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

[jmc]

Yes, i haven't played it, but that doesn't invalidate what i said.

By saying "There's absolutely nothing a film does for that story that the game doesn't already cover in great detail", you are making the mistake of addressing it like the movie would replace the game somehow.
That's a mistake since it wouldn't happen, not was there any point for it to be so; just like a movie doesn't replace a book.

But sure, not all things are easily translated into movie; maybe a tv show would be better suited.
When i talk about video game movies,i do not invalidate a tv show; in fact, in this case, the word "movie" has both meanings.

But, like i said before, a movie would not have those things that are so good in games because they are gameplay features, like upgrades, opening locked doors (shiv doors, there are 13 in the game, from what i gathered), or finding parts of some device.

If you've not played the game then you're actually not understanding what I'm saying. The story of who the characters are and what happened to the world are told not only through the cut scenes but through the gameplay itself. We're talking 20 hours worth of story told over 4 very long chapters. A film would have to be written in a way that does away with a lot that story, meaning it would more or less be unrecognisable in the end, which comes back to the main problem of video game adaptations, that they end up being nothing like the games they are based on. The biggest issue a film will face is that it's simple not as immersive, the world in The Last of Us sucks you in in a way film cannot replicate.

 

[Reverse-Zoom]

It doesn't work because video games don't make for good movies because the majority of movie goers didn't not play the games to understand the movies. Im 32 ive never played assassins creed, I have no clue what's going on in the trailers but it's a beautiful looking movie so I will see it but I have no clue about the lore in it. Same wIt's Warcraft never played wow and I had no clue what it was about and it was the dumbest movie I ever seen. Ppl who play it might have loved it but for a person like me that has no knowledge of anything wow related the movie stunk worse than my grandpas 4 day old socks.

 

[TheVileOne]

A game and a movie are totally different things, to compare them is pointless; but one doesn't invalidate the other.


Real people in "real" situations?!?
That's the same reason books are made into movies, because you are watching it unfold on screen instead of making it in your mind.
And you also lose stuff in the translation, you lose stuff that is not put into the movie.

A movie takes away the pointless stuff in game, that is so good because it's a game.
For example: Find the 20 parts of the bomb
No one wants to watch a 2 hour movie about finding pieces of a bomb scattered around an area.

The example above is generic, not about "The Last of Us", which, sadly, i never played.
But that is just to show that the idea that a movie can't do a game's justice is not true, unless you can't understand the difference between the two mediums.
A movie is a passive medium, look at it like as you are a god looking through a window into a new reality and watching people going about their lives.
A movie is about watching, understanding it, and connecting to those characters and what is going on, at the same time, making parallels between it and your own live or things you know.

A video game is an active medium, one where you are the character and you deal with it accordingly.

The things you are describing are why I believe these properties can't work as movies.

 

[Neno_Kos]

I still hope for Dead Space movie. I think that video game as movie would work really well on big screen. In both genres, horror sci fi and horror sci fi action genre. No one can change my mind video games can't be made into movies. AC should have been perfect choice for movie adaptation and they blew it. It had all right ingridents, both gameplay, locations, story, actors, hell possible trilogy plan wise and they manage to blew it. Unbelievable. Decision they decided to make, like 1/3 of movie happens only in "gameplay" and rest of movie is boring crap.

This is like that Doom movie where they decided to make a movie in space on mars doing crap and sneaking 90% time only to put one scene (which was great for me) which show element of "Doom" gameplay. And then movie ended. I mean really? Who is doing this crap, like I dont understand. Why do you butcher your movie on purpose. And dont give it a chance to be something special. Like I dont understand director who thought it would be good decision not to spend more time in Animus.

Like they decided to make Matrix in real time not in matrix 2/3 of the time. I mean who is doing this crap.

 

[James]

It doesn't work because video games don't make for good movies because the majority of movie goers didn't not play the games to understand the movies. Im 32 ive never played assassins creed, I have no clue what's going on in the trailers but it's a beautiful looking movie so I will see it but I have no clue about the lore in it. Same wIt's Warcraft never played wow and I had no clue what it was about and it was the dumbest movie I ever seen. Ppl who play it might have loved it but for a person like me that has no knowledge of anything wow related the movie stunk worse than my grandpas 4 day old socks.

If that were true, how do you account for the (sometimes huge) success of films based on books? Millions of people didn't read Harry Potter or Lord of The Rings, but both are billion dollar franchises -no understanding of the source material required. Then there's the MCU, which continues to be a juggernaut of success despite the majority of it's audience having little to no association with the comics.

Requiring your audience to be familiar with the source material in order to understand a film means you've already failed. Perhaps this is the case with some films, but for a film to succeed it needs to be capable of telling the story on-screen without any other assistance from other media -regardless of what form that media takes.

 

[Reverse-Zoom]

I still hope for Dead Space movie. I think that video game as movie would work really well on big screen. In both genres, horror sci fi and horror sci fi action genre. No one can change my mind video games can't be made into movies. AC should have been perfect choice for movie adaptation and they blew it. It had all right ingridents, both gameplay, locations, story, actors, hell possible trilogy plan wise and they manage to blew it. Unbelievable. Decision they decided to make, like 1/3 of movie happens only in "gameplay" and rest of movie is boring crap.

This is like that Doom movie where they decided to make a movie in space on mars doing crap and sneaking 90% time only to put one scene (which was great for me) which show element of "Doom" gameplay. And then movie ended. I mean really? Who is doing this crap, like I dont understand. Why do you butcher your movie on purpose.

I forgot how bad doom was and it the rock and Karl urban in it. Boy that was a stinker

 

[Reverse-Zoom]

If that were true, how do you account for the (sometimes huge) success of films based on books? Millions of people didn't read Harry Potter or Lord of The Rings, but both are billion dollar franchises -no understanding of the source material required. Then there's the MCU, which continues to be a juggernaut of success despite the majority of it's audience having little to no association with the comics.

Requiring your audience to be familiar with the source material in order to understand a film means you've already failed. Perhaps this is the case with some films, but for a film to succeed it needs to be capable of telling the story on-screen without any other assistance from other media -regardless of what form that media takes.

Harry Potter was huge. I worked at the movie theater when it came out and it had a prior huge following. LotR I will agree with you on I read the hobbit when I was like 12 (1997) but had no idea about the LotR but that was a mighty fine trilogy

 

[Neno_Kos]

[YT]CFYJpRPo3UU[/YT]

man if they find the way one day to butcher this on big screen, which can be done justice on small budget horror sci fi flick. Hell, Alien original was done on 11M budget, Aliens 2 on 19M budget. This can be done.

You just need director with a vision who loved Dead Space games, specially director from horror genre or roots. You dont even need big name actors, just up and coming ones. Simple plot and simple storyline.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

If you've not played the game then you're actually not understanding what I'm saying. The story of who the characters are and what happened to the world are told not only through the cut scenes but through the gameplay itself. We're talking 20 hours worth of story told over 4 very long chapters. A film would have to be written in a way that does away with a lot that story, meaning it would more or less be unrecognisable in the end, which comes back to the main problem of video game adaptations, that they end up being nothing like the games they are based on. The biggest issue a film will face is that it's simple not as immersive, the world in The Last of Us sucks you in in a way film cannot replicate.

I'm not going to say the same thing over and over again.
Let me just end this with what i said before, the movie will not replace the game nor is it meant to.
You talk like, once the movie is made, the game just vanishes in thin air and people forget that it ever existed.
You would still have the game. It would be two different experiences about the same story.

A film would have to be written in a way that does away with a lot that story, meaning it would more or less be unrecognisable in the end(...)

I think you have watched too many Uwe Boll and Paul WS Anderson movies.
Not all movies are the same.
You are going by the premise that the movie would suck and be nothing more than an action flick.
If the movie ends on sucking....well, you still have the game.

(...)which comes back to the main problem of video game adaptations, that they end up being nothing like the games they are based on.

Since half video games is about the player's character running around alone, shooting stuff....yeah, most of them need huge changes.
But that makes us go full circle to; a movie is not made to replace the game it's based on.

 

[DrCosmic]

Y'know... I think I know how to make a great video game movie. There are two things that give video games their power, that movies can do, but if you don't have respect for the medium, or regard it as kids stuff or more poorly crafted generally than films, then you won't do the work.

1) Capture the mechanics in the character's decision making. The main character has to be shown making decisions, constantly, with the premise of the film (i.e., traveling into the past, deployment of troops, etc). The Matrix did a great job of this, as it's character development had a lot to do with his understanding and mastery of the mechanics of the world.

2) To build the world, you need to hint at a larger world without necessarily explaining all of it. Dr. Strange actually does a very good job of this, as you gain an understanding of items and many other sorcerers who study and have studied, but we simply are following one incredible one on their journey.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I still hope for Dead Space movie. I think that video game as movie would work really well on big screen. In both genres, horror sci fi and horror sci fi action genre.

I recently saw the remake of The Thing, and the creatures were very "Dead Space-esque".
Dead Space would work, but, just like almost all game adaptations, you would need to change and/or add some stuff.
You can't have a 2 hour movie with Isaac Clarke running around, alone, shooting necromorphs limbs.

No one can change my mind video games can't be made into movies.

Of course they work as movies or tv shows.
Sooner or later, one good movie or tv show will be made, is a matter of time; and when it happens, everyone will want to do it.
Video game movies are bound to be the next comic book movies.

AC should have been perfect choice for movie adaptation and they blew it. It had all right ingridents, both gameplay, locations, story, actors, hell possible trilogy plan wise and they manage to blew it. Unbelievable. Decision they decided to make, like 1/3 of movie happens only in "gameplay" and rest of movie is boring crap.

Like i said, video game movies are made for money reasons and nothing more.
First, the movie is an original story, based on the games premise and not a game in particular.
Second, my best guess is their goal for the movie was to try and make people interested in playing the games, and for that, they wanted to show the other side, the part outside the animus; if you want the inside...buy the games.

Like i said, it's all about the money, it's all about business decisions.

This is like that Doom movie where they decided to make a movie in space on mars doing crap and sneaking 90% time only to put one scene (which was great for me) which show element of "Doom" gameplay. And then movie ended. I mean really? Who is doing this crap, like I dont understand. Why do you butcher your movie on purpose. And dont give it a chance to be something special. Like I dont understand director who thought it would be good decision not to spend more time in Animus.

Like they decided to make Matrix in real time not in matrix 2/3 of the time. I mean who is doing this crap.

But Matrix is an original story, that's the difference.
A game is based on something that is already successful and has a story.
Either they think that people already know it, and so they can do whatever they want; or they just think everything about the game is crap and they can change as they please.
Many times is because no one involved in making the movies knows or cares is based on a game, and want to give their own creativity.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Y'know... I think I know how to make a great video game movie. There are two things that give video games their power, that movies can do, but if you don't have respect for the medium, or regard it as kids stuff or more poorly crafted generally than films, then you won't do the work.

1) Capture the mechanics in the character's decision making. The main character has to be shown making decisions, constantly, with the premise of the film (i.e., traveling into the past, deployment of troops, etc). The Matrix did a great job of this, as it's character development had a lot to do with his understanding and mastery of the mechanics of the world.

2) To build the world, you need to hint at a larger world without necessarily explaining all of it. Dr. Strange actually does a very good job of this, as you gain an understanding of items and many other sorcerers who study and have studied, but we simply are following one incredible one on their journey.

The main problems about adaptations is:

> Not understanding the game(s) it's based on.
> Trying to concentrate everything in one movie, specially games with a big lore.

 

[TheVileOne]

Did Duncan Jones not understand Warcraft? He didn't concentrate everything into one movie either. In fact, Warcraft was just two hours and basically ends with, "This is the start of the war between Horde and the Alliance!"

 

[Neno_Kos]

I recently saw the remake of The Thing, and the creatures were very "Dead Space-esque".
Dead Space would work, but, just like almost all game adaptations, you would need to change and/or add some stuff.
You can't have a 2 hour movie with Isaac Clarke running around, alone, shooting necromorphs limbs.

Spoiler

Isaac Clarke story is really simple but long. Depends how much you wanna go and explore it in first movie. But for first movie it really should be simple and focus just on events of Ishimura. You have on wiki, enough details to make a more than a solid script. From opening sequence them coming on Ishimura (learning about emergeny unit and whole total communication black out on Ishimura), USG Kellion crash landing sequence which leads to Necromorph's attack when they enter Ishimura and Isaac too being seperated from the crew (3 or 4 crew survivors). This way you can have communication via RIG Suits with rest of crew. (who you will meet later by end of the movie, and get killed). You start explore ship looking for any survivors and trying enable power on ship and look for evidence of what happened there. And then you go deeper in story, Isaac getting contacted by Terrence Kyne, mentions of Marker, and later Ellie Langford who is one of survivors on Ishimura. Only to realize they need destroy Marker first before they try escape.

By the end of the movie you have them hunted by the near-immortal Ubermorph. As they are trying escape Ishimura.


Ofcourse during movie you have character development of Isaac Clarke who starts as more normal kind of guy, and becomes badass by the end of it like Ripley did in Alien. And as in Aliens you have main character who needs to destroy Queen (in this case Marker) so something like this dont happen again.

I mean movie practically wrote itself.

 

[Neno_Kos]

Did Duncan Jones not understand Warcraft? He didn't concentrate everything into one movie either. In fact, Warcraft was just two hours and basically ends with, "This is the start of the war between Horde and the Alliance!"

Duncan did understand Warcraft. But this movie wasnt exactly most necessary. It was prequel to something what's coming. It was ok movie for me as general audience. Warcraft fans loved it. I wish it was done better and we spend more time exploring the world and give us more details. That's the thing. They rushed it. They tried to cramp too much stuff. If human side of the war was done better it would be likely better movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

I love the Dead Space games, but as far as a movie goes, they've already been made. They are called Alien and Aliens.

Guys, that's all Dead Space really is. They recreated Alien in game form. Look, I like the Dead Space characters. I like the story. But it's still just basically another version of Alien and Aliens.

 

[James]

Harry Potter was huge. I worked at the movie theater when it came out and it had a prior huge following. LotR I will agree with you on I read the hobbit when I was like 12 (1997) but had no idea about the LotR but that was a mighty fine trilogy

Of course Harry Potter had a huge following, so did LOTR, but it doesn't escape the fact that significantly more people watched the movies than read the books.

 

[Neno_Kos]

I love the Dead Space games, but as far as a movie goes, they've already been made. They are called Alien and Aliens.

Guys, that's all Dead Space really is. They recreated Alien in game form. Look, I like the Dead Space characters. I like the story. But it's still just basically another version of Alien and Aliens.

I agree in one way. But many movies are one way or another similar to each other.

You still have countless differences between them. Most visible are suits, weapons, powers (stasis), enemies. There is enough differences to make it unique. If someone ask me do you want more movies similar to Alien and Aliens, my answer is yes. I want one day have debate do you prefer Dead Space or Alien(s). And I want one day have debate if you prefer Uncharted or Indiana Jones. I want more of one and more of second.

 

[CJ]

Because part of what makes games so good is the sense of achievement when you finally beat a difficult boss or stage, the feeling like you stepped into the characters shoes and sort of 'became' that character through his journey, the story becomes more personal when you are in the character's shoes. Film is a totally different medium and can't recreate that.

There are exceptions though. Lighthearted stuff played for laughs like Super Mario, Rayman or Sonic could easily be made into a good movie.

 

[jmc]

I'm not going to say the same thing over and over again.
Let me just end this with what i said before, the movie will not replace the game nor is it meant to.
You talk like, once the movie is made, the game just vanishes in thin air and people forget that it ever existed.
You would still have the game. It would be two different experiences about the same story.


I think you have watched too many Uwe Boll and Paul WS Anderson movies.
Not all movies are the same.
You are going by the premise that the movie would suck and be nothing more than an action flick.
If the movie ends on sucking....well, you still have the game.


Since half video games is about the player's character running around alone, shooting stuff....yeah, most of them need huge changes.
But that makes us go full circle to; a movie is not made to replace the game it's based on.

I don't care for your condescending tone, so please spare me the pretentious 'you'll still have the game' and 'not all movies are the same' statements. I'm fully aware of that thank you very much. I also don't care for you insinuating I think the movie will be nothing but some shoot 'em up movie. I have not stating anything with regards to that. What I have stated, and I'll make this as crystal clear as I possibly can, is that the story in that game is so dense that to condense it to a 2 hour movie would require wholesale changes that will butcher the things people like about the game, which again comes back to the problem with adapting video games in the first place. I would suggest you actually play The Last of Us to understand where I'm coming from, because at the moment you're responding to me on the basis of what you think the game is and not what it actually is.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Most visible are suits, weapons, powers (stasis), enemies.

But a Dead Space movie would have Issac Clarke without the suit most of the time, have 2 or 3 weapons only and the stasis would just be used once or twice....unless it's a John Woo movie and you have the vast majority of action scenes in slow motion.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

I don't care for your condescending tone, so please spare me the pretentious 'you'll still have the game' and 'not all movies are the same' statements. I'm fully aware of that thank you very much. I also don't care for you insinuating I think the movie will be nothing but some shoot 'em up movie. I have not stating anything with regards to that. What I have stated, and I'll make this as crystal clear as I possibly can, is that the story in that game is so dense that to condense it to a 2 hour movie would require wholesale changes that will butcher the things people like about the game, which again comes back to the problem with adapting video games in the first place. I would suggest you actually play The Last of Us to understand where I'm coming from, because at the moment you're responding to me on the basis of what you think the game is and not what it actually is.

I'm not being condescending, i'm just replying to you saying the same thing over and over again, that it's impossible to make.
There are plenty of ways to adapt The Last of Us:

> 3 hour movie
> 2-part movie
> scrap the movie, make a tv show

The idea that The Last of Us is impossible to adapt is not true. The thing is, it would be a different experience from the game.
The way you are talking is like to make an adaptation is almost sacrilegious, because all you present are problems and not solutions.
George Lucas said plenty of times that it would be impossible to adapt Lord of the Rings, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Spoiler

Isaac Clarke story is really simple but long. Depends how much you wanna go and explore it in first movie. But for first movie it really should be simple and focus just on events of Ishimura. You have on wiki, enough details to make a more than a solid script. From opening sequence them coming on Ishimura (learning about emergeny unit and whole total communication black out on Ishimura), USG Kellion crash landing sequence which leads to Necromorph's attack when they enter Ishimura and Isaac too being seperated from the crew (3 or 4 crew survivors). This way you can have communication via RIG Suits with rest of crew. (who you will meet later by end of the movie, and get killed). You start explore ship looking for any survivors and trying enable power on ship and look for evidence of what happened there. And then you go deeper in story, Isaac getting contacted by Terrence Kyne, mentions of Marker, and later Ellie Langford who is one of survivors on Ishimura. Only to realize they need destroy Marker first before they try escape.

By the end of the movie you have them hunted by the near-immortal Ubermorph. As they are trying escape Ishimura.


Ofcourse during movie you have character development of Isaac Clarke who starts as more normal kind of guy, and becomes badass by the end of it like Ripley did in Alien. And as in Aliens you have main character who needs to destroy Queen (in this case Marker) so something like this dont happen again.

I mean movie practically wrote itself.

Nothing you said invalidates what i said about "need to change and/or add some stuff".

 

[Neno_Kos]

But a Dead Space movie would have Issac Clarke without the suit most of the time, have 2 or 3 weapons only and the stasis would just be used once or twice....unless it's a John Woo movie and you have the vast majority of action scenes in slow motion.

Spoiler

Issac Clarke needs to have suit. Like every sci fi genre movie, you see characters spend most of the time in space suit. There is no really reasons why wouldnt have one, if anything it's must obligatory.

2nd, having two or 3 weapons is cool, specially if they are limited. But it would add another element if Isaac upgraded or combined weapons to be more deadly. Or repurpose tools as dangerous weapons. You can borrow that element from DS3. We are talking about sci fi element and storyline happening in future. It would add another characteristic to Isaac Clarke as both engineer and character and what he is capable of doing to survive.

And stasis alone can be done as limited element to use. You practically limit it on just several attempts and amount of time you can use it before it's empty (as battery). So character must be clever when to use it and when not to waste it. Do it like stasis being part of the suit. It would add another element of suspense and tense to already suspense horror movie.

You can certainly make great Dead Space movie, unique from others with having own elements but still borrow from others.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Why are you using spoilers?
The game is from 2008 and besides, nothing you wrote is a spoiler.

Issac Clarke needs to have suit. Like every sci fi genre movie, you see characters spend most of the time in space suit. There is no really reasons why wouldnt have one, if anything it's must obligatory.

Tell one sci-fi movie that has the characters inside a suit for 90% of it.
And i mean, a suit that covers every inch of the body, including the face.

2nd, having two or 3 weapons is cool, specially if they are limited. But it would add another element if Isaac upgraded or combined weapons to be more deadly. Or repurpose tools as dangerous weapons. You can borrow that element from DS3. We are talking about sci fi element and storyline happening in future. It would add another characteristic to Isaac Clarke as both engineer and character and what he is capable of doing to survive.
And stasis alone can be done as limited element to use. You practically limit it on just several attempts and amount of time you can use it before it's empty (as battery). So character must be clever when to use it and when not to waste it. Do it like stasis being part of the suit. It would add another element of suspense and tense to already suspense horror movie.

Again, nothing you said invalidates what i said.
Rule #1 when adapting a game is to make the gameplay elements blend into the movie, and not make a movie around the gameplay elements.
If you do that, you will have a movie winking at the audience and screaming "look at me, i'm a video game and i have this and that from it".

You can certainly make great Dead Space movie, unique from others with having own elements but still borrow from others.

Sure, all movies do that one way or the other.