rpgamer.com
RPGs at the Movies
Back in February this year, I saw Iron Lung in theaters, and I adored it and all the creative ways it adapted the feeling of the original game. It got me thinking about video game movies in general, their production, and how they've been approached as creative projects over the years. I then fell into a research rabbit hole for several months. Fortunately for me, I have WiFi and a shovel.
This is going to be a short series of editorials covering different video game movies based on RPGs, examining why they do or don't work, and what can be learned from these films. For this first entry, we'll be looking at three different movies: Borderlands (2025), Warcraft (2016), and Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023). These three are currently stand-alone films, and can be evaluated on their own merits. These three represent a range in quality that I find revealing.
---
[caption id="attachment_202395" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Cate Blanchett as Lilith in the Borderlands movie.[/caption]
Borderlands: Barely an Adaptation
When I chose to watch Borderlands for this project, I knew it was a bad movie. To me, the trailers made it look like such a horrendous misunderstanding of what made the Borderlands games good, it would be interesting to pick it apart. I was wrong. The movie is such a disaster it failed to even be bad in an interesting way. It feels like the production started with an original script, then partway through put a Borderlands coat of paint on it purely for name recognition. It's franchise mining: trying to build a movie series based solely on a recognizable name without putting in the effort a good movie needs. There’s no true Borderlands spirit in this thing.
The best way to demonstrate these failings is with the very opening. In each game, Markus, a gun merchant, gives a narration over a series of 2D illustrations, setting up the game's setting and basic premise. It's the voice acting that makes these, because they’re delivered like Markus is telling a campfire story: he's dramatic, he draws the listener in, and you can hear in his voice when he's describing a good guy or a bad guy. These are a consistent element of the games. They're good openings because they get the player caught up on what they need to know to understand the story. This feels like an easy thing for the movie to adapt; the format for the opening is built-in. However, the movie opens with Cate Blanchett’s Lilith narrating exposition about vaults and a prophecy, in a way that fails to setup the stakes or clearly establish the world. To fail to even take an established formula into account, something easy to adapt, shows to me the movie's production did not seriously consider what makes Borderlands what it is. I would not even object to doing the opening differently in the movie if it was inventive or subversive in some way, that's part of the fun of adaptations. The lack of effort is glaring from the beginning.
This is the most disappointing aspect of this movie: not that the movie itself is bad, but that seemingly little to no care was taken in creating the adaptation. Between the casting, Cate Blanchett's terrible wig, to the mangling of beloved characters, and the utter blandness of the film's visuals, it's hard to overstate just how little this movie has to do with the Borderlands games. Even if it was what I originally expected, and it was just a bad adaptation, it would have been preferable to the husk we got.
---
[caption id="attachment_202398" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Toby Kobbell as Durotan in Warcraft (2016).[/caption]
Warcraft: It's Okay
The next movie on my list is Warcraft, which is a mixed bag: The orcs look good, the actors playing human characters don’t seem to have been given any strong direction; the spell effects are cool, the visual design rarely seems to draw from the source; young Khadgar is adorable, and Garona is a pretty lady in too much body paint. As a longtime player of World of Warcraft, it's fun to point and yell "I get that reference!" but that doesn't make for a good movie. Which is too bad, because I do think the potential was there. It still might not be a movie for everyone, but I think there is potential for a good fantasy movie in Warcraft's story. Be aware of spoilers ahead for the movie Warcraft and the game Warcraft: Orcs & Humans.
The central conflict of both involves an army of hostile orcs invading a continent and fighting to conquer the human kingdom already there. In the movie, the story ends with the humans successfully fighting off the orcs, and they celebrate their victory, their city safe for now. On the orcs' side, the orc protagonists we’ve been following are either in hiding or dead. It's the expected ending, the humans being the good guys triumph over the evil orcs. Thing is, that's not quite what happened in the game. In Orcs & Humans, there are two campaigns, one for each side. The human one is most similar to the movie, where the orcs are fought off and the human kingdom is saved. However, the ending declared canon by future games is the orcs' campaign, where they win. The human city is razed, and the human survivors flee by boat to another human kingdom for refuge.
How much more interesting, and how much more unique, would the movie have been if it ended in tragedy? It's a stronger sequel hook too; where are the refugees going to go? How will they retake their kingdom? This phenomenon, where there's potential for something unique and interesting but is almost always left unfulfilled, is also a common feature of the writing in World of Warcraft. Perhaps the movie is a more faithful adaptation than I first thought.
I did not do much research into the actual production of these movies for this project, but with Warcraft being such a mix of things that work and things that don't, I'm curious what the experience was like. Some people who worked on this movie cared, I'm sure of that, just as I'm sure others were phoning it in. Am I correct, or is something else going on? What kind of production results in a movie like this? These questions are beyond the scope of this article, but it’s something I’m left pondering.
---
[caption id="attachment_202399" align="aligncenter" width="640"] The main cast of Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. From left to right: Sophia Lillis as Doric, Justice Smith as Simon, Chris Pine as Edgin, and Michelle Rodriguez as Holga.[/caption]
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves: The One People Like
The last movie for today is Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Though saying this movie is based on a game is technically correct, it's also insufficient. Honor Among Thieves is a fantasy heist movie, and to me that is a more complete description of the film. This is a movie people like, even outside of Dungeons & Dragons fans, and I think I know why.
Dungeons & Dragons is an interesting thing to talk about in terms of adaptation, because yes, it has its own world, lore, and characters, but that's not the main draw for most people. It’s a system for telling stories, a scaffold to be built upon. Honor Among Thieves understands this, and that's why I think it works. It's not a story about the world of Faerûn; it's about this particular group of characters going on an adventure in Faerûn, using the setting and rules of the game to decide how the story will play out.
By necessity, the rules in video games using D&D have to be strict. There’s no DM to negotiate with, just a computer that needs to know what to render. The trade-off is that video game adaptations of D&D are more accessible: it'll tell you what you can and can't do, and it eliminates any embarrassment caused by getting the rules wrong in front of a group of people. On the other hand, tabletop D&D requires the player to have a lot of knowledge or references on hand in order to fully participate. The trade-off there is, depending on the DM, the limit really is the players' imagination; it allows for fun and weird scenarios the game-makers couldn't have anticipated.
My favorite scene in Honor Among Thieves is when Doric, a tiefling druid, is spotted spying on the vault to be robbed, and is chased out of the city. She shape-shifts constantly: into a mouse so the armored guards have trouble grabbing her, into a bird when she falls from a tower, back into a tiefling when needed, and into a deer when she just needs to run. Technically, this goes against the rules of the game, since there are specific limits on how many times a druid can use Wild Shape, and Doric definitely exceeds them here. The movie ignores that because a scene where a shape-shifter is being chased is fun! D&D isn't about the rules; it's about making stories together, so that's what the movie is about.
---
The Lesson
Now that I've covered all these movies, what is there to learn from them?
I was hoping to come away from this with a more intellectual or complex conclusion, but I do think the big takeaway here is that in order to make a good adaptation, the people working on it need to care. I do think it's that simple at the end of the day. They need to care not just about the thing they're making, but to have some knowledge and respect for the source material. They don't even need to be fans, just understand what it is people love about the original, and to have the resources to do it justice.
This is why I believe the best video game movie adaptations are yet to come. This is why I mentioned Iron Lung at the top of this article, even though the original game is not an RPG. Within the past few years, there have been video game movies that were well-received by general audiences: there’s Detective Pikachu, a Pokémon movie even non-fans enjoyed, and the Sonic films are also well regarded. People who love video games are more and more entering into the industry, people who understand what it is about these stories people find compelling, and why they would want to see them on the big screen. The best RPG movies are yet to come.
The post RPGs at the Movies appeared first on RPGamer.