I wonder why it is that video game-to-movie adaptations always seem sub-par? Considering the film-makers have the basic premise and characters or enemies already created for them, you'd think it would be easier for them to concentrate on making the films decent in other areas, and come out with something that could stand alongside original films in quality.
But most of them are terrible. The Resident Evil films are such in name only, and Anderson's direction has gone down the toilet... let's not even mention Mr. Boll. SH and POP were fair movie adaptations, but only just. SH managed to capture some of the atmosphere and macabre of the games but I still found it kind of uninvolving (considering this game is the only game franchise to have ever scared the crap out of me). POP was visually adequate, but it wasn't a "good" film as films go, or any sort of masterpiece. Why this is I'm not sure - is it that as fans of video games our expectation cannot be met... because on the one hand we expect something that tastes just like the game and fits our imagination and expectation, and is as involving and exciting as the game, and this just can't be (maybe because many video game characters can never look like actual human beings, or would look weird or laughable as actual human beings, and for another would simply look silly and completely overblown doing some of the stunts they do in the games - Dante riding on rocket, anyone?); not forgetting that you'll already have figured the basic story from being a fan, and watching something just isn't as involving as playing and interacting with it.
At first I thought it's because film companies will always try to cater to the lowest common denominator, dumbing down the film so anyone - fan or not - is supposed to be able to understand, enjoy, and pay cash to see it. By that reasoning, you'd expect directors who seem to be doing it for their own enjoyment or for a niche audience, like Uwe Boll or Paul Anderson, would therefore make ace films that'd give us a gigantic geekgasms, with proper attention to details. But no. So is it just two extreme methods that tend to ruin the adaptations, or what? One extreme just wants to dumb it up full of cliche and be for a wider audience, and the other is self-indulgent film-making at its worst? When is someone going to come along and bring a videogame to a silver screen that people will walk away from feeling that it was more than "all right"? I believe it CAN be done. but I don't necessarily believe it should be done, just for the sake of it.
I really don't see the problem with taking a game, say DMC3 (because it has enough characters), and adapting that game as it is, for film - not introducing any 'original' material or new premises, but just taking the thing and making it into either a CG movie, or a real one. Why are they so afraid of doing that? Because after the track record of game-to-movies thus far - that usually introduce new characters (and not necessarily ones we give a flying feck about), or else coming up with a completely original story that just isn't as exciting or interesting as the ones we know from the games - I really think someone should try it, just once. You know - proper fanservice. For the loyal fans (I couldn't give a crap about non-fans being able to enjoy something that I like and have been a fan of for ten years!).
Every time I see them write original characters or stories for game films they always seem to fall flat for me. I want a movie of a game I've played - otherwise you might as well go away and come up with your own characters, ideas, and plots and not call it "Resident Evil", etc.
