Are Video Game Movies Really That Bad?

This week on the Rotten Tomatoes there is a piece that ranks the scores of all video game movies, showing the recently released Rampage as having the best critical score.  The interesting thing here is that Rampage sits at a 51% rating.  That means that all forty-six other films have a score worse than that.  What this illustrates is a verification of the feelings throughout the years since Super Mario Bros. came out in 1993 that video games do not make compelling cinema.

It is my belief that a video game could turn into a solid movie.  We haven't seen it yet, but there is nothing stopping it from happening, other than maybe getting better pens to scribe the screenplay.  An intellectual property doesn't need to have any kind of backstory to turn into a solid film.  The LEGO Movie in 2014 proved that.  Stories for video games, I would argue, are getting better and better.  The industry deals with so much money that the production of triple A games are seeing larger and larger budgets to ensure the games not only sell the initial product, but that they keep a steady player base that will buy additional content or loot boxes post release.

The price tag of a triple A game hovers around $80 on a console, and players expect the best.  In the hands of the player, and a potential nemesis to the game developers, is the internet forum.  When one of those expensive games doesn't deliver in all areas, people will flood the forums, especially if the game is part of a loved franchise.  Because so much money is made for developers (and shareholders, something which seems to be the driving force behind post release monetizing schemes) after the release of a game, and because the budgets for the game are so high, developers cannot have a largely disgruntled community.  It was shown with the release of EA's Battlefront 2 (part of a Star Wars video game franchise dating back to 2004, and with ever a loyal base) that fan reaction can force a studio to change course even before a game comes out.  Fan reaction can spread fast and furious, pre-sales can be refunded, and ill-will be generated.  Because of all of that, parts of the game such as story need to be better than ever before.  This should set up a better foundation for transforming the properties to a appetizing film version.

A video game in recent years that had a really compelling story line to it was Assassin's Creed.  I honestly don't care about stories when I play video games, but I was right into the one that was in front of my from the moment I put the disc into my Xbox 360.  It was really imaginative, and provided amazing settings for game play.  I would have thought that this video game, more than any other, would have the best chance for success in theatres.

The studios seemed to share that sentiment and injected $125 million into the film and cast talents such as Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, and Brendan Gleeson.  That's five Oscar nominations between them, two wins, and while Gleeson had no Oscar noms, he did have three Golden Globe nominations.  That's a serious amount of acting power.  The director was Justin Kurzel, who directed had directed three three feature films, all scoring eighty percent on Rotten Tomatoes or higher (a personal favourite of mine was Snowtown Murders).  The elements were there for a solid movie.

Even with the pedigree that it had, Assassin's Creed could only muster support from 18% from critics and $10 million on its opening weekend.  It was a domestic flop, sitting alongside other big budget North American video game failures such as Warcraft and the $200 budgeted Prince of Persia.  Using popular titles for movies has proven not to be a guarantee for money made, and throwing large sums of money at them may not be the best idea.

While a number of the video game movies seem to be aiming with their sights quite low (such as the six that are directed by Use Boll, all 7% or under on Rotten Tomatoes) there have been a number that are trying for mass market appeal.  Having seen a number of these movies (four of them in theatre, sadly), I can say that it isn't one specific problem that plagues them all.  The closest commonality in their failing would probably be story, but, as I mentioned, the source material is doing better in that realm now.

It's not specifically video games that aren't well done, it is pretty much any adaptation of a game.  Battleship, Dungeons and Dragons, and Clue didn't receive a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  In fact, I think that the only movie based on a game with a fresh rating is Ouija: Origin of Evil.  It is crazy to think that of all of the movies based on types of games, the only critically received film is a sequel to a movie that scored 6% on RT.  I would love to say the reason why that movie succeeded where others didn't is because of the skills of director Mike Flanagan (I am a huge 'Flana-fan'), but other skilled directors have been in there and failed.  I already mentioned Justin Kurzel, and a favourite of mine, Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) directed  the mostly woeful Warcraft.

For some reason, movies based on games appear to be cursed.  Whether they're sourced out to directors with notoriously poorly received movies (Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson account for 23% of all video game movies ever made) or handed over to proven talents, video game movies just happen to fail.  It's not some systemic issue happening here.  It's not because there aren't rich and enchanting worlds to tap into or backstories that captivate.  It simply is a case of coincidence.  There will one day be a well received video game movie.  I believe it will happen, and, laugh at me if you will, I could even see in the future a movie based off of a video game being in Oscar contention.  The games are continuously getting better and better, with many already setting their sights on having blockbuster quality content and talent.  They will shake the curse soon enough.