Films made of games

[McDanny]

Why is it that every game that gets turned into a film invariably ends up awful? I mean, even when we discount the 90% or so which are made by Uwe Boll, who frankly can go grate his own face.

Doom, Resident Evil, Tomb Raider... they're all pretty bad. But they shouldn't be, as games generally have a ready-made universe and cast of characters for directors to toy with and make into something vaguely watchable.

So what is it that makes game-to-films so horrible? And has anyone ever seen a good film made of a game?

 

[Z of the Na'vi]

It is due to the fact that people want to PLAY video games.

Not watch them.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I see no real reason why Doom, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider should have been good. The Max Payne film should have been good, though...and should have featured much less Mark Wahlberg.

 

[delet]

People don't like to watch something that they feel they should be playing?

The new Prince of Persia movie looks like it has the potential to be at least decent. I have to see it regardless considering it's my first favorite series.

 

[whiskey rock n' roller]

I was thinking about this the other day, the part about there every being a good video game movie. All I can think of is King of Kong: For a Fistful of Quarters. And that was a documentary so it doesn't really count.

 

[Go Fighting In The War Room]

It's mostly rushed to cash in on the sucsess of the game it's tied to.

Remember Street Fighter the Movie?

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

Mortal Kombat Annihilation was the worst game-to-film thing made EVER yes even worse the Alone in the Dark and aybe Double Dragon.

They're just jerking off the franchise.

 

[Hiphophippo]

It's mostly rushed to cash in on the sucsess of the game it's tied to.

Remember Street Fighter the Movie?

I remember being pretty young, knowing that is was pretty bad, and liking it anyway because it had two things i loved in it.

Street Fighter and Van Damme.

 

[Omegatronacles]

The problem is, if a studio simply re-creates the game, then the fans lose interest cause they've seen it all before. If they write a new story arc and introduce new characters, they get blasted by the fans fir deviating from the source material.

It's very hard to find a balance. Uwe Boll, may he burn for all eternity for his crimes against my eyes, actually has a business model that works very well for him. Basically, he gives the fans of the games the finger, then releases any old crap he feels like. Clearly someone thinks he's doing a good job, because he he keeps getting funding for more movies.

I didn't mind the first Resident Evil movie, or Doom, but then I have absolutely no expectations for movie adaptations any more.

 

[Thaius]

Because no one wants to put in the money or work to make a good one. Except Uwe Boll, who doesn't count. If someone would just get a good director, good actors, and a good budget on one of the dang things, it would be great.

I was looking forward to the Halo movie for that purpose, but stupid Fox decided it wasn't worth the money. HALO. Not worth the money? Morons...

Though I am inclined to being up Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Especially if you watch Complete, and subtitles instead of dubbed, it's an amazing movie. Though you'll have to have played VII to understand it, otherwise it's just amazing action and the most beautiful CG you've ever seen.

 

[Rhade]

Bad actors. Bad storyline/artistic spin on the general plot. Bad filming. Bad development of characters. Certainly bad directors, writers and the lot.

The list goes on. Generally most of these movies just have nothing going for them to begin with, even if the title was something else entirely.

Something like Advent Children (which is less movie-of-a-game and more of a very long unplayable cinematic related heavily to the base subject matter) seems to do well. But most things aren't worth trying.

 

[Omegatronacles]

Because no one wants to put in the money or work to make a good one. Except Uwe Boll, who doesn't count. If someone would just get a good director, good actors, and a good budget on one of the dang things, it would be great.

I was looking forward to the Halo movie for that purpose, but stupid Fox decided it wasn't worth the money. HALO. Not worth the money? Morons...

Though I am inclined to being up Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. Especially if you watch Complete, and subtitles instead of dubbed, it's an amazing movie. Though you'll have to have played VII to understand it, otherwise it's just amazing action and the most beautiful CG you've ever seen.

This is the thing I can't understand. Uwe Boll doesn't have small budgets. He gets given millions to make his films. Take a look at the cast of Bloodrayne. They may not be A list actors, but they were definately B list. His cinematography is not to be sneezed at either. He has the budget, he has the talent, he has the skills. The only reason I can see for his movies sucking is cause he insists on writing the scripts himself. And he's never played any of the games he makes movies about. Hence my comment about giving the fans the finger.

 

[RedShift]

New Prince of Persia movie looks pretty good, but with Disney backing it I'm guessing it simply 'looks' good.

 

[The Night Shade]

the worst videogame movie is super mario is horrible

 

[jubosu]

I thought Tomb Raider was pretty ok.
However I also thought Postal was hilarious but would have been better had they actually got Gary Coleman.

 

[Souplex]

I for one enjoyed Souplex the movie and consequently Souplex the movie the game.
Sure, every single critic declared it the greatest thing ever, and then committed mass suicide so they would never see something that they might have to compare to Souplex the movie and it did make a zillion dollars in it's first hour, but that doesn't make me a sheep!