Going across mediums part 1: Games into films

Buckle up, this is going to be a long ride, and a bumpy one at that. I've been thinking about this for a while, and more research has gone into it than your average gaming blog's post, so be a sport and read it, will you?

We all know that novels and comic books (have the potential to) turn into great feature films. If anyone doubted that, the last ten years have probably changed their minds about it. Before we go on, though, see these pictures and answer one question.

 Tomb Raider

 Hitman

 Dead Or Alive

 Max Payne

 Mortal Kombat

 Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

 Resident Evil

 Final Fantasy Spirits Within

 Street Fighter

 Super Mario Bros

 Doom

 In The Name Of The King: A Dungeon Siege Tale

Wing Commander

 Alone In The Dark

Silent Hill

Alien Vs Predator

What do these films, starring among others Bob Hoskins, John Leguizamo, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Karl Urban, Christian Slater, Stephen Dorf, Tara Reid, Angelina Jolie, Milla Jovovich, Jason Statham, Freddie Prinze Jr, Matthew Lillard, Dennis Hopper, Timothy Olyphant, Christopher Lambert, Saffron Burrows, Jean Claude Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue, Jake Gylenhaal, Ben Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Gemma Arterton and Mark Wahlberg have in common?

They are all based on video games. Oh, and all of them, more or less, are a waste of celluloid.

Some would argue that some of them, like Alien Vs Predator, are actually good. To those people I'd say: no. Get the geek goggles off. Take a deep breath. Watch it again objectively. "Hey, it's shit!". Exactly! "It's based on one awesome game based on two awesome films, but it's crap!". That's what I was telling you before, duh!

Some would argue that some of them, like Tomb Raider, aren't as bad as some of the others. To those people I'd say: yes. Point. I'll give you that, they aren't as bad as, say, Street Fighter. So? When did mediocrity become a golden standard?

Much as it pains me to admit it, video games never make good films. Never. Even the ones who aren't absolutely dire are still pretty bad by other standards. You can get an A-list cast, you can crank up the budget, shoot in exotic locations, you can certainly market the crap out of it (I'm looking at you, Prince of Persia), but odds are it will most probably suck (still you, Prince of Persia). Why is that, though?

My guess is that video games' greatest strength is the one thing that, if taken out of the equation, makes it useless for film form: their interactivity. Even the best of those stories are sometimes as good only because you're a part of them in the game, experiencing it first hand. Take that out, make you an outside observer, and the flaws in it start showing from the get go.


The list above has some of the best stories ever told in video games: Wing Commander (astonishingly, it's one of the best films in the list). Max Payne. Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Incidentally, those are the only three games in that list that should have been considered for a film conversion in the first place. Their stories could stand a chance out there, if left as they were. But no, of course they didn't. Because, unfortunately, films like that are always either assigned to inexperienced directors which are fanboys of the game, experienced (I didn't say good)  directors who couldn't care less about the source material and just do what the script and studio tells them to do or, worse, inexperienced directors who know nothing of the source material. Even if the director is a fan of the game, you always run the risk of them picking out the parts that are easier to translate into film, or the ones they consider to be the best moments of the experience, and cramming them down our throats constantly. Sure, Max Payne is an action shooter game, but it's also a noir love story of betrayal, hubris, redemption, revenge. Where was that in the film?

All the other ones, bar none, are a shameless attempt to cash in the source game's popularity. I mean, Super Mario Bros? Street Fighter? Really? I hardly recall a story in these games, let alone a story worth adapting and sinking money into.Yet both of these games were good. They weren't being pretentious about their lack of story, either. How could they be? An early platform game and a beat 'em up? They didn't need a story to begin with. So why would you turn that into a film? That is, why would you turn that into a film, if your goal was anything other than fans of the games watching the films at least once? I mean, that would surely give you at least your budget's worth, right? Who cares if Dennis Hopper, Bob Hoskins and Raul Julia get a blemish in their resume, right?

Even Doom, Tomb Raider and Hitman, although more closely related to the source material, could have easily had another title altogether without being harmed by it as films in terms of quality. Seriously. When you don't stop to explore the characters (that is, where there actually are characters) and just turn an action game into a generic action film, why not make a new film altogether? That is, why not make a new film, if your goal was anything other than fans of the games watching the films at least once? Whoah, deja vu.

So yes. Argue if you must. Films based on video games suck and, deep down, you already know it.

Join me tomorrow to find out how games born out of films fare.