Is there a video game-based movie that *doesn't* belong on How Did This Get Made?

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

Looking on the front page of the "Bad Movie Suggestions" forum, I see:

 

Dungeons and Dragons (2000)

Doom (2005)

Wing Commander (1999)

 

In succession. All of which are undoubtably worthy/terrible movies for discussion by HDTGM (one of which has already been discussed). Which brought me to thinking: are there any movies based on video games (loose interpretation to incorporate Dungeons and Dragons here, but stylistically it's more like a video game movie) that are not terrible? Related question: is Mortal Kombat the best video-game based movie of all time?

[Smigg 1488]

Well, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was alright, as was Hitman,

[DanEngler 5249]

The first Silent Hill movie is very middle-of-the-road, and feels neither crazy enough nor poorly-made enough to result in a good episode.

[RyanSz 3140]

Regarding Mortal Kombat, I think it is the most dedicated representation of what it was adapting, especially at that time when Mortal Kombat didn't have a deep mythology involving dozens of characters. It was weird listening to that episode where the hosts complained that they just went from fight to fight to progress the plot, while in the Street Fighter episode they specifically were against them not doing that very thing in favor of creating this expanded world with armies and diplomats.

 

The first Lara Croft was okay, though Cradle of Life could easily be done. I agree about both Hitman movies as they got the tone and look of the games, though the idea to cast Timothy Olyphant in the first one was kind of a headscratcher. I liked the Silent Hill movies since I am a fan of the games and knew about the mythology of the series, which is confusing at times even for fans of the games, but if I hadn't played the games before seeing those movies, I would have been pissed and confused like what appeared 75% of the audience in the theater seemed to be. The uber-ambiguous ending also didn't help matters.

 

The other ones that I think that don't belong on the show are the Resident Evil movies because even though they are ravaged by critics and have huge plot holes at times, they are pretty good at capturing the feel of the games and are straightforward action horror movies. The only other one that I can think of that doesn't belong, mainly because it's so "eh" was Need For Speed which came and went so quickly and there wasn't a whole lot of WTF in it.

[jarrycanada 2483]

Looking on the front page of the "Bad Movie Suggestions" forum, I see:

 

Dungeons and Dragons (2000)

Doom (2005)

Wing Commander (1999)

 

In succession. All of which are undoubtably worthy/terrible movies for discussion by HDTGM (one of which has already been discussed). Which brought me to thinking: are there any movies based on video games (loose interpretation to incorporate Dungeons and Dragons here, but stylistically it's more like a video game movie) that are not terrible? Related question: is Mortal Kombat the best video-game based movie of all time?

 

You said the word "doesn't" so you mean we should create a list of untouchables.?

 

that would mean movies like tron, is the first that comes to mind. it was a kick ass arcade game. mind you hearing jason and paul get into tech talk maybe a good podcast and a fun evening for all of us Nerds... june trying to understand any of it.. i think it's because of him and the guy from homeland. its got such a over the top cast that it's almost makes up for it's sins.

 

Dan Engler, I just watched Silent Hill for the first time the other night, it wasn't bad. are the other ones any good or is it all down hill from there?

 

Ryan Sz I love Timothy Olyphant movies. if I see or find one of his films on tv im watching it. including Dreamcatchers. for some reason I like that movie.

[RyanSz 3140]

 

Dan Engler, I just watched Silent Hill for the first time the other night, it wasn't bad. are the other ones any good or is it all down hill from there?

 

Ryan Sz I love Timothy Olyphant movies. if I see or find one of his films on tv im watching it. including Dreamcatchers. for some reason I like that movie.

The sequel to Silent Hill is fine, though a bit more crazy than the first one, and it also answers a few lingering questions from the first movie. As for Olyphant, I thought he was good in Hitman after I saw it, but his voice was kind of off putting, especially being a huge fan of the series and hearing the voice used for 47 which is a bit more monotone and almost robotic, which is why I thought Rupert Friend was amazing at portraying the character in the sequel, definitely a better choice than the original choice of Paul Walker.

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

that would mean movies like tron, is the first that comes to mind. it was a kick ass arcade game.

In the case of Tron, the video game was based on the movie. The light cycles were awesome, though.

[jarrycanada 2483]

In the case of Tron, the video game was based on the movie. The light cycles were awesome, though.

 

I knew that, that maybe is why it was such a good film, yet poorly executed by disney. I had the home version of the video game as a young lad.

[RyanSz 3140]

If they were to do Tron they need to get Seth Green for it.

 

 

If not Tron than I would love to see Green discuss his role in the Full Moon Entertainment film, Arcade, which also stars Peter Billingsley. The movie was batshit crazy and about video games having the chance to be evil. It also features some truly awful CGI in the era when it was beginning to become common in films.

 

[Amy the Gorilla 732]

Movies based on video games (Or board/tabletop games) and video games based on movies seem to have the terrible symbiotic relationship where they are almost always terrible. I think the reason is that they don't take into account the medium that they are being taken from, and think it's okay to lift it wholesale from one medium and drop it into another and everything will work out great.

 

The story in a video game works because it's part of the interactive narrative, which doesn't translate well into a passive viewing medium. On the other end, tacking random interactive "game" elements into the narrative of a story doesn't exactly make stellar gameplay. It's obvious money grab, and mildly entertaining at best.

 

 

Example:

 

 

There are examples of both working "well"

 

Like Mortal Kombat, an possibly the FIRST resident Evil...for the most part.

 

And in terms of video game movies, I know "Riddick escape from butcher bay" was pretty good. and in that case it wasn't just a movie skin pulled over a video game skeleton. it was part of the lore of the films, just in video game form.

[RyanSz 3140]

The thing with video game adaptations of movies are that for the most part, the game maker just cannibalized a in progress game in order to rush it to the market, or just rush it in general to cash in on a big movie, ET being the biggest example of this. Rarely do games exceed expectations when they are an adaptation, though the ones that do are AMAZING, the original Goldeneye and the Riddick games are the two big ones. Unfortunately we will never get to play the Avengers game that was supposed to come out around the time of the first movie, which was supposed to be a first person fighting/shooter where you played as various members of the team and could use their various powers. The company lost funding shortly after revealing their test footage I believe or there was a licensing issue.

[taylor anne photo 11311]

The first Silent Hill movie is very middle-of-the-road, and feels neither crazy enough nor poorly-made enough to result in a good episode.

I actually hold that movie very near and dear to my heart cause it was a good friend of mine's favorite and he passed so every time I think of Silent Hill I think of how much he loved it and I can't help but smile. So to me it'll always be on the good side no matter what my actual thoughts on the movie are lol.

[FisterRoboto 7499]

The thing with video game adaptations of movies are that for the most part, the game maker just cannibalized a in progress game in order to rush it to the market, or just rush it in general to cash in on a big movie, ET being the biggest example of this. Rarely do games exceed expectations when they are an adaptation, though the ones that do are AMAZING, the original Goldeneye and the Riddick games are the two big ones. Unfortunately we will never get to play the Avengers game that was supposed to come out around the time of the first movie, which was supposed to be a first person fighting/shooter where you played as various members of the team and could use their various powers. The company lost funding shortly after revealing their test footage I believe or there was a licensing issue.

The Mad Max game from last year was pretty legit, too.

 

Movies based on video games (Or board/tabletop games) and video games based on movies seem to have the terrible symbiotic relationship where they are almost always terrible. I think the reason is that they don't take into account the medium that they are being taken from, and think it's okay to lift it wholesale from one medium and drop it into another and everything will work out great.

 

The story in a video game works because it's part of the interactive narrative, which doesn't translate well into a passive viewing medium. On the other end, tacking random interactive "game" elements into the narrative of a story doesn't exactly make stellar gameplay. It's obvious money grab, and mildly entertaining at best.

 

Definitely agree. Also, many video games are able to tell a much longer narrative because gamers now expect to spend 15+ hours (on the REALLY low end) on a good game. It's hard to boil that down to a 90-minute story, especially when part of what makes the story fun is actually getting to take part in it.

 

At the same time, so many video games are going for a much stronger cinematic element to them. That means more and longer cutscenes, which is a trend I 100% hate. There's nothing worse than starting a game and having to sit through 10 minutes of cutscenes because the game developer decided the most interesting way to introduce someone to the game's world was by not letting them actually play in that world.

 

Like Mortal Kombat, an possibly the FIRST resident Evil...for the most part.

I thought the first Resident Evil was pretty decent. Not counting Event Horizon, it's probably Paul WS Anderson's best film.

[RyanSz 3140]

Yeah the Mad Max game was great and nailed the feel of that world. I'm wondering how well Assassin's Creed is going to fare later this year because while it looks well done and has Michael Fassbender as the lead, the overall backstory to that series is a bit confusing, more so now that it looks like rather than the main character in a VR machine that accesses his ancestor's memories, he's attached to a wire-fu machine so that he has a full body experience of the memories. I know that there has been talk of David O. Russel doing an Uncharted adaptation, which is apparently scheduled to come out in January of next year, but he kept talking about putting Mark Whalberg in as Nathan Drake which is such a travesty that it makes him look scholarly as a science teacher in The Happening, especially since the first few games had Drake looking and sounding a bit like Nathan Fillion, who would be perfect for the role.

[FisterRoboto 7499]

Yeah the Mad Max game was great and nailed the feel of that world. I'm wondering how well Assassin's Creed is going to fare later this year because while it looks well done and has Michael Fassbender as the lead, the overall backstory to that series is a bit confusing, more so now that it looks like rather than the main character in a VR machine that accesses his ancestor's memories, he's attached to a wire-fu machine so that he has a full body experience of the memories. I know that there has been talk of David O. Russel doing an Uncharted adaptation, which is apparently scheduled to come out in January of next year, but he kept talking about putting Mark Whalberg in as Nathan Drake which is such a travesty that it makes him look scholarly as a science teacher in The Happening, especially since the first few games had Drake looking and sounding a bit like Nathan Fillion, who would be perfect for the role.

An Uncharted movie? Hasn't that already been made?

 

 

 

 

 

[Amy the Gorilla 732]

An Uncharted movie? Hasn't that already been made?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]

[RyanSz 3140]

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVlViaNxAOs

You think he was playing that thinking how much better than Crystal Skulls it was?

[joel_rosenbaum 1269]

I still can't get over Harrison Ford's earring.

[DeathToMikeyBay 130]

Tomb Raider wouldn't work. It was competently made but just dull. So many Indiana Jones ripoffs forget what made those movies work: Indy was mostly improvising, his plans never quite worked out the way he first thought, he seemed genuinely surprised when his plans worked, and he got pummeled to shit in the process.

 

Angelina's Laura Croft is just an effortless badass which is so much more boring in comparison.

 

 

I take issue with saying Silent Hill Revelations is good! Movie was just a lazy mess. There is no way that script wasn't written over a single weekend. Even the one or two creative monster designs wasn't enough to save it.

[NathanGordon 1096]

The 2001 Final Fantasy film would make a really interesting case study for this discussion, being a movie not actually based on a game but in the general spirit of the franchise.

[NathanGordon 1096]

I used to be a huge gamer in my youth, and continued buying and collecting well into my 30s, but no modern games hold my interest at all. For the longest time, video games were trying to be cinematic -- many people may remember the success of Final Fantasy 7 in 1997 as a win for the convergence of Hollywood storytelling and Japanese style games. It's taken a couple of decades but the tables have turned; games regularly outsell big budget pictures, and now it's mainstream movies that are trying to be mimick games. There's stuff like Hardcore Henry (basically a non interactive FPS), or the hip 8-bit references of Scott Pilgrim, or joyless cutscenes without gameplay like Sucker Punch, and in the many other would-be tentpole CGI shitfests like Gods of Egypt that SHOULD be video games instead.

 

Anyways, what I'm saying is that finally video games got their wish -- they can now tell garbage stories full of ham fisted melodrama, pseudo intellectualism, shifting moral centers, and regressive sexism -- JUST LIKE HOLLYWOOD. I long for those innocent days when the most complicated plot you could get across in a game was "Shoot UFO for mystery bonus" or "Our princess is in another castle".

 

We won't get any more interesting video game movies -- they're scripted, directed, and acted by the same people who make Marvel blockbusters. The reason the Super Mario Brothers movie is so satisfyingly bonkers is precisely because it was so lacking in narrative. That a group of people could take some thin concepts like pipes and koopas and expand it into a psychedelic cocaine nightmare world is actually fairly impressive. I don't imagine you'll see a similar gonzo creativity at work in this summer's Assassin's Creed movie.

 

Anyways, /rant. I agree that the first Silent Hill is a decent little horror film with great atmosphere and almost feels like a throwback today, with its lack of teenagers and somewhat restrained violence.

[FisterRoboto 7499]

The 2001 Final Fantasy film would make a really interesting case study for this discussion, being a movie not actually based on a game but in the general spirit of the franchise.

Definitely agree. And part of what makes it work is that the series itself isn't a chronological series of events. For the most part, the sequels are another story in the FF universe rather than "OK. So, here's some more shit that Cloud did" (obviously there are exceptions like FFX-2). So it lends itself very well to creating an original story within the universe rather than trying to make a faithful adaptation of an established narrative.

 

 

I used to be a huge gamer in my youth, and continued buying and collecting well into my 30s, but no modern games hold my interest at all. For the longest time, video games were trying to be cinematic -- many people may remember the success of Final Fantasy 7 in 1997 as a win for the convergence of Hollywood storytelling and Japanese style games. It's taken a couple of decades but the tables have turned; games regularly outsell big budget pictures, and now it's mainstream movies that are trying to be mimick games. There's stuff like Hardcore Henry (basically a non interactive FPS), or the hip 8-bit references of Scott Pilgrim, or joyless cutscenes without gameplay like Sucker Punch, and in the many other would-be tentpole CGI shitfests like Gods of Egypt that SHOULD be video games instead.

 

Anyways, what I'm saying is that finally video games got their wish -- they can now tell garbage stories full of ham fisted melodrama, pseudo intellectualism, shifting moral centers, and regressive sexism -- JUST LIKE HOLLYWOOD. I long for those innocent days when the most complicated plot you could get across in a game was "Shoot UFO for mystery bonus" or "Our princess is in another castle".

 

We won't get any more interesting video game movies -- they're scripted, directed, and acted by the same people who make Marvel blockbusters. The reason the Super Mario Brothers movie is so satisfyingly bonkers is precisely because it was so lacking in narrative. That a group of people could take some thin concepts like pipes and koopas and expand it into a psychedelic cocaine nightmare world is actually fairly impressive. I don't imagine you'll see a similar gonzo creativity at work in this summer's Assassin's Creed movie.

 

Anyways, /rant. I agree that the first Silent Hill is a decent little horror film with great atmosphere and almost feels like a throwback today, with its lack of teenagers and somewhat restrained violence.

That's an interesting point (although Hardcore Henry was so much fucking fun). I actually prefer the games to tell a good narrative, but the problem is that they want to do it with an abundance of cutscenes. Games want to take you out of the game to tell their story instead of integrating it into the game. And don't even get me started on unskippable cutscenes. If I wanted to watch a goddamn movie, I'd do that.

 

Angelina's Laura Croft is just an effortless badass which is so much more boring in comparison.

To be fair, Lara Croft really wasn't that interesting of a character. It was pretty much just "big boobed lady in tight clothes solves puzzles" in the games. The new Tomb Raider series, though, is really well done and much more about Lara learning how to be an adventurer, which has the potential to translate well into a movie, but probably won't.

[Amy the Gorilla 732]

Speaking of Silent Hill,

I'd love to see the cinematic equivalent of P.T. I never played that game myself, (I'm way too much a of a chicken shit to play games like that, and I'm the kind of weirdo that enjoys watching people play games as much as I do playing them.) but just watching people play it was so creepy and unnerving. I can't help but feel like a lot of that was taken from what works in horror films.

[RyanSz 3140]

Speaking of Silent Hill,

I'd love to see the cinematic equivalent of P.T. I never played that game myself, (I'm way too much a of a chicken shit to play games like that, and I'm the kind of weirdo that enjoys watching people play games as much as I do playing them.) but just watching people play it was so creepy and unnerving. I can't help but feel like a lot of that was taken from what works in horror films.

I fucking loved P.T. which was scarier than the last 3-4 Silent Hill Games combined, despite only lasting about 25 minutes. It pisses me off so much that Konami cancelled the game that was being directed by Guillermo del Toro and featuring Norman Reedus as the lead character, to instead focus on gambling machines like slots and pachinko.