Why Movie Adaptations of Games Suck
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Finally he expands upon what he said in the The Common Mistakes of Horror Games extra punct he did 1 and half years ago 
-.- ...
movies games don't suck cause 'there's nothing to add or expand on' that's a stupid notion, no matter what your working on there always room to expand
they suck because they are rushed out, the devs have little to no time do build anything resembling 'quality work' with few exceptions, and the two note worthy exceptions (Batman on the NES and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) are good, in part, for NOT fallowing the movie to the letter, instead choosing to pretty much make stuff up. also, because they are a rushed product, they tend to be buggy and have control issues that'd make a Buddhist monk cry out in rage.
all to be released the same time as the movie. what movie games need to be good is TIME, not more crap shoved in. they need time to bug test, time to get the controls working right and so on, LIKE A NORMAL GAME -.-
movies games don't suck cause 'there's nothing to add or expand on' that's a stupid notion, no matter what your working on there always room to expand
they suck because they are rushed out, the devs have little to no time do build anything resembling 'quality work' with few exceptions, and the two note worthy exceptions (Batman on the NES and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) are good, in part, for NOT fallowing the movie to the letter, instead choosing to pretty much make stuff up. also, because they are a rushed product, they tend to be buggy and have control issues that'd make a Buddhist monk cry out in rage.
all to be released the same time as the movie. what movie games need to be good is TIME, not more crap shoved in. they need time to bug test, time to get the controls working right and so on, LIKE A NORMAL GAME -.-
Why does everyone always completely forget about the Professor Layton movie?
It's the only good video game adaptation ever produced, and that doesn't change just because it only came out in Europe and Asia. It had all the characters, it had the same visual style, it even had numbered puzzles, and it still managed to tell a fun, well-paced story that could be easily enjoyed by people who never played the games.
It's the only good video game adaptation ever produced, and that doesn't change just because it only came out in Europe and Asia. It had all the characters, it had the same visual style, it even had numbered puzzles, and it still managed to tell a fun, well-paced story that could be easily enjoyed by people who never played the games.
Although I always felt that a comedy ballet adaptation of the Wind Waker would have some hilarious potential...
I think that some material is better for adaption than others, irregardless of it's original medium. The problem is that the guys doing the adapting rarely care about the suitability of the material, so much as whether the franchise name is going to get attention and draw people in.
Some people are probably going to want to lynch me for this, but I thought that first Mortal Kombat movie was actually pretty decent. It could stand up fairly well if you didn't know if was a video game, and I've seen far worse movies in the martial arts genere. It worked as well as it did, was because the plot of the game was pretty simple, basically a Gladiatorial fight to determine the fate of the world conducting on the island of an evil sorceror. It was basically "Enter the Dragon" with more camp and supernatural stuff thrown, the bad guy being a wizard as opposed to some dude who likes to screw weapons onto his arm stump, and the wizard is out to pretty much unleash hell on earth, as opposed to just running a heroin syndicate. Now granted the costumes and such could have been better, but a lot of the choreography was decent, and it got the job done, and while it didn't really go heavily into Mortal Kombat mythology and altered some of the characters, it got the job done.
The sequel to Mortal Kombat was however horrendous, but largelty because they decided to make it more complicated, and managed to cross that line from camp to just absolutly ridiculous.
It's basically the same as the short stories, as opposed to novels. Except with games you really need one that hits the sweet spot of being basic, while still having an identifiable amount of lore that gives it a unique and identifiable feel. If there is too much or too little there it's going to fail.
I see the failing mostly be on the part of the guys making the movies picking the wrong games to try and turn into franchises that exist on multiple platforms, rather than video games inherantly being unsuitable to make games out of on general principle.
It's the corperate mentality in action, when a video game movie gets made the guys doing it probably look at how popular a given video game franchise is, and then decide to adapt it, relying on name recognition to sell tickets irregardless of quality. I very much doubt you see guys looking at video games, finding one that looks like it could be turned into a good movie, and saying "hey this game isn't really popular, but we could do a good movie out of this and make some money". Largely because the latter doesn't hold the promise of guaranteeing huge piles of money for minimal effort. If you saw differant standards used for finding games to make movies out of, and slowly worked on doing this kind of thing right, I think there would be less concerns over potential adaptions.
Of course this is increasingly becoming a moot point, to be honest I get the impression that game developers nowadays increasingly want to make movies, we see less and less gameplay involved in RPGS, and more cinematics being added to action games. One big piece of gaming news right now is hatred over these trends being directed at some lady who proposed them years ago in sounding off about wanting to make "all the gameplay in games skippable" which is alarmingly close to where a lot of things are going.
In a few years it might not matter because your video game might functionally not be all that differant from a movie, and a lot of "gamers" might be people who just watch cartoons sold as games.
Some people are probably going to want to lynch me for this, but I thought that first Mortal Kombat movie was actually pretty decent. It could stand up fairly well if you didn't know if was a video game, and I've seen far worse movies in the martial arts genere. It worked as well as it did, was because the plot of the game was pretty simple, basically a Gladiatorial fight to determine the fate of the world conducting on the island of an evil sorceror. It was basically "Enter the Dragon" with more camp and supernatural stuff thrown, the bad guy being a wizard as opposed to some dude who likes to screw weapons onto his arm stump, and the wizard is out to pretty much unleash hell on earth, as opposed to just running a heroin syndicate. Now granted the costumes and such could have been better, but a lot of the choreography was decent, and it got the job done, and while it didn't really go heavily into Mortal Kombat mythology and altered some of the characters, it got the job done.
The sequel to Mortal Kombat was however horrendous, but largelty because they decided to make it more complicated, and managed to cross that line from camp to just absolutly ridiculous.
It's basically the same as the short stories, as opposed to novels. Except with games you really need one that hits the sweet spot of being basic, while still having an identifiable amount of lore that gives it a unique and identifiable feel. If there is too much or too little there it's going to fail.
I see the failing mostly be on the part of the guys making the movies picking the wrong games to try and turn into franchises that exist on multiple platforms, rather than video games inherantly being unsuitable to make games out of on general principle.
It's the corperate mentality in action, when a video game movie gets made the guys doing it probably look at how popular a given video game franchise is, and then decide to adapt it, relying on name recognition to sell tickets irregardless of quality. I very much doubt you see guys looking at video games, finding one that looks like it could be turned into a good movie, and saying "hey this game isn't really popular, but we could do a good movie out of this and make some money". Largely because the latter doesn't hold the promise of guaranteeing huge piles of money for minimal effort. If you saw differant standards used for finding games to make movies out of, and slowly worked on doing this kind of thing right, I think there would be less concerns over potential adaptions.
Of course this is increasingly becoming a moot point, to be honest I get the impression that game developers nowadays increasingly want to make movies, we see less and less gameplay involved in RPGS, and more cinematics being added to action games. One big piece of gaming news right now is hatred over these trends being directed at some lady who proposed them years ago in sounding off about wanting to make "all the gameplay in games skippable" which is alarmingly close to where a lot of things are going.
In a few years it might not matter because your video game might functionally not be all that differant from a movie, and a lot of "gamers" might be people who just watch cartoons sold as games.
Really, the only reason that most game-movie adaptations suck is because Uwe Boll's made most of them and has made a lot of quick cash abusing the German tax system(seriously, if you think America's system sucks, take a look at Germany) by making shitty, unprofitable movies in order to get huge write-offs. Think The Producers, but with a douchecunt German instead of a pair of opportunistic assholes.
There have been movie adaptations that were actually good(Resident Evil 1, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Advent Children), movie adaptations that were decent(Doom, Tekken...kinda, and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider), and then movie adaptations that were so horrible I'd rather castrate myself with a rusty plastic spork than watch them again(Legend of Chun Li, the collective works of Uwe Boll, and Super Mario Brothers).
It really depends on who is behind it and whether or not they have the chops to know what should go in and what should come out.
I'm willing to bet the Halo movie, which was to be helmed by Peter-Freakin'-Jackson, would've been awesome had it not been canned out of fear of losing money(one of many reasons I'd love to stomp Boll into the ground, which I'm more than capable of doing). The same is the case with the upcoming Mass Effect movie, which has Bioware involvement behind it at the very least, meaning we'll get ourselves a fairly faithful adaptation.
There have been movie adaptations that were actually good(Resident Evil 1, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Advent Children), movie adaptations that were decent(Doom, Tekken...kinda, and Lara Croft: Tomb Raider), and then movie adaptations that were so horrible I'd rather castrate myself with a rusty plastic spork than watch them again(Legend of Chun Li, the collective works of Uwe Boll, and Super Mario Brothers).
It really depends on who is behind it and whether or not they have the chops to know what should go in and what should come out.
I'm willing to bet the Halo movie, which was to be helmed by Peter-Freakin'-Jackson, would've been awesome had it not been canned out of fear of losing money(one of many reasons I'd love to stomp Boll into the ground, which I'm more than capable of doing). The same is the case with the upcoming Mass Effect movie, which has Bioware involvement behind it at the very least, meaning we'll get ourselves a fairly faithful adaptation.
The real reason game-to-film adaptions are all garbage is because filmmakers think gamers are all dumb twats who wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face, so you might as well just give them a big special effects bonanza filled with sexy women and fanservice.
They're probably right.
They're probably right.
They suck because movies are a bussiness that DEPENDS on making quick cash at the expenses of the people and shitting on people that says that movies are art. Making shitty video game movies makes the game industry look like crap and a source of making fun off the people that plays them.
Lets look at it this way: Making lots of bad video game movies will make the people that are non gamers to use their monkey heads and find a pattern, that pattern is that every single game is just a bunch of shallow characters doing cool stuff and nothing else. The public will have a solid impression of video games JUST based on that and nothing else because they are too lazy to think that something different is going to happen.
Lets use a video game example now: As far as gamers know, the "Space Marine Saves The World" has been "invented" by Doom and today EVERYONE is copying Gears of Wars with the "Space Marine who saves the world and is an mindless brute that you are unable to tell if he is angry because someone close to him died or angry because there isnt enough monsters to kill"
What people dont know is that the Space Marine concept has been invented/popularized by Warhammer 40K and they are more like Warrior Poets that happens to be extremely armed to the teeth because the universe is unforgiving as fuck. Just recently games of this franchise have appeared. Unfortunately, the sole MENTION of Space Marines bring the memories of Halo and Gears of Wars and all the crap that your brain can conjure follows.
People will not be thinking this: "Oh, Warhammer 40K, finally the franchise that has spawned the concept of Space Marine will have a place in the gaming world. Perhaps i can understand what is so popular about this franchise that spawned countless of stand alone stories"
Instead they will be thinking this instead: "AAH FUCK, ANOTHER space marine bullshit?? Worse of all, its the original piece of crap that started all this nonsense. And i dont want any of you fanboys to tell me that because it is the original it means its better, if that were true then the people "inspired" by this would have made the same thing but with expanded attributes instead of the shallow crap i see people play everyday. I am not going to bother paying for this thing"
So as you can see, the movie industry is making a tactic that benefits them in the long run by eliminating a possible treat. By ridiculing the games it will make gamers feel ashamed of the games and ALSO by making outsiders pressure gamers into other activities that are less "childish" or "stupid" even if there is plenty evidence of the contrary.
But of course you all are too busy screaming at each other when one innocent soul comments negatively on a game you like (further cementing the stereotype of "angry immature gamer") instead of embracing the criticism and help to make a better community so the non gamers will be less afraid and apathetic to look for answers.
No, please, go on making angry comments on the guy that said that Skyrim and Uncharted sucks, go waste your time on it while a bunch of producers make billions of dollars by making shitty movies out of your favorite game that you will see as the mindless fanboy you are.
Fools
Lets look at it this way: Making lots of bad video game movies will make the people that are non gamers to use their monkey heads and find a pattern, that pattern is that every single game is just a bunch of shallow characters doing cool stuff and nothing else. The public will have a solid impression of video games JUST based on that and nothing else because they are too lazy to think that something different is going to happen.
Lets use a video game example now: As far as gamers know, the "Space Marine Saves The World" has been "invented" by Doom and today EVERYONE is copying Gears of Wars with the "Space Marine who saves the world and is an mindless brute that you are unable to tell if he is angry because someone close to him died or angry because there isnt enough monsters to kill"
What people dont know is that the Space Marine concept has been invented/popularized by Warhammer 40K and they are more like Warrior Poets that happens to be extremely armed to the teeth because the universe is unforgiving as fuck. Just recently games of this franchise have appeared. Unfortunately, the sole MENTION of Space Marines bring the memories of Halo and Gears of Wars and all the crap that your brain can conjure follows.
People will not be thinking this: "Oh, Warhammer 40K, finally the franchise that has spawned the concept of Space Marine will have a place in the gaming world. Perhaps i can understand what is so popular about this franchise that spawned countless of stand alone stories"
Instead they will be thinking this instead: "AAH FUCK, ANOTHER space marine bullshit?? Worse of all, its the original piece of crap that started all this nonsense. And i dont want any of you fanboys to tell me that because it is the original it means its better, if that were true then the people "inspired" by this would have made the same thing but with expanded attributes instead of the shallow crap i see people play everyday. I am not going to bother paying for this thing"
So as you can see, the movie industry is making a tactic that benefits them in the long run by eliminating a possible treat. By ridiculing the games it will make gamers feel ashamed of the games and ALSO by making outsiders pressure gamers into other activities that are less "childish" or "stupid" even if there is plenty evidence of the contrary.
But of course you all are too busy screaming at each other when one innocent soul comments negatively on a game you like (further cementing the stereotype of "angry immature gamer") instead of embracing the criticism and help to make a better community so the non gamers will be less afraid and apathetic to look for answers.
No, please, go on making angry comments on the guy that said that Skyrim and Uncharted sucks, go waste your time on it while a bunch of producers make billions of dollars by making shitty movies out of your favorite game that you will see as the mindless fanboy you are.
Fools
There it is. The exact reason why I've always found movie adaptation of games to be complete failures. They remove the vast array of possibilities, of what ifs.
Also, I actually liked David Lynch's Dune, but maybe that's because I saw it before I read the books. Still, even in retrospect, I thought it had its strengths and its weaknesses, just like all movie adaptations. (Of course I still find Frank Herbert's work to be vastly superior, but I still liked Lynch's version. Plus, it had Sting coming out of a steam shower in a metallic underwear. Can't beat that.)
Your comparison to novels was a very good point. I hadn't thought about it, but you are correct - I feel very similarly invested in a good game than when reading an engrossing book - it's a different feeling to being immersed in a movie or tv event.
However, STRONGLY disagree with any ambiguity of enhancement with regard to redacting the Scouring of the Shire from the LotR movie - it was a terrible move.
They made plenty of other cuts which I consider fair license for what Jackson was attempting - and I was quite surprised at the number of things he did end up shooting when I watched the extended editions. But Scouring was the most important event in the whole epic, making the actual point of the tale and completing the character arcs of the hobbits, which in the end was the main theme of the Lord of the Rings.
Further, what they did with Christopher Lee's unsurpassable Saruman was bordering on criminal. His final vicious and ultimately pathetic stand in the Shire made some very important points which the movie not only missed, but also seemingly deliberately avoided. Most specifically, his supernatural nature. Him falling like a sack of sh-potatoes onto a spike in the films utterly broke the thematic point of having a demigod as a characterised, humanised character. In the book, he correctly melts into his divine-spirit nature, but is rejected by the powers of heaven - and it would have looked really cool on film too.
/geekrant
However, STRONGLY disagree with any ambiguity of enhancement with regard to redacting the Scouring of the Shire from the LotR movie - it was a terrible move.
They made plenty of other cuts which I consider fair license for what Jackson was attempting - and I was quite surprised at the number of things he did end up shooting when I watched the extended editions. But Scouring was the most important event in the whole epic, making the actual point of the tale and completing the character arcs of the hobbits, which in the end was the main theme of the Lord of the Rings.
Further, what they did with Christopher Lee's unsurpassable Saruman was bordering on criminal. His final vicious and ultimately pathetic stand in the Shire made some very important points which the movie not only missed, but also seemingly deliberately avoided. Most specifically, his supernatural nature. Him falling like a sack of sh-potatoes onto a spike in the films utterly broke the thematic point of having a demigod as a characterised, humanised character. In the book, he correctly melts into his divine-spirit nature, but is rejected by the powers of heaven - and it would have looked really cool on film too.
/geekrant
IMO it always depends on the kind of talent that goes into said movie. While I try not to dismiss a movie adpaptation of a game on the basis that such things suck in general, the work of certain producers *coughcoughUweBollcoughcough* will inevitably spring to mind.
On a less serious note:
On a less serious note:
While Prototype and The Darkness 2 are good examples of this, they have nothing on Octodad.
I think the only times this can be successful is when creating something within the "universe" or lore of a franchise. The Mass Effect novels aren't about Shepherd. Arkham Asylum and Nolan's Batman don't even exist in the same continuity. The Bourne books and films have similar names and plotlines but you could easily change the names of the films to Jason Bradley's adventures and only a handful of people would say "They stole that first bit from Bourne Identity".
But this fits Yahztee's theory. They expand and add, they're not taking things away.
The only other two successful adaptions that don't follow this route are Harry Potter and LOTR. And they only seem to work because they slavishly follow the books. It may skim some parts but almost every single scene in the book is represented in the films. LOTR veers off quite a bit but only after the first book and only when 90% of people who read LOTR (when they were 14) probably can't tell it's not quite following the books in some parts.
The interactivity is a big part of why film adaptations of games fail because you give the protagonist a character and voice, and behaviours which are probably incongruous to what the play gave them. As Yahtzee said, movies are too short to tell game stories. For this reason I always feel a tv series adaptation of a game franchise would be more successful. Imagine a "Lost" style series based on Fallout. Or what about Oblivion (Game of Thrones isn't far off). Left 4 Dead is basically The Walking Dead. I'd personally love one set in the Half-life universe.
However, attempting to reproduce the exact same dialogue and scenes as the game would kill it. It's the theme, tone, and concepts of games that are marketable. Not the exact same material in a different medium.
But this fits Yahztee's theory. They expand and add, they're not taking things away.
The only other two successful adaptions that don't follow this route are Harry Potter and LOTR. And they only seem to work because they slavishly follow the books. It may skim some parts but almost every single scene in the book is represented in the films. LOTR veers off quite a bit but only after the first book and only when 90% of people who read LOTR (when they were 14) probably can't tell it's not quite following the books in some parts.
The interactivity is a big part of why film adaptations of games fail because you give the protagonist a character and voice, and behaviours which are probably incongruous to what the play gave them. As Yahtzee said, movies are too short to tell game stories. For this reason I always feel a tv series adaptation of a game franchise would be more successful. Imagine a "Lost" style series based on Fallout. Or what about Oblivion (Game of Thrones isn't far off). Left 4 Dead is basically The Walking Dead. I'd personally love one set in the Half-life universe.
However, attempting to reproduce the exact same dialogue and scenes as the game would kill it. It's the theme, tone, and concepts of games that are marketable. Not the exact same material in a different medium.
I looked at them, but they didn't really grab me. The Sapphire and Steel re-boots are awesome-sauce though. David Warner makes a great Steel.Raiyan 1.0 said: