Game to Film

On the theme of the lecture for this week, I would like to explore video games and their film adaptations. The following post is inspired by the questions that were posted on the slides from Kevin in response to the failure of game adaptations in cinema.

From a producer’s point of view, it makes sense to invest in making a film adaptation of a popular video game as it already has a following group of fans who are in a similar demographic to the film version. They would also be a ‘media savy’ group of people and would be likely to go to the cinema. However, this fan group following of the video game are always going to be let down by the film version (especially if the game promotes the idea of an active, alive world in which the player can explore-this does not transfer well onto a screen). The fans would have high and varied expectations of what the film should entail and are let down by the fact that the film version itself disregards the game’s source material and replaces it with a simpler narrative that fits the model of a Hollywood film. The film is also restricted by a time period and has less time to explore the world of the theme or the characters within.

Film adaptations of video games have a reputation of being low art cinema and particularly bad in terms of filmmaking. This means that the actors and film team likely to get involved on the project are not the best in their field and therefore the film tends to be bad in terms of bad script writing, directing and many other factors.

The main issue is that games are based on the possibility of the player to have agency within the designed world. However, the audience having a lack of agency defines film and the interactivity or investment in the characters cannot be achieved in the same way by simply watching a narrative unfold in front of you. 

The Prince of Persia (2010) was a box office success, but has many scathing reviews from film goers and fans of the game alike. Many claim that the main female character is artificial and speaks to the protagonist as if she is giving instructions. This is much like the voice over of the same character within the game, but it does not tie over in the film. There is a reflective line in the trailer, “you really like telling me what to do don’t you?”, from the hero (Prince Daston) and this nods the game version. However, it is not reflexive in a successful way, as the game tries to move away from its mythical setting and tries to relate it in a more realistic setting. This conflict between realism and artificial acting and script creates a slippage for the audiences. The protagonist appears relatively normal and relatable, but then is gifted with incredibly powers and skill in fighting combat scenes and this does not seem realistic. Why does the hero have no flaws? Where did his progression into the hero take place? The character acquires these skills like the character in the game and moves similarly, however,  it is not realistic in terms of the film narrative and relatability for the audience. However, the move away from the game adaptation and concentrating more on an action flick for young adults, the movie is a success. BUT, if it is so different from the game - can we really say that it is a true game adaptation? How do you capture the essence of an interactive, extensive and highly detailed game into a shortened, narrative form?