Good writeup, and I agree that many game adaptations failed because they were cash-grabs. But I think there is another issue - trying to pander to gaming audiences. Some of the best works in film and movies resulted from people who didn't try to toe the line. Famously, Ridley Scott didn't care at all about sci-fi movies when he made Alien, and Alfred Hitchcock had no interest in researching horrors when he made Psycho.
There are many more such examples - trying to please core fans often results in failure. But when someone makes an adaptation where they follow their own vision and lift what works best from the source material, it tends to come together much better. Point in case is the oft-overlooked yet arguably first great game adaptations, Silent Hill.
I think the same can apply to early comic book adaptations such as Iron Man, Raimi's Spiderman (which controversially did away with the web-spitting gadgets) and the Burton/Nolan Batman films. They use the source material, but they are not held hostage by it. Subsequent comic books films started to collapse under the weight of trying to constantly meet fan expectations rather than follow creative visions.
So, while I agree that a cash-grab mentality is often to blame, so is the attempt to appeal to the core audiences above following a vision enriched by the source material. After all, there is plenty of rubbish content that pleases fans but is not actually good (I'm looking at you, Warhammer).
Good writeup, and I agree that many game adaptations failed because they were cash-grabs. But I think there is another issue - trying to pander to gaming audiences. Some of the best works in film and movies resulted from people who didn't try to toe the line. Famously, Ridley Scott didn't care at all about sci-fi movies when he made Alien, and Alfred Hitchcock had no interest in researching horrors when he made Psycho.
There are many more such examples - trying to please core fans often results in failure. But when someone makes an adaptation where they follow their own vision and lift what works best from the source material, it tends to come together much better. Point in case is the oft-overlooked yet arguably first great game adaptations, Silent Hill.
I think the same can apply to early comic book adaptations such as Iron Man, Raimi's Spiderman (which controversially did away with the web-spitting gadgets) and the Burton/Nolan Batman films. They use the source material, but they are not held hostage by it. Subsequent comic books films started to collapse under the weight of trying to constantly meet fan expectations rather than follow creative visions.
So, while I agree that a cash-grab mentality is often to blame, so is the attempt to appeal to the core audiences above following a vision enriched by the source material. After all, there is plenty of rubbish content that pleases fans but is not actually good (I'm looking at you, Warhammer).