Bad game movies – are they bad because they are badly done, or it’s just that they can’t be done in good way? That’s a good question. Let’s talk about that for a second, or two.
First let’s start with few examples of good game movies – in my opinion that is.
Super Mario Bros (1993) – Me thinks that is the first movie based on a game that was famous.
Is it good? No. Is it bad? … Erm, not entirely. It is one of those movies so bad that they are actually quite good.
First we have story: This is, like, total bullpiss, not connected to SMB in any way. It’s just some random things thrown in. Another dimension, with raptors being more evolved than humans. Mario try’s to save the princess from Koopa, there are some mushrooms (that’s my fav part), we have some nifty references like walking bombs, Yoshi, and bullets with faces.
Then we have actors: now this is like sw33t. Great names starting from Hoskins and ending with Hooper.
So how was the film compared to the game: You can clearly see that the script was strongly based on original game, but changed to make it easier to make. There are a LOT of references, some gags, and funny shit. If you played Mario you will enjoy the movie. Why? Coz someone had a good idea. Make it different but for most of the movie make it very, very similar. That’s why I like it, and many other gamers too.
Tomb Rider (2001) – that is for me the first successful and great game adaptation. You don’t agree? Why?
First we have quite a good Tomb Rider style script. Then we have good looking girl with guns. Angelina, ouuu yhe Jolie. She does in the movie things that Lara does in the game, but in a compacted and fun to watch on a screen version. Some people argue that Jolie is there just to show off her chest in tight shirts – but as my answer: so is Lara Croft! You sick bastards. Those who didn’t fap to Lara raise your hand. Only 13 year old boys.. yhee. So I thought.
Audio visual in this movie was great. Scenery - just like in TR games - exotic and epic.
And now to come back I time.
Mortal Kombat (1996) A fighting game movie that was… well… it was ok. Why? Why is it better then Street Fighter, DoA or the new King of God don’t let me watch this Fighters!
It didn’t try to be anything other, then the game is! In MK we just got our hands on some fighters and kicked ass with some flashy gore. In the movie… the story. I don’t really remember the story. I remember that there was a lot of quite fun to watch fights. Good, for those times, special effects, and quite a solid humor. Now I repeat – the movie didn’t try to be anything else then a fighting movie, what SF, DoA and KoF try right now.
SF was supposed to be antiwar, and antiterrorism flick. DoA was all about boobs.. wait a moment. So was the original game… never mind that. KoF tries to be… I don’t even want to know what it tries to be but it FAILS.
Now as I stated this, let’s go back to SMB and TR.
SMB is a platform game with some funny enemies, no dialog what so ever (except for the princess being in another castle ;( ), and surreal word that you try to conquer (not literally, but in a metaphor). The movie? Funny enemies, no dialog what so ever, surreal world. Yep it matches.
The movie doesn’t bring any more then the game does. The director, and script writer didn’t try to push in some deep thoughts how Koopa symbolizes some subculture or anything. It’s just fun to watch as the game is fun to play.
And for the TR. The game is action shooter with puzzles and great scenery and with big boobs for guys to wank. The movie? Action shooter with small puzzles and great scenery and with big boobs for guys to wank.
Once again the movie does not try to be anything else than a game is.
This is how to make a great movie based on a game. Don’t try an think too much about the script or the motivation of heroes, just do it.
So yhe since we got that covered. Lets quickly talk about one more last thing.
Even if you make a movie that is nothing more than the game is, there is always the director – if he’s bad the movie will be bad just like any movie made by:
Are more comments necessary? … And how come he made a sequels to two worst movies in a history of cinematography? HOW?!
(And I do hope my engalish can be read - I'm a better speaker then a writer ;p )