The worst genre in the history of cinema, according to science
We’ve all got our preferred movie genre, whether it’s something hyper-specific like historical dramas set in the Regency era and cheap B-movie monster flicks, or perhaps something broader, such as a good slasher, stoner comedy or 2000s rom-com.
Of course, these all fit into larger categories of romance, horror, comedy, action, and more, but then you’ve got the question of what a story was inspired by. There are whole sub-genres of movies that are adaptations of classic novels, others that stand as TV show spin-offs, or those that take existing IP, like a toy, and use that to inform the narrative. The latter is increasingly becoming a threat to good cinema, with the success of Greta Gerwig’s Barbie in 2023 reflecting a newfound profit goldmine for toy adaptations.
Sure, it might’ve grossed over $1billion at the box office, which hardly seems like a bad thing, but the more movies we base on existing products, not even novels or plays, but toys, then the less originality Hollywood welcomes. There’s something so depressing about rumours of a Polly Pocket film, even a Monopoly one. It would still be acceptable if these were smaller kids’ films, but the fact that Hollywood is ready to throw millions at toy adaptations for adult viewers reflects a pretty dire state for cinema.
You could argue that toy adaptations are pretty hard to take seriously, especially when you consider previous efforts like the Transformers series, the LEGO movies, and even Playmobil, but they often rake in a considerable amount of cash. They still sit pretty low down on the list when it comes to the success rate of movies based on various IP sources, though, which was revealed in a study conducted by StephenFollows.com.
Looking at the “Average IMDb rating for movies, based on IP source, 1990–2024”, he found that movies based on toys, legends, and religious texts tend to rate pretty low, but not as much as video game adaptations. It’s this divisive genre that averages just over a five out of ten on the chart, but it’s hardly surprising.
Video games are an art in their own right, often taking years of precision to bring to life. So, do they need to become movies, too? Considering that video games typically have their own narratives to begin with, bringing this to the big screen almost always destroys the brilliance of the game, or just comes across as surprisingly boring; there’s much less fun to be found when you’re not playing along.
The Resident Evil series is a prime example of bad video game movies. Director Paul WS Anderson can’t get enough of them, but absolutely none of the eight films in the franchise is any good. How they’ve continued to last for so long is a mystery, but the popularity of the games has somehow kept people coming back to the terrible series for more.
And then there’s Uncharted, starring Tom Holland, who was unconvincing as Nate Drake, plus the movie didn’t exactly score well with critics. It did earn $407.1million at the box office, though, which only reflects the disproportionate difference between the financial and critical success of video game adaptations.
That’s the thing, a lot of video game movies make a lot of money. Look at The Minecraft Movie, which had a total gross of $961,187,780, while The Super Mario Bros Movie hit over $1b. But they’re not good, and they’re not cinema. Just because a movie earns lots of money, that’s not enough to save it from the critics and audience reviews, and it’s video game movies which repeatedly fare the worst.
