I’ll admit, it was a hard sell. Aside from reviews, and the discourse, being an initial turn-off, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Mario, after all, is fun to play, but a movie? From Illumination Studios, the people responsible for Minions? How would that work?
Still, I had nothing to lose. I liked Detective Pikachu and Sonic the Hedgehog, and they weren’t setting critics alight either, so it wouldn’t hurt to give it a shot. Besides, it was a Tuesday, and the prices were discounted. If I didn’t like it, at least I wasn’t paying full-price. So I bit the bullet.
Give the movie credit! It was fun! I won’t get into whether “Peaches” is an Oscar-worthy song, or if Princess Peach is a “girl boss”, because those debates are incredibly exhausting. I won’t even dissect how the movie overuses slow-motion for comedic effect, because that wouldn’t be fair. Instead I’ll zone-in on something that, I think, is more interesting. I think it’s worth examining why video games often don’t work on film.
I know: this is a topic that’s been done to death. I’m also aware that I won’t be adding to the conversation with my thoughts. But I don’t care. This needs reiterating. That, and I want to vent.
One of the big conundrums of adapting video games to movies is converting something from one medium to another medium. More-specifically, converting something from a visual-interactive medium to a purely visual medium. You’re taking a video game, which requires direct engagement, and translating it to a format that requires passive engagement. And you’re doing so in a condensed time frame. Is it any wonder, then, why so many attempts fail?
Even if you somehow adapted a game with a strong narrative, how would you make the jump without losing that interactivity? And how would you do that with a run-time limit? The answer to both questions is “you can’t”. Because video games have different rules than movies. I don’t think enough people get that.
One of the big conundrums of adapting video games to movies is converting something from one medium to another medium. More-specifically, converting something from a visual-interactive medium to a purely visual medium. You’re taking a video game, which requires direct engagement, and translating it to a format that requires passive engagement. And you’re doing so in a condensed time frame. Is it any wonder, then, why so many attempts fail?
Even if you somehow adapted a game with a strong narrative, how would you make the jump without losing that interactivity? And how would you do that with a run-time limit? The answer to both questions is “you can’t”. Because video games have different rules than movies. I don’t think enough people get that.
If you somehow strike narrative gold with an adaptation…now what? Video games don’t generally focus on storytelling, true, but those that do still have the player in mind. They’re not passive, “This happened, followed by this” narratives, like movies are. Their stories are focused around what you, the player, will do next. Will you grab that weapon and fight the dragon, or will you avoid the enemy altogether? To power up, or not to power up? In all situations, it’s reliant on the player, not the game.
In some instances, even, there are multiple paths the story can go. It depends on what the player wants: harvest those girls for their energy, or free them of their curse? Defeat final boss A, or go for final boss B? The game might have the end-result predetermined, but you’re influencing the in-between. It’s interactive.
Interactivity on that level isn’t the focus of movies. They elicit responses, like tears, laughter or cheering, but they aren’t based so much on the audience’s decisions. This isn’t to disparage movie narratives. Some of my favourite stories are on film. But the element of choice in video games doesn’t exist with film.
In some instances, even, there are multiple paths the story can go. It depends on what the player wants: harvest those girls for their energy, or free them of their curse? Defeat final boss A, or go for final boss B? The game might have the end-result predetermined, but you’re influencing the in-between. It’s interactive.
Interactivity on that level isn’t the focus of movies. They elicit responses, like tears, laughter or cheering, but they aren’t based so much on the audience’s decisions. This isn’t to disparage movie narratives. Some of my favourite stories are on film. But the element of choice in video games doesn’t exist with film.
That’s usually why many video game movies fail. Ignoring how so many in the past didn’t understand what they were adapting, a trend that’s now dying off, there’s only so much you can retain when shifting mediums. In the best-case scenario, the movie replays the greatest hits of the game, but without any of the participation. It feels like a hollow callback. And that’s why so many attempts are unsuccessful.
Which leads me back to The Super Mario Bros. Movie. I enjoyed the call-backs to Mario’s history, both overt and covert, and I liked how it gave everyone actual personality traits, but that doesn’t make the movie “amazing”. It’s fun, and I laughed frequently, but that’s not narrative depth. Because, and let’s face it, Mario never really had depth. Nor did he need to.
I think that’s why critics weren’t singing the movie’s high praises. It’s not that the movie was simple, because simple alone isn’t bad. Ponyo’s a simple movie, yet it told a powerful story about respecting your children’s wishes, even at a young age. Simple’s effective when done properly, and The Super Mario Bros. Movie understands this. The problem, however, is that underneath that is lacklustre substance. It’s all, like I said, a hollow replay of Mario’s greatest hits.
Which leads me back to The Super Mario Bros. Movie. I enjoyed the call-backs to Mario’s history, both overt and covert, and I liked how it gave everyone actual personality traits, but that doesn’t make the movie “amazing”. It’s fun, and I laughed frequently, but that’s not narrative depth. Because, and let’s face it, Mario never really had depth. Nor did he need to.
I think that’s why critics weren’t singing the movie’s high praises. It’s not that the movie was simple, because simple alone isn’t bad. Ponyo’s a simple movie, yet it told a powerful story about respecting your children’s wishes, even at a young age. Simple’s effective when done properly, and The Super Mario Bros. Movie understands this. The problem, however, is that underneath that is lacklustre substance. It’s all, like I said, a hollow replay of Mario’s greatest hits.
I feel bad saying that, especially given that this movie was trying to exceed the sum of its parts. It was, unlike most Illumination movies, actually interesting and unique. It had real passion and talent too, and Chris Pratt as Mario didn’t bother me as much as I thought. Basically, this felt like a movie. But that wasn’t enough to make it a masterpiece.
I’m not sure what could’ve remedied that. Like I said, Mario isn’t exactly deep or profound. Unlike Metroid and Zelda, the franchise leans on “rescue the damsel in distress from the big baddie” constantly. And while Metroid and Zelda don’t have profound stories either, Mario feels especially bare-bones in comparison. This movie tried having some semblance of a story, but I can’t blame it for having little to work with.
Additionally, the debate about “snooty critics not understanding this movie” misses that point. Yes, maybe some were too harsh. They’re only human, after all. But the job of a critic isn’t to please audiences. They’re trained to distinguish patterns and themes that keep resurfacing, and they see more movies regularly than you and I. They watch them for a living. It takes much more to impress them than Mario fans while watching The Super Mario Bros. Movie.
I’m not sure what could’ve remedied that. Like I said, Mario isn’t exactly deep or profound. Unlike Metroid and Zelda, the franchise leans on “rescue the damsel in distress from the big baddie” constantly. And while Metroid and Zelda don’t have profound stories either, Mario feels especially bare-bones in comparison. This movie tried having some semblance of a story, but I can’t blame it for having little to work with.
Additionally, the debate about “snooty critics not understanding this movie” misses that point. Yes, maybe some were too harsh. They’re only human, after all. But the job of a critic isn’t to please audiences. They’re trained to distinguish patterns and themes that keep resurfacing, and they see more movies regularly than you and I. They watch them for a living. It takes much more to impress them than Mario fans while watching The Super Mario Bros. Movie.
If anything, people should make up their own minds. I’ve liked many movies critics were cold on, and I disliked several they loved. That doesn’t make either of us right or wrong, but rather opinionated. So long as you respectfully disagree while simultaneously understanding why, then guess what? You’re headed in the right direction.
Finally, we need to understand that while video game movies have gotten “better”, they may not ever be “masterpieces”. Because like I said, games aren’t movies. They’re have different rules, they’re written differently and they engage their demographics differently. There might be crossover, but it’s minimal. But that’s what makes the two mediums special. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s reality.
Now then, about that whole “woke VS broke” nonsense…
Finally, we need to understand that while video game movies have gotten “better”, they may not ever be “masterpieces”. Because like I said, games aren’t movies. They’re have different rules, they’re written differently and they engage their demographics differently. There might be crossover, but it’s minimal. But that’s what makes the two mediums special. It’s neither good nor bad, it’s reality.
Now then, about that whole “woke VS broke” nonsense…
No comments:
Post a Comment