2023 will likely be remembered as a turning point for video game adaptations. “The Last of Us” did what many thought we’d never see, scoring 24 nominations at the 75th Emmys and proving that a game-to-screen translation could be not just good, but genuinely great. For a moment, it felt like that long-promised breakthrough wasn’t just wishful thinking—it was real.
But this shift didn’t happen overnight. A few years earlier, “Sonic the Hedgehog” offered a glimpse of that potential, winning over audiences and becoming a solid box office success, with each sequel building on that momentum. Still, the road here hasn’t exactly been smooth. For every strong adaptation, there’s another that either disappoints outright or lands somewhere in that frustrating middle ground of “almost.”
Case in point, “The Last of Us” had a second season that left many feeling it was a dip in quality, despite still receiving plenty of love during awards season. Personally, I didn’t dislike it, but it came off more like a bridge season. There’s a lot of great buildup. To use a rollercoaster analogy: you get that stretch where you’re speeding through the tracks, full of adrenaline—screaming with excitement and fear—and then you hit the climb, where the train slowly rises, and you know the real thrill is coming next. Season 2 feels like that climb. It left many of us waiting, and it could go either way: we either get a hell of a ride where our hearts practically leave our bodies… or we end up with a “Final Destination 3” scenario.
A history of ups and downs
The first screen adaptation of a video game came in the form of the animated series “Pac-Man,” which ran for a full year from 1982 to 1983 and was produced by animation titans Hanna-Barbera. To my (and probably your) surprise, the show was a massive success, drawing an audience of over 20 million viewers in the U.S. alone.
From the little I saw during my research, the show had that signature charm many productions from that era carried—colorful visuals (even if some episodes felt a bit monotonous and dull), with those iconic ghosts chasing our yellow friend, all acting as henchmen to a tall robotic figure. Interestingly, the show also sparked controversy, as some viewers considered Pac-Man “chomping” the bad guys too violent. The very thing he’s known for proved to be too much for certain parents, proving that overly sensitive reactions aren’t exactly new. Seriously, some people seemed so bored they felt the need to censor even the most ridiculous things.
Moving on to 1988, Japan released a loose adaptation of the video game “Mirai Ninja,” meaning many of us were wrong to believe the infamous “Super Mario Bros.” movie was the first live-action adaptation. To be fair, though, the film was primarily released in Japan at the time and didn’t reach the U.S. market until seven years later.
As the years went by, for every “Mortal Kombat” or “Silent Hill”—and honestly, I don’t care what people say, some of those “Resident Evil” movies are pretty good—we also got our fair share of misses. Hell, even “Street Fighter” had its charm, mostly thanks to Raúl Juliá’s dedicated performance. But for every solid adaptation, there were plenty of stinkers or completely forgettable films. Like, seriously, who even remembers “Wing Commander”?
Based on Rotten Tomatoes scores, we didn’t really start seeing adaptations hit the 50% mark or higher until “Tomb Raider” with Alicia Vikander. That said, the more you dig through the catalog, the more it becomes clear that subjectivity plays a huge role in this whole discussion. Which leads me…
The Subjectivity of Cinema
There are very few things as subjective as cinema. It’s an art form driven by emotion—we all respond differently to what we watch. What delights me, scares me, or makes me laugh or cry may not have the same effect on someone else. So it shouldn’t come as a surprise when people like a film that I don’t, or vice versa.
Many of the films or shows mentioned earlier, despite having low scores on review-aggregating sites, still have a percentage of viewers who didn’t outright dislike them—whether that’s 15%, 10%, or even 8%. Just take the newest Mario film (or even the first one): what many see as a soulless cash grab still holds around a 43% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I’ve seen ratings of 4 stars or higher from some viewers. Personally, I gave both films 3 stars. They’re not great, but the craft on display and some of the writing are solid enough to keep me entertained. And isn’t that what matters most?
Plus, unlike many of the other poorly received video game adaptations, these Nintendo films are breaking records and making an absurd amount of money, with “Galaxy” already passing the billion-dollar mark. But why is that? What is it about these Mario films that seems to enchant audiences? “Detective Pikachu” is arguably the better film, and “Pokémon” is a massive IP, yet it couldn’t match what “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” pulled in during just its first couple of weekends. “The Sonic the Hedgehog” films are arguably more playful and consistently fun, and while their box office has grown with each installment, they still fall short of the Brooklyn plumber’s numbers.
So is this proof that Mario is simply that big with general audiences—so deeply ingrained in pop culture that people are willing to overlook its weaknesses? There’s probably some truth to that. These films operate on a kind of immediate, almost instinctual appeal: bright, fast, familiar, constantly stimulating. Like cats are drawn to shiny, dangling things, audiences are drawn to that sensory rush.
And looking at it from a child’s perspective, it makes even more sense. If I had seen this as a kid, I probably would’ve had a much better time, maybe even loved it outright. A lot of critics have pointed out that the film skews towards younger kids rather than aiming to be something for the whole family. But isn’t that also the case with something like “Sonic”? And then you have “A Minecraft Movie,” another film with very questionable quality, yet it drew huge crowds, coming within about $50 million of hitting a billion. It scored low with critics, but audiences still gave it a decent grade, similar to “Five Nights at Freddy’s.”
Maybe that’s the real takeaway: quality, at least in the critical sense, isn’t always the deciding factor. Sometimes it’s about familiarity, timing, accessibility, you know? How easily a film can be embraced by a wide audience. Because history has shown time and time again that great movies don’t always find their audience. Marketing, of course, plays a huge role. A strong campaign can absolutely put butts in seats—but usually only for that opening weekend. After that, it’s on the film itself to sustain momentum, either by bringing audiences back for repeat viewings or drawing in new ones through word of mouth.
So maybe it really does come down to that elusive “crowd-pleaser” effect, something harder to define, but instantly recognizable when a movie just clicks with a wide audience. By the end of it all, despite the mix of middling and uneven adaptations we still get, it feels fair to say we’re living in—if not a full-on golden age—at least a silver one for video game movies. The days when the genre was almost synonymous with outright garbage seem largely behind us, and overall quality has noticeably improved.
The good now outweighs the bad, and even the weaker entries tend to be more watchable than the truly dreadful adaptations we used to get. We’re at this weird point where even lesser films are getting major love by audiences. Maybe audiences have become more forgiving as long as they feed on pleasing fan service, easter eggs, and the minimum to keep their engagement high, they will ignore the flaws.
Whatever the case may be, in many ways, the place we find ourselves in is something many of us hoped for years ago—that these stories and worlds would finally be treated with some level of care—and now, for the most part, that reality has arrived.
