So What's the Deal with Video Game Movies? Why Can't They Get It Right?

One of the biggest problem is almost everything they try to adapt, is already a pretty obvious generic take on an already established film franchise. Think about how obviously derivative Assassin Creed, Warcraft and other video game movies are. What makes playing a game and you are left with lightweight versions of better films with better stories.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things.
If we go by that logic, a lot of movies are already take on other movies.

There are no more original stories left, only ways you tell them.

For example, all sword & sorcery movies can easily be tracked back to Lord of the Rings.
All alien invasions are War of the Worlds
And so on...
 
Eh, I wouldn't call Assassins Creed a "generic take on a basic story". If anything, its an example of how video game plots are often kind of horrible messes. "Battle through the ages by two conspiracies over precursor artifacts, as witnessed in the present via genetic memory" is pretty original, albeit not necessarily in a good way.
 
The reason for the failure of video game movies has always been the people making the films, whether it be a lack of talent in one or more key areas such as writing, directing, editing, or the lead actors, or if there is talent there's often a lack of respect shown to the material, and the result is they fail to make a good movie that respects the source.
 
The reason for the failure of video game movies has always been the people making the films, whether it be a lack of talent in one or more key areas such as writing, directing, editing, or the lead actors, or if there is talent there's often a lack of respect shown to the material, and the result is they fail to make a good movie that respects the source.

Agreed most that actually make these movies think they are better and can improve it


Look at things like resident evil, silent hill mortal kombat all games with decent lore that could easily be transferred very easily


I'll never forget the reason for the change for the sex of the silent hill protagonist Because the director, Christophe Gans, took a look at the original draft of the script which had Harry Mason as the main character and believed that the concern Harry was showing for Cheryl seemed more like that of a mother. and no father would go to the same lengths as a mother for a child
 
Agreed most that actually make these movies think they are better and can improve it

Look at things like resident evil, silent hill mortal kombat all games with decent lore that could easily be transferred very easily
Studios don't make video game movies for quality, they do them for money.
I bet that no video game movie director played or care for the game it's based on, half on them might not even know it's a game.

I'll never forget the reason for the change for the sex of the silent hill protagonist Because the director, Christophe Gans, took a look at the original draft of the script which had Harry Mason as the main character and believed that the concern Harry was showing for Cheryl seemed more like that of a mother. and no father would go to the same lengths as a mother for a child
I have watched the 1st movie, at the gender swap is the least of it's problems.
The movie plainly sucks.
 
Isildur´s Heir;34584365 said:
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things.
If we go by that logic, a lot of movies are already take on other movies.

There are no more original stories left, only ways you tell them.

For example, all sword & sorcery movies can easily be tracked back to Lord of the Rings.
All alien invasions are War of the Worlds
And so on...
There is a difference between telling a similar story, and telling the same stories with the visuals taken as well.

Eh, I wouldn't call Assassins Creed a "generic take on a basic story". If anything, its an example of how video game plots are often kind of horrible messes. "Battle through the ages by two conspiracies over precursor artifacts, as witnessed in the present via genetic memory" is pretty original, albeit not necessarily in a good way.
AC is the Matrix with a historical slant. The rest is window dressing really. To the point that they have even decided to dump the modern day story completely.
 
The Matrix isn't that original either when you get right down to it either. It's like a post-apocalyptic Ghost in the Shell meets Dark City.
 
The narrative of video games is basically a virtual adventure where you are the main character. Movies kind of force you to look at it from another perspective. Mortal Kombat worked because that series has a **** ton of protagonists, some are more the lead, but they all play a part.
 
if hollywood can make a successful franchise out of ride like POTC they have no excuses
 
There is a difference between telling a similar story, and telling the same stories with the visuals taken as well.
Sure, but unless you give me an example of that, i have nothing to to go on.

Give me an example of "same story, same visuals".
 
The problem with the generic story argument (which is true, especially when something like Uncharted wears its influences on its sleeve.) take is that, Hollywood is guilty of it too with films - many movies copy from other movies creating generic stuff too. It's a snake eating itself situation no matter what.
 
An ouroboros, if you will. :o
 
So, my thoughts:

1) Video games get their power from mechanics. That is a connection with the audience they have that is hard to capture in film. Failing to accurately capture the core mechanics of a game in narrative form is part of why video games movie either suck (they try) or are unfaithful (they don't try). This thing is huge, as mechanics affect everything about a game's setting and characters but aren't available for the film's setting and characters.

2) Video game characters are thin, even the well developed ones like Cloud and Nathan Drake are little more than rehashes and proxies.

3) As someone said, adapting a good video game story from the modern cinematic games is essentially just a re-hash of the video game, which is also not good. As much as I might want a Mass Effect video game, I don't *actually* just want to watch actors re-do the cinematics from Mass Effect 1, I want something new-ish.

4) Video games are often not considered worth doing well. Uwe Boll was infamous, but because of the perception and the actual execution challenges, not a lot of money is thrown this way.

5) This makes adapting video game action very difficult because video games are animation (they have animation departments) and so adapting them to live action has the additional challenge that adapting cartoons to live action does. This often means the action the game is based around isn't possible. This is also why there are several successful anime adaptations of video games, since they have fewer challenges to deal with than live action ones do.
 
That's why a Portal movie doesn't make any sense when it's a part of the appeal of the series. It's a damn puzzle game. Even with Mass Effect, with its big soap opera worlds, the appeal was choosing your own path..

I still think it can be done, but not all video games should be adapted. I still think Zelda can be done well, but then you would have to take a lot of liberties with it.
 
Isildur´s Heir;34585271 said:
Studios don't make video game movies for quality, they do them for money.
I bet that no video game movie director played or care for the game it's based on, half on them might not even know it's a game.

that id bet the house on

Isildur´s Heir;34585271 said:
I have watched the 1st movie, at the gender swap is the least of it's problems.
The movie plainly sucks.

not going to get any disagreement from me. the only thing they got right was the look and design of elements. the characters and story was ripped apart
 
Alright well let me make a point about Assassin's Creed. Why watch a movie about a character who is reliving his ancestor's genetic memories when a gamer can play through that story themselves? And not only play it, but they are fully immersed in that ancient time period and those ancient cities?

Instead of just a handful of scenes that are only there when the movie needs an action scene, you get to really dive into the memories of your genetic ancestor and get engrossed in their story. The Assassin's Creed movie doesn't replicate that at all.
 
Alright well let me make a point about Assassin's Creed. Why watch a movie about a character who is reliving his ancestor's genetic memories when a gamer can play through that story themselves? And not only play it, but they are fully immersed in that ancient time period and those ancient cities?

Instead of just a handful of scenes that are only there when the movie needs an action scene, you get to really dive into the memories of your genetic ancestor and get engrossed in their story. The Assassin's Creed movie doesn't replicate that at all.

from the early reviews it doesn't even replicate a decent film either
 
Alright well let me make a point about Assassin's Creed. Why watch a movie about a character who is reliving his ancestor's genetic memories when a gamer can play through that story themselves? And not only play it, but they are fully immersed in that ancient time period and those ancient cities?

Instead of just a handful of scenes that are only there when the movie needs an action scene, you get to really dive into the memories of your genetic ancestor and get engrossed in their story. The Assassin's Creed movie doesn't replicate that at all.

Now that is a good point. Especially with the improvements in graphics and voice acting, video games are becoming more cinematic all the time. Even something that would work as a film like Uncharted, probably wouldn't be as good as the Uncharted games. So why not just play the games?
 
But if you can make a good story out of it, why not? For most of these games, if you strung together all of their cinematic scenes, it would make for a pretty good movie. These days a screenplay is commissioned for most of these games because they are so cinematic. Arkham origins for example, while the gameplay was lacking had arguably the most engaging story of the Arkham games and the cinematic scenes that took place between the gameplay were incredibly compelling and well done. If they ever just released a 3+ "movie" of those scenes pieced together, I would pay money to see it. Now, I know that's kind of a weird example because there are many Batman movies, but the point I'm trying to make is they're putting tons of effort into the actual screenwriting of these stories to make them movie like.
 
You know what..I've given up on game movies. I pledged that Warcraft and Assassin's Creed would help out the genre, and one failed despite having great talent behind it, and the other... come on. It's getting stupid.
 
The Matrix isn't that original either when you get right down to it either. It's like a post-apocalyptic Ghost in the Shell meets Dark City.
Yes, but how many of those were relevant main stream properties? Neither those or the Invisibles. So when the Matrix happened, it became the relevant standard. The one others were compared to, the one others "ripped off".. Much like how Star Wars could be seen as a not so subtle rip off of Dune. But the vast majority aren't going to compare the Star Wars inspired flicks to Dune, but Star Wars.
 
So, Assassin's Creed apparently joins the long, sad list of movies in this genre. It's time to call this genre dead. If it hasn't happened after 25 years and over 40 movies then it's never going to happen.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,551
Members
45,875
Latest member
shanandrews
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"