A consistent lack of a singular creative vision throughout the production process
Studio interference is often the bane (and subsequent death knell) for many Hollywood productions, and movies based on video games are no exception.
This ubiquitous problem can be traced all the way back to the first film to be based on a video game: 1993’s Super Mario Brothers. After showing promise in the early stages of script development – enough to secure a $40 million dollar budget and the acting talents of Bob Hoskins (Mario, John Leguizamo (Luigi), Samantha Mathis (Princess Daisy), and Dennis Hopper (King Koopa) – the production quickly devolved into an incoherent mess. This can be attributed to two main factors: the inexperience and hubris of co-directors (and couple) Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, and studio interference with the script’s mature tone. Originally conceived as a sort of post-apocalyptic, alternate dimension adventure tale, the story was to be replete with hookers, drug references, and Mad Max-style desert races. Jankel and Morton did their best to retool the script for younger audiences while still using the already-built sets, which led to an incoherent, hodgepodge product.
The film was released to horrific reviews, with audiences rejecting its uneven, inaccessible tone. Jankel and Morton were essentially blacklisted by Hollywood and never worked there again. The film’s actors distanced themselves from the movie as well; Hopper remembers his young son asking him why he took the role, and when he told his son “I did that so you could have shoes,” his son replied “I don’t need shoes that badly.” Hoskins, who would get drunk with Leguizamo before takes because they knew how bad the movie would turn out, would later refer to Jankel and Morton as “the cunt and the cow,” and went to his grave saying that Super Mario Brothers was his life’s greatest regret, professional or otherwise.
The problem with Super Mario Brothers is the fact that there was no consistent vision behind it, which would go on to plague later game adaptations like Double Dragon, the Tomb Raider films, and Prince of Persia.
Abandoning the source material
When making a film based on a video game, the best bet is to stay as close to the source material as possible; otherwise, the film alienates fans of the game by altering characters and events, and furthermore, it alienates non-gaming moviegoers because it feels too much like a game. The Wing Commander PC game series was one of the most prolific of the 90s, boasting no less than five entries between 1990 and 1997 and chronicling the ongoing war between humankind and a race of bipedal feline aliens called the Kilrathi. The games were cinematic achievements of themselves: they were filled with live-action cut scenes, with characters portrayed by actors as respected and diverse as Mark Hamill, Malcolm McDowell, Christopher Walken, and Clive Owen.
When it came time to make a feature film based on the game series, it seemed logical for Chris Roberts, the creator of the games, to direct it. Problems arose almost immediately once production began; Roberts was consistently unhappy with the limitations he faced, primarily due to the small budget he was working with. Characters’ backgrounds and even physical appearances had to be changed, iconic spaceship designs were radically altered, but perhaps most damning of all was how silly the Kilrathi costumes looked on-screen. “The film became more simplistic than I wanted it to be,” says Roberts, “and some of the cool action got lost along the wayside.”
This is a prime example of how the movie gods can meddle with even the best-laid plans. There are so many variables that are present in the production of every movie, and as such, it’s hard to point an angry finger at Roberts; after all, it was his baby, and all signs show that he did his best with the resources at hand. However, even with Roberts attached to the project in such a key role, the film flopped at the box office, leaving fans of Wing Commander wondering what the hell they just saw.
Video games often tell better, more immersive stories than movies
One of the biggest challenges any filmmaker must face is how to tell a compelling video game story in a compressed time frame. Most Hollywood films run between an hour and a half and two hours, and a successful movie needs to get its emotional hooks into its viewer by the ten-minute mark. Video games, on the other hand, can unfold their narratives at a more sensible and realistic pace because they aren’t beholden to the same limitations. Because of this, video games can offer their players a far more nuanced and meaningful experience than their film-adaptation counterparts.
While recent games like The Last of Us, Infamous, Witcher III, and even GTA5 (to list but a few) offer fully immersive storylines and compelling, dynamic characterization, video game as story is hardly a new concept. The original Metal Gear video game franchise has been telling an amazing, ongoing story since its first installment appeared back in 1987. The inimitable Final Fantasy franchise has been transporting players to other worlds for just as long. More recently, Telltale Games has developed games based on The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones, which put far more emphasis on storytelling (to the point that a player’s decisions will greatly affect the trajectory and outcome of the story) than on actual gameplay. Hell, even the zero-dialogue indie hit Journey produces a level of emotional resonance in its player that most movies fail to attain, and Journey can be beaten in two hours.
In other words, video games function as cohesive, evolving narratives just as much as they function as a pure gaming experience. Why bother making a movie based on a game when the game itself is its best possible interpretation?
Is there any hope for the future of movies based on video games?
Before ruminating on this question, it’s only fair that I give credit to past films that have, at least on some level, succeeded in bringing a video game to the big screen. Top credit goes to director Paul W.S. Anderson, best known for being the creative force behind the Resident Evil franchise, but honorable mention should first go to his earlier film, 1995’s Mortal Combat. Sure, the movie lifted plot elements from Bruce Lee’s Enter the Dragon, but beyond that, it never tried to be something it wasn’t. All the fan-favorite characters were there, and they were kicking lots of ass and doing little else.
Also enjoyable are Anderson’s Resident Evil movies; while they deviate from the source material’s slow-building, brooding psychological horror and opt instead for breakneck action and adventure, they still hold up – largely because there is a palpable sense that Anderson and his cast put some heart into them. The corridor of deadly moving laser beams from the first film is one of the most well-rendered horror scenes in all cinema. Beyond Anderson’s contributions to video game-based movies, however, there is little to celebrate.
So, moving forward, what might we expect? There are several video game films in some level of production right now, from Moon director/writer Duncan Jones’ Warcraft origin story to the Michael Fassbender-led Assassin’s Creed adaptation, due in June and December, respectively. Anderson recently wrapped the latest (and allegedly final) installment of Resident Evil: The Final Chapter last month, and is expected to premiere next January. Jason Sudekis, Danny McBride, Mia Randolph, and Peter Dinklage will be voicing lead characters in the Spring 2016 Angry Birds movie, and there are whispers that an Uncharted movie will appear sometime in 2017.
What might we hope from all this? Duncan Jones certainly showed his abilities as a storyteller and filmmaker in the criminally underrated Moon, but it’s hard to settle on a metric that can predict his ability to transfer the skills he used to make the indie psychological space thriller to how he will make the CGI summer blockbuster hopeful.
Assassin’s Creed may be the most promising of the lot. When asked how closely the film will follow the game’s story, AC’s lead actor and producer Fassbender stated,
You know, we absolutely want to respect the game [. . .] When I met up with the guys from [Assassin’s Creed developer] Ubisoft and they started to explain this whole world and the idea of DNA memory – you know, I think it’s a very feasible scientific theory. I just thought, ‘This is so rich,’ and about the possibility of it being this cinematic experience. So I’m really excited about it, and we’re working very hard to make sure that we’ve got the best and most exciting, original package.
In short, Fassbender gives a great non-answer that nonetheless captures his excitement for the project, which has to count for something.
As for the other film adaptations on the horizon, it’s simply too early in the production process to make any fair predictions – but if the history of video game movies is any reliable measuring stick, the safe bet is to stay home and just play the game instead.
