Do movies based on video games suck?

I've never seen a movie based on a video game that I've liked. Because of this, I find I'm prejudiced whenever a new movie comes out based on one. When I saw the trailer to "Warcraft", I thought it looked promising, but due to my pre-existing belief, I waited until it came out on DVD. True to form, I was disappointed in Warcraft, and apparently so were a lot of people. It's got 28% on Rotton Tomatoes and its lifetime gross according to BoxOfficeMojo is a paltry $47 m. Assassin's Creed had a decent trailer too and some good actors like Michael Fassbender. I haven't seen it, but it's got a rating of 18% on Rotton Tomatoes and has only made $53 m by BoxOfficeMojo's estimates.

I can recall many movies based on video games that just reeked of suckingdom: Doom, Super Mario Bros, Double Dragon, Lara Croft, Prince of Persia, Mortal Kombat, the Angry Birds movie, etc. etc.

Are movies based on video games shallow, commercial films with little or no artistic integrity, always doomed to fail, or are there some good ones out there? Is it 'game over' for the video game adaptation, forever relegated to pulling teenagers away from their game consoles?

I have to admit, I liked the first Mortal Kombat, but second one, MK: Annihilation, don't get me started. I think the first MK film is the only good adaptation I have seen. I still have yet to see Assassin's Creed. Warcraft, I thought was okay but could have been executed better. Don't forget Uwe Boll did loads of video game adaptations that were not exactly good (Bloodrayne, House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry). So for the most part, yes they do pretty much stink, but the web series of Street Fighter (Assassin's Fist and Resurrection) and Mortal Kombat Legacy are far superior to their big screen counterparts.

I've heard this from someone else:

"The best video game movies are the ones that aren't based on video games. Aliens, Crank, Edge of Tomorrow, Deadpool."

That said, I'm still holding onto the hope of a good Halo movie.

I thought the first Silent Hill was atmospheric enough to hold my attention and if you wanna count it Wreck-It-Ralph was really good.

One of the problems I see is that they write a new story for the characters. If I want to see a Metal Gear film, I want to see an adaptation of the game, not a completely new story with the name of the character.

Mortal Kombat is fun, but then again it was made by Paul WS Anderson... who, next to Uwe Boll, is one of the worst directors going.


Silent Hill is a worthy movie. The sequel sucked though.
From what I've heard, Warcraft is pretty solid but I never played the game so I can't be sure if the movie is decent or not when compared.


The problem from years gone by, is video games were a linear thing. They had an ABC-123 set of principles... "do that" then "go here".
Mario for instance, is a case of collect coins, kill a few mushrooms, eat power-ups and save the Princess.
There's nothing, nothing, in a Mario game that can be turned into a movie... which is why the movie was gash.


Something like Zelda could work, but then again they made a cartoon of that, which also sucked.




I think the problem today is that video games became more like movies for a while (around 2000-2005) in that they began to tell and actual story... larger machines like the PS1 and PS2 were able to do cut sequences and add storylines...


... then with the addition of online play, they've surpassed movies in terms of scope.


Like, every person who plays Warcraft for instance, is living out their own story, their own plot, their own movie.
Sure there's an overall story going on and some back story... but basing a film on a game that is totally different for each person who has played it, then the film will inevitably end up with mixed reviews.

__________________

I thought Doom was good, especially the way the gameplay was integrated into the film in some scenes. I've never been one for playing video games – never got into them or had the consoles etc at any time, so I can't comment on whether what appealed about the game has been carried over into the film.

I unironically love the first three Resident Evil movies. Are they derivative? Sure. Are they fun? Hell yes

Trying to find the right balance between the demands of the game itself and the demands of a standard movie is always tricky, so most movies end up inventing their own stories one way or another regardless of any existing plots. The problem is that the resulting stories can end up being incredibly generic (Doom/Tomb Raider), completely off-the-wall Super Mario Bros.), or misguided experiments with form (Assassin's Creed). Fidelity to the source is also a debatable source of quality. On the one hand, Resident Evil going off-script with its all-new protagonist and post-apocalyptic storylines still resulted in what is arguably the most popular videogame adaptation in existence right now. Warcraft, on the other hand, arguably suffers for recreating too much of the in-game lore and becomes a near-impenetrable high-fantasy slog as a result. It's a tough balance to get right, especially now that the balance of game storytelling has shifted from having stories that are too thin to pad out a movie e.g. Mario to having stories that are too long and complex to properly fit into a two-hour movie.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think the problem in the early days was that storytelling in thew video game medium wasn't done a lot, and when they adapted something, say Mario Bros, they had to work around it, and make it something to the point where it's not even Mario anymore, it's just another sci fi blockbuster for the year. Even if that film did end up being good, it still would have failed at being an adaptation, and to me, that's still unsuccessful, in terms of representing something that's so renowned.

I think that problem persisted until games started having identities with their stories as well, and not just the gameplay like Resident Evil, Tomb Raider, and so forth. I think the reason critics were so harsh on those was that these are stories that major critics would have considered poor (whether or not I agree with them) even if they didn't have a video game series associated with them.

Now? Well, video games are now capable of telling their stories just as well as film in a cinematic way, look at The Last of Us, or Heavy Rain. Video games are typically significantly longer than most films by a stretch. So, when you take, say Assassin's Creed, a series that usually caps out at an average of 15-20 hours per game, and you try to make a less than two hour film trying to capture something as convoluted as that series, well, who is really that shocked that it doesn't turn out so well? (Keep in mind I've not watched the film, just an example I thought made sense.)

I honestly believe video game adaptations are pointless nowadays, especially if you're trying to do something that's already been done great already that meets film quality storytelling, do we really need an Uncharted movie? I'm all for seeing them if they do them right, but that's just my take on them.

Prince of Persia was a fun movie, not a piece of art by any chance, but a good time at the movies - 7/10.

Warcraft is, in my opinion, great, and I'm not alone in that way of thinking, all of my friends who played Warcraft (not World of Warcraft, there is a difference for all of you non-gamers) loved the movie as much as me. It paid great homage to the original game, the humor of the series was there, it was entertaining, intriguing and beautiful.

It's not a flawless movie as the CGI of the cities is bad, and the actor playing the young wizard is appalling, yet it still far better than these generic superhero movies that all have the same third act.

What I keep hearing about the main critique of the movie by those who didn't like it is the number of characters in it. And I think it bothered so many people because they've become used to watching reboots, sequels, and movies about comic book characters that are known to them for their whole lives.

That's all well and good, but you do sort of address another problem with videogame movies - the ways that they can be faithful to their sources but not necessarily make for especially accessible movies. The number of characters becomes a problem when it complicates the story unnecessarily and compromises the quality of each individual character's development. It doesn't really have anything to do with people being "used to" established franchise characters. Plenty of films come out each year that feature original characters and it is the film's job to not only establish the characters but also tell a good story using them. The "comic book character" example isn't that good because there are still plenty of those that aren't already known to general audiences - did most audiences know who Ant-Man or Doctor Strange were? In any case, it doesn't matter because the characters and stories are told with enough competence to make up for it.

I thought Warcraft was pretty bad, but my buddy who plays World of Warcraft every single day of his life loved it after a few watches, and I haven't heard of many hardcore fans that disliked it, so it must've been aimed at the fans who already know the source material mostly. I was confused throughout the entire thing, and I've never played any of the games, so I guess that makes sense. It was a cool looking movie though, those orcs looked great.

I believe street fighter movie is not that suck. well back then It was lot of fun

I mean, if anyone's looking for a new signature...

What confused you in the movie? I'm really curious.
I think there are less than 10 characters in the movie, all physically pretty different from another. Not many locations.

Also, I watched the movie with a friend who didn't play Warcraft ever and he liked it, so it's not just for fans. And the movie did really well globally, it's only in US where its success was underwhelming

I am VERY afraid for the Assassins Creed movie - I keep thinking: Michael Fassbender? REALLY???

__________________
something witty goes here......

Well Armond White liked it so it must be good, right?

Oh my.

The Uncharted movie will be good...as long as there is no Mark Wahlberg.

The answer to this forum is "yes".

__________________
A man's got to know his limitations.