Recency bias. There’s always been good video game movies and shows, mixed in with bad ones. Most basic example: the Tomb Raider movies were pretty great (for their time). Pokemon has been running so long that people have forgotten it was created as a cross marketing opportunity to sell the game. Mortal Combat and Resident Evil are always overlooked. Hell, even the super campy Street Fighter movie is fun.
“Entertaining” and “high quality” are meaningfully distinct characteristics. Mortal Kombat came out in the same year as Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption. Tomb Raider came out with Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, and Chocolat. Resident Evil was the same year as Fellowship of the Ring.
None of your examples compare, even for their time, with the higher echelons of what is considered (by general critical consensus rather than personal preference) artistic achievement in their medium. That’s what “good” means in the context of the article. That being said, the article points to the Mario movie as evidence of its claim, and my personal preference would consider that movie cheaply derivative (sprinkled with passion for its source material as it may be).
I agree on the recency bias. We tend to forget about older series and films, or watch them without considering the context of their time. This article even mentions Castlevania: Nocturne, but not the other great Castlevania series.
Was MK a dud? Maybe. But I saw that in cinema and owned it on VHS and had the soundtrack on cassette. It was a little bit of a phenomenon, same goes for the SF movie.
What I think has changed is that now they have decided to throw a little more money at these productions (actors, sets, etc.) and do the right thing by hiring consultants that know the franchise. Give the audience a little more of what they expect. Like with the NieR séries. It is essentially a walkthrough of the game and it is lovely.
Recency bias. There’s always been good video game movies and shows, mixed in with bad ones. Most basic example: the Tomb Raider movies were pretty great (for their time). Pokemon has been running so long that people have forgotten it was created as a cross marketing opportunity to sell the game. Mortal Combat and Resident Evil are always overlooked. Hell, even the super campy Street Fighter movie is fun.
My personal favourite is Steins;Gate.
“Entertaining” and “high quality” are meaningfully distinct characteristics. Mortal Kombat came out in the same year as Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, and Shawshank Redemption. Tomb Raider came out with Gladiator, Crouching Tiger, and Chocolat. Resident Evil was the same year as Fellowship of the Ring.
None of your examples compare, even for their time, with the higher echelons of what is considered (by general critical consensus rather than personal preference) artistic achievement in their medium. That’s what “good” means in the context of the article. That being said, the article points to the Mario movie as evidence of its claim, and my personal preference would consider that movie cheaply derivative (sprinkled with passion for its source material as it may be).
Thorgi’s most recent video on the Street Fighter movie is great, even for casual- or non-gamers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63M0rmeAXU
I agree on the recency bias. We tend to forget about older series and films, or watch them without considering the context of their time. This article even mentions Castlevania: Nocturne, but not the other great Castlevania series.
Was MK a dud? Maybe. But I saw that in cinema and owned it on VHS and had the soundtrack on cassette. It was a little bit of a phenomenon, same goes for the SF movie.
What I think has changed is that now they have decided to throw a little more money at these productions (actors, sets, etc.) and do the right thing by hiring consultants that know the franchise. Give the audience a little more of what they expect. Like with the NieR séries. It is essentially a walkthrough of the game and it is lovely.