Archived Discussion

This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.

Icalasari: ** Asteroids. Either it is going to take a life of its own and only be like the game in name, or else it will flunk.

I typed this up, but then realized that it may not quite fit. So, should it go in or not?


Game Guru GG: This Trope's name sucks. It should be called Bollverize, after Uwe Boll and pronouced like Pulverize. I believe he has gained the level of noteriaty of such people as Thomas Bowdler, Carl Macek, and Ted Woolsey to define this trope.

HeartBurn Kid: I think I'd put Mortal Kombat into the exceptions pile, myself. Sure, it wasn't Shakespeare or anything, but it was a pretty decent martial arts flick, and, IMHO, the differences between it and the game (Raiden as Obi Wan vs. active fighter, for example) serve to strengthen it. If they'd have stuck close to the game, we'd have ended up with Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, which, I think we can all agree, sucked hard and long.

Phartman: I think you mean Annihilation.

Ununnilium: How's that? Also edited the main entry to remove some of the unrelentingly negative tone.

Later: Where would Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children fall on this? I haven't actually seen it yet.

Roland: I'm not sure it applies, since it's more a 'thank you!' to the fans than movie. It's not a theatrical release at any rate, but I'm pretty sure, despite being cool to watch, it'd have done badly.

Tanto: Or the result of Square's executives saying, "Hey, these FFVII fanboys will buy anything! Get someone on the exploitation trail, toot sweet!"

Do we have Fanboyism yet?

Lale: I've been wanting to make a trope that would include both real-world Fangirls and Fanboys, but I can't think of a title. Oh, and I assume you mean "toute de suite"- French for "right away," or "immediately"?

Tanto: Bah. I'm an American, dammit! I'll spell it how I want!

...Or not.

Ununnilium: Fanperson?

Lale: Don't think it has the same connotations.

Ununnilium: Of course not. But it's funny, and it fits.

Lale: I agree that it fits, not that it's funny.

Tanto: I'm with Lale on this one. Fanperson is functional, but that's all it's got going for it.

The masculine form can be used in a gender-neutral fashion in English. If worse comes to worst, just use Fanboy with a clarification in the entry, and maybe set up Fangirl to redirect there. It's an easily grokkable term, and it's already in the vernacular.

Ununnilium: The problem is, mind, that the Fanboy stereotype and the Fangirl stereotype are pretty different.

Tanto: Then why are we trying to mash them into a single entry?

Ununnilium: Good point.

Semiapies: Maybe just "fans"? :D Personally, I think folks are slightly too harsh on Street Fighter and Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within, but hey. :)

Earnest: How about Fan Is Short For Fanatic? It's long, but the etymology for it is true at least.

Ununnilium: And now I'm reading that Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children did get a theatrical release, in Japan. >.>

Raul Julia derves a Trope named after him, a sort of kick-ass performance in a miserably average movie. Like half of what Christopher Walken does.

Coolnut: Moved the Tomb Raider entry to "somewhere in the middle". At least the first one made lots of moolah.

Tanto: Uh, no. Both the Tomb Raider movies were disasters. We don't care about financial success or a lack of it for purposes of this entry — people will watch anything. This entry is about their failures as movies. Moving it back.

Coolnut: Fine. :) Should I (or someone else) make a caveat of "suck regardless of financial success" (after all, Viewers Are Morons) on the main page?

The Gunheart: No, they're definitely "somewhere in the middle". They're just stupid disposable fun and actually bear some resemblance to the games, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say about Uwe Boll's films.

Eric DVH: Oh come on, The Spirits Within wasn't a bad movie at all. I mean:
  1. Yeah, so the movie had almost nothing to do with the games, but the GAMES have almost nothing to do with the games (FFX-2 is an anomaly)!
  2. The plot is pretty bizarre and nonsensical, but it still made more sense than practically any japanese live action movie I've seen (and a great deal of western action movies), plus it held by the Rule of Cool to the letter.
  3. The film was completely free of awkward acting, and the characters were _at least_ as good as any other inhabitant of an action blockbuster.
  4. Its graphics might not have been utterly identical to reality, but they certainly weren't "uncanny valley" material either. If most people didn't know that they weren't real, I truly doubt they would have noticed (I mean, look at the typical responses to Revenge of The Sith, the LOTR movies and -my personal favorite, due to almost no footage of the actors actually appearing onscreen- Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow!).
I think the only reason it failed was because of an "Aah! It's from those freaky Japanese/gamers and it ISN'T for kids!'' reaction mixed with "They're hardly using actors onscreen at all, AND THEY BRAG ABOUT IT". If they'd removed the phrases "Final Fantasy" and "Squaresoft", hidden behind an American/European studio and put in a few seconds of greenscreened live-action footage, it likely would have done pretty well.

arromdee: In Sky Captain, the footage of the actors did appear onscreen. They CG Ied everything except the actors.

And LOTR doesn't count. Uncanny Valley doesn't apply when the character isn't supposed to look enough like a human.
Tanto: Advent Children isn't a movie; it's a masturbatory shopping list for FFVII fanboys.

Later: Deleting it for that reason. The movie really has no appeal beyond FFVII fandom.

arromdee: I put it back. It's clearly different, because all of the other examples are considered bad movies even by fans of the games. Besides, the movie is a sequel to the game and the movie and the game are aimed at the same audience, so you'd expect people who hate one to hate the other. It's like saying The Empire Strikes Back is a bad movie merely because it's aimed at people who like the original Star Wars and people who are not fans of Star Wars have little reason to watch it.

Mister Six: Or, rather, it's like saying that Attack of the Clones is a good film because the hardcore Star Wars fanboys like it. As a film, Advent Children is appalling. It has no structure and an incomprehensible plot, and is basically just a series of REALLY KEWL scenes strung together, padded out with guest appearances by characters who are there not to serve the plot, but simply to make the fanboys squeal. It's fun to watch but it still sucks as a film. At least Resident Evil and Silent Hill actually got fairly positive reviews in the non-nerd press.

Tanto: Mister Six said it better than I could. Taking it out, again.

arromdee: Advent Children is a sequel. It just happens to be a sequel to a game instead of to another movie, so instead of having to see the other movie, you have to have played the game. The fact that people who haven't played the game don't like it doesn't make it bad if the movie is a sequel—sequels require you to have seen the previous installments all the time. It's just that this is an unusual case of the sequel crossing media.

If you've never heard of the Matrix, then the Animatrix is incomprehensible. But we don't call the Animatrix "bad anime" simply because someone who watches anime but not live-action movies (and therefore hasn't seen the Matrix) won't understand it. It's a sequel that crosses between live action and animation the same way Advent Children crosses between game and CGI-animation.

Tanto: Okay, but that in no way changes the fact that Advent Children is completely terrible as a movie, sequel to a game or no. It's just a bunch of squee-bait for Final Fantasy VII fanboys.

Ununnilium: Okay, so basically, what you're saying is "Advent Children sucks!" "Does not!" "Does too!" I say we split the difference and put it in "Somewhere in the middle".

arromdee: It's more specific than that. If people think something sucks because it's a sequel and they aren't familiar with the original, that shouldn't count as sucking. "It's just for FF 7 fanboys" basically admits that, yes, that's exactly what is going on—if you don't know the original (FF 7), you think the movie sucks. So it shouldn't count.

Attack of the Clones isn't really a good comparison. Lots of people who have seen the original Star Wars still think Attack of the Clones sucks.

Tanto: Are you even listening? It doesn't matter that it's a sequel. As a movie, it still sucks, sequel or no. It lacks plot. Its characterizations are awful. It includes characters and scenes that have no storytelling purpose whatsoever except to titillate fanboys. This is the very definition of sucking. You can (and are, as I understand it) claim that these problems do not matter, but you would be (and are) completely wrong.

I do know the original, and I still think it sucks. And so do many other people. It's called the Final Fantasy VII Complication for a reason.

Ununnilium: And many other other people really like it, apparently. (I, personally, have never seen it, so.) I'm officially putting it in "Somewhere in the middle".

Meshakhad: I may be one of the few people who never played FFVII, but liked Advent Children. It is a pure action flick, and its fight scenes are truly awesome.

The Gunheart: It's an action film that runs entirely on Rule of Cool. The story doesn't need to make sense.
Shire Nomad: Any reason not to add a parody section? I really want to link these two videos somewhere.

Daibhid C: Does anyone know the origins of a quote that goes something like: "Tomb Raider was an excellent adaption of the video game. It was much truer to the game than any previous video game adaption. Unfortunately, by the time they realised no-one expects a video game to have a proper storyline, it was too late." I've got a feeling it was Terry Pratchett, but I can't find it online.

Daibhid C: Found it.

Can we agree that the Hitman entry needs to be rephrased and moved into the horrid category?

Bob: No. It was a good movie. It wasn't a 100% faithful adaptation, but it was a decent movie. The example might still need rewriting, as it's a little to positive, but the movie is an exception to Video-Game Movies Suck.

UnknownTroper Umm... no. It has an IMDB rating of 6.4 and a Rotten Tomatoe rating of 13. I will admit that it is no more stupid than totally-retarded-action-movie-number-63453453, but that's only because it's ditto 63453456. It's overacted or underacted, has a bizarrely stupid plot and very little to do with the game on which it is based. It's horrid.

Gentlemens Dame 883: What about the comments saying it was superior to the RE films, then??

Bob: Resident Evil is marked as an exception because, despite the Adaptation Decay and the stupidity of the plot, it is genuinely entertaining. Exactly the same reasoning apply to Hitman, especially as it has a higher IMDB rating than any of the Resident Evil movies. I'm putting it back into the exceptions.

Also, Rotten Tomatoes, quite frankly, sucks. Their rating of 56% for The Legend of 1900 makes them nothing less than an unholy abomination.

Unknown - By these parametres, both the Mortal Combat and the FF-AC movie need to be moved to the "Exceptions".

Bob: I added Hitman to exceptions because I based my judgement on comparing it to Resident Evil.

I've rewrittten the article. Is this okay? I expect some debate over the placement of some examples.

UnknownTropes - Heh heh heh. I'm willing to get behind that. Maybe move Street Fighter to the "so bad it's bad" examples area.

Malimar: Does the Dungeons & Dragons movie count? It's certainly the worst movie I've ever seen (possibly tied with Quest for Fire), and it's based on a game, but not technically based on a video game. Thoughts?

HeartBurn Kid: You know, that is true. We could almost change this article to The Problem With Licensed Movies, and throw in examples like D&D and The Haunted Mansion, huh?

Malimar: Hm. All licensed movies would probably be too broad. Not in the sense that it would be too broad a category, but that it would be so broad as to be false. Unless I have no idea what 'licensed' actually means. But comic book movies are often good (for every Leage Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, there's a V for Vendetta, and for every bad Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, there's a good one. And so on), and movies based on books are often better than the original (Fight Club being the canonical example, where even the book's author agrees the movie is better, but possible examples also including Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia might wind up being so. Of course, then there are bad movies like Hitchhiker'sGuideToTheGalaxy). And I bet it doesn't count as 'licensed' if the original work has been out of copyright for centuries, so movies made from Shakespeare's plays probably don't count either way. It occurs to me, contemplating that list, that the good movies tend to be the ones which stuck to the plot of the original, and the bad movies are ones where the original had no plot, or where the movie changed it significantly. They Changed It, Now It Sucks, or Adaptation Decay? Either way. If that was way TL;DR (and I bet it was), this is the important part: I suggest simply changing it to Game Movies Suck. That will expand the category to include Dungeons & Dragons and Clue (which I heard sucks, but haven't actually seen it) and probably some others that are off my radar (most likely because they weren't very good), but won't expand it so much that it becomes false more often than it is true.

HeartBurn Kid: Hey, Clue was awesome. OK, it was So Bad, It's Good, but I think it was that way on purpose.

HeartBurn Kid: Yanked the following Conversation in the Main Page:
  • I've never played the games, but aren't magical mushrooms (well living, talking ones) an integral part of the experience?
  • Also, I would like to point out that the movie is still a good movie in of itself, it just failed at being an adaptation of the game.

Seven Seals: Took out this:
  • The Warriors. A good movie that portrayed how a small group of people were able to stick together when a whole city was out to get them and how bad ass fist fighting was instead of gun fights (one character beats the other character with his knife VS a gun!). The video game that followed it captures the essence of the movie very well and has some of the actors from the movie provide the voices.
This trope is about video game movies, not movie video games. That would be The Problem with Licensed Games, and if someone wants to add it there, be my guest. (I'm not familiar with the game, so I'm not comfortable just copying it over.)

HeartBurn Kid: Edited the message about loving Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within if you've never played the game. I know plenty of non-gamers, and I've never met anybody who actually likes that POS. Well, I should say that I've never met anybody in meatspace that likes it. I've had people on the internet try to convince me that it's better than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy put together, and the only reason people hate it is because Americans are just too stupid to understand it. Of course, the latter were gamers too (given certain values of "gamer"), so... So Yeah.

Ninjacrat: You might want to avoid editing topics you are embittered about.

HeartBurn Kid: I'm not bitter about the movie; it was just a bad movie. I'm just rather bitter about some people's Japanophiliac tendencies. Besides, I was purposefully neutral in tone, putting that if you don't like the games, Your Mileage May Vary (since, apparently, there is somebody that didn't play the games that did like it). The way it was originally worded, it made it sound like the fact that it's on the page at all was just fanboys shouting, "They Changed It, Now It Sucks," when that's just not so.

Ninjacrat: Your bitterness against a nebulous 'them' is why I suggested avoiding the topic.

Dusk: for the Pokemon example under the So Bad, It's Good category, which pokemon movie is being reffered to? there've been around 10 and the only one This Troper remembers clearly does not fit the desctiption given.
Charred Knight: Deleted because its useless, inaccurate (Ken is never protrayed as stupid), and racist since its clearly coming from a Japanophile who has ignored all the bad adaptations they have made.

Haven: Okay, that Max Payne trailer looks seriously badass. I think they could even get away with whatever that angel thing is (I'm willing to bet it's a hallucination or metaphor or something, but if not...well, it'll be dumb, but it doesn't look like it'll ruin the film).

There's people out there who actually like the Resident Evil movies? Honestly it's like watching someone's horrendous Mary Sue fanfic in action. It gets even worse when you consider that George Romero was going to adapt it at one point.
Marlin Clock: Idno about the rest of y'all, but when I watched Double Dragon that was a "So Bad it's Good."

Firefly: I'd wondered why Scarface: The World is Yours didn't show up here... Then I remembered that this is explicitly not a movie adaptation, but rather an exercise in 'WhatIf?'.

The upcoming Ghostbusters game might well be a special case because, from what I've read, it is considered to be the 'third movie' in terms of storyline progression. And having key members of the original cast reassemble to work on it can't hurt. Some amusement could be had in reading why Activision supposedly dropped this project in the first place (Atari swooped in to pick it up again)...

Prinzenick: It appears a poster named Komodin insists on frequently removing Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie as an example from this page. Honestly, this has to stop now. It perfectly belongs as an example here on this board. I would like to forward a request to not allow that example to be removed from this page from here on out (for all we know, he could use an Alt. account) unless he offers an objective (not opinionated) reason to remove it.

Prinzenick: Hm, Komodin has thankfully made a compromise and has simply edited the paragraph to make it less biased sounding towards other Sonic related media. Thank you, Komodin. I appreciate it.

Komodin: No problem, mon.
KJMackley: I moved the Mortal Kombat example to full exceptions because I think the general consensus is that the first one is still a decent movie beyond So Bad, It's Good or Guilty Pleasure. Just because some things were changed from the video games doesn't mean it sucks as a movie, that is just They Changed It, Now It Sucks.
Master Inferno: A friend of mine seriously believes that Hollywood hates the video game industry and makes terrible video game movies on purpose. Of course, since most video game voice acting is non-union and Hollywood is overflowing with union crap, it wouldn't surprise me if that were true.

On an unrelated note, FFVII: Advent Children Complete is much more coherent than the original.