Browse Categories
Resident Evil, Witcher : Why Video Game Adaptations Are Nightmarish ?
Credit: @Sony Pictures Entertainment/MyTechPiece
We love gaming, and we love watching movies and tv shows, when they have something worth experiencing. Naturally, we’re not alone and Hollywood quickly saw an untapped potential to tell stories with names people already know, which is good for their business, since it’s more likely to attract people to the theater.
However, despite the many Adaptations we’ve seen, we’ve never had a masterpiece, even with beloved material. The best adaptations are only okay-tier forgettable features, when it doesn’t plunge into pure creative hell. So, today we’ll explore the reasons that prevent video game movies to be good.
Credit: @20th Century Fox
Hollywood’s Vision of What Gamers Love
One of the main issues with 99% of the adaptations is that the people committing the games to the big screen have a limited experience at best of what they adapt, from actors to directors and especially the producers. In most video game adaptations, you’ll notice creative decisions that are only made because it’s from a video game or because it’s what the makers think gamers would like to see.
This vision is often an amalgamation of clichés that wouldn’t happen if it was any other movie. The prime example is Max Payne, the 2007 adaptation by John Moore, a yes man who also directed the latest Die Hard, which you can’t even call a movie. Max Payne, the game is inspired by hard-boiled thrillers with a borderline cop, gangs and gritty violence and a dirty New York imagery, making it already pretty cinematographic.
For the movie, instead of having an Americanized version of a John Woo film, with a tortured hero, addicted to various substances, we have Mark Wahlberg. He tries his best to play the role, but he just looks too nice, and it doesn’t help that the movie is rated PG-13 with barely anything provocative. Every shot is overworked, the acting is hammy at best, and despite adapting a simple plot that leaves room for action, the film manages to be boring and nonsensical.
It’s just an example, but it proves a lack of understanding of the source material, and in this instance a clear will to not do any effort.
Credit: @Sony Pictures Entertainment
Silent Hill: It Could Have Been The One
Resident Evil is doomed to rehash the same stories over and over again, getting worse with every new installment on-screen, but Silent Hill is different. The 2006 movie directed by Christophe Gans, a fan of the game who understood the source material, is the closest we’ve ever gotten from a worthy adaptation.
This time it’s the studio that decided to ruin the movie, judging Gans cut too long, depressing, and lacking a male lead. That’s how Sean Bean’s character was worked into reshoots, which destroyed the pace of the movie and missed the mark by over-explaining a “Lynchean” universe.
Even if Gans had complete control, it may not have been perfect, but it’s one of the video game adaptations that had the most reverence for the source material. Visually, it felt like being in Silent Hill and the story could’ve been something from the game.
However, it relied heavily on the original game’s lore and the creatures didn’t feel like they totally belonged in the story told here, which is usually what the games did thematically. The French director will have a second crack at it with Return to Silent Hill, so we may finally have something worth watching.
Credit: @Freepik/MyTechPiece
Tv Adaptations: Let’s Piss People Off
Recently, we’ve had more video game adaptations on streaming services than at the box-office, which is not especially good news. On the low budget side, we have Resident Evil on Netflix, a teen woke drama with the worst story telling and characters ever that don’t even look like they could be from the game. At the other end of the spectrum, more budget isn’t better, we’ve already talked about The Last of Us, that people seem to enjoy for some odd reason.
However, the example that interests us today is The Witcher, because let’s face it, despite being a book adaptation technically, people mostly know the game and so did the creators. It started off promising, with Henry Cavill giving it his all to portray Geralt of Rivia, but one man can’t make a show. The writers and show runners openly admitted hating the source material and wanting to make it about their political agendas rather than tell us a story we may enjoy.
It backfired perfectly when the second season underperformed and that Cavill announced the third season would be his last. The producers announced he would be replaced by Liam “not Thor” Hemsworth, which is a death sentence for the show. So, Netflix tried to force-feed a spin-off, called Blood Origin, but thankfully no one saw that.
Credit: @Freepik/MyTechPiece
Trying To Milk Before Creating
With video games, the movie creatives think they have their work cut out for them and that gamers will accept anything as long as it has a famous name on it. In this race for profit, it’s almost impossible to infuse some creativity into a project, and most adaptations are below average movies.
Video games still suffer from the reputation of being some dumb thing, and despite the monetary potential, most production companies will give these projects to people unfamiliar with what they’re working with and who are not willing to get interested in the source material, or people who have passion, but don’t have the skills.
So, yes, video game adaptations will suck until creative freedom is given to the right people, even if it means giving them a lower budget and not trying to create big blockbuster franchises. Until then, video games are better when you play them, and movies are better when you watch them, if they both offer an engaging experience.
More Articles
