Are Video Game-to-Film Adaptations Rising in Quality?

Video games being adapted to films have always been a laughable matter for more than one reason. Normally, they just turn out so awful on arrival. Nowadays, unfortunately, when people hear that a movie based on a video game will release, they just guffaw at the prospect. Why? Because a lot of them believe that they will turn out terrible, that's what!

But that may be changing. Video games being adapted into films used to be dismal, but with the sudden deluge of these types of films, there may be hope for the love child between the film and gaming industry yet.

First, lets take a look at actual successes on Box Office Mojo. Here are the top ten game-to-film adaptations:

• Lara Croft: Tomb Raider: $131,168,070
• Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time: $90,759,676
• Pokemon: The First Movie: $85,744,662
• Mortal Kombat: $70,454,098
• Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life: $65,660,196
• Resident Evil: Afterlife: $60,128,566
• The Angry Birds Movie: $52,688,309
• Resident Evil: Apocalypse: $51,201,453
• Resident Evil: Extinction: $50,648,679
• Silent Hill: $46,982,632

Okay, so hardly any of them are recent, but a lot of future adaptations like the top ten above should take a note of these successes. Unless its Mortal Kombat, where it was just so terrible of a film that it was considered good," but I have to personally argue that game films haven't been doing the greatest from a financial point of view. They need to step up their game somehow, and companies like Ubisoft and Nintendo are going to need to make video game films great (let's not talk about the Super Mario Movie). 

But how?

Well, here are two methods:

Good actors need to be hired.

This is one of the problems. The actors in plenty of video game films just come off as incredibly cheesy and unable to put on a professional performance that will convince and immerse the viewer.

The storytelling needs to actually decent and not cheesy.

This is the main problem, and an issue that cannot be combated with good actors. Translating video game storytelling to film seems to be quite difficult. Unfortunately, there remains another issue: the plot of a game is often considered shallow (unless its a role-playing game of some sort or most of Fromsoftwares games), and gameplay usually replaces the plot. This makes it tough to develop a game movie, as you definitely need an immersive plot--well, unless you want to pull a Michael Bay and just throw explosions in everything. But screenwriters need to craft something magical and immersive, but they can't easily rely on the plots of the video games being translated.


I don't even want to know what the film will be about. I just don't want to know.

I mean, take a look at the upcoming Tetris film! Seriously, Tetris! What in the world is going on in these studios for creators to actually come up with such an idea? How are they going to pull this off? The only thing I can think of is that alien blocks will fall from the sky and threaten humanity, but do you know how ridiculous it sounds?

Personally, I'm hoping that the film will not end up like Battleship, which was the most ridiculous film I have ever seen, and instead be more like a documentary, featuring Russian designer and programmer Alexey Pajitnov. I would be interested in something like that, and if done well, the film could be a learning experience for everyone. Everyone could learn and understand game's impact on the world when it released back in 1984, especially if they weren't born around that time. This would ultimately be the most sensible approach. If plot-less games like freakin' Tetris are going to exist as movies, then it better damn well teach viewers and immerse them.


Branding does sell in film.

There are quite a few films based on games coming out, and they need to ensure that these particular adaptations wont be made a laughing stock. The Angry Birds Movie was actually considered a box office success, but you know what? The success may have been based off of hype and the popularity of the Angry Birds franchise. After all, it only scored a 43 percent on the Rotten Tomatoes meter, and only a whopping 54 percent of the audience actually liked it. That's a pretty low number, truth be told. A lot of complaints actually explained how the film was shallow, and unfortunately a lot of games-transformed-into-film have followed this trend. They're absolutely hollow, relying on the brand to earn a quick buck. That needs to change, and hopefully the tides will shift with the upcoming Warcraft film. Unfortunately, if were going by the recent critic reviews of the film, then its not looking good for Warcraft.

So far Warcraft has scored an absolute rotten on Rotten Tomatoes, earning a 20 percent rating at the time of this writing. Only four ratings are considered fresh, whereas 16 are considered rotten. And what about the complaints?


Please tell me critics are being too harsh with this film.

"Like its ten-foot anti-heroes, 'Warcraft' is noisy, lumbering and not terribly bright."

"The lingering sense, though, is that Jones has produced a strong adaptation of the game's world. It's just not one that translates well to the screen."

"It feels like the fanboy within Duncan Jones got carried away with Azeroth's minute mythology, leading to a film filled with tonnes of references to the wider world but no real soul of its own."

"A director's cut might run more smoothly and offer some of the characters time to actually develop, but what we've got for now is an ambitious disappointment with its heart in the right place."

Again, it revolves around the fact that it the game doesn't translate well into film. Not only that, but the characterization is extremely shallow. Unfortunate.

However, it's important to note that 95 percent of Rotten Tomatoes users (out of 27,981) want to see the film, so it could be considered a box office success if were going by sales.

Perhaps critics are simply being too harsh. Maybe that's the issue. All I know is that this trend needs to end.