For years Hollywood has tortured my gamer side by producing terrible video game based movies that barely resemble the games they’re based on. The failure of these films is hard to understand — if writers and directors actually play the games they base their movies on, then the story should be already formed. It should also seem obvious that some games don't contain enough depth to create a movie from. Video games are an interactive medium, and as a result they can get away with simpler stories and slower character development. Is that what makes them harder to adapt than books and comics?
The history of video game movies had an inauspicious start with the movie "Super Mario Bros." Created in 1993, this film-flop was created back when Mario's story consisted of saving a princess from Bowser. That's it. But somehow its creators turned it into a story of parallel worlds, dinosaurs, and evolution. The movie itself is enjoyable in a "wow, this is just weird" sort of way, but because the title is "Super Mario Bros," everyone expected it to be, well, more like Mario. It felt like a movie someone had created by simply slapping together characters and terms from the Mario Bros. video games. For the fans, this movie was a crash-and-burn. It only made back half of what was spent creating it.
This history of lackluster adaptations continues with movies like "Double Dragon" and "Street Fighter." They left gamers wondering if the creators had ever picked up a controller or flipped through the instruction manuals. They got character names correct and some of the designs, but after that, nothing. But in 1995, gamers got their first Gem, albeit a dirty one. "Mortal Kombat" kept to the video game plot relatively intact and the designs for each character hold close to its source material. The film quality and visuals weren't great, but after early failures in adaptations it's understandable that a full effort wasn't put into it. Where "Mortal Kombat" truly fails is the dialogue. Most the lines are cheesy, and even talented actors could make anything of them. This resulted in the movie appealing more to teens than adults, but could still be enjoyed if you're ready to make fun of it with your friends.
With the years video games evolved to have more realistic graphics and deeper stories. This should have made adaptations simpler, but movies like "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider" and "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" proved that Hollywood had no clue what it was doing. Then "Resident Evil" came along in 2002 and was directed by Paule W. S. Anderson, one of the directors of "Mortal Kombat." You’d think experience and a bigger budget would have made the directing that much more effective. "Resident Evil" video games have in-depth, thought-out stories, and highly cinematic and scary moments. This should have been a simple adaptation, but Anderson chose to throw out all of the characters from the games and create a new one, Alice. He adds a few "Resident Evil" terms such as Umbrella and T-virus and keeps the monster designs and expects it to be good enough to deserve the "Resident Evil" title. Although it’s a good movie, it doesn’t live up to the name, and it left fans hoping the next one would be different.
"Resident Evil: Apocalypse" attempts to draw in more video game fans by adding fan favorite characters like Jill Valentine and Nemesis and borrows heavily from the third game, which those two starred in. If they had simply stuck to that formula, it would have made the movie passable. Instead, Anderson brings Alice back into the mix and the story of the first movie and third game collide in a plot explosion that leaves nothing in its wake. Yet, somehow the movie makes millions and "Resident Evil: Extinction" is born. Alice's journey continues and she meets even more video game fan favorites, but the story has already fallen so far off the rails that you can't see the plot of the games any more. But true to its zombie mold, the series keeps springing back to life and a fourth movie is created.
"Resident Evil: Afterlife" is simply a money eater. It was filmed in 3D to bring in the fans who’d go to any movie with that label. The story attempts to milk the popularity of "Resident Evil 5" by adding in monsters and characters from it, but makes no effort to explain the major changes in the way they act. Two of the best characters from the "Resident Evil" series, Chris Redfield and Albert Wesker, make appearances, but are given no back story or reason for existing in this bizarro world. Every character that isn't from the video games or Alice are only created to be zombie food. There’s no story to follow and no character to feel connected with. Jill Valentine returns at the end to set up yet another sequel, but since she has no back story in the plot of the film, it just means the finale of the film doesn’t make sense. This movie defines video game adaptations that are nothing more than moneymakers.
This isn't to say all video game movies are bad, but even the big successes have big flaws too. "Doom" does good work with the little bits supplied by the source material, but fails to capture the "solo survivor" feel and visuals from the games. "Silent Hill" succeeds at capturing the general concept and atmosphere of the first game, but the last half hour turns into gore porn to please "Saw" fans. "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" makes major changes to the original story, but most of them are to help bring it to the silver screen. Although fans may be able to find a lot to hate with it, it does entertain and may be the best live action video game adaptation to date. When it comes down to the wire, the best video game based movies are the animated ones — movies like "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" and "Resident Evil: Degeneration," but those movies require the viewer to have played the video games to understand the story.
Video game adaptations have failed on countless levels for countless reasons, but the biggest problem is always the creator. Directors and studios milk these pre-made plots for an easy buck, knowing the fans will flock to them hoping this one will be better than the last. But these days, video games have become interactive cinematic experiences and have plots and visuals that can rival most modern films. Thanks to technology and talented voice actors, the characters, too, are starting to resemble their live action counterparts. If Hollywood insists on continuing to make adaptations from video games, then they need to step their game up before fans say game over.
Writen by Chris
Edited by Aaron
No comments:
Post a Comment