So that’s bad, yeah, but just how bad is it? With help from Google and The Numbers’ movie comparison feature, I can tell you this: It’s really bad.
I present to you…
An Incomplete List of Shitty Videogame Movies That Made More Money Than Borderlands
(in no particular order)
- Warcraft ($439 million)
- Max Payne ($88 million) Doom ($59 million)
- Street Fighter ($99 million)
- Assassin’s Creed ($241 million)
- Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time ($336 million)
- Hitman ($99 million)
- Mortal Kombat (but Mortal Kombat is actually good) ($122 million)
- Need for Speed ($194 million)
- Five Nights at Freddy’s ($297 million)
- Uncharted ($401 million)
One big-budget, big(ish)-cast Hollywood film Borderlands managed to beat, which I bring up only because I paid good money to see it in theaters and I’m still sore about the whole thing, is Wing Commander, an utterly execrable celluloid waste of time and effort that bumbled to $11.5 million globally. Frankly I’m surprised it did that well.
Ok, how tf did I miss this many gaming-related movies?
And, should I be glad I did or not?
Bcs imho Borderlands is a solid rpg movie with a basic story imagined by a nice, productive dm (not the best as far as dms or rpg movies go, but like a reliable standard).
There’s a lot - I have a list that’s incomplete but has 86 films on it, Vulture ranked all video game films back in 2016 and there is, obviously, a Wikipedia page for them.
That list is for bad adaptations that made more money than Borderlands, so it leaves out all Us Boll’s tax scam movies that are pretty universally awful (I had to bump Alone in the Dark’s rating up, so I could rate the sequel lower than it).
And, even with that criteria, it misses out:
IMHO, the list in the OP are actually fairly decent, with the exception of Warcraft, Need for Speed and Assassin’s Creed. (Not because they are bad but because I never saw them.