal Frame.