2016 was a big year for direct video game movies, in which the video game movies I am talking about are the ones based off of a single game and not video game documentaries. 2016 had four video game movies, more than any other year since. In 2016, their was 'Ratchet and Clank','The Angry Birds Movie','Warcraft'(based on World of Warcraft,) and 'Assassin's Creed.' These movies came and went, one even promising that their movie will break the video game movie trope of all game movies being mediocre or terrible. But in the end, these four movies, along with all other video game movies show that making a movie from a video game is a great way to drag a franchise through the dirt and make a lot of money doing it.
Even though Ratchet and Clank had a 20 million dollar budget and only made back 13 million dollars, the other three movies were a huge box office success. 'Warcraft' had a budget of 160 million dollars and it made 433 million dollars in the box office, 'The Angry Birds Movie' took 73 million dollars to make and it made 349 million dollars in box office, and 'Assassin's Creed' had a 125 million dollar budget and it made 212 million dollars in the box office. video game movies can make a whole lot of fat cats a lot richer, but at what costs?
I'll tell you at what cost. Not only do you show a mainstream audience that video games are a joke, you also degrade the franchise of said game and you show that the movie industry and the gaming industry that movies and games are nothing more than cash grabs and not a work of art.
A mainstream audience thinks that video games are for basement dwellers and cannot be taken seriously. With movies like these, you show that the mainstream audience is right. One major way to connect to a mainstream audience to video games is through what they normally do in their lives. A lot of people watch movies, so making a critically good video game movie can get a mainstream audience to see video games as really cool or a way of art. The only problem with that is that the movie is made to make money, not awards. This is seen in every video game movie because sadly, the highest rated video game movie on Rotten Tomatoes is Angry Birds at a staggering 43%. When video game movies get down to 1% on Rotten Tomatoes(which some do), then trying to convey video games as a great past time to a mainstream audience is impossible.
One video game movie of 2016 that I wanted to really talk about is 'Assassin's Creed.' All the other games came and went silently, but it was this movie where Ubisoft was talking big game. For starters, they got big names behind the film such as Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard. Not only that, Ubisoft stated that this will be a 'milestone film' and that it will 'break the history of mediocre video game movies.' But Ubisoft themselves knew they were lying or else they wouldn't have given out free movie tickets for buying their remastered games collection. If you are so confident about your movie, then why are you giving out free tickets? People should be excited enough for a good video game movie, so why get the ticket for free? But that was when I was wrong and Ubisoft was right. It turns out 'Assassin's Creed' got a 93 percent on Rotten Tomatoes and is up for 14 Oscar nominations, breaking the mold of mediocrity of video game movies. Just kidding, it got an 18% on the Tomato Meter and the only thing it broke was Fassbender's reputation. If you do want to see a movie with 14 Oscar nominations and a 93% rating, then go see 'La La Land,' a real movie.
Video game movies are a cancer to both the movie and the gaming industry that degrades both industries just for a profit. These movies only proves to a mainstream audience that video games are a laughing stock. It destroys the franchise name, as well as it destroys movie critic minds with how low movies can get. I don't think that video game movies shouldn't be made at all, I think that the movie should be based off of a great video game story and that the movie should be made with awards on mind, not money.