Serious question: Why do video game movies suck ass?

[killtrocity]

.

[killtrocity]

RT rankings:

Super Mario Bros 16%
Street Fighter 12%
Mortal Kombat 33%
Mortal Kombat: Annihilation 6%
Tomb Raider 19%
Resident Evil 34%
Doom 19%
Silent Hill 29%
Hitman 14%
Prince of Persia 35%
Need For Speed ???

There's a heavy focus on the horror genre and indeed many of those have been financially successful, which is why there have been 4 Resident Evil (at least?) movies. But I wonder, with all of the awesome storylines in gaming, why are VG movies unanimously shitty?

[Order 66]

part of it is i think, take something like resident evil or silent hill, interactivity is the crux of what makes those stories work. take that away and its naturally going to make for a flat experiemce

the other reason is because they usually dump those projects on shitty directors and writers .. probably would be a slew of good adaptations if studios actually gave a shit

[slunken]

Originally Posted by Order 66

the other reason is because they usually dump those projects on shitty directors and writers .. probably would be a slew of good adaptations if studios actually gave a shit

Also I think a lot of times those movies serve no purpose other than being 2 hour long commercials for the games or trying to quickly capitalize on the success of the games.

[Trotskilicious]

Because movies go backwards in narrative technique. Instead of being your story, its the characters on screen.

[slunken]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Because movies go backwards in narrative technique. .

That's an accurately lucid statement. Never thought about it like that before. I'm thinking in terms of books vs movies at this point because i've been reading a lot of books/stories that have been made into movies and you're exactly right.

[Banana]

Mortal Kombat was great. Super Mario Brothers too.

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by slunken

Also I think a lot of times those movies serve no purpose other than being 2 hour long commercials for the games or trying to quickly capitalize on the success of the games.

i'd be remiss if i didn't take this opportunity to mention everybody's favorite 90 minute nintendo commercial

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

Because movies go backwards in narrative technique. Instead of being your story, its the characters on screen.

That's probs as close to a concrete answer as we can get...

Originally Posted by Banana

Mortal Kombat was great. Super Mario Brothers too.

Those movies are great like The Room or Grandma's Boy are great

[Order 66]

super mario bros was all kinds of wtf. but i guess doing a live action mario movie in the early 90s couldn't have turned out any other way

[killtrocity]

[Tchocky]

Part of it is the fact that the current film establishment that exists still doesn't take the medium seriously.

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

~Roger Ebert

(Note: I'm well aware that Ebert is dead, but this quote is still representative of how the film establishment feels as a whole.)

Consequently, Hollywood treats video game adaptations like third-rate tripe and hands the projects over to third-rate directors like Paul W.S. Anderson. Considering how long it took Hollywood to make a decent comic book movie that wasn't a complete camp-fest, this doesn't surprise me at all.

The tide may finally be turning, however. I remember reading a quote from Avi Arad (the producer behind the original Spider-Man trilogy, who is allegedly working on film adaptations of Metal Gear Solid and Mass Effect) that implied he acknowledges that many modern video games are like interactive comic books. Seems he's the first Hollywood producer willing to give a game adaptation the TLC required to make one legitimately great.

Another problem I've found with many game adaptations is that they don't feel like films; they instead feel like watching someone else play a video game (Resident Evil, Doom, Final Fantasy and Prince of Persia, I'm looking at all of you). That's a huge mistake. If game movies continue to be make like this, they will always suck.

I still believe a good video game movie is possible. Hollywood just needs to try harder.

[Trotskilicious]

Ebert isnt wrong

[Order 66]

then why is he dead

[bignothing]

I always wanted them to make a movie out of this:

http://i62.tinypic.com/2d0fgaq.png

"Here, let me kill you with some rock n roll!"

[yo soy el mejor]

*names one video game movie that did not suck*

[Trotskilicious]

There isnt one

[Banana]

The first Silent Hill is also a very good movie.

[Tchocky]

Ebert wasn't wrong; I was just using that quote as an example of the prejudice games face. Hollywood doesn't take them seriously, and that's part of the reason video game movies so far have sucked.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Banana

The first Silent Hill is also a very good movie.

No it's not. It's a pretty movie, but it still sucks.

[Banana]

No it's a good movie. The shot setup of a lot of early scenes follow the game pretty damn near well which adds to it's quality.

[Tchocky]

It still seemed too much like watching someone else play a video game. A video game movie should aspire to be more than that. It's probably the best video game movie that has come out so far, but that's not saying much.

[redbreegull]

simple answer is that they are very different mediums. books and movies are far more similar to each other in terms of how the narrative happens and the role the audience plays, and look how difficult those sorts of adaptations are.

the issue is compounded by what has already been said about no one in Hollywood viewing games as a serious artistic medium. I personally think Ebert was totally wrong in his assertion that the only artistic value in video games is visual, and I think this view is just typical of an older person who does not understand something younger people are into, thus believes it has no value. that damn rock music these kids are into these days blah blah

[Banana]

Video Games would probably translate better to a mini series on HBO or something. A 20-40+ hour video game being condensed down into a 2 hour movie isn't going to translate all that properly.


Unrelated but I've always felt Harry Potter would be a far better HBO or Netflix series than a movie series. The pace and skipped information never made those movies feel right to me. a 10-12 episode season dedicated to each book would be much better.

[Eulogy]

i would watch silent hill again just because it was so neat looking

don't remember giving a single shit about the characters, plot, dialogue (er, if there was any) though

[Order 66]

it started out pretty good. i was genuinely surprised.

the final third of the movie was garbage though

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Ebert wasn't wrong; I was just using that quote as an example of the prejudice games face. Hollywood doesn't take them seriously, and that's part of the reason video game movies so far have sucked.

There's not much to be taken all that seriously. Even games like bioshock would be lacking as a movie, i think its just moving backwards when you make it non interactive. Why bother? Mass effect same thing. Its already an interactive tv series, what is to be gained by taking the interactivity away?

[Trotskilicious]

actually i re-read the Ebert quote, i thought what he said was that games are usually pretty shit on the story end but it's actually a bunch of grandpas babbling so whatever, dead old guy doesn't like vidya games what's he gonna do bout it

i expect better of him than sweeping declarations than that, i mean i have been encultured by vidya games he's just an old man that sees mario and call of doody

i bet if someone made that dude play bioshock he'd be like well okay hold on a second

i think the interactivity is what makes games the next evolution in narrative, it's just working its way out of pulpy juvenilia as things are wont to do. like movies used to be PICTURES OF TRAINS!!! LOOK AT THIS WOMAN MAKE BUTTER!!! IT'S A MOVING! PICTURE!

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

simple answer is that they are very different mediums. books and movies are far more similar to each other in terms of how the narrative happens and the role the audience plays, and look how difficult those sorts of adaptations are.

tv is bettar for novels

i haven't watched a movie in at least a year now

[Order 66]

that ebert debate has been going on for half a decade.

the crux of the argument is "games aren't art" ... which is arguable. really depends on what you define "art" as. paleolithic cave scrawls are technically art, right. but i'm not going down that rabbit hole