Just How Bad Are Video Games Movies Really Is?

[Kitten Champion]

I wouldn't count it as a video game movie; It's mostly an outdone cliche of a heartwarm cute plot, with "pokemon" used as it's "gimmick" and marketing tool to capitalise on the whole comunity of nostalgic returning fans together with the abundance of new fans due to go. Still a cool movie, but if you felt you've seen it in the past, it's because a big portion of the plot is recycled from old movies. Jack Frost anyone?

I don't see a reason to deny that it is a video game movie though. There's essentially nothing special about deriving your plot from a video game property as opposed to adapting works in any other story-telling medium.

I mean, most games are trying to replicate the experiences we have in movies, television, and comics in the first place even if they aren't strictly an adaptation of an IP. Chances are that you'll see the cliches that originally inspired it will become obvious when the process is reversed.

Though, I have no earthly idea what a Tetris movie will be like. If indeed such a thing ever comes to pass.

[Asmotherion]

I don't see a reason to deny that it is a video game movie though. There's essentially nothing special about deriving your plot from a video game property as opposed to adapting works in any other story-telling medium.

I mean, most games are trying to replicate the experiences we have in movies, television, and comics in the first place even if they aren't strictly an adaptation of an IP. Chances are that you'll see the cliches that originally inspired it will become obvious when the process is reversed.

Though, I have no earthly idea what a Tetris movie will be like. If indeed such a thing ever comes to pass.

Eh, I just feel that a game movie is supposed to center around the game's central plot, instead of using a trademark character as an excuse to make it #pokemon. I mean the plot would turn out similar if you replaced "pokemon" with "talking dog".

Proobably some sort of War movie were the protagonist must make a wall out of debris to protect a town from invasion.

[Willie the Duck]

I wouldn't count it as a video game movie; It's mostly an outdone cliche of a heartwarm cute plot, with "pokemon" used as it's "gimmick" and marketing tool to capitalise on the whole comunity of nostalgic returning fans together with the abundance of new fans due to go.

For better or worse, 'existing plot with video game characters and references glued on' seems to be an acceptable tool in the Video Game Movie toolset. One of the first major VGMs made (the Bob Hoskins Mario Brothers one) was someone's bizarre Matrix-before-there-was-a-Matrix dark sci-fi fantasy script with the video game characters stapled to it.

I don't see a reason to deny that it is a video game movie though. There's essentially nothing special about deriving your plot from a video game property as opposed to adapting works in any other story-telling medium.

Hmm, one of the issues VGMs could have had is that adapting their plot (if it has one) to a reasonable screenplay might be genuinely a larger hurdle than, say, adapting a book (which at the very least is probably a single story with a basic challenge-climax-resolution structure). I can imagine a number of games (many of which have very different styles of engagement, with mini-stories in sub-worlds each with their own slight twists on the basic premise and often a sub-antagonist of their own) simply not fitting into a 90-120 minute movie structure very well. In a way, the Scot Pilgrim movie resembles what a lot of video game movies would look like. I think plenty of them would actually do better as a streaming miniseries (as we might start seeing more of, given the relative success of the Witcher one).

However, for the most part when these VGM have failed, what I've seen is more along the lines of just plain being lazy/assuming your audience is there for the video game references and not your well-made plot/etc.

[Floogal]

Eh, I just feel that a game movie is supposed to center around the game's central plot, instead of using a trademark character as an excuse to make it #pokemon. I mean the plot would turn out similar if you replaced "pokemon" with "talking dog".

Are you aware that they didn't just make up the concept of a talking Pikachu partner? The movie was an adaptation of an already-existing video game of the same name that had the same premise. Yes, you could have hit the same emotional & story beats with Pikachu as a talking dog communicating with local animals & Mewtwo being some alien from outer space. But you could make that comparison about almost every movie that uses an existing IP instead of being completely original.

Don't complain that a Mario Kart movie was just the Mario brand slapped onto a racing movie & that a Mario movie should be brick-punching & goomba-stomping.

[Brother Oni]

But yeah generally, as DataNinja so aptly put it, much of what makes a game good is literally incompatible with film. It just doesn't work. Even the simplest plot based game I can think of would be abysmally long as a film, and suffer from pacing if you didn't cut out stuff, stuff that kind of makes the game ENJOYABLE because... it is a game, that you are playing, and thus needs to be more active.

I don't know - you can easily distil the essence of a game into movie form and effectively cut out the 'filler' - you don't need to see the characters grinding levels off weak mobs for example. There are also some games which are essentially interactive movies and would only require editing to get the run time down while keeping the plot coherent.

While I'd regard any games by Quantic Dream (e.g. Detroit: Become Human and Heavy Rain) as cheating for the purposes of this point, how about something like Asura's Wrath?

I didn't have a chance to play much of it, but the premise and setting for Murdered: Soul Suspect could be a decent film.

Approaching the subject from the opposite direction, you have Hardcore Henry, which is basically a movie trying to be a first person shooter.

[Traab]

The main thing is, they suck because they pretty much dont have to be good to make money. Much like how for the longest time (they probably still do it for all i know) virtually every popular movie gets a video game title, the reverse is also true. They tend to suck because the money men know, the brand recognition is all they really need to make a profit. They dont have to make the avengers, they can make a generic rpg, slap lord of the rings on it, and make millions. Or they can make a movie about sonic that has nothing to do with the games other than names and generic powers and people will go to see it just because its sonic and they cant help it. The movie has to be utterly TERRIBLE before it loses money. Like super mario brothers or that drek final fantasy the spirits within movie that had absolutely nothing to do with final fantasy in any way.

[DataNinja]

While I'd regard any games by Quantic Dream (e.g. Detroit: Become Human and Heavy Rain) as cheating for the purposes of this point, how about something like Asura's Wrath?

I feel like Asura's Wrath is also cheating, because it's basically already a movie that happens to have some gameplay in it.

[Kitten Champion]

The main thing is, they suck because they pretty much dont have to be good to make money. Much like how for the longest time (they probably still do it for all i know) virtually every popular movie gets a video game title, the reverse is also true. They tend to suck because the money men know, the brand recognition is all they really need to make a profit. They dont have to make the avengers, they can make a generic rpg, slap lord of the rings on it, and make millions. Or they can make a movie about sonic that has nothing to do with the games other than names and generic powers and people will go to see it just because its sonic and they cant help it. The movie has to be utterly TERRIBLE before it loses money. Like super mario brothers or that drek final fantasy the spirits within movie that had absolutely nothing to do with final fantasy in any way.

Except most of them don't make much money. Even Detective Pikachu - the second-highest grossing video game movie of all time - was a fairly minor success relative to the summer blockbusters of 2019, and it was part of the biggest media IP on the planet.

The highest grossing VGM was Warcraft (though I'm aware that's a spurious metric with inflation and whatnot), and it still likely lost money at the end of day -- or at least barely recouped its cost with how troubled the production was.

Two of the biggest recent plays in the sub-genre(?) - Assassin's Creed and Tomb Raider - were disappointments in every sense of the word.

...and I'm doubting the Sonic movie will be a smash success. Though it certainly put some animators out of work after months of crunch, so there's that.

Basically, there's nothing to indicate making a lazy video game movie adaptation is a ticket to success, not with a long chain of net losses and wastes of everyone's time as evidence. In fact the general takeaway is that big enough studios with enough money put into a production and advertising - like Disney's Prince of Persia - can do... fine, I guess.

[Bartmanhomer]

Except most of them don't make much money. Even Detective Pikachu - the second-highest grossing video game movie of all time - was a fairly minor success relative to the summer blockbusters of 2019, and it was part of the biggest media IP on the planet.

The highest grossing VGM was Warcraft (though I'm aware that's a spurious metric with inflation and whatnot), and it still likely lost money at the end of day -- or at least barely recouped its cost with how troubled the production was.

Two of the biggest recent plays in the sub-genre(?) - Assassin's Creed and Tomb Raider - were disappointments in every sense of the word.

...and I'm doubting the Sonic movie will be a smash success. Though it certainly put some animators out of work after months of crunch, so there's that.

Basically, there's nothing to indicate making a lazy video game movie adaptation is a ticket to success, not with a long chain of net losses and wastes of everyone's time as evidence. In fact the general takeaway is that big enough studios with enough money put into a production and advertising - like Disney's Prince of Persia - can do... fine, I guess.

Yes and especially the redesign of Sonic as well. I'll be the judge and see if this movie worth my time.

[Peelee]

Yes and especially the redesign of Sonic as well. I'll be the judge and see if this movie worth my time.

Grammarly has been slipping more and more lately, I've noticed. Thought you'd like to know.

[Bartmanhomer]

Grammarly has been slipping more and more lately, I've noticed. Thought you'd like to know.

What's going on with my Grammarly anyway?

[Rodin]

Except most of them don't make much money. Even Detective Pikachu - the second-highest grossing video game movie of all time - was a fairly minor success relative to the summer blockbusters of 2019, and it was part of the biggest media IP on the planet.

The highest grossing VGM was Warcraft (though I'm aware that's a spurious metric with inflation and whatnot), and it still likely lost money at the end of day -- or at least barely recouped its cost with how troubled the production was.

Two of the biggest recent plays in the sub-genre(?) - Assassin's Creed and Tomb Raider - were disappointments in every sense of the word.

...and I'm doubting the Sonic movie will be a smash success. Though it certainly put some animators out of work after months of crunch, so there's that.

Basically, there's nothing to indicate making a lazy video game movie adaptation is a ticket to success, not with a long chain of net losses and wastes of everyone's time as evidence. In fact the general takeaway is that big enough studios with enough money put into a production and advertising - like Disney's Prince of Persia - can do... fine, I guess.

Which is why so many video game movies are bargain basement productions. If you're paying your actors in craft services and hiring your nephew who is "really good with computers" to do the CGI it becomes a lot easier to turn the profit. Especially with Hollywood accounting or German tax loopholes on your side.

A big problem with videogame movies is that the most well known games don't have particularly compelling plots. You're never going to get a good movie plot that's true to the games out of Sonic or Mario. I don't remember people swooning over the plot of Tomb Raider - it was the gameplay they liked. Prince of Persia is a basic rescue-the-princess and stop the evil sultan plot. The plot of the Warcraft franchise is an absolute mess.

You have a better chance with something like Uncharted that has a movie-like plot. That leads to the other problem - what do you get when you strip away the gameplay from Uncharted? An Indiana Jones movie. So why not just make that? The Last of Us is a zombie apocalypse movie with a twist ending, where your likely audience is one that's familiar with the twist. Etc etc.

There's not a whole lot of incentive to make a good movie, because you could just make that movie without the videogame association and it will do better at the box office.

And yet, Hollywood executives keep seeing this "untapped" market of gamers. So they make stuff targeted at gamers instead of just trying to make a good movie. And the gamers are too busy watching the actual good movies without a game association to want to go see the stuff targeted at them.

[LaZodiac]

I feel like Asura's Wrath is also cheating, because it's basically already a movie that happens to have some gameplay in it.

Asura's Wrath presentation is that it's just an anime. So it can't be a movie.

Also, while you can just distill the feeling of a game into a movie, that won't really be the game as a movie now will it? That'd be more like... Detective Pikachu.

[Peelee]

What's going on with my Grammarly anyway?

Can you see anything wrong with this sentence?

I'll be the judge and see if this movie worth my time.

Or the thread title?

[Bartmanhomer]

Can you see anything wrong with this sentence?

Or the thread title?

No, I didn't see anything wrong with both of them.

[Gnoman]

Except most of them don't make much money. Even Detective Pikachu - the second-highest grossing video game movie of all time - was a fairly minor success relative to the summer blockbusters of 2019, and it was part of the biggest media IP on the planet.

The highest grossing VGM was Warcraft (though I'm aware that's a spurious metric with inflation and whatnot), and it still likely lost money at the end of day -- or at least barely recouped its cost with how troubled the production was.

Two of the biggest recent plays in the sub-genre(?) - Assassin's Creed and Tomb Raider - were disappointments in every sense of the word.

...and I'm doubting the Sonic movie will be a smash success. Though it certainly put some animators out of work after months of crunch, so there's that.

Basically, there's nothing to indicate making a lazy video game movie adaptation is a ticket to success, not with a long chain of net losses and wastes of everyone's time as evidence. In fact the general takeaway is that big enough studios with enough money put into a production and advertising - like Disney's Prince of Persia - can do... fine, I guess.

Pretty much every figure given for revenue with movies that you can easily find is box office only. TV licensing, streaming revenue, and DVD sales all add up to a significant amount of residual income, particularly the first two - third parties WILL snap up anything they can find cheap to bulk up their library. As long as you keep costs low, you can find a decent profit.


Also, Detective Pikachu is only disappointing compared to the Disney juggernaut >$400,000,000 is a pretty impressive take by any reasonable standard.

[Velaryon]

I can't think of any video game movies that I think have been great. Some of them are reasonably well-liked and successful, such as the Resident Evil films or the Tomb Raider series. Some of them are delightfully hammy, like Mortal Kombat. Detective Pikachu was actually pretty decent (though I still don't think the CGI looks particularly good or lifelike).

Most of them are trash though, for reasons others have mentioned. I think the biggest things video game movies tend to have going against them are, in no particular order:
1. A studio that's just trying to cash in and isn't interested in going to the trouble of understanding the appeal of the source material (i.e. the same reason why the majority of pre-MCU comic book movies were mediocre at best).
2. Being based on games whose plots are too thin for a good movie adaptation (Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter, etc.)
3. Uwe Boll.

The movie has to be utterly TERRIBLE before it loses money. Like super mario brothers or that drek final fantasy the spirits within movie that had absolutely nothing to do with final fantasy in any way.

Hey, that's not true! That movie also had a guy named Cid in it, so it's TOTALLY a Final Fantasy movie

[Kitten Champion]

Pretty much every figure given for revenue with movies that you can easily find is box office only. TV licensing, streaming revenue, and DVD sales all add up to a significant amount of residual income, particularly the first two - third parties WILL snap up anything they can find cheap to bulk up their library. As long as you keep costs low, you can find a decent profit.

You can say the same about any movie in this regard. Why make movies from a subgenre where profits rarely meet their budget? You're now depending on out-of-theatre money.

Also, Detective Pikachu is only disappointing compared to the Disney juggernaut >$400,000,000 is a pretty impressive take by any reasonable standard.

I didn't say it was a disappointment, it certainly did well enough for a sequel. Still, given Pokemon's clout as an IP and the general favourable critical reception, not making it into the top 10 summer movies isn't exactly a spectacular showing. Thus I call it a modest success in 2019 standards.

[Rogar Demonblud]

No, I didn't see anything wrong with both of them.

For starters, in the title 'games' should not be pluralized as 'movies' is fulfilling that role. And the sentence has no reason to include the word 'is'.

[Bartmanhomer]

For starters, in the title 'games' should not be pluralized as 'movies' is fulfilling that role. And the sentence has no reason to include the word 'is'.

Oh...

[Peelee]

Oh...

Also, the quoted sentence is missing a verb in the second clause.

On the one hand, Grammarly sounds like a nice tool. On the other, if you always use a life jacket you'll never really learn how to swim.

[Gnoman]

You can say the same about any movie in this regard. Why make movies from a subgenre where profits rarely meet their budget? You're now depending on out-of-theatre money.

Are you familiar with the term "Direct To Video"? Depending on out-of-theater revenue has been a thing since the VCR became common. And, again, they are not sticking to a subgenre where profits rarely meet budget - theater profit (when they even have a theatrical release, and is the only income figure that is easy to track down) often does not, but total revenue pretty much always does, else the people making them would be bankrupt. They stick to the subgenre because the licenses are very cheap and name recognition will attract at least some attention. The films are crapped out for next to nothing, the studio makes a few hundred grand, and the cycle repeats.

[Peelee]

One of my favorite jokes as a teen was listing all the Ernest movies. Like Ernest Goes to Jail, Ernest Goes to School, Ernest Goes Straight to Home Video...

[Kitten Champion]

Are you familiar with the term "Direct To Video"? Depending on out-of-theater revenue has been a thing since the VCR became common. And, again, they are not sticking to a subgenre where profits rarely meet budget - theater profit (when they even have a theatrical release, and is the only income figure that is easy to track down) often does not, but total revenue pretty much always does, else the people making them would be bankrupt. They stick to the subgenre because the licenses are very cheap and name recognition will attract at least some attention. The films are crapped out for next to nothing, the studio makes a few hundred grand, and the cycle repeats.

Oh, no, that I understand. Making a low-to-middling quality movie on the cheap can balloon profits with the right model, it's the basis for much of the horror genre for instance. The long-lived Resident Evil movie franchise makes perfect sense given the return on investment those get.

The issue of the thread is why there's this dire state of video game movie adaptations, not can you make profitable movies if you cut costs enough and use an IP as a crutch.

That there's a dubious 30-year history there and no obviously successful model outside of cheap cash-grabs makes pushing for an upscale Hollywood movie more questionable from the business side of things.

[Saintheart]

I thought The Witcher isn't a bad video game movie

[Bohandas]

The Pokemon movies are pretty good.

So was Clue, although admittedly that's a boardgame, not a videogame

[Rogar Demonblud]

It's hard to go wrong with Tim Curry hamming it up. He was also a delight in The Shadow and Oscar.

[Bohandas]

It's hard to go wrong with Tim Curry hamming it up. He was also a delight in The Shadow and Oscar.

and in Muppet Treasure Island and The Rocky Horror Picture Show

[Peelee]

Look, if we're gonna sit around and list all the things Tim Curry was delightful in we're gonna be posting all day, and probably sometime into tomorrow.

[Willie the Duck]

Look, if we're gonna sit around and list all the things Tim Curry was delightful in we're gonna be posting all day, and probably sometime into tomorrow.

I was going to make the joke:

Honestly, we should be making a list of all the things Tim Curry was in and wasn't delightful.
I'll start.
…
…
and done.

But then I checked out his IMDB page and found out that he is in a bunch of stuff (lots and lots of children's tv voices) where he doesn't stand out.