Scott, your observations are spot on. The best explanation I have heard as to why success in the gaming industry does not translate to success in the film industry is summed up in this post by Brain McDonald: http://invisibleinkblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-holy-grail.html Simply put, despite the similar elements of character, setting, conflict, etc., games and movies serve very different functions. Games are scenarios while movies tell stories. I am convinced that the only way to adapt a successful game into a successful movie requires at a minimum: (1) the movie be supplemental to the game (e.g. the telling of a sidestory already hinted at or mentioned in the game but not fully explored.) (2) that it be set in the same world as the game, include the same characters, etc. (3) that it remain true to the rules of the game world. (4) brief explanations for concepts exclusive to the game (so the movie will be accessible to a wider demographic) The movies listed above that I've seen all break one or more of these rules (and you should add 'Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within' to your list). You cannot have a successful movie based on a game franchise by disenfranchising the game's core players (by ignoring #2 or #3). The game must remain primary in the minds of the core players because they will also be the first viewers (thus #1). If they don't like the movie, they'll tell their friends, the movie will get a bad reputation, and no one else will see it. IMO, this is the most likely route to a "reproducible" success and therefore a Hollywood franchise. Tomb Raider is an exception because (1) Angelina Jolie was cast as the female protagonist Laura Croft, (2) female protagonists are rare among games, (3) the vast majority of gamers are male, and (4) most male gamers are pervs. Therefore, Michael Fassbender and Tom Hardy will not bring gamers to the theatre like she did and both Ubisoft and Regency are going to be disappointed.

Video games and movies have fundamentally different modes of storytelling. Whereas movies depend on structure, setting, and dialogue, video games (the ones with good stories) are about slower-paced discoveries. I agree with Daniel's comment that movies should be supplemental to the games. Attempting to adapt the events of a video game into a movie leads to rushed, confused storytelling. Rather, the movie should take some piece--some sliver of a game and open it up. Show us something new. Otherwise, what's the point?

Well, I hate to say it, but 50% of the movies you listed have Uwe Boll in common. He directed all five, produced four and wrote one. So, maybe remove those five (House of the Dead, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, Postal) and see were the other five fell short. May get a better idea then.

Why have so many video games not succeeded as movies? Small sample size. Hollywood has had a looooong time to get adapting comic books and novels down to a science, and many of those projects still fail (see "Alex Cross" and "The Spirit"). Eventually, the proper approach will be discovered on how to adapt a video game. Will it be with a huge spectacle type IP like Halo or Modern Warfare? Maybe. Will it be with a more intimate affair like Myst or Indigo Prophecy? Just as likely. Could it be something more quirky like Portal? A distinct possibility. One could argue that movies based on comic books have only recently been adapted successfully as any sort of constant. Before Nolan we were 2 for 5 on Superman, and 1 for 4 on Batman, with various hits a misses on the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Blade, and countless others. Since Nolan we're 3 for 3 on Batman, 2 for 2 on Iron Man, a smash success with The Avengers, and solid outings for Captain America, Hulk, and Thor, with a brand new Superman on the horizon. Now, my above info is overly simplified, but I think you can see there was somewhat of a paradigm shift when Nolan took Batman on in a way no one had approached comic book material before. It wasn't perfect, but it paved the way for some very successful outings since. Someone will do the same with video game movies. It's only a matter of time before the right property, studio, and creative forces merge together to create the ultimate power in the uni... ahem, create a great video game adaption.

This.

I think the major problem with video games to films boils down to respect for the medium. The mode of storytelling for movies and games are different, but is it any different than how a novel tells a story when that is adapted? Most of the producers on the films listed above were in it for the money. Video games have a rabid fan base just like comic books. Why not cash in on that? The reason comic book movies work now is because I believe there is a respect for that storytelling medium. Video games are still only seen as entertainment by many people. As a gamer, I can attest to being moved by a story of many different games like the Metal Gear Solid series, Portal, and even the Legend of Zelda games (I still want that fake trailer to be real). Hopefully we are approaching the previously mentioned paradigm shift for video games. I especially am looking forward to Shadow of the Colossus, which on the surface does not fall into the category of popcorn movies and could put video game adaptations into a positive light.

Pretty please may Prince of Persia not become the metric of game movie viability. Big resources and talent, yet unwatchable (not unusual outcome in Hollywood, good reminder how lucky it is when things do work out just right). Game movie I'm looking forward to, Uncharted, fun property and talent involved with movie, though it seems stuck in development hell (another usual story in Hollywood). Fingers crossed. "Don't do shovelware!" should be an addendum to Wil Wheaton's "Don't be a dick!" Shovelware leaves everyone disinterested (in games associated with movies) and is a disservice to the property and the folks to be entertained. And timing is an issue. Games have longer development cycles. The Transformers game came out a while after the movie, and it turned out better than the movie (won awards), but no one bought it, the wave had passed. Batman, because he's always prepared, is one of the few properties that exist outside of any one realm and can (mostly) flourish everywhere. The nexus details I've noticed are movie influence on games. With story and character key to both, movies have a lot to teach games. Deeper stories and more specific characters are what I'm seeing more and more of in games. In current crop of games, Far Cry 3 stands out, shows first-person movie influence of Uncharted and has fun with characters (including an actual person whose audition for a role was so wacky good they based a character on him), as does Borderlands 3 (with character Tiny Tina, who exists thanks to funny game writer with a funny sister (together they do HAWP webisodes)). And as the engines get more and more awesome, things could and should get fun. Fingers crossed. Above all I think who's involved in a project is critical. And I hope Whedon gets to directs everything, including Star Wars, because Avengers sure was fun, and a success Hollywood sure would like to replicate.

[...] “Why Video Game Companies Are Taking More Control Over Their Movies” (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]