Same here. Mostly it’s just marvelling that they managed to shoehorn all the characters into one film.
I’ll also confess to loving Super Mario Brothers but in a so-bad-it’s-good way. Everyone is chewing the scenery to pieces. At no point is it ever suggested that this is anything other than a very silly movie.
Me too. Although it didn’t have anything in common with the games other than the names. And plumbing.
Although the same could be said of Super Mario Bros 2…
Slightly OT, but I bet if the “Minesweeper,” “Legend of Zelda” and “The Brothers Mario” trailers were made into movies, they would probably top this list.
I always thought Metroid and The Legend of Zelda would make superb movies. The originals, though… the later plots get way too goofy. I’m looking at you, Metroid: Prime and Echoes- the Chozo stuff is cool but all that gibberish about Phazon meteors is silly.
why exactly ARE they called the MARIO brothers anyway? is mario’s name, Mario Mario?
Yes it is.
I found the above quote in the Appearances section at the end of the first paragraph from the link below.
So we have Mr. Mario Mario and Mr. Luigi Mario.
I loved the Mario Bros. movie even though it was weird and had nothing really to do with the game.
Silent Hill wasn’t great, but it didn’t suck; especially in comparison to the general run of video game based movies. I think if they’d stuck closer to the original game’s plot, it might have been better.
I haven’t seen many I’ve liked.
I have an idea as to why video game movies generally suck. It’s a simple idea.
Video game movies suck because the games they’re based on are generally arcade type games or older action games, regardless of the amount of tacked-on plot. For example, “Wing Commander” sucked, because ultimately, the game was a futuristic flight sim, without a whole lot of story interaction. Same goes for Doom.
If the studios took the actual plots of the better role-playing games such as the Fallout series, they could make some terrific movies. You could basically talk to the developers and follow a certain track from beginning to end and adapt that to be the basic plot.
I mean, why make “Doom” or “Resident Evil” when you could make a movie about the Vault Dweller or
In that same article…
I have an even simpler idea as to why; it’s because people like Uwe Boll are the ones given the rights to make such movies. I’ve read some books, as opposed to movies based on video games and they weren’t half bad - but that was because they were written by authors like Mercedes Lackey. Who while she isn’t Shakespeare, she’s certainly not the literary equivalent of Uwe Boll. I think that competent directors & writers could make perfectly good movies based on video games, because anything the games lacked they could add themselves.
What movie are you referring to?
IMHO the best video game movie that’s been made so far is Scott Pilgrim Vs The World, which is deliciously ironic on several levels, the least of which being that it’s not actually based on a video game.
Otherwise, my vote is Mortal Kombat as well, which- as everyone has noted- isn’t great art but doesn’t take itself at all seriously and was a fun movie.
Someone- and I suspect it’s “Yahtzee” Croshaw- once observed that the problem with making video games into movies is that the plot invariably requires the protagonist to do do little except kill lots and lots and lots of enemies for an extended period of time, and that doesn’t usually translate to “Great Cinema”.
I think there’s some truth to that- even something like BioShock, which does have a pretty “deep” plot (at least as far as computer games go) basically involves the main character going on a killing spree in a cool Art Deco setting whilst being lectured about Objectivism by someone they haven’t gotten around to killing yet.
Deus Ex could be turned into a movie (since you could keep the killing to a minimum) but the plot there is probably more complex than you could get into a two-hour runtime; and stretching it out to three hours isn’t going to do it any favours at the box-office unless it’s the next Avatar, which is unlikely.
Assassin’s Creed could be similarly adapted, since if you’re playing the game as “intended” it (arguably) requires as few kills as possible. So a lot of short but rewarding sneaking around, fleeing, and planning scenes, and less mindless action.
You’d think Hitman: Codename 47 would fall into this category too, but from all the accounts I’ve heard the movie isn’t particularly good, apparently.
I dug Hitman well enough. More than Silent Hill, certainly.
My main problem with Silent Hill was the ending. The first hour or so was awesome, but the resolution was concentrated stupid that retroactively tarred the whole movie with suck.
I’m pretty surprised there hasn’t been a Grand Theft Auto movie yet.
[sub]I kinda liked Wing Commander[/sub]
Silent Hill. Come on. You bastards know they got Pyramidhead right. The way he first appeared in the movie was a total sphincter-tightening “Oh shit. She’s fucked.” moment.
The plot of the first game was gold, as far as I’m concerned. The game doesn’t have much of an emphasis on killing monsters. Harry is just some schlub of a writer looking for his little girl in a really, really weird and scary town; the decision to go with a female lead could still have worked. A couple scenes of him encountering the various critters and clumsily fighting them off well enough just to break contact and flee would have worked very well. The searching for items, riddles, and other stuff that the makers add just for game play purposes can, of course, be dispensed with. Any of the non-joke endings from the game would have worked better than the idiot ending the script writers came up with.