Resident Evil 2

[Shwa]

This movie is a must see OB people, the graphics are awsome and the monsters are bette than ever. Of course this movie is rated R for stong language and basically blood thirsty zombie that wanna kill you, but hey...thats life in Racoon City. I would really recommend seeing part 2 of Resident Evil since it basically follows the story line of RE3 the game having Jill Valentine and Nemesis ^.^

Synopsis:

[B]Resident Evil[/B]
A group of military specialist explored an underground facility called "The Hive" at a near by mansion next to Racoon City, the Hive was infected with the T-Virus that made the super computer kill all the workers to prevent the spread of the virus. Alice knew some imformation to shut down Umbrella for good but had her memories erased for a while and couldn't remember a thing, while they were down in the "Hive" the dead workers came back to life and attacked the soldiers and Alice. At the only Alice and a cop (i forget his name) made it out alive with teh anti-virus and shut down the Hive to prevent the spread of the T-Virus. But Alice and the Cop were taken away by Umbrella scientist before Alice could give the anti-virus to her firend and they put him in "The Nemesis Project", Alice was taken somewhere else.

[B]Resident Evil 2[/B]
Picking up where the end of the first movie left off (Resident Evil), an elite military agent, Alice (Jovovich), finds herself stranded in the ruins of Raccoon City following a virus outbreak which has turned the city's inhabitants into bloodthirsty zombies. Searching for a way to contain the virus, Alice also teams up with other survivors, who include Jill Valentine (Guillory), who finds herself being hunted down by a massive monster called Nemesis (Mabius) with ties to Alice, and the tendency to moan 'Starrrrssss' a lot. The only problem is that Umbrella Corp. plans to destroy the city to cover up their mistake by sunrise the next day, so the team must get out of the city with proof that Umbrella was involved in this incident and shut them down for good.

[WW2]

Eh....I've only seen the previews for RE:2 and it basically looks like one of those loud, non-character driven, stupid one liner havin', action movies with death metal music playing in the background.
Y'know.....like the first Resident Evil movie.

But then again I haven't seen it, so I may be wrong. Maybe the movie will actually be scary and have deep character developments, instead of just shooting things with guns and running down buildings.

I'll just wait and rent it when it comes out on DVD.

[satan665]

Nope, you're right about it. I saw it for some reason and enjoyed it in its pointlessness. There is virtually no character development, and its an actionfest with virtually no scares. They reuse the same tactics like having a zombie get shot that you didn't see to make it look like the characters are shooting at each other. That and having zombies facing away from the screen so you can't tell if they're alive or not. It has a few neat homages to the game, but although I liked it in a brainless fashion, I wouldn't recommend it to anybody.

[Brasil]

Read George Romero's script for the first RE movie, and you'll quickly change your tune about the Anderson RE films being so good, lol.

I'm reading Romero's script right now, and it's very good. It actually adapts the games themselves instead of simply using Umbrella and a brief cameo of Jill. Such a pity that Romero didn't do the films...they would have been so good. Romero, for the uninitiated, is the king of the zombie flick, having done Night of the Living Dead, he knows how to make an undead picture.

Anderson's RE franchise...looks to be nothing more than flash-bang, jump out and scare you horror, when if you look at the original games, you will find that the RE series isn't totally "jump out and scare you" horror. There is a lot of atmosphere in them...Night of the Living Dead-type atmosphere, not James Bond, My Zombie-type atmosphere.

[Guest Amun Ra]

[QUOTE=Mage15]This movie is a must see OB people, the graphics are awsome and the monsters are bette than ever. Of course this movie is rated R for stong language and basically blood thirsty zombie that wanna kill you, but hey...thats life in Racoon City. I would really recommend seeing part 2 of Resident Evil since it basically follows the story line of RE3 the game having Jill Valentine and Nemesis ^.^

I would have to say on a personal note I liked Resident Evil alot!
But that is probably because I was to afraid to play it so I just watched my dad.....
:blush:
After we found the outbreak cause I clogged my room vent for over a month! :laugh:
But still, I haven't had time to see the second movie and apreciate the summary. :D

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

I thought that the first RE movie was pretty darn lousy. It had a few cool moments, but really they didn't make up for all the crap.

RE 2, on the other hand, ... is 100000 times worse! Holy moley! I went to see it on Friday, thinking that maybe if it's about on the same level of quality as the first film I wouldn't get too angry at it. But believe me, if you endulge in the luxury of even a single moment of "attemted comprehension," you will be just as sorely disappointed as I was.

Seriously, the director couldn't even get basic unimportant BS right. The film opens up with a news reporter saying it's just past 6 a.m. That cuts immediately to a scene of a suburb with people all over the streets. People mowing lawns, running, etc. It's not a huge deal, but holy crap why didn't they change 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. or something? You can't mow your lawn that early in the morning. Not to mention that they obviously weren't filming at 6 a.m. in the first place.

Anyway, that set the stage right there.

The action scenes would've been *okay* if they weren't filmed by an epileptic who was also being attacked by real-life zombies while the camera was turned on. It's like The Bourne Identity, but worse, in the sense that if the cameraman actually let you see what was going on, maybe you'd be impressed by a cool fight. But because it's all just a huge on-screen mess, you're bored to tears.

Obviously the acting and the dialogue border on the pathetic. I suppose that can go without being said. But I figured I'd say it anyhow.

Then there's the whole premise of the movie. The characters are trying to escape from Raccoon City, which Umbrella has walled in (this doesn't spoil anything so I'm not tagging it). But the characters all kick so much booty throughout the film (not to mention that Alice can scale large buildings without a problem, which you even saw in the trailers), that really it would've been easier for them to just climb over that wall and kill a few guards than do all the crap they ended up doing.

Oh, and pretty much every scene can also be torn apart due to some major thing the director/writer overlooked. For instance, [spoiler]that lameriffic "gladiator" scene at the end was ridiculously unnecessary. Alice could've just decapitated that stuckup prick right then and there without "fighting for him." It would've taken half a second. Of course the guards wouldn't have done anything about it, and if they did, Alice could've killed them all just like she did after that scene anyway. Why did she go ahead with the gladiator match instead? Bad writing, that's why.[/spoiler]

Trust me folks, avoid this one.

[Transtic Nerve]

I don't think either of the movies were made to.... dabble deep into the RE World. If you want that, play the games, read the books, don't go see movies. Anyone who's even got a shread of intelligence knows a movie based on a video game is not going to dwell in the character development or the plot. If its based off a game, the character development is there and so is the plot. Albeit, RE and RE: Apopcalypse add new characters but the basis is the same. It's not meant to dwell in in depth plots and characters, it's supposed to appeal to the shoot'em up video gamers who have lost enough brain cells already as it is.

Carlos and Jill have been in the Games.... 2 or 3 of them I think...something like that... so their characters are already developed. If you haven't played the games, don't bother seeing the movie. Unless you just want to enjoy a good action flick. Alices character, as far as I know, is a new developed character for the movie. She isn't that developed, which is good cause it leaves some room for any sequence to dwell on that, which I think will happen if they decide to make a 3rd instalment.

Anyway, if you didn't like the film becuase of its lack of plot or character development, your fault you wasted your money. Play the games or read the books if you want that stuff... it's a movie based on the game, there is no need to do any of that stuff unless they completely change it all, and they didn't, so there was no need to explain it all. Anyone who doesn't know it was based off a game... well you should just gimme all your money now.

As for the actual movies, I enjoyed Apopcalypes more than the original... but I'm all for those whole action scenes... cause it's F-ing cool to watch... and thats all I was expcting out of the film and it delivered.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Transtic Nerve']I don't think either of the movies were made to.... dabble deep into the RE World. If you want that, play the games, read the books, don't go see movies. Anyone who's even got a shread of intelligence knows a movie based on a video game is not going to dwell in the character development or the plot. If its based off a game, the character development is there and so is the plot. Albeit, RE and RE: Apopcalypse add new characters but the basis is the same. It's not meant to dwell in in depth plots and characters, it's supposed to appeal to the shoot'em up video gamers who have lost enough brain cells already as it is.[/quote]
TN, I think you're missing an important point here. The RE video game series is not a shoot'em up like Doom, Duke Nukem, or MDK. The RE series is survival-horror, and if you've played the games, you will see that there are some fantastic action sequences in there, but for the most part, it's a slow-paced gameplay...hell, we rarely see any action; it's all off-camera, and that's what makes the games so effective: we don't know what's coming at us, because we can't see it. We only hear it, and our imagination does the rest.

So, justifying the RE movies because they're designed to appeal to shoot'em up gamers, when the game sources themselves are clearly [i]not[/i] shoot'em up is faulty.

And it's not that every movie based on a video game is going to ignore some character development or exploration of the game's mythos, if that is what you're getting at. The first Mortal Kombat movie was something of an anomaly, in that it did go into the elements surrounding the story and characters, and sufficiently gave reason for why they made the film. MK really stayed very true to the game itself when you think about it, probably one of the only big screen video game adaptations ever to do that.

[QUOTE]Carlos and Jill have been in the Games.... 2 or 3 of them I think...something like that... so their characters are already developed. If you haven't played the games, don't bother seeing the movie. Unless you just want to enjoy a good action flick. Alices character, as far as I know, is a new developed character for the movie. She isn't that developed, which is good cause it leaves some room for any sequence to dwell on that, which I think will happen if they decide to make a 3rd instalment.[/QUOTE]
Then the RE movies become nothing more than Fan Fiction if the excuse we are given for excluding character development is "Oh, well, their characters are already established, so we don't need to go into that stuff." Really, it's no different than some of the Inuyasha RPGs on OB, then.

Jill is a major player in RE1 and 3, and Carlos is a major player in RE3, and what are they reduced to? Cameos in the sequel. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

I also think there's a flaw in your "if you haven't played the games, don't bother seeing the movie."

RE is a fairly large videogame franchise that many, many gamers are exceedingly familiar with, and when a film titled Resident Evil is released, gamers are going to go see it. Yes, they do know the plot and characters already, but that's hardly an excuse for the filmmakers to exclude proper backstory development, since they are appealing to gamers, because they are using the name, RESIDENT EVIL.

Gamers are going to go see the movie, especially if they're fans of the RE game franchise, and I, like those gamers and like those in this very thread, feel cheated, more or less, because the RE movies beared absolutely no resemblance at all to the games, lol. I mean, where in RE did you ever hear of The Red Queen? It's laughable and is somewhat insulting to gamers' intelligence, really.

I think a more adequate version of your statement would read:

"If you haven't played the games, go see the movie."

[QUOTE]Anyway, if you didn't like the film becuase of its lack of plot or character development, your fault you wasted your money. Play the games or read the books if you want that stuff... [b]it's a movie based on the game, there is no need to do any of that stuff unless they completely change it all, and they didn't[/b], so there was no need to explain it all. Anyone who doesn't know it was based off a game... well you should just gimme all your money now.[/QUOTE]
Allow me to clarify here...

You're saying that when it's a movie based on a game, there is no need to provide any real plot or character development unless they completely change it all, which they didn't...

But they did completely change it, lol. Where was Alice in the games? Where was The Red Queen? Does Chris Redfield make an appearance in the movies? What about Claire Redfield? Barry Burton? Albert Wesker? Joseph? Where is Tyrant? Ada? Leon? That's just running them off the top of my head.

The only similarities to the games are...Umbrella and the name, Resident Evil. That's about it, and is far from suitable to build a movie on.

[quote]As for the actual movies, I enjoyed Apopcalypes more than the original... but I'm all for those whole action scenes... cause it's F-ing cool to watch... and thats all I was expcting out of the film and it delivered.[/QUOTE]
It's interesting you should say that, because an all-out action movie is not what the games were at all, so...they really could have just dropped the Resident Evil title and slapped on Generic Zombie Movie Title #45987 and left it at that.

I may sound overly sensitive here in my reply, or nit-picking, or something like that, but I'm not terribly offended at all, actually; it's just an inconsistency that should be pointed out.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well, if we're going along these lines, then heck yeah the films messed up pretty badly. Resident Evil, of all video game franchises (along with Silent Hill, Doom, and Half-Life), allows for a truly SCARY movie. It can be downright creepy, like that shark room in the first RE game for Gamecube. On top of that, it allows for cool actions scenes because you can make neat Tyrant-ish monsters. The films completely failed to deliver on the creepy/scary level and tripped all over themselves with the action.

To anyone who, in defense of RE's crappiness, says "it's based on a game, people!" it's actually unfair to have such low standards for "movies based on video games." Give Resident Evil to Bryan Singer, and he'd show you why, lol.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well, if we're going along these lines, then heck yeah the films messed up pretty badly. Resident Evil, of all video game franchises (along with Silent Hill, Doom, and Half-Life), allows for a truly SCARY movie. It can be downright creepy, like that shark room in the first RE game for Gamecube. On top of that, it allows for cool actions scenes because you can make neat Tyrant-ish monsters. The films completely failed to deliver on the creepy/scary level and tripped all over themselves with the action.[/quote]
[i]Precisely[/i].

[quote]To anyone who, in defense of RE's crappiness, says "it's based on a game, people!" it's actually unfair to have such low standards for "movies based on video games." Give Resident Evil to Bryan Singer, and he'd show you why, lol.[/QUOTE]
I'd prefer to have Romero doing RE, quite honestly. He's the granddaddy of the zombie flick, and he is a much more competent director than Singer. X2 was on HBO earlier tonight, and it was only mildly amusing at parts...the rest was just a myriad of lousy plot points, underdeveloped characters, acting, story, etc.

Singer gets it right here and there, but when he happens to get it right, it's too few and far between, and that's not what RE would need, I think. For a good RE movie that stays true to both the games and the zombie premise, Romero is the guy to call, and he was the guy they called first. Why he didn't do it is beyond me.

I mean, it's Resident Evil...a zombie flick.

[Zeta]

Personally, I love the movie. It is a great movie. It is what I have been wanting in a Resident Evil movie since I first got into the series. Granted it doesn't follow the games piece by piece, it still does hold a close consistency to them.

Siren, I don't see how you can say that the movie didn't follow the games at all. That the only things in common are Umbrella and the name Resident Evil. There are many parts of the games in the movies, just not in the way they were portrayed in the games. That doesn't mean the movies don't follow the game though.

The mansion [i]is[/i] in the movie. Granted there isn't much time spent in it, which I would have loved to see, it is still in the first movie. It is a small consistency yes, but it follows the game.

The labratory from Resdident Evil 2 is in the first movie, under Raccoon City like in the game, they just gave it a name in the movie. It wasn't a labratory such as seen in the game, but it was a labratory nontheless with the creation of the T virus, and the licker type of creature.

[spoiler] I really don't think that Jill and Carlos' appearence was brief at all. They were a major part of the movie, just not in the sense they were portrayed in the game. In the game Jill and Carlos get together, as well as in the movie. I myself find them a major part of the movie, had it not been for them, then I could see the movie as not following anything from the games. And if they make another movie, considering the ending leaves open to another movie, you can bet that Jill and Carlos will be big players in it.It isn't hard to see that one coming.[/spoiler]

[spoiler] I was actually quite surprised that the Nemesis actually followed, and practically fullfilled his programming to destroy the STARS members just like in the game. Again it was done differently in the movie, but it was still following the game. He finds the STARS members, and is programmed to kill them. He does. Now when you look at it closely, he was hunting down the last two STARS members when he killed Peyton on the bridge. It wasn't until after that his main target was Alice. His programming was changed when the Umbrella employess saw Alice there and changed his mission so to speak. The mission of the Nemesis is followed practically to the letter until Alice comes into the picture at that moment.[/spoiler]

[spoiler] The UBCS and the RPD battles with the zombies are also in there, following that part of the game too. Hell, they even brought the beginning of Resident Evil 3 Nemesis into the movie which was awesome.[/spoiler]

With any movie, you have to add things to get it a decent length and to be a good movie. Had the things in Apocalypse not been added that had nothing to do with the game, it would have been like what, an hour long? It could possibly have been less.

When you look at it closely, the movie actually does follow the game quite a lot. With only the absence of the [soiler] RPD station part of the game[/spoiler] there really isn't anything else [i]major[/i] missing. I know that there are things missing here and there, but they really aren't needed to complete the movie. The movie followed the games quite near to the letter, with only a few things added in, and a few taken out.

[Brasil]

Zeta, read [url=http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/resident_evil_romero.html][u]George Romero's version of the script[/u][/url]. He works nearly everything from the games into the film, and has it all make sense. His script is only 95 pages, which roughly equates to a 95-minute movie (one page = one minute of screen-time).

RE:Apocalypse runs 93 minutes.

The first RE script was 120-some pages, which is about two hours screen-time.

Now, considering this, how hard would it have been to do the RE game franchise justice by incorporating more than two characters, an enemy or two, and a location into the films?

Simply, it would have been easy as hell for a competent writer/director, lol. Anderson did a wonderful job with MK...why did he suddenly drop the ball with RE, and the Alien and Predator franchises, as well? He has absolutely no excuse for writing such a horrible film adaptation, lol, because all he had to do was actually know what he was doing, and know the source material.

It's like the review on MSNBC.com's Entertainment section. The reviewer had absolutely no idea what the RE games are, and based her entire opinion of the games themselves (which she never played) on a movie that is based on the games purely through title.

Now,

[quote=Zeta][spoiler]I really don't think that Jill and Carlos' appearence was brief at all. They were a major part of the movie, just not in the sense they were portrayed in the game. In the game Jill and Carlos get together, as well as in the movie. I myself find them a major part of the movie, had it not been for them, then I could see the movie as not following anything from the games. And if they make another movie, considering the ending leaves open to another movie, you can bet that Jill and Carlos will be big players in it.It isn't hard to see that one coming.

I was actually quite surprised that the Nemesis actually followed, and practically fullfilled his programming to destroy the STARS members just like in the game. Again it was done differently in the movie, but it was still following the game. He finds the STARS members, and is programmed to kill them. He does. Now when you look at it closely, he was hunting down the last two STARS members when he killed Peyton on the bridge. It wasn't until after that his main target was Alice. His programming was changed when the Umbrella employess saw Alice there and changed his mission so to speak. The mission of the Nemesis is followed practically to the letter until Alice comes into the picture at that moment.

The UBCS and the RPD battles with the zombies are also in there, following that part of the game too. Hell, they even brought the beginning of Resident Evil 3 Nemesis into the movie which was awesome.[/spoiler][/quote]
Okay, and this is...three characters and an entire squad of totally incidental characters. The RE games had a cast of much larger than Jill, Carlos, and Nemesis. Why cut the entire rest of the characters?

Because...

[quote]With any movie, you have to add things to get it a decent length and to be a good movie. Had the things in Apocalypse not been added that had nothing to do with the game, it would have been like what, an hour long? It could possibly have been less.[/quote]
But I find it odd how RE:Apocalypse has a nearly identical running time to George Romero's script. Don't you? Romero fit everything into one film...and...it made sense...and he didn't need to take two movies to tell a story that could be told in one. I'm having a hard time here understanding how Anderson's RE can be justified by saying that to make a good movie, when Romero's running time was the exact same.

[quote]I know that there are things missing here and there, but they really aren't needed to complete the movie. The movie followed the games quite near to the letter, with only a few things added in, and a few taken out.[/quote]
If by "the movie," you mean "Generic Zombie Movie Title #45987," then that would be okay. Fact of the matter is, though, that the movie bears no resemblance to the game, apart from perhaps three characters and a location. I'm still having a hard time seeing how the movies followed the games "quite near to the letter," when very obviously, 85% of the game franchise was totally ignored.

You're going to need to clear-up a lot here, lol.

[Sword Breaker]

Dude, the reason the full cast was cut, the producer is trying to drag this out as fully as one can. Besides, if you had like 50 different charectars it wouldn't be much of a survivor horror now would it? Once they see the movie is dieing, they will throw in everyone just to get the most out of the final one. I've heared to be ready tp see Chris in RE Three (Yes they ARE making one)

And finally, that 'unneccessary team of charatrars' were ******* hilarious. That black dude who went around looting, that was funny. Dude, its not about the plot, or about the horror, its all about the humor! Thats why im gona get Shaun of the Dead! That movie looks like it could kick RE:2 as a zombie movie! A ROMANTIC COMEDY WITH ZOMBIES! THAT IS THE SHIZ!

The thnig that i found wierd. Why was Barry Burton black?! I never finished the Res Evil game, but i can be dam sure Barry didn't pull off some rubber mask and turn out to be black! Whats with that?

[Brasil]

[quote name='Sword Breaker]Dude, the reason the full cast was cut, the producer is trying to drag this out as fully as one can. [b]Besides, if you had like 50 different charectars it wouldn't be much of a survivor horror now would it?[/b'] Once they see the movie is dieing, they will throw in everyone just to get the most out of the final one. I've heared to be ready tp see Chris in RE Three (Yes they ARE making one)[/quote]
And...how was RE:Apocalypse any type of "survival horror?" Think about what "survival horror" means, what genre it is. Survival horror is the RE games. The movies are action/adventure/explosion. Alice running down the side of an exploding building? How is that survival horror like the movie's namesake?

[quote]The thnig that i found wierd. Why was Barry Burton black?! I never finished the Res Evil game, but i can be dam sure Barry didn't pull off some rubber mask and turn out to be black! Whats with that?[/QUOTE]
One change, as opposed to...too many omissions to count in the Anderson movies.

[Zeta]

Sorry if you saw me posting this earlier, and didn't actually post it. I was half way through and remembered I had school, lol.


It is all explained in my post. All right, that Romero guy fit everything into the movie, all right? How often does everything in a particular game/book get added into a movie? There are ALWAYS large chuncks missing from each. You can never get the exactness of what you truly want. Had Romero made the movie, I am sure a good deal of it could have been cut out for expenses...time issues, etc..

Maybe saying following the story was a little bit too much o n my part. What I should have said, is that they follow the [i]basic[/i] gist of the storyline. You get me? The Nemesis chasing STARS members and Jill trying to get out of the town are in both movie and game.

The mansion is in the game, but on a really small level. A type of entrance to the labratory in the game, but instead of the lab being under the mansion, he uses it as the entrance to the lab under Raccoon City from the second game.

Jill and Carlos get to gether in both movie and game, and are trying to escape the city. The get together, and basically do what they did in the game, just not against the Nemesis, a small little deviation to the plot. But again, the Nemesis stuck to his programming like that from the game, until Alice came in.

Again, I admit, I shoudn't have said the movie follows alomst exactly to the letter, that was a little much. What a lot of people are doing is that they are just watching the movie and comparing it to the games. Most people want it to be straight forward, just like the game. What I mean by that is that it follows the games exactly as they are. Things like that don't happen though in movies from games or books for that matter. I don't care about that guys script. Had he made the movie, I can bet that it wouldn't follow the movies as well. Things have to be changed when making a movie. They cant be as they were. Just because he has a good script, doesn't mean the movie will be great, or better than someone elses.

When you actually take the time to [i]watch[/i] the movie for what it is, you will see that it does follow the storyline. It doesn't follow the story of the games to the letter like I said, but it does follow the story. It follows the story when you look past what you see, and realize that the Nemesis is still going after STARS and other things are as well. They just aren't as straight forward as they are in the games. No movies have all the things that people wish they can have in it. All the details from all the games would not be able to make it in a movie, it is foolish to think so, even if it is written in a script. Star Wars had many scenes in the script that never made it to the movie, and that wasn't even a game to movie, but just plain written out.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']How often does everything in a particular game/book get added into a movie? There are ALWAYS large chuncks missing from each.[/quote]
Mortal Kombat. I can't even think of anything that was missed in the MK game mythos/characters for that movie.

[QUOTE]Maybe saying following the story was a little bit too much o n my part. What I should have said, is that they follow the [i]basic[/i] gist of the storyline. You get me? The Nemesis chasing STARS members and Jill trying to get out of the town are in both movie and game.[/QUOTE]
And that's precisely the problem. The RE films are basic. They're shallow. A skyscraper exploding and Alice runs down the side of it. What does that have to do with people trapped in a mansion, trying to survive while all sorts of undead monsters roam the halls? Where is the character study of the games? Where is the actual survival horror pacing?

[QUOTE]The mansion is in the game, but on a really small level. A type of entrance to the labratory in the game, but instead of the lab being under the mansion, he uses it as the entrance to the lab under Raccoon City from the second game.[/QUOTE]
"But on a really small level." And that's not enough.

[QUOTE]Jill and Carlos get to gether in both movie and game, and are trying to escape the city. The get together, and basically do what they did in the game, just not against the Nemesis, a small little deviation to the plot. But again, the Nemesis stuck to his programming like that from the game, until Alice came in.[/QUOTE]
And they are two characters out of what is a Quadrilogy of games, with many different interweaving storylines. Too little, too late.

[QUOTE]What a lot of people are doing is that they are just watching the movie and comparing it to the games.[/quote]
When the movie is called "RESIDENT EVIL," what do you think is going to happen? Gamers are going to be comparing the movie to the games, and I'm going to repeat what I said before to TN:

"If you haven't played the games, go see the movie."

That is precisely what is going on here, and nearly every review will support that. Check out the MSNBC.com review I mentioned earlier. The reviewer knows absolutely nothing about the games, and this is the audience that the movies are going to need to impress, the audience that has no idea what to expect. And even then, the reviewer was not impressed at all, and wrote a very scathing review, so, again, with that need to attract the unenlightened, RE failed, lol.

[quote]Just because he has a good script, doesn't mean the movie will be great, or better than someone elses.[/QUOTE]
The guy is [i]George Romero[/i].

[quote]When you actually take the time to [i]watch[/i] the movie for what it is[/QUOTE]
I am doing that, and what it is is nothing like the games, lol, apart from a tenuous link here and there, but nothing substantial.

I'm taking the time to watch the movie for what it is, and what it is is pure Hollywood, Anderson-commercialized crap that appeals only to those who have no idea what the source franchise is all about. Anderson did the same thing with the Alien and Predator franchises, as well. He totally butchered them, lol.

[Zeta]

I ask you, how on earth, could everything in the games be fit into the movies? You seem to be a stickler on everything being too little of the game.

Mortal Kombat eh? Exactly. One movie, you can't name any others. One movie being close to the game, isn't that big of something to brag about. And again, it is a fighting game. It isn't that hard of a movie to make. It's story was simple. Fight through the "lesser bosses" to get to the big boss. When it comes to movies like Resident Evil and Alien vs. Predator, the stories are more complex. Things have to be left out, things have to be added. Things have to be changed around. Anyone can make a fighting movie like that of Mortal Kombat.

[b]And they are two characters out of what is a Quadrilogy of games, with many different interweaving storylines. Too little, too late.[/b]

Again, I say, that everything cannot be added to the movie. A quadriligoy of games, yes, with many characters. I agree with you there. You cannot fit everything in. You just can't. Even if everything is written in the script, many parts will be cut for time issues, or money problems. Just because Romero has a script going into detail about characters and stuff, does not mean that it would be in it.

People basically see the RE movies [i]for[/i] the action. It is what draws people to movies. Honestly, who wants to watch someone go around looking for a key to open a door? Just because the games are survival horror, doesn't mean the movies [i]can[/i] be that. Now if someone had the money, the time, and the patience to go around a film someone walking around looking for keys and shields, all the power to them. Only the diehard fans would go and see that. Watching stuff like that onscreen is [i]boring[/i]. People want action, and action is what they got.

To go with what you said about the two characters comment again

[b]But on a really small level." And that's not enough.[/b]

That is all that can be really put into movies such as these. You can't have the whole mansion episode leading up to the entrance of the lab. No one wants to see that. They saw it in the game. More could have been done with the mansion, but not to the scale that I seem to be getting from your comments. It would be one long as heck movie had he done that stuff. When movies drag out like that, they only get worse, until an explosive part where it picks up, then dies down again.


EDIT: I just wanted to say, I am not trying to change your own feelings on the movie. I am only point out that the movie does follow the game quite well at parts, just not in the way that we are accustomed(sp) to like in the game.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Oh holy crap, who gives a rat's arse?

Zeta, Siren's right about RE being a poo movie as far as the writing goes. Regardless of what the focus in the film was on, there's no excuse for the paper-thin story or horrid dialogue and acting.

Siren, unless you get $100 for each element in the game that the movie includes, I don't understand why [i]that[/i] is an issue. If a RE movie included only two main characters and had only one boss and the whole movie took place in one mansion, it could still be done well enough to be called a "true RE movie" by the fans and a "good movie" in general. There's no good reason to include each and every element of the game except just for the sake of it. After all, isn't RE Zero pretty much just two people kicking butt on a train (I haven't actually played it)?

In any case, I just want to say that the RE movies, regardless of whether you enjoyed them or not, have some serious problems. BUT, the fact that they left out some of the RE characters/mythos is by far the least of them.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']EDIT: I just wanted to say, I am not trying to change your own feelings on the movie. I am only point out that the movie does follow the game quite well at parts, just not in the way that we are accustomed(sp) to like in the game.[/quote]
I know that, lol. No worries.

[QUOTE]I ask you, how on earth, could everything in the games be fit into the movies? You seem to be a stickler on everything being too little of the game.

Mortal Kombat eh? Exactly. One movie, you can't name any others. One movie being close to the game, isn't that big of something to brag about. And again, it is a fighting game. It isn't that hard of a movie to make. It's story was simple. Fight through the "lesser bosses" to get to the big boss. When it comes to movies like Resident Evil and Alien vs. Predator, the stories are more complex. Things have to be left out, things have to be added. Things have to be changed around. Anyone can make a fighting movie like that of Mortal Kombat.[/QUOTE]
If fighting games are easily made into good video game movies, then what went wrong with Street Fighter? (Everything, lol)

Yes, the stories to RE and AvP are more complex, but complexity doesn't necessarily dictate how good or bad an adaptation will be. It's certainly a factor, but even within the respective franchises of RE, Alien, and Predator, the complexities of each "chapter" of those franchises do not have such a drastic effect on the next chapter.

Just looking at the Alien saga, for example. The original film is a very dense one, with quite a few layers in there, but Cameron is a very skilled writer/director, and he understood the source material, so he was able to create a very logical adaptation of that source material for the sequel.

Alien 3 failed because the writers didn't understand what Cameron was doing in Aliens, and they lacked the skill to make their script work. Same can be said with Resurrection, and the same can be said with the Predator series. The original was awesome, but the sequel just sucked, because they couldn't go anywhere with it.

Clearly, plot complexity, while prevalent in the continuation of a franchise, is not the most significant factor in determining the strength of the continuation. The strength of the writer/director and his or her ability to work with the source material is the sole determining factor, and Anderson is a hack director, lol. Look at what he's done within the course of the summer.

[QUOTE]Again, I say, that everything cannot be added to the movie. A quadriligoy of games, yes, with many characters. I agree with you there. You cannot fit everything in. You just can't. Even if everything is written in the script, many parts will be cut for time issues, or money problems. Just because Romero has a script going into detail about characters and stuff, does not mean that it would be in it.[/QUOTE]
Just because someone can't fit everything in doesn't mean they fit the barest bare minimum that they can. That's not the way effective moviemaking is made, especially if you're doing an adaptation of something. Are you suggesting that just because Anderson is a hack director and lacks the skill to write a cohesive film that is actually based on more than just a few characters, then he is justified in writing an adaptation that really isn't an adaptation at all? Is he then justified in creating a movie loosely inspired by the source material?

The movies aren't anywhere close to the games. They're only loosely inspired by them.

[QUOTE]People basically see the RE movies [i]for[/i] the action.[/QUOTE]
And again, this shows that the RE movies were not intended for actual gamers, instead the target audience was those who haven't played the games, lol. The games had action, yes, but it wasn't about the action itself, more about the [i]suspense[/i] leading up to the action...the anticipation. That's why REmake worked so well: because it still played on the suspense and anticipation.

The games are all about not seeing what's coming after you, and that's not [i]because[/i] of the pre-set camera angles. The pre-set camera angles are designed that way because that (suspense) is the [i]intent[/i] of the game creators.

[QUOTE]It is what draws people to movies. Honestly, who wants to watch someone go around looking for a key to open a door? Just because the games are survival horror, doesn't mean the movies [i]can[/i] be that. Now if someone had the money, the time, and the patience to go around a film someone walking around looking for keys and shields, all the power to them. Only the diehard fans would go and see that. Watching stuff like that onscreen is [i]boring[/i]. People want action, and action is what they got.[/QUOTE]
Would you rather a "Kill everything that moves with my super shotgun/rocket launcher/ray gun" movie, or a "I hear a scraping noise behind the door, but I can't see what it is" movie?

Given the source material, creating a run n' gun flick isn't the way to go, and you don't need someone searching for keys to create suspense.

Think of the OT Wampa Ice Creature versus the Special Edition version. The OT one was far creepier, because we didn't see it, except for a brief close-up when it smacks Luke off the Taunton. All that wonder, mystique, shock, and horror is lost when we see it in the Special Edition, and that's precisely my point here, about RE.

The RE games are like the OT Wampa; the RE movies are like the Special Edition Wampa.

[quote]That is all that can be really put into movies such as these. [b]You can't have the whole mansion episode leading up to the entrance of the lab.[/b] No one wants to see that. They saw it in the game. More could have been done with the mansion, but not to the scale that I seem to be getting from your comments. It would be one long as heck movie had he done that stuff. When movies drag out like that, they only get worse, until an explosive part where it picks up, then dies down again.[/QUOTE]
Watch Night of the Living Dead and you'll change your opinion about how a zombie picture can't take place in one set the entire film. NotLD literally spans one night, in a farmhouse. That's it, and it's one of the scariest films I've ever seen in my life.

[Zeta]

All right, this seems to be going nowhwere. We just keep repeating what we all ready have said, lol. I am going to go with Sciros on this. It's no big deal. We are all entitled to our own opinions and views. Mine is that the movies do follow the games just not in the same straight forwardness, yours is that they don't at all. We can leave it at that, heh.

I have seen Night of the Living Dead. I personally, didn't like it at all.

[XxLinkinParkxX]

Resident Evil, thought it didn't have much to do with the game, its did have a good plot that went with the game and actually opened some big possibilitys for the game story, and as a gamer of the Resident Evil story I loved the first movie.

Now Resident Evil 2, SUCKED it destroyed the characters, and they left out alot of IMPORTANT DETAILS AND CHARACTERS, I mean if you saw it you would understand what i mean, they killed the whole Nemisis story ( if you see the movie you will understand) and they made the characters suck, Jill was kool, the only reason I actually waste my energy even talking aobut it was becuce of her, not only was she extremely beautiful, she was a amazing actor and played the part amazingly, but other then her the movie sucked Alice's character isnt even i nthe game which automaticly birngs the poin of the movie down and second of all, what they did to her like give her super human powers was horrible, and pointless, so if you want to waste your time going to see this be my guest, but take it form me dont see it becuase it sucks!

[Shwa]

I acutally liked the movie a lot, I didn't mind the little flaws though 'casue I was too excited while watching the movie. I've been waiting for them to make a part two for so long it didn't matter. But I do have to admit the whole Alice thing getting super-human powers was a little stupid and you poeple were right saying she doesn't have to do anything with Resident Evil. The Nemesis was right to the marrow with accuracy (I thought) :devil: : He had his Rocket Launcher and he looked like he was suppose to in the game.....although I was expecting him to say "[I]Ssstttaarrrss[/I]" a lot father than once :(. All in all I would give this movie a 9 out of 10, but I can see why people disagree with the movie a lot.

~Laters

[Zeta]

Many don't disagree with it because they were expecting a movie based solely on the games. Which I again repeat I find perposterous. Big whoop Mortal Kombat following the story of the game, it is one movie. Out of all the games that have been made into movies, apparently Mortal Kombat is the one that follows much of the storyline. One! Why should we expect the Resident Evil's to follow it as much as MK did? Resident Evil has a much larger and interesting plot than a fight this guy, win and proceed storyline.

[Meggido]

I always thought that the second film was a mix of both Resident Evil 2 and 3. I've never played the games but i still thought the first movie was sweet. I recently looked at the back of the soundtrack and saw all the gothic bands and fell in love. I'm hoping they play some of those songs in the film. Note: in Australia it hasn't been released yet and will only get an MA rating.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Zeta']Many don't disagree with it because they were expecting a movie based solely on the games. Which I again repeat I find perposterous. Big whoop Mortal Kombat following the story of the game, it is one movie. Out of all the games that have been made into movies, apparently Mortal Kombat is the one that follows much of the storyline. One! Why should we expect the Resident Evil's to follow it as much as MK did? Resident Evil has a much larger and interesting plot than a fight this guy, win and proceed storyline.[/quote]

How the heck did Mortal Kombat even make it into this thread? It's one of the crappiest films ever made, heh. And Annihilation... ugh, I don't even want to think about it.

MK followed a plot which could be summarized in two sentences. That's not really an accomplishment by any standard.

"Following a storyline" is often wholly unnecessary. X-2 didn't follow much of any X-men story arc, yet it was very well-executed and remained a quality "comic book" film. Something like Legend of Zelda, if made into a movie, would NEED a (new) cohesive storyline. The same goes for plotless Metroid.

The Resident Evil films failed in a good number of respects as far as I'm concerned. But as someone who hasn't played through a single RE game, believe me it's not the "lack of recognizeable game elements" that ruined the movie for me, heh. If you ask me they threw a bit too many random game elements in there which really weren't developed enough to justify being added.

Movies are standalone; they're not supposed to be direct adaptations of other media, mainly because there's not enough time to tell as developed and "rich" a story as a book or tv series or video game might. There's no reason to expect a film version of Metroid to be nearly plotless running-and-shooting-doors-then-rolling-around for two hours, is there?