Video games as movies?

[WyreWizard]

Ah video games.  Nothing like them.  I gotta admit I've been playing them for 32 years.  But I wonder, why does Hollywood make movies of them?  Are they scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas?  I've seen 2 of these, Super Mario Bros and Double Dragon.  Both are cheesier than the biggest dairy farm in the world.  I've also seen Final Fantasy the Spirits Within which was mildly interesting.

[Menard]

Okay; now just who the f.u.c.k is that impersonating WW0?

One paragraph? Not even slightly annoying?

Like we're going to fall for that one. 

[dean]

We need more movies like Double Dragon and Super Mario Brothers: Mid nineties movies like those are incredibly brilliant!

[Rev. Powell]

But I wonder, why does Hollywood make movies of them? 

Built-in audience, little downside risk.

[Chainsawmidget]

We need more movies like Double Dragon and Super Mario Brothers: Mid nineties movies like those are incredibly brilliant!

I don't care what anybody says, those were extremely fun movies and much more imaginative than people tend to give them credit for. 

On the other hand, videogame movies involving Uwe Bolle are much less imaginative and not very fun. 

[Umaril The Unfeathered]

If you played the game, no need to see a movie about the game. 

I'm one of the people who remembers Sega CD's absolutely horrible series of movie-games like Cliffhanger and Congo to name a few and thus such may be influencing my veto of video game movies.

I like my games to be games and my movies to be movies.  At this point, games are an art form, and just real-looking enough. 

To continue to color them with more realistic graphics and near-life-like art is going to eventually ruin what a game stands for. Hope that makes sense.

[InformationGeek]

But I wonder, why does Hollywood make movies of them? 

Money dear boy.  Simply money.  You are making a film based on a video game that already has a built in audience like Rev. Powell said.  Plus, if the movie sucks hard, the audience will still come out to see it or check it out on DVD for morbid curiousity.  The company will still turn a profit over time even if the film doesn't do well in theathers.  That's pretty much how Uwe Boll is making money since most people are watching his movies just to see the crap factor in them.

The thing is though, some games have great stories, like Silent Hill and Bioshock.  It would be rather interesting to see how a movie adaption of one would turn out.  It's just the filmmakers do not seem to care that much for what they are making most of the time.  Mortal Kombat, Prince of Perisa, and Silent Hill seem to be the best video game films since MK & PoP seem be so bad they're good and Silent Hill capturing atmosphere and visual style of the games incredibly well.

[Leah]

  But I wonder, why does Hollywood make movies of them?  Are they scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas? 

Yep, Unfortunately, it's either that or Remakes. Comedies today just suck, action films/slasher films are cliched beyond the point that it is funny, and basically, Hollywood only cares about $$$, not about story/plot development.

[WildHoosier09]

Of course if your really lazy you can simply name a movie after a video game and then throw some random mish-mash of crap together a publish it.  Yeah, I'm looking at you "House of the Dead" which the movie (more accurately dubbed by Andrew Borntregger-"Zombie Island Rave Massacre") had a weaker plot line than the video game.  Remember, even if people walk out of the theaters, they already bought the ticket.  Hiring an awesome writer to come up with a new idea is expensive, hawking on some already existing video game is cheap.

[Rev. Powell]

Hiring an awesome writer to come up with a new idea is expensive, hawking on some already existing video game is cheap.

I think you have an exaggerated idea of what writers get paid.    Actually I think the opposite is true: it's much cheaper to commission an original story than to pay licensing fees to an existing game franchise, and pay a screenwriter to do an adaptation as well.  But even though its more expensive, there's much less risk involved because of the existing fanbase.

[Flick James]

Are they scraping the bottom of the barrel for ideas?

Yes.

[Chainsawmidget]

Of course if your really lazy you can simply name a movie after a video game and then throw some random mish-mash of crap together a publish it.  Yeah, I'm looking at you "House of the Dead" which the movie (more accurately dubbed by Andrew Borntregger-"Zombie Island Rave Massacre") had a weaker plot line than the video game.  Remember, even if people walk out of the theaters, they already bought the ticket.  Hiring an awesome writer to come up with a new idea is expensive, hawking on some already existing video game is cheap.

Zombie Island Rave Massacre is a much better title anyway.

[WildHoosier09]

Rev. Powell; true enough getting gigged for a royalty fee would be much more expensive than a writer but this begs the question: why not have better writing? I get the "slap a game title on the movie and everyone who was a fan of the game will be a fan of your movie", but if writers are so inexpensive why do we still have the same lame rehashed storylines over and over again? (just so we're clear, that's more of a rhetorical lament, don't feel like you have to answer it) Even if the production costs are high, bad writing makes a movie feel cheap.

For example, when was the last good original monster created? We are still seeing films about werewolves and vampires that are centuries old creations.  If you watch Twilight (1) absolutely cold with no knowledge of it at all it is initially a decent (I won't say great but, decent) movie up until they reveal he's a vampire then it's kind of a letdown.  With all that secrecy and vague implications your almost expecting something new/interesting but no, he's a vampire and she's a moron.  The storyline goes down from there over the next 5 or so (I lost track) movies.  Doesn't matter how many big name actors/SFX you slap on, it's a vampire love story, you pretty much know how its going to go.

Opposite end of the spectrum: Zombies Anonymous - premise is people who die simply get back up and go about their average lives despite the fact that they are zombies. The whole movie revolves around the social implications of this really original premise and how it leads to ethnic clashes between zombies/non-zombies and really original dialogue like "when were you planning to tell your parents you are dead? - I was thinkimg maybe this Christmas".  Despite the fact that it was done on a shoe-string budget the good premise and good writing bring the movie up as a whole.

[indianasmith]

One of my favorite horror films is based on a video game . . . SILENT HILL. 
Never played the game, but really loved the movie.  Very atmospheric and creepy.

[Couchtr26]

One of my favorite horror films is based on a video game . . . SILENT HILL. 
Never played the game, but really loved the movie.  Very atmospheric and creepy.

I don't know if you are much of a gamer but if you get a chance download from the Playstation store.  It is a very creepy and unsettling game.  (The school freaked me out when I was 18, I refused to play with the lights off.)  However, the problem is that originality has not been with the series in sometime.  The conventions are known and this is what limits it.  There needs to be deeper exploration on themes and expansion of plot.  Speaking of which, I hope the next movie can do that with some gusto.

Getting back, it is one of the better.  I admit plot is not the same but it does well with the material.  I don't want to see the game on screen but something that does well with the material presented.