Why is it so hard to adapt video games well to film?

[DC]

Not a lot of movies that are adaptations of video games have particularly high ratings, especially from critics. What is it about video games that seems to make it so difficult to turn them into successful movies?

[Shagger]

Back in the 90's that was an easy question to answer. Video games simply weren't taken seriously enough as an entertainment medium to expect much passion and effort in those movies. In more recent years, especially since the line between the two has gotten much more blurry, it's harder to say.  This prick who deliberately made god awful video  game movie adaptations to exploit German tax loop holes certainly didn't help...

 

 

(That's Uwe Boll just in case you didn't know)

 

But other than his so-called movies, films based on video game franchises are still very hit and miss. The interactive nature and player control over the stories in video games do make the storytelling experience quite different than in a traditional movie and thus difficult to adapt, but I still feel a skilled writer/director can make this work and doesn't account for the genre's failings.

 

Honestly, and I know this might sound dumb, but I think movies are just too short. It's difficult to cram in all the events and especially the action of a game into something that's 2 hours long yet still allow for adequate pacing and atmosphere to build when you base it on a game that can take 20-30 hours or more to complete.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Shagger

[Kane99]

I think it's because Hollywood doesn't know how to adapt them period. It usually comes down to smaller studios and teams that actually are fans of the game to make them. Like Silent Hill for example, imo the best video game based movie. It still has many problems, and isn't that great of a movie, but it's the most faithful to the games, at least than any others out there. 

But now days, more people are fans of games, and it also helps that the quality of games have gotten to a point where they rival movies and tv in terms of quality and story. SO a game like The Last of Us, could easily be turned into a movie or show. 

But, there are also games that just don't translate well to film. Like the Hitman movies. They are awful movies, that aren't faithful to the actual games themselves. The reason why, is because Hitman doesn't work as a TV show. In hollywood you think "Hitman" and you think your run of the mill hitman style movie, with action and all that. But that doesn't work for the video games, because Agent 47 is a silent assassin, he never lets anyone see him. And that doesn't really work in a movie since you can't go around showing him take out people without any conflict. 

I think now days hollywood knows better and are letting other studios take them on. And it helps having the studio behind the game involved to help mold it into something that works. 

[killamch89]

My personal opinion is that some of the studios that make films based on videogames or vice versa don't do enough research on the characters, the lore of the universe, the personal interactions between the main characters. They think that just because they capture a few phrases from the most popular characters, the nostalgia is enough to get fans of a particular franchise to support the project. 

18 hours ago, Kane99 said:

I think it's because Hollywood doesn't know how to adapt them period. It usually comes down to smaller studios and teams that actually are fans of the game to make them. Like Silent Hill for example, imo the best video game based movie. It still has many problems, and isn't that great of a movie, but it's the most faithful to the games, at least than any others out there. 

But now days, more people are fans of games, and it also helps that the quality of games have gotten to a point where they rival movies and tv in terms of quality and story. SO a game like The Last of Us, could easily be turned into a movie or show. 

But, there are also games that just don't translate well to film. Like the Hitman movies. They are awful movies, that aren't faithful to the actual games themselves. The reason why, is because Hitman doesn't work as a TV show. In hollywood you think "Hitman" and you think your run of the mill hitman style movie, with action and all that. But that doesn't work for the video games, because Agent 47 is a silent assassin, he never lets anyone see him. And that doesn't really work in a movie since you can't go around showing him take out people without any conflict. 

I think now days hollywood knows better and are letting other studios take them on. And it helps having the studio behind the game involved to help mold it into something that works. 

It's funny that I watched a movie named Accident which captured the essence of the Hitman games better than the actual movies based on Agent 47.

[Akun]

I think it depends on the game. As Kane said, games like The Last of Us can easily make a decent TV show, and as Shagger said, games make better TV shows than movies because the story in video games last more than two hours long (unless you split it into three films).

But when I think about a movie like Uncharted... yeesh. It's like what Kane has summed up nicely, that Hollywood knows jack about the games they're adapting. It's easy money profiting off a popular IP, so they just slap a generic genre plot with the name on it and call it a day, maybe cast a profitable actor like NotMySpiderMan Holland instead of Nathan Fillion. You dropped the ball big on that one, Sony. Nathan's audition tape was PERFECT.

For a game like Mario though, I find it ridiculous that they're making a movie out of it. Yeah, yeah, there's an established lore/universe from the countless games Nintendo has milked off of over the decades, but Super Mario Bros. is exactly the kind of game where it was originally unsuitable to make a movie out of (see the 1993 dumpster fire adaptation for evidence). It has more material to milk from now, so it's all good, but we still got an Angry Birds movie so that tells you what the greenlight process is like over at Hollywood for adapting video games: throw a dart at a random post-it-note containing a video game title and see which it hits. How's the Emoji Movie, by the way? And its Candy Crush advertisement? Because that's exactly the example I'm trying to make. There's no movie because there's no story or even universe. It's like making a Pac-Man movie, which you know for damn sure isn't even a meme anymore and they're probably planning something. At least make it a crossover with Ghostbusters or something, with Pac-Man carrying a proton pack.

But maybe plot isn't really all that important anyway. Many arthouse films don't even have a plot and they're just character studies or even just a series of abstract images (because "art"), so maybe a plot isn't really needed. Unfortunately, Hollywood isn't looking for art; they're looking for a quick cash-grab. You could make a plotless movie that feels artistic, but that's not what Hollywood wants.

[Empire]

It's really weird that I keep seeing people hold up The Witcher as proof that video game adaptations can be good or they should be TV instead of film, despite the fact that The Witcher isn't a video game adaptation, it's based on the books. Without the games, the books wouldn't be remotely as bit as they were. After the first game, the popularity of the books internationally sky rocketed.

[The Blackangel]

I think a lot of it is the ridiculous things involved in games. Like special moves in fighting games. I mean how well can they really portray Sub-Zero in the Mortal Kombat movies. They did a lot better in the most recent one, but look at the previous Mortal Kombat.

[Moonface]

I think part of the problem is whether a game adaptation into a movie is choosing to target existing fans or try to get in new ones. Resident Evil is a perfect example; it takes the bare minimum content from the games and just uses it as a basis to make a bunch of zombie movies that will appeal more to people who aren't fans of the series than those who are. Making a movie for the fans runs the risk of more criticism as existing fans will scrutinize it way more; just look at the Sonic movie when it was first revealed or the reception to Chris Pratt voicing Mario in the upcoming Super Mario Bros. movie. Whereas for non-fans of the games, you just need to make something that is good enough for them to consume it without the worry of comparison to the games, and better yet the game provides a lot of the material and saves needing to create something entirely from scratch.

[Grungie]

5 hours ago, Moonface said:

I think part of the problem is whether a game adaptation into a movie is choosing to target existing fans or try to get in new ones. Resident Evil is a perfect example; it takes the bare minimum content from the games and just uses it as a basis to make a bunch of zombie movies that will appeal more to people who aren't fans of the series than those who are. Making a movie for the fans runs the risk of more criticism as existing fans will scrutinize it way more; just look at the Sonic movie when it was first revealed or the reception to Chris Pratt voicing Mario in the upcoming Super Mario Bros. movie. Whereas for non-fans of the games, you just need to make something that is good enough for them to consume it without the worry of comparison to the games, and better yet the game provides a lot of the material and saves needing to create something entirely from scratch.

I can see that. It’s really difficult to create something that pleases both fans, and people who don’t know anything about it. It can be a double edged sword.

Sometimes fans also don’t know what the hell they want. It’s not uncommon to see sky high expectations that are completely unrealistic to achieve in a coherent fashion. Some of the things they want to see just come off as bad fan fiction.

It can seem douchy that these studios are making the films just for the money, but sometimes you have to wonder if you’re spending that much money on making the film, are there enough fans to care to make your money back, or just take the easier route and cater to non-fans?

You also might have to take off your fan glasses and gamer glasses, and sit back and think, can some of these actually  make a good movie in the first place? Since it’s a game, half the appeal is the gameplay, so if you take away the gameplay, does it now just become a generic genre film? That’s something you gotta ask yourself.

[Demon_skeith]

Seems like most who make movies don't fully understand the IP they are handling, plus why watch when you can just go play the game?

[Moonface]

On 10/15/2022 at 3:06 AM, Demon_skeith said:

...plus why watch when you can just go play the game?

Well not everyone is going to want to play a game no matter how good the story of it is. The Last of Us has a great story but my parents would sooner watch the TV series that's coming out for it than play the games because that's just not their thing.

[Ajibusu]

8 hours ago, Moonface said:

Well not everyone is going to want to play a game no matter how good the story of it is. The Last of Us has a great story but my parents would sooner watch the TV series that's coming out for it than play the games because that's just not their thing.

That is true though, but I also feel that most of those games that have special moves on it shouldn't be recreated. There is no point trying to make a movie out of every popular game out there because at the end of the day, it won't work for all of them.

[Demon_skeith]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:58 PM, Moonface said:

Well not everyone is going to want to play a game no matter how good the story of it is. The Last of Us has a great story but my parents would sooner watch the TV series that's coming out for it than play the games because that's just not their thing.

And that's why they are making the series, to reach out to the non-gamers, while gamers rather play it.

[Kane99]

Also, in the past video games weren't taken seriously. That's probably why we got so many crap movies around the time video games were just popping off. We have movies on street fighter, double dragon, super Mario Bros etc. 

With the super Mario Bros movie for example, the original one I mean, I never understood why they didn't just make an animated movie, just like the show. Or to grasp what smb is all about. Love action can be done, I just don't see a reason to make it live action. Which is why I'm glad they went the animated route for the new movie, because it makes more sense and you can do so much more with animation than a live action take. 

[killamch89]

On 10/14/2022 at 10:41 AM, The Blackangel said:

I think a lot of it is the ridiculous things involved in games. Like special moves in fighting games. I mean how well can they really portray Sub-Zero in the Mortal Kombat movies. They did a lot better in the most recent one, but look at the previous Mortal Kombat.

Agreed - the signature skills of several Mortal Kombat fighters look so bizarre outside of the videogames. As for the older movies, CGI was way worse back in the days so it was to be expected.