(Why I think) movies based on games will never work.

[deathbyoatmeal]

For as long as they have existed, game based movies have sucked. I'm not talking about movies like Tron and Scott Pilgrim, those movies are awesome. I'm talking about movies that straight up take the story and characters from a game and attempt to translate them into movie form. Doom, Silent Hill, all the Resident Evil movies; all with meta scores below thirty. Every single video game movie seen so far has sucked beyond all reason. You can blame bad directing, bad acting, whatever; they're just not very good. However, i don't believe bad filmmaking is the problem. i think the root of the problem lies within the idea of a video game movie; the concept just doesn't work out. I think that if Clint Eastwood were to direct a movie version of Red Dead Redemption starring himself, it would suck. If Tim Burton were to direct a movie version of Psyconauts, it would suck. Video games just don't translate into movies, simple as that. Take for example the (maybe) upcoming bioshock movie. Bioshock is one of the best games ever created with possibly the best story ever told in a game so what;s the problem? The problem is that the best parts of a game are not the best parts of a movie. The thrill of Bioshock came from exploring an unknown environment and having to survive in it. Sure the movie could open with a plane crash and have the main character descend into rapture, but in the end it would be him stepping out of the bathysphere, not you. (You meaning the audience, player, whatever) The action wouldn't be the same either, as the fun in Bioshock's combat came from experimenting with the different powers and guns. Noone can possibly make the argument that watching someone throwing toasters at people is as fun as actually throwing toasters at people. Take my Red Dead Redemption example for instance. Exploring the vast western countryside is a draw to the game, but not to the movie. Dicking around in pubs pushing balckjack dealers out of there chairs wouldn't be that fun to watch, but its sure as hell fun to do. Even the emotional parts of the game work out better than they would in a movie. Sure alot of it is done in cutscenes, but a bigger part is done through character development during gameplay, such as during the horse rides and combat. Also the ending is so distinctly gamey that any attempt to recreate it in a movie would be cliched and overdone, but it works in the game. The last point i want to adress is the prince of persia movie that came out last year. It wasn't awful, it was even good at parts, but it also wasn't really like the game. For the majority of the game, its you, either with the princess or alone with your thoughts, jumping around and solving puzzles. And for the game's story, it works. The isolation of the two characters allows them to build chemistry in a way that's completely believable given the circumstances. The two characters also grow and change throughout the story, in a way that reveals both their intentions and their hidden personalities. It also ended in a way that was both touching and sad. Noone would pay to watch two people jump about jabbering and solving puzzles however, so all the elements that made the game and its story and characters so special were lost, and the film became a generic action movie. Not a Prince of Persia movie, and certainly not a game movie. Also, because it was a Dsney film, they changed the ending so that the prince and princess lived happily ever after. Yay. Yawn. Anyway, the point is what makes the best games good and special can't really be captured on film. The best games use their gameplay to tell a story, and movies just can't do that. I'm certainly not dismissing film. I'm just dismissing the idea that the two mediums of film and game can come together in a way that fully glorifies both of them. Please tell me whether you agree or disagree that movie's can;t be made from games, and why. Thanks!

PS:they gave him a name. A freaking NAME. HE IS THE PRINCE AND THAT IS ALL YOU CAN CALL HIM!

 

[JMeganSnow]

Holy Wall of Text, Batman!

You can make movies based on games just as well as you can make movies based on novels, sitcoms, poems, history, newspaper clippings, plays, comic books, flight plans, and hair removal instructions. You just have to understand the difference between the original medium and the medium you're working with NOW.

If you expect the movie to be exactly the same as the game, you're going to be disappointed, sure. But then you're kind of missing the point in the first place.

 

[ultrachicken]

I think it depends on the game. Some games that aren't necessarily popular would still make good movies in my opinion. Mafia 2 (maybe 1, I haven't played that) comes to mind. That game did little to facilitate exploration or to put you in the main character's shoes, but still had a very engaging story, which is why I think it would work.

So, I think good games don't necessarily make good movies, but it's not impossible to make a good video game movie.

 

[Sovereignty]

Wow you need to space that wall of text some @_@

But it's the same thing one could say about books being turned into movies... And really anything being changed into anything else.

The source material will always seem better. ESPECIALLY if the medium is one without restrictions or limitations.

Unless you're a transformer. A transformer's source material sucks.

 

[Sinketi]

I agree with what you're saying, the very medium of video games is so different from that of film that the two are practically incongruous. That said, I think the reason that video game movies may never work is more fundamental even than that.

A game is generally a three-act piece of drama in itself, you have your first phase where you start off, learn the mechanics - second where you collect items or experience to become stronger - third where you defeat the final boss. This should, in theory, work really well on the screen. Translated properly, a film about the discovery of Rapture, from initial exploration, to the unearthing of it's secrets, then the final escape, could work really well. The question is, why?

I don't think any game studio goes, upon starting a new game, "gee, I hope they make this into a movie" - they are artists in their own right, their piece of work is whole and complete, delivered in the way they wanted. Some executive sees the success that the game is having, and decides to open it up to not only the gaming demographic, but the movie-watchers too. It's always going to be a top-down decision, and therefore a cash-in, meaning that nobody really wants to make the movie.

That's why they 'suck', I think, because the game doesn't need an adaptation, and nobody who could have done anything with it is involved with the project. They make a film based around their experience with cinema, not gaming, and that's the final nail in the coffin. The only way to make a truly good video game movie would mean using the screen to further a game's experience. Is that possible? I don't know, but looking at movies released so far, maybe not...

 

[lemda]

i think in the end it is all up to the quality of the plot. it will be a lot different from the game for sure, but still can be good i guess. i would very much like to see some movie from my favourite browser based games [http://browsergames.co.uk] like grepolis [http://grepolis.browsergames.co.uk/] or fortune online [http://fortune-online.browsergames.co.uk/]. i think games mainly create a realm in which you can place a movie plot.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

What most movie makers that make movies based on videogames fail to do,is to keep a good balance.
A movie that is based on a video game must:

a) Resemble the game's world,characters and scenario as much possible so it can please the game's fans.

b) Have a good worked enough scenario so someone who isn't a fan of the game can also watch.


Most game based movies turn way to much to be like a) or like b) and don't have a balance between these two goals.
But not all movies based on games where bad.
The only REALLY good movie that was based in a video game that I ever saw was Mortal Kombat IMO.
Mortal Kombat did the game justice,and was a good movie that was well narrated so even someone who never played the game could watch and get in to.

 

[Billabong Pobblecock]

i don't think they will work because many times people expect to much. the mario brothers movie is based on a plumber jumping on turtles. so simple games can't work because there is to much interpretation. the doom movie had a chance. but they made a decent movie and then put a game on top of it. that bit at the end was retarded. so i think it is possible but only as a multi part movie so it can capture the true scope of a good game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

There is no reason why games can't be made into good movies. It's just that the people that try to make games into movies aren't the best movie makers. It's not like the Christopher Nolan's of the world are doing movie adaptations of games. Remember when Hollywood couldn't make comic book movies, that was because they were hiring the wrong people to make them. In fact, I think movie adaptions of games could have better plots and better developed characters than the game that's being adapted. Think about an Uncharted movie with much more character interaction than the games plus great set-pieces. An Uncharted movie might actually have a good villain as well. Seriously, very few games have actual good plots and character development, and the games that are known for having good plots really aren't that great either. Remember, a game's concept and design is usually done before the writer pens the story so the writing, plot, and characters usually aren't as good as they can be. With a movie adaption, good writers can actually take a good premise from a game and greatly improve the writing. Also, movie directors can control and properly steer the movie into a singular vision. It's obvious that most game directors don't have the control a movie director has because there's just so many pieces that go into making game, and it's much harder to oversee everything when making a game compared to when making a movie.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Please separate the original post into paragraphs.

OT- You assign directors where it would never work. Clint Eastwood is a great director but doesn't fit to the spot and how could he play Marston? That makes no since. He's in his eighties. It wouldn't fit in the story line. Why Tim Burton? he has only made a few great movies(Beetle Juice, Ed Wood, Big Fish and Nightmare Before Christmas, Vincent) and some horrible ones(I'm looking at you Batman 2) which doesn't qualify him as a fit.

A better director for Red Dead would be someone who can direct action and has a dark since of humor(I would say the Coens but they've done a western), and Psyconauts would need well a writer like... say Charlie Kaufman and a director like George Clooney or Edgar Wright. I think this because of Kaufmans skill in writing the odd in neat ways, and Clooney's direction from Confessions Of a Dangerous Mind. His direction would work because of the set-based transitions through scenes which would be perfect for entering and exiting minds in Psyconauts, while Wright can direct with a sense of humor with great use of transitions and graphics that would make Psyconauts more fluent and cool during the entrance and exiting of minds.

About Prince of Persia, I liked that movie because it was nice to look at and the African characters spotlight scene. It's ending was one hella Disney cop out though. It was ruched and probably watched over heavily by its producers.

A movie just needs the right people and be shadowed by the right producers in order for it to work.

 

[Soxafloppin]

....The first Mortal Kombat movie is awesome .

I think a Ratchet and Clank movie could be pulled of, in a Pixar Esque fashion.

 

[Casual Shinji]

....The first Mortal Kombat movie is awesome .

I think a Ratchet and Clank movie could be pulled of, in a Pixar Esque fashion.

I think fighting games might be the only ones suitable for a movie adaptation. Because whether you're playing or watching it, it's all about watching 2 or more larger-than-life characters beat the crap out of eachother, nothing more, nothing less.

But in the end there's no reason to adapt games into movies (apart from box office draw). Unlike books, comics or TV shows, a videogame doesn't gain anything from an adaptation. With a book and comic, an adaptation can add visuals, sound and motion. With a TV show it add a bigger budget or better cinematography. But videogames already have all of this.

The only difference a movie adaptation would make is it would take away the interactive element. So a movie version would actually subtract from the game experience instead of adding to it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

But in the end there's no reason to adapt games into movies (apart from box office draw). Unlike books, comics or TV shows, a videogame doesn't gain anything from an adaptation. With a book and comic, an adaptation can add visuals, sound and motion. With a TV show it add a bigger budget or better cinematography. But videogames already have all of this.

What? Games are on-the-whole extremely are weak with cinematography, sound (especially voice acting), and writing. The reason to adapt something from one medium to another is to reach a broader audience. Even games known for good stories are usually not that great, Bioshock's plot has some big issues and that's a game many point to on how games should tell stories.

 

[Azure-Supernova]

I didn't get far into the OP so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding. But movies based on games can and have worked. I think Prince of Persia (whilst not fantastic) was pretty good. It used the source material as a reference and base to build an original movie around a similar premise.

On the other hand Resident Evil tried this in the first movie, got it wrong and from that point on just got sillier. The less they fucked with the source material the better they were, simply for playing out much like I'd imagine a Resident Evil manga would.

 

[Grey Walker]

I wonder if you could consider Inception to be a Psychonauts movie and 9 to be a Little Big Planet movie. (Mostly kidding here.)

If you took a psychological mystery thriller you could say it was a Heavy Rain movie.

Happy Feet? A rhythm dancing movie.

L.A. Noire was based on an era that has been romanticized and had movies made about it, but it was made into a game.

Here's how the Bioshock movie could work, though:

Make it Andrew Ryan's autobiography, or even just a random citizen of Rapture. Let it show the entire First Act of Bioshock. There was an amazing story there that was hinted at and had recordings of key moments, but the overall story and exactly what events happened was left up to the imagination of the player.

So give us a backstory. Start with the construction of Rapture. Take us through the ideas that led to its construction, the details of how it worked. Maybe take us through a young hopeful, ambitious and trying to make a life for himself and his family beneath the waves. Show his struggle to gain prominence, how the dreams and desire he had fell apart as the utopian society he was promised reveals itself to follow the rest of society's trends.

Take the viewer through this experience, showing the creation and destruction of a utopia, revolt and all.

As for the end? The main character is that random citizen that was killed by a splicer when Jack first arrived in Rapture.

Now that's a movie I want to see. It has nothing to do with the story of the games, but is something that I think fans would want (I certainly do) and new audiences would be interested in, requiring no knowledge of the game itself.

The people making it, however would have to first have played through at least the first, if not both games,and like them. They would then have to make an original story that followed the events, not relying on fanservice alone to sell the movie.

Not an easy task, but I think it could be done. I doubt 2 hours would be enough to do the story justice, though.

 

[ResonanceSD]

You know why the game GoldenEye was awesome?

Because it wasn't released to cash in on the movie. It came out years later.

 

[mik1]

Games stories are always very goal oriented. This becomes boring in a movie. Some movies stories to this and their not based off games they just have a poor story.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Yeah I agree and it's one of my golden rules (never make a film base on a game) since most of them are bad. The ones that didn't suck in my view is Silent Hill. Some people dislike it since it was pretty much watching someone playing the game which to me is how it should be if you going to make a film base from a game since how else it could of been?