Why is it impossible to make a successful movie from a video game franchise?

Why is it impossible to make a successful movie from a video game franchise?

Mortal Kombat
Silent Hill

There's been like ten Resident Evils.

Hitman doubled it's budget +$20m tho OP. I mean yeah, it was a garbage movie, but it was "successful".

If pic related sucks, then I don't know if there will ever be a well adapted vidya game.

Because the people who make the movie think no one wants to see the actual game that has warranted a movie on screen.

I mean who the fuck thought it was a good idea to make DOOM about some weird gene that made people crazy and showed almost no fighting. Why couldn't they just do the DOOM 3 storyline...some fuck tards opened a portal to hell on Mars the moment you arrived.

>Why is it impossible to make a successful movie from a video game franchise?

Because the faceless corporation drones don't understand what made the games successful. For example, Hitman was about stealthily taking out the target by any means possible. The movie had 47 blowing up helicopters in the middle of the city and firing grenades at cars, as well as purposefully getting arrested even though his existence is supposed to be secret

the people who make them are full retard. they always come up with some new story that doesn't have anything to do with the game itself, or they follow the original story and make huge changes to characters and plot. they just can't make the transition properly because they likely think too highly of themselves.

Because they're given to retards to shoot fast on a low/mid budget and get that quick buck. Name one videogame adaptation that had actual talents involved in production

Nothing says success like a vast number of sequels. Who can forget the 1995 classic, Scary Horror Chop Chop IX

The reason is that most of the movies don't treat the original fans with respect. They take the plot line as a logline from which they can make something else with only tangential ties to the original work. This typically changes the plot and feel of the movie enough that the original fans get turned off and you wind up starting your opening weekend with people shitting on your movie.

because of the disconnect in the mediums
they may seem like they go hand in hand. both rely on graphics and certain storytelling visuals, but one is an interactive story where you play as the main character and the other is a visual novel where you get to see that main character play out
so when a movie attempts to make a video game into a blockbuster they have to completely disconnect that character that was literally designed for you to self insert into and make them something that the population as a whole can do
the story suffers for it
this is because rather then adapt the game they just took the name and zombies and created the mother of all mary sues to lead the series

The original work and it's fans don’t matter. Transformers was very successful and it's based on toys. The people who pay to see capeshit wouldn’t be seen dead in a comic shop.

i thought Death Race was a lot of fun. does that count?

The question was about games, not toys. Also keep in mind Transformers is the exception, not the rule for success. There are plenty of other movies based on similar things that are massive flops.

The original work and its fans do matter as evidenced by the recent failure of Ghostbusters.

>they keep shitting out new entries just to keep the rights
>we'll never see a reboot based on G1 on the big screen
just crush my spark fambot

Death Race isn't based off a video game.

Who's idea was to make this guy Agent 47?

Yeah it sure looks good, and it's a fresh take

Transformers real claim to fame is the cartoon show. I mean yes it was only made to sell the toys but so where a lot of shows which ended up in relative obscurity.

Last of Us could make a good movie if it wasn't done to death already.

Fuck you I liked it.

they don't really try to make them good

Because the filmmakers rarely respect the source material.

...

How to make a videogame movie

>look at videogame cover (ie. Hitman)
>find the most layman term you can about the video game
>dude is a hitman
>is bald and wears suit so actor would be bald and wear suit
>there you go
>blow shit up
>throw in generic action scenes
>GUYS ITS HITMAN THE VIDEOGAME AMIRITE

Honestly, most games are so movie-esque these days you'd barely have to do shit to adapt them.

Turning the first Uncharted game into a movie is something an average screenwriter should do in a week, because the source material is so strong and ripe for a summer popcorn flick. And yet it's still been in development hell for almost a decade and gone through rewrites making it about Drake, his father, and his uncle as antique dealers.

Maybe it was part of his master plan.

original actor was Paul walker but he went 2fast2furious and died.

Video game franchises are, more often than not, digested, shat out, re-eaten, and digested and shat out again versions of film franchises.

So to respect a video game franchise, one would have to go to it's inspiration. But since those movies already exist, all one can make is a shitty knockoff of those movies with some of the video game's imagery.

The actual problem is they have already made upwards of 12 "uncharted" movies. As uncharted is a knockoff of indiana jones, national treasure, etc.

Are there even any videogames that would make good movies?

>hitman doubled it's money +20m

so it made 10 million

I think you're overlooking the fact that most modern releases are digested and shat out versions of older, better movies.

"Shitty knockoffs" are all Hollywood makes.

>I think you're overlooking the fact that most modern releases are digested and shat out versions of older, better movies.

No, as I made an effort to indicate video game stories tend to pass through a digestive tract at least two times, as opposed to the one time hollywood reboots/remakes do.

but thanks for playing.

>hitman (2007)
>24m budget
>99.9m worldwide

>hitman: agent 47 (2015)
>35m budget
>82.3m worldwide

So hollywood has somehow gotten worse at making video game movies.

Put it this way. From a financial standpoint, what makes more sense? Paying for the rights to use some IP that's just a knockoff of better movies, the rights to which you probably already own, or just rebooting the movie you already own and not having to pay a third party extra to make said movie?

God of War would be a revenge action film, just a straight up gore action film, no bullshit, no pretense

This one is so far removed from the source material it sort of works by sheer ridiculousness.

Like it matters. Shit is still shit, and even if it did there are franchises that have been rebooted more than one time.

Indiana Jones is literally just a composite of half a dozen adventure heroes from the 30s. So what if Nathan Drake is a composite of the same archetypes from the 80s?

Fair point, but some IPs are definitely worth something. Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty (as shit as that would be) are hugely popular, and with the right star-power, could make for a cash-cow of a movie. It's more about how easily identifiable the property is than how original it is.

>assassin's creed
so PotC (or any sufficiently violent period piece) with some technobabble

>call of duty
So a ww2 movie or just a general contemporary military action movie.

Apart from PRAYING people are stupid enough to to think "i liek da gaem so sittin and watchin a QTE only version (witout da QTEs) sound gud," what purpose is there? The unique aspect of video games is the interactivity. The stories are knocked off from successful movies because letting people feel like they're actually a part of those movies is a winning formula. Removing the inactivity just leaves the slightly wiggled storylines that existed only to justify the interactivity. The reason a halo movie never happened is because it would be the most generic science fiction movie in existence.

Because hell is offensive.

Why are Sup Forumsedditors so obsessed with having their favorite games adapted to the screen?

Might have something to do with how video game movies are made from the big video game franchises that are already shitty versions of shitty movies.

Yeah, I see what you mean. L.A. Noire, Alan Wake, GTA, etc. are all generic and deliberately typify their genres.

But I still think a competent filmmaker could make a successful movie out of a game. PotC was a fucking theme park ride, so I don't think any source material (even one that's interactive by nature) is totally off-limits.

As some people have pointed out in this thread, it was Hollywood car chase/explosions/gunplay bullshit that made Hitman: Agent 47 such AIDs. A quieter action movie about an anonymous killing machine bred to have no conscience would have made for a far more interesting movie.

>will never have a generation of kids who are pissed at hot rod
Why even bust deceptichops?

One can make a successful movie from anything. The problem is, since video games are so derivative of movies, why bother trying to make a video game movie? Cut out the middle anus and go straight to what it's ripping off.

Hollywood wants to turn 47 into a relatable, easily digestible action protagonist, when the character has more in common with count Orlok. Hitman should be some kind of slasher movie, except with mafia bosses instead of teens.

Hitman shouldn't be an action movie
Hitman should be a violent movie with a lot of black humour
Hitman is about infiltration, stealth, dark comedy, hiding in plain site, ironic deaths and poetic justice
Gun battles with helicopsters: NO
Blowing up a briefcase to dispose of the murder weapon: NO
Just have him be on some fun missions in cool locations, he finds someone, decides to save her, easy peasy
Fuck Hollywood for messing up such an easy premise

47 is an edgier Jef Costello, not some psycho killer

He did a pretty good job (probably should've completely shaved but w/e) but he's given absolutely zero to work with because whoever wrote this doesn't get Hitman in the slightest and instead thinks 47 is this adrenaline-fuelled action hero who can take on scores of police officers and decapitate people with plane wings.

Hitman can't cut a 100 minute action flick. I could maybe see it as a miniseries or a three-hour psychological thriller film, but definitely not something accessible that can appeal to the masses. To really get it right, like the games, it has to be slow, it has to be stylistic and it has to have an undertone of philosophy or inner-struggle to really bring it all home and make a film worthwhile.