What does the Legend of Zelda movie need to justify a video game adaptation?

Seeing a film adaptation of The Legend of Zelda series in production fills me with an undeniable combination of anticipation, envy and concern. On the one hand, as a long time fan of the series - particularly entries that reinvented the formula or other adaptations (Phantom Hourglass Manga > Phantom Hourglass game) - as well as a cinephile the thought of a theatrical version can't help but peak my interest. Yet on the other hand, the student filmmaker part of my brain can't help but wish I could've had some sort of involvement in the film; sentiments all too common with fandoms.

Official casting: Bo Bragason as Zelda and Benjamin Evan Ainsworth as Link

If the last year of Snyder fan discourse has taught us anything, it's never easy making a film yet alone one that will elicit such strong responses from fans. It is a beyond herculean task to make a Zelda game which'll satisfy all fans let alone a first time live action film because what is it that fans like about Zelda? Not even all the games can agree! For some people, Zelda is all about exploration; completing puzzles, unearthing secrets tucked into hidden corners or breaking the mechanics as far as possible. For others its story; learning the troves of lore behind Hyrule, witnessing the progression of Link and his comrades against whatever threat arises or assigning personal headcanons to whatever corner of the Zelda universe they love.

Just stepping away into a more theoretical angle and comparing the studies of ludology and narratology, video games inherently present more issues with film adaptations than any other medium. If games like The Legend of Zelda are founded on the agency of players, wherein stories are told via immersion in a simulated world, while films are founded on the passivity of audiences, wherein stories are communicated by observation of a simulated world, then the approach to crafting a narrative are fundamentally different. At their core, conventional fiction filmmaking must make use of visual stimulation to outline a series of scenes that the filmmaker can use to position a spectator into whatever position they desire - meanwhile - video games must make use of interactive stimulation to outline a series of scenes that the player can usurp control over. Even in games with a fixed plot which players cannot divulge from, simple factors like player skill can dramatically alter how the storyline is interpreted. Your understanding of The Godfather (1972) would be pretty different if you had to rewatch Michael's first murder five times in a row or you found an exploit to let you skip a whole hour of the film.

With its most acclaimed entries being praised for allowing players the freedom to explore the world and interact with narrative at their own choice, I think adapting The Legend of Zelda is a tougher endeavor than a peer like The Last of Us; which by no means was an easy job but when a franchise has a narrative granting players limited control over plot and traits more often linked to film like performance or non-interactive sequences then the blueprint for creating a one to one translation is more apparent. Not only does the Zelda franchise largely structure stories around players assuming the identity of an avatar lacking solid characterisation meaning the blueprint requires greater reinterpretation but furthermore the franchise has spanned so many entries that narrative elements like lore, identity of supporting characters and such are in constant flux.

Hence what is the main takeaway from this issue for The Legend of Zelda movie? That regardless the film is going to piss off fans and using fidelity as the criteria for quality is a poor direction. I'm sure for many hearing someone say staying faithful isn't the right move will be sacrilege but my response? See where does that lead if unchecked.

Illumination's The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023) is the most recent Nintendo film adaptation and, oh man, was the reception concerning. References are not a substitute for plot. I had a lot of fun with the movie, in terms of film form I think the animators knocked it out the park and I'm sure had I seen it when I was a kid it would be a common rewatch but good lord was there no substance. It felt like the film was scared to be a film and played out like a theme park. A plot closer to a synopsis works great for a platformer, all players need is exposition to immerse them in the world and from then until credits, strong gameplay is all the matters. However in a film, a plot should typically lead to an emotionally gratifying conclusion, a goal The Super Mario Bros. Movie seems to avoid at all costs. Very little actually happens by the end and scenes feel haphazardly slapped together because there needed to at least be something interesting aesthetically if like the games the plot comes secondary.

What Super Mario highlighted was a failure to reconcile with the schism between video games and film. Appealing to fans is definitely beneficial but that alone can't justify making a film. I couldn't name a single person who found the movie memorable beyond pre-existing fans because the movie never wanted to be a movie on its own merits but rather a side project to satisfy a profitable fanbase. Recent adaptations like the Sonic the Hedgehog trilogy and A Minecraft Movie (2025) while having their own flaws I think highlight a better relationship with fidelity.

Both these stray further from their source material but paradoxically, I think by restricting their video game traits they make for better video game adaptations simply for the fact their existence is more justifiable. A video game adaptation shouldn't just be a disposable side product to the game's fanbase it should, like all great adaptations of other mediums, use the distinct qualities of film to translate the key themes and identity into an experience that audiences can emotionally resonate with. How can video games be expected to live up to the same standards of older adaptations if fanbases are reluctant to let them flourish.

I am sympathetic to a degree with the hesitancy to abandon devout fidelity for video game adaptations. After all many older adaptations have been complete failures that went to extreme in the other direction. An adaptation that removes too much of the original material's identity can result in something that feels like a quick buck from a successful IP and appease nobody. But these fears do not justify a complete course correction especially for something that could be so unique amongst Hollywood's current output like The Legend of Zelda.

So what do I want from the movie? To put it simply, I want it to be first and foremost its own film; not a zombie wandering between embracing spectatorship and interactivity to appease a niche. Yet, with that said the film mustn't be ashamed of the themes and lore to justify its usage of the franchise name.

A potential way I could envision is the film's characterisation of Link. Intentionally, he is kept as blank slate a lot of time in order for players to have greater freedom of agency in using him as an avatar. In protagonists with clear personalities it can cause narrative disconnect for players if they can make them act dramatically different and not have this addressed but obviously this is not an issue in film. I think turning Link into a personification of exploration such as perhaps a reluctant hero who grows over the film into a brave explorer (basic arc I know) could provide the film with an effective vehicle to explore this version of Hyrule. With a blank protagonist like Steve in Minecraft, a game built off creativity, turning him into a semi-Peter Pan type character is logical but I would be hesitant to pursue such a radical performance for Link. The Legend of Zelda is an overall far more grounded series than the aforementioned franchises so its script should reflect that.

In terms of structure there is a very obvious temptation to attempt a "best of Zelda" kind of plot with a pastiche of recognisable locales and moments from the most popular games. However, I fear this runs a risk of alienating new audiences and causing a pace that just hops from story beat to story beat in an awkward fashion. How would I address this if Miyamoto had phoned me up with a job offer? Keep it simple and focus on spectacle and atmosphere.

The Legend of Zelda is first and foremost a Hollywood fantasy film based off an IP that I feel fits snuggly in between two extremes of The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Princess Bride (1987); after all, its perhaps gaming's purest example of the hero's journey. The priorities shouldn't be on directly adapting a specific game or trying to cram in as much expanded lore as possible (a Nintendo Cinematic Universe is really REALLY not something we need) but rather a concise hero's journey with light elements of humour, some killer actions sequences and most importantly a feeling of wonder when seeing the world of Hyrule. Sure, a film cannot give us the immersion of exploring such domains but it can align us with a protagonist exploring it. Lets stick to some recurring easily identifiable fantasy locations like Death Mountain, Zora's Domain or Gerudo Desert; steer clear of illusion-breaking nods and such so that even the least familiar audiences can bask in an epic that players have for decades, at its essence is there anything more Zelda than that?

So without going into the territory as a fan pitch for now, that's what I think The Legend of Zelda movie needs to be a good video game adaptation. It needs to be able to stand by itself separate from the games and accessible to all audiences, best achieved by translating not just the overarching aesthetics but more importantly the themes of exploration and growth expressed in gameplay into film language. Don't get carried away with forcing in as much fan service as you can like recent adaptations nor removing any semblance of the source material's identity like older adaptations. Keep it true but fresh and focused. The Zelda series deserves a chance to be more than another mediocre video game adaptation.