Why are video game movies usually so bad?

Movies based on video games do not have a great critical track record because too often they are made with aspirations for money instead of quality, according to Legendary Pictures' Thomas Tull, producer of the upcoming Warcraft movie based on Blizzard Entertainment's beloved fantasy franchise.

[KinjoTakemura]

@Why are video game movies usually so bad?

The movies never stay true to the games that inspired the movie. Street Fighter is the perfect example. An amazing game that defined fighting games gets memorialized with a movie that isn't worth being used as toilet paper.

[darthv72]

Its pretty simple really. You have to have enough content to fit within the requirements of a 90+ minute feature film.

Most games have several hours of content and squeezing that down to a movie just does not work while staying true to the original source material.

where they could be better is instead of trying to fit what they feel is relevant (game content) to the time frame (90+ minutes). they should look at the sequel aspect.

granted making movies is costly but if you really believe in your project then studios can literally film multiple sequels within the same shoot period and edit them to release one after the next after the next. that way they dont have to lose out on content that could make or break the whole production.

[Geobros]

I liked Mortal Kombat 1 & 2 Movies...

[xc7x]

same goes with movie video games too

[thehobbyist]

Although there are a few notable exceptions.

[nidhogg]

Uwe Boll has a perfect track record.

[Ck1x]

Because they are generally rushed to release a long side or in close proximity to the movie. Not to mention that most of them use to have some direct story ties to the upcoming movie as well! Which could really hamper the experience of the actual game

[Sheed]

Does Scott Pilgrim count?

[Summons75]

Scott Pilgrim the game and movie were based off the comic, movie was awful but the game was good.

[-Foxtrot]

That movie could of been great if it wasn't Michael Cera as Scott Pilgrim. He's such a bad actor he plays himself in EVERYTHING.

It felt like I was watching Michael Cera vs The World, not Scot Pilgrim.

It's a shame because I love Edgar Wright movies, the Worlds End which released last year was fantastic.

[Summons75]

Because your trying to take a typical 5+ hour worth of narrative and turn it into 90 - 120 minutes worth of narrative. It's really hard to grab the essence of the game when your basically compressing it. It's the same reason why people complain when a book or comic based movies are different or cut a lot of side content out, there are a lot of time constraints on movies they have to cut non-plot out. Movies being made into games are bad for the opposite reason, you're taking a short narrative and trying to stick gameplay in between major events of the movie.

There has been some awesome video game movies though. Silent HIll and Postal are by far the best interpretations. The Dead or Alive movie was so bad that I couldn't help like it...guilty pleasure I suppose.

[PsylentKiller]

A 17 hour game being squeezed into a 2 1/2 hour movie.

Books are one thing. The subtleties of a movie can represent many pages of a book.

A video game is the combination of a book, a movie, and an album, while being interactive at the same time. Music in a game can play a much bigger role than it does in a movie. Often times it tells the story on its own.
Trying to fit all that into a couple of hours can never capture the true essence of a video game. A movie cannot encapsulate the adventure, wonder, excitement, the experience of a video game.

This is why I believe video games to be the superior medium next to books. Video games is such an ancient term. A term that is still holding the genre back. Unfortunately, changing the title would probably do more harm than good to Interactive Experience.?

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Interactive Experience
The Last Of Us Interactive Experience
Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare Interactive Experience
Call of Duty Ghosts IE
Infamous: Second Son IE

[-Foxtrot]

They never stick to the source material that's why

Resident Evil has a great story, a team going into a spooky looking mansion with zombies and experimental creatures lurking around every corner. Whats not to like.

Instead we get Alice and her matrix like moves.

People keep saying you can't condense a 10 hour game into 2 hours but I think you can if you remove the gameplay and the parts of the story which have been added just to stretch the game out longer.

[Joe913]

Not only that but if a game story is too long you can always have a sequel.

[Joe913]

The key is that they do not stay true to the games like what they was going to do with Uncharted if they can keep directors and writers ego in check you would be able to make a very good video game movie. If they can make MGS and GOW into movies and do it right I think video game movies can overthrow comic book movies at the box office.

[lemoncake]

They think that sticking a popular well known name on any piece of crap will get people to go see it. Same as with games based on movies.

[Foraoise]

In my opinion, it's because they don't have the flexibility that other, non-movie games do. They have to follow/incorporate much of the movie itself, for the most part, while pure "games" can be created from scratch, with limitless creativity. Sure, you can 'add' more creative things to the movie-games (Like the Spiderman games for example. They add things - Like in Spiderman 3 the game, for the PSP, at least, they added the Lizard and other things), but overall, you're left to stick to a certain story, etc.

[Death]

Probably for the same reason video games based on movies suck.

[TheGrimReaper0011]

To rush a product to a popular market to make a quick buck

[thehobbyist]

The deviate from the game plot most of the time. The Street Fighter movie in terms of following the game story... I think I'm gonna throw up...

[Skate-AK]

It's to hard to put a 8+ hour story into a hour and a half.

[ironfist92]

I have faith in the Assassin's Creed film for various reasons.

1: being that Ubisoft is directly involved in the making of the film, secondly because instead of simply adapting a game, they're creating a new story set within the same universe of AC, which I'm assuming means new subject using an animus to visit an ancestor in X setting/time period, different to whats portrayed in the games, which helps tying the games and film together, without disappointing the fans, yet still being accessible to new-comers.

Plus Michael Fassbender's in it and he's badass.