Resident Evil 2

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']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.[/quote]
Actually, given the [i]other[/i] video game movie adaptations, and generally, other films released that year, MK was quite good. The writing was there, the pacing was there, the locales and aesthetics were stunning, and the actors did precisely what they needed to do. Plus, Christopher Lambert of Highlander playing what he does best: the mythical warrior. Linden Ashby captured the flair and arrogance of the movie star very well, and how could you have a problem with Trevor Goddard as Kano? He was perfectly cast, and he [i]nailed[/i] that character. As much as I would have loved to see Shang Tsung as the ancient and elderly, dry, bony sorcerer from the game, I think Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa handled the translation quite well.

[QUOTE]"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.[/QUOTE]
But, keep in mind, that MK and X-men do not have the same source material. X-men is a comic book, and MK is a video game franchise. Yes, both have bled into various mediums, but the origins don't change, and the source materials don't change. X-2 isn't a suitable comparison point, simply because it's an entirely different type of adaptation. And quite honestly, X-2's plot was abysmal.

The writing was dreadful. I mean, how many times do we need to see a joke about Wolverine's claws? Haven't we had enough of Backstreet Boys by 2003? "Stryker. His name is Stryker." What is that, lol. Let's not forget the cliche-ridden exchanges between Iceman and Rogue that attempt to take themselves seriously, and, let's face it. Even Alan Cumming couldn't make that "Faith" dialogue work. Considering, also, that at least a quarter of that script could have been excised right away (the movie is about 30 minutes too long, by the way, to be able to sustain the picture), I don't think X-2 is the great film you think it is.

[QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
How about the RE films failed in every aspect? They were just clumsily-conceived, clumsily-written, and clumsily-executed adaptations written by a hack director.

[quote]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?[/QUOTE]
I believe your "Plotless Metroid" complaints were answered in another thread, but I'll just re-iterate here. The plot is there in Metroid if you're willing to explore, and it's a very good, well-developed plot, as well, and given the right writer/director, would work quite well. I think Ridley Scott could handle it, actually. I envision a Metroid movie to be similar in some ways to Alien.

And, movies are not stand-alone, especially when they're based on video games. Just because there are RE movies being made doesn't mean they can ignore the source material, and that doesn't mean they're going to be able to stand-alone, especially given how the RE movies turned out. That's just how things work.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren]Actually, given the [i]other[/i'] video game movie adaptations, and generally, other films released that year, MK was quite good.[/quote]
I'm not sure I like any video game adaptations besides Street Fighter and Mario Bros., if only because they're both really funny. Street Fighter especially is hilarious: "your *** is six months overdue, and it's mine!" lol

[QUOTE]But, keep in mind, that MK and X-men do not have the same source material. X-men is a comic book, and MK is a video game franchise. Yes, both have bled into various mediums, but the origins don't change, and the source materials don't change. X-2 isn't a suitable comparison...[/QUOTE]
All I'm comparing is that you don't need to mirror the plot of the source material to have a good adaptation (and I think X-2 was good, which is why I brought it up to make my point). I guess I don't care if you dislike the film, and it's not an X-Men thread anyway.

[QUOTE]How about the RE films failed in every aspect? They were just clumsily-conceived, clumsily-written, and clumsily-executed adaptations written by a hack director.[/QUOTE]
It didn't fail in the "include a generic yet nonsensical black comic relief character" aspect. It also didn't fail in the "give the main bad guy a cool chain gun" aspect.

[QUOTE]I believe your "Plotless Metroid" complaints were answered in another thread, but I'll just re-iterate here. The plot is there in Metroid if you're willing to explore, and it's a very good, well-developed plot, as well, and given the right writer/director, would work quite well. I think Ridley Scott could handle it, actually. I envision a Metroid movie to be similar in some ways to Alien.[/QUOTE]
Well, the game isn't story driven in the least. Not any more so than any fighting game, even. Sure, you can scan stuff and find out the history behind everything, but ultimately that's not something you can transfer to the screen and have it stand, because there's no character interaction/development. The game hinges on its exploration/action aspects, not at all on its story. If I was to make a Metroid film, I'd personally start almost from scratch in terms of story.

[QUOTE]And, movies are not stand-alone, especially when they're based on video games. Just because there are RE movies being made doesn't mean they can ignore the source material, and that doesn't mean they're going to be able to stand-alone, especially given how the RE movies turned out. That's just how things work.[/QUOTE]
Movies HAVE to be standalone, because otherwise they'd REQUIRE familiarity with the source material (that's what standalone means). And movies should require no such thing. It's not necessarily respectful to the source material to ignore it, but if certain modifications (even large ones) have to be made in the name of "quality filmmaking" that's fine. I'm a huge Batman fan, and I don't like even what little changes they're making in Batman Begins as far as the mythos is concerned, but if the film is still GOOD on its own, I won't really complain.
An example of a film that's NOT standalone is Ah! My Goddess, the movie. That thing is boring as heck unless you're familiar with the characters, because there's barely any development of any secondary ones in it. The same is true of Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. I watched it before watching the series, and basically wanted 2 hours of my life back.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']I'm not sure I like any video game adaptations besides Street Fighter and Mario Bros., if only because they're both really funny. Street Fighter especially is hilarious: "your *** is six months overdue, and it's mine!" lol[/quote]
And those two fall into the "so bad they're good" bin. MK, on the other hand, was well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. It was a solid adaptation.

[QUOTE]All I'm comparing is that you don't need to mirror the plot of the source material to have a good adaptation (and I think X-2 was good, which is why I brought it up to make my point). I guess I don't care if you dislike the film, and it's not an X-Men thread anyway.[/QUOTE]
But when the source material is in an entirely different genre, entirely different medium, comparing the two isn't appropriate, because you're essentially comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both adaptations, but they're adapted from radically different sources, sources whose very natures (characters, ideas, plot, settings, etc) are like black and white to each other.

As for X-2, surely you could admit the writing could have been way better, and that the movie was too long for what it ultimately wanted to do (The Phoenix Saga). It really suffered from so many characters being in there. They tried developing everything, but it just spread too thin, and we never felt for any of the characters. Oddly enough, the only two characters I was interested in were Magneto and Pyro, and Pyro had minimal screentime.

[QUOTE]It didn't fail in the "include a generic yet nonsensical black comic relief character" aspect. It also didn't fail in the "give the main bad guy a cool chain gun" aspect.[/QUOTE]
But for the purposes of the movie, those "aspects" are accidental. They're really only cliche holes that the movie fell into.

[QUOTE]Well, the game isn't story driven in the least. Not any more so than any fighting game, even. Sure, you can scan stuff and find out the history behind everything, but ultimately that's not something you can transfer to the screen and have it stand, because there's no character interaction/development. The game hinges on its exploration/action aspects, not at all on its story. If I was to make a Metroid film, I'd personally start almost from scratch in terms of story.[/QUOTE]
The game is story-driven, though. You could barrel through the game and fight Prime at the end, but you would have no idea of why it was there if you didn't read the Pirate Data in the various terminals. I've studied screenwriting for a few years now, and have attended workshops taught by industry professionals, and bringing Metroid to the big screen, with the Metroid mythos intact, would not be difficult.

Just consider Alien to be the blueprint for Metroid. Come to think of it, there is actually speculation that it was an inspiration for the game. Alien's pacing and such is very similar to Metroid, and when you consider the characters, it's certainly not impossible to alter the Alien-type film for Metroid. It'd work quite well, actually, and there's no need to start from scratch regarding plot, because the plots are fairly similar.

More and more, I'm thinking Ridley Scott could do that.

[quote]Movies HAVE to be standalone, because otherwise they'd REQUIRE familiarity with the source material (that's what standalone means). And movies should require no such thing. It's not necessarily respectful to the source material to ignore it, but if certain modifications (even large ones) have to be made in the name of "quality filmmaking" that's fine. I'm a huge Batman fan, and I don't like even what little changes they're making in Batman Begins as far as the mythos is concerned, but if the film is still GOOD on its own, I won't really complain.
An example of a film that's NOT standalone is Ah! My Goddess, the movie. That thing is boring as heck unless you're familiar with the characters, because there's barely any development of any secondary ones in it. The same is true of Cowboy Bebop: The Movie. I watched it before watching the series, and basically wanted 2 hours of my life back.[/QUOTE]
We're not talking about every movie ever made. We're talking about video game movie adaptations, which should never be intended to be stand-alone. The very notion of a video game adaptation is that you're building off the games themselves, using characters and settings. RE collapsed because it didn't do that, and tried to be stand-alone. Clearly, video game adaptations must have coherency to the source material. Otherwise, they're just as well titled something entirely unrelated to the source material.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']And those two fall into the "so bad they're good" bin. MK, on the other hand, was well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. It was a solid adaptation.[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Well-acted, well-written, and well-directed? Lol, we shouldn't be discussing films. We clash too much. I think MK is utter crap. I think X-2 is well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. You adore the Matrix trilogy. I want my $20 and 8 hours of my life back. Maybe we should discuss something neutral, like Japanese, lol.

[QUOTE]But when the source material is in an entirely different genre, entirely different medium, comparing the two isn't appropriate, because you're essentially comparing apples and oranges. Yes, they're both adaptations, but they're adapted from radically different sources, sources whose very natures (characters, ideas, plot, settings, etc) are like black and white to each other.[/QUOTE]
I don't agree, but whatever. There's no point in arguing this because nobody's gonna get anywhere.

[QUOTE]But for the purposes of the movie, those "aspects" are accidental. They're really only cliche holes that the movie fell into.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke.

[QUOTE]The game is story-driven, though. You could barrel through the game and fight Prime at the end, but you would have no idea of why it was there if you didn't read the Pirate Data in the various terminals.[/QUOTE]
The gameplay is not affected by the story. From a game design perspective, the "story" in MP could have been 100000 different things and nothing would've had to be changed in terms of level design or anything for that matter.

[QUOTE]I've studied screenwriting for a few years now, and have attended workshops taught by industry professionals, and bringing Metroid to the big screen, with the Metroid mythos intact, would not be difficult.[/QUOTE]
Because it's so shallow, is why.

[QUOTE]Just consider Alien to be the blueprint for Metroid. Come to think of it, there is actually speculation that it was an inspiration for the game. Alien's pacing and such is very similar to Metroid, and when you consider the characters, it's certainly not impossible to alter the Alien-type film for Metroid. It'd work quite well, actually, and there's no need to start from scratch regarding plot, because the plots are fairly similar.[/QUOTE]
Alien had character interaction, which is the only thing that kept the film afloat during the first half. Metroid would need to have that ADDED if you want to keep me awake. Actually, I disagree altogether that Metroid and Alien are paced similarly. Alien was a slow suspense horror, whereas Metroid has less suspense than Ocarina of Time. That game is spoon-fed to you from beginning to end.

[QUOTE]More and more, I'm thinking Ridley Scott could do that.[/QUOTE]
Ridley Scott is good enough to do a lot of stuff. But in keeping characters consistent, he'd need some supervision. Gladiator,...ugh...

[QUOTE]We're not talking about every movie ever made. We're talking about video game movie adaptations, which should never be intended to be stand-alone. The very notion of a video game adaptation is that you're building off the games themselves, using characters and settings. RE collapsed because it didn't do that, and tried to be stand-alone. Clearly, video game adaptations must have coherency to the source material. Otherwise, they're just as well titled something entirely unrelated to the source material.[/QUOTE]
A story arc or secondary characters is not something that absolutely needs to tranferred over to the big screen intact. Incorporating some elements from the source doesn't stop a film from being standalone. With Resident Evil especially, there's very little that HAS to be preserved to keep it a legitimate RE game, because the setting is almost irrelevant. You just need to keep Umbrella the bad guys, the T virus the source of the problem, and a couple of main characters. That and monsters. All the rest can be brand-spanking new.
It's totally possible to keep a lot of source material intact and make a standalone film. The only thing that stands in the way of a film NOT needing the source material as a supplement to maintaint coherency is the talent of the screenwriter.
What's hilarious is that Square's new Final Fantasy movie is NOT standalone at all, and of all the game series that certainly don't need to have anything transferred to the big screen, FF is the most prominent example. There's only been one game with an actual sequel in the history of the series (X, X-2), and all the other stories are unrelated. Cid, gil, effeminate male leads, and stupid spell names like blizzara or whatever, are the only things the games have in common. But that's a different subject.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. Well-acted, well-written, and well-directed? Lol, we shouldn't be discussing films. We clash too much. I think MK is utter crap. I think X-2 is well-acted, well-written, and well-directed. You adore the Matrix trilogy. I want my $20 and 8 hours of my life back. Maybe we should discuss something neutral, like Japanese, lol.[/quote]
Yes. There was nothing glaringly wrong about the first MK movie. It's a tight film. There's no wasted dialogue, there's no wasted movement, and the camerawork is effective as hell. MK is a very tightly constructed movie. X-2 was horrid. It sat on itself. The dialogue, pacing, acting, etc, were all incredibly turgid. The Matrix Trilogy is a great set of films, and just from the fact I can damn well prove that Captain Ahab is in it (and has a very prominent lead role, I might add), that shows the films aren't as shallow as people think.

I drew out a lot of little subtle things--some incredibly minute details and comparison points that many, many viewers don't and didn't pick up on. Just the Pagan leopards and the inhabitants of the Matrix, or the "speechless, placeless power" that is bestowed upon both Ahab and Smith, Smith's hellfire form and Ahab's address to the flames...these are things that you don't find in everyday, run-of-the-mill, average science fiction cinema.

But I like Chinese, just like Eric Idle.

[QUOTE]I don't agree, but whatever. There's no point in arguing this because nobody's gonna get anywhere.[/QUOTE]
You're comparing two entirely different types of story. Two different [i]genres[/i]. You simply can't compare them on any reasonable level. They're both adaptations. That's the only similarity, and one similarity isn't enough on which to build a comparison.

[QUOTE]It was a joke.[/QUOTE]
Yeah...but that doesn't mean I was required to treat it as such.

[QUOTE]The gameplay is not affected by the story. From a game design perspective, the "story" in MP could have been 100000 different things and nothing would've had to be changed in terms of level design or anything for that matter.

Because it's so shallow, is why.

Alien had character interaction, which is the only thing that kept the film afloat during the first half. Metroid would need to have that ADDED if you want to keep me awake. Actually, I disagree altogether that Metroid and Alien are paced similarly. Alien was a slow suspense horror, whereas Metroid has less suspense than Ocarina of Time. That game is spoon-fed to you from beginning to end.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the gameplay. I'm talking about the game itself, and the game itself [i]is[/i] story-driven. Without Ridley escaping down to Tallon IV, there would be no objective at first. Getting to Ridley isn't that easy, because the target was lost, so you're going to need to land and go exploring.

As it turns out, you're going to run into some unfriendlies in your travels, who have been tampering with a dangerous substance in an attempt to strengthen their armies so they can take over more planets. As you explore their base, you find notes and memorandum of various experiments, and documentation of a creature known as Metroid Prime.

It seems to pose a threat to the safety of the galaxy, so you set out to destroy it.

How is the game not story-driven?

And the pacing of both vehicles is closer than you may think. If you were to examine the major plot-points of Alien, and compare them against the plot-points of Metroid Prime, you'll find they synch-up quite well, especially in their respective times.

[QUOTE]Ridley Scott is good enough to do a lot of stuff. But in keeping characters consistent, he'd need some supervision. Gladiator,...ugh...[/QUOTE]
Alien.

[quote]A story arc or secondary characters is not something that absolutely needs to tranferred over to the big screen intact. Incorporating some elements from the source doesn't stop a film from being standalone. With Resident Evil especially, there's very little that HAS to be preserved to keep it a legitimate RE game, because the setting is almost irrelevant. You just need to keep Umbrella the bad guys, the T virus the source of the problem, and a couple of main characters. That and monsters. All the rest can be brand-spanking new.
It's totally possible to keep a lot of source material intact and make a standalone film. The only thing that stands in the way of a film NOT needing the source material as a supplement to maintaint coherency is the talent of the screenwriter.[/QUOTE]
But look at the market reaction to RE:Apocalypse. Critics who knew nothing about the games hated the movies. Gamers hated the movies. RE:Apocalypse was clearly not a stand-alone film, because it failed so miserably when it was treated as a stand-alone.

One of the biggest problems with the RE movies is the fact that the entire motif of the games, "Survival horror" (this is where George Romeo is amazing), isn't even present at all. The games were all about Night of the Living Dead. RE:A is more James Bond with Zombies. You can go and make an RE game with Umbrella, the T-Virus, and a few main characters, but if you make it some outlandish and absurd explosion-driven game, you're not really adhering to the other games.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']But I like Chinese, just like Eric Idle.[/quote]
Heh. They're both languages as far as I'm concerned. I guess Japanese might be better for singing, as it's more vocal, but other than that...

[QUOTE]You're comparing two entirely different types of story. Two different [i]genres[/i]. You simply can't compare them on any reasonable level. They're both adaptations. That's the only similarity, and one similarity isn't enough on which to build a comparison.[/QUOTE]
That they're adaptations is all that was being compared, however. In my point, genre was irrelevant, as was the source medium. It's a question of preserving the story line, and a story line is a story line regardless of whether it's written or spoken, and at whatever pace. To discount the comparison because the source media and genres are different is to miss the point.

[QUOTE]Yeah...but that doesn't mean I was required to treat it as such.[/QUOTE]
I guess not, no. Not if you don't mind seeming devoid of a sense of humor. Jeez, I can't even make [i]fun[/i] of bad movies when talking to you...

[QUOTE]I'm not talking about the gameplay. I'm talking about the game itself, and the game itself [i]is[/i] story-driven. Without Ridley escaping down to Tallon IV, there would be no objective at first. Getting to Ridley isn't that easy, because the target was lost, so you're going to need to land and go exploring...
...How is the game not story-driven?[/QUOTE]
The game itself == the gameplay. Your "objective" in the game is to fight evil bees and spiky blobs and expand your missile carrying capacity, essentially. The fragment I quoted above wasn't even [i]part[/i] of the game, lol. And the rest of what you said is ever so generic and basic that it can hardly qualify as an actual "story." Seriously, say what you will, but Metroid is NOT a story-driven game, especially as far as the whole of gaming is concerned. To say it's story-driven, you have to show that your actions in the game are dictated by plot progression rather than the direction of the next turn in the tunnel you're rolling through.
Sure, compared to Gradius, Metroid might be almost twice as story-driven, heh, but that's about all the credit it's due.

[QUOTE]Alien.[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind, I rather look at the more recent works of a director. If Lucas decides to direct another movie sometime, I will anticipate it being major suckage because while the original SW trilogy is cool, the new one is pure cheese. And I'm not too thrilled with Spielberg's last run of films, either, and am nervous about Indy 4 as a result.

[QUOTE]But look at the market reaction to RE:Apocalypse. Critics who knew nothing about the games hated the movies. Gamers hated the movies. RE:Apocalypse was clearly not a stand-alone film, because it failed so miserably when it was treated as a stand-alone.[/QUOTE]
Is there a major typo there? Because your argument would only hold if gamers LIKED the movies. As it stands there's no indication of anything because you say the movie was disliked by BOTH people who knew the games and people who didn't. So RE:Apocalypse was NOT "clearly not a stand-alone film," heh, [i]because[/i] you say it failed miserably when treated as non-standalone as well.

[QUOTE]One of the biggest problems with the RE movies is the fact that the entire motif of the games, "Survival horror" (this is where George Romeo is amazing), isn't even present at all. The games were all about Night of the Living Dead. RE:A is more James Bond with Zombies. You can go and make an RE game with Umbrella, the T-Virus, and a few main characters, but if you make it some outlandish and absurd explosion-driven game, you're not really adhering to the other games.[/QUOTE]
If the movies were pure action but were done WELL as action films, I would have had NO PROBLEM with them at all. But I wasn't saying that once you have Umbrella/T-Virus/main characters you're free to do a gay porno and slap a "RE" title onto it. I just meant that you're not restricted to doing already-written story arcs. RE gives you a lot of freedom because its various games are not so interconnected or developed that you MUST preserve the stories.

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Heh. They're both languages as far as I'm concerned. I guess Japanese might be better for singing, as it's more vocal, but other than that...[/quote]
I was talking about the people themselves, and I like Chinese because they're cute and they're cuddly and they're ready to please.

[QUOTE]That they're adaptations is all that was being compared, however. In my point, genre was irrelevant, as was the source medium. It's a question of preserving the story line, and a story line is a story line regardless of whether it's written or spoken, and at whatever pace. To discount the comparison because the source media and genres are different is to miss the point.[/QUOTE]
A story-line in a spoken form is actually quite different from written form. When someone is writing a story, they're paying close attention to coherency, and they cut portions that don't add to the story, and don't drive the plot forward. Spoken, however, like the old bards, and even today, when someone is on stage improvising, that story-line will vary on the fly, because unlike writing, speaking is often extemporaneous, and story-telling is no different.

Yes, there are rehearsed performances and so forth, but the rehearsed performance is still structured and guided by a written story.

In actual spoken story-telling, like improvisation, the story-line is a totally different story-line than written, because it's a fractured presentation, a non-linear one, if you will.

This is basic Literary/Linguistic theory.

And you're implying here that all adaptations of any type of source material are able to do the same things, or are all on the same level, when, clearly, that is not the case. I'd actually use The Thing as an example. If you were to see Howard Hawks' The Thing From Another World (1951), then see John Carpenter's remake in 1982, you would figure that Carpenter totally skewed Hawks' version, and distorted it beyond recognition.

However, if you were to read Who Goes There by John Campbell, published in 1938, I believe, you would see that Carpenter's remake actually adheres precisely to the original short novella, and Hawks' version totally distorts it.

This is an example of the exact same source material (the same work) having two different adaptations of it. Even with the same source material, adaptations differ radically, so how are you able to say that all adaptations should behave in the same way? How are you able to suggest that...a storyline is a storyline, when, clearly, the Hawks adaptation to Who Goes There was incredibly different to Carpenter's adaptation?

To compare adaptations simply because they're adaptations is missing the point. You're comparing radically different materials here, materials that have radically different intents, radically different points and commentaries.

What you're doing here is akin to comparing Day The Earth Stood Still and The Thing, and saying they're able to be compared simply because they're both science-fiction films. But if you were to actually study them, you'd find that comparisons between the two are nearly entirely moot, because they possess entirely different outlooks, objectives, and motivations. I'm not talking about the plots themselves, either. The actual intents of the filmmakers was radically different.

This is the same thing with X-men and Mortal Kombat. The source materials have an entirely different focus, and their story-lines (both actual plot and focus) are apples and oranges.

You want to compare the two simply because they're adaptations, fine, but your comparison is a totally broken one, because you're failing to consider the finer details, just like your Metroid Prime vs Halo comparison.

Also, quote me fully, please. You chopped off an entire sentence from the paragraph I just quoted, and tried to build a rebuttal point off of something taken out of context.

[quote name='Siren']But, keep in mind, that MK and X-men do not have the same source material. X-men is a comic book, and MK is a video game franchise. Yes, both have bled into various mediums, but the origins don't change, and the source materials don't change. X-2 isn't a suitable comparison point, simply because it's an entirely different type of adaptation.[/quote]
[QUOTE]I guess not, no. Not if you don't mind seeming devoid of a sense of humor. Jeez, I can't even make [i]fun[/i] of bad movies when talking to you...[/QUOTE]
Oh, I have a sense of humor, just not here.

[QUOTE]The game itself == the gameplay.[/QUOTE]
No. The game itself = the entire game. The gameplay = how you get from Point A to Point B. They're not the same.

[quote]Your "objective" in the game is to fight evil bees and spiky blobs and expand your missile carrying capacity, essentially.[/quote]
If that were the essential objective, there wouldn't be anything else other than that. There would be no Magmoor Caverns; there would be no Phazon Mines. There would be no Impact Crater. You're viewing it in an incredibly simplistic fashion.

[QUOTE]The fragment I quoted above wasn't even [i]part[/i] of the game, lol.[/QUOTE]
The introductions don't count as part of the game anymore? As I recall, the "Game" was the entire thing. The "Gameplay" was what you've been referring to.

[QUOTE]And the rest of what you said is ever so generic and basic that it can hardly qualify as an actual "story."[/QUOTE]
Okay, then Halo's story is more generic and basic than you've claimed. I'm not going to drag this off-topic, but just keep in mind that Halo's story was about as cliche-ridden, dumbed-down and simplistic as you can get, and that's without simplifying it, either, like I did with Metroid Prime's story. Prime's story has depth; you just refused to explore it. Don't let your preconceived notions of gaming dictate what the game and its story really are.

[QUOTE]Seriously, say what you will, but Metroid is NOT a story-driven game, especially as far as the whole of gaming is concerned. To say it's story-driven, you have to show that your actions in the game are dictated by plot progression [b]rather than the direction of the next turn in the tunnel you're rolling through[/b].[/QUOTE]
Right...I do believe that's the most simple thing you've said today, no offense. You're very determined to minimize Metroid Prime's story, aren't you? Even willing to go to those lengths of...misinterpretation?

Prime is story-driven. As much as you may hate its story, it is story-driven. The plot becomes more complex as you go through the game; there are revelations regarding particular events, characters, and locales. There is a backstory to Tallon IV. The game is story-driven.

[QUOTE]Sure, compared to Gradius, Metroid might be almost twice as story-driven, heh, but that's about all the credit it's due.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it possible you're just trying to stay in your bubble?

[QUOTE]If you don't mind, I rather look at the more recent works of a director. If Lucas decides to direct another movie sometime, I will anticipate it being major suckage because while the original SW trilogy is cool, the new one is pure cheese. And I'm not too thrilled with Spielberg's last run of films, either, and am nervous about Indy 4 as a result.[/QUOTE]
Very well then. Do explain how Gladiator's characters were inconsistent throughout the film, please? Their characterizations are pretty solid throughout; there are no continuity gaps I can detect in terms of character location/costuming. The Emperor remains a sneaky bastard up until the very end, when he dies. The sister remains honorable. Maximus is always determined to get revenge. What am I missing here?

[QUOTE]Is there a major typo there? Because your argument would only hold if gamers LIKED the movies. As it stands there's no indication of anything because you say the movie was disliked by BOTH people who knew the games and people who didn't. So RE:Apocalypse was NOT "clearly not a stand-alone film," heh, [i]because[/i] you say it failed miserably when treated as non-standalone as well.[/QUOTE]
First, I think you should look at what I was responding to:

[quote=Sciros]A story arc or secondary characters is not something that absolutely needs to tranferred over to the big screen intact. Incorporating some elements from the source doesn't stop a film from being standalone. With Resident Evil especially, there's very little that HAS to be preserved to keep it a legitimate RE game, because the setting is almost irrelevant.You just need to keep Umbrella the bad guys, the T virus the source of the problem, and a couple of main characters. That and monsters. All the rest can be brand-spanking new.

It's totally possible to keep a lot of source material intact and make a standalone film. The only thing that stands in the way of a film NOT needing the source material as a supplement to maintaint coherency is the talent of the screenwriter.[/quote]
You were saying that an adaptation does not need to adhere to the story arc. You were saying that with RE especially, you don't need every single character and setting to make a worthwhile movie. You were saying that you don't need much from the source material to make it a stand-alone film. You were using RE as your major support point there, because the RE game series is apparently simple. Then you mention how the only thing holding an loose adaptation back is if there is a hack screenwriter.

Firstly, I honestly don't think poor writing was the only reason the RE movie tanked. Now, let's see my reply:

[quote name='Siren']But look at the market reaction to RE:Apocalypse. Critics who knew nothing about the games hated the movies. Gamers hated the movies. RE:Apocalypse was clearly not a stand-alone film, because it failed so miserably when it was treated as a stand-alone.[/quote]
Now, let's see what your rebuttal was:

[quote name='Sciros]Is there a major typo there? Because your argument would only hold if gamers LIKED the movies. As it stands there's no indication of anything because you say the movie was disliked by BOTH people who knew the games and people who didn't. So RE:Apocalypse was NOT "clearly not a stand-alone film," heh, [i]because[/i'] you say it failed miserably when treated as non-standalone as well.[/quote]
I find it humorous that simply because I say RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," based on the uninitiated reviews, you immediately think there's some contradiction there when I mention how gamers hated the movie as well, and you believe I'm treating RE:A as...relevant to the games themselves (read: "non-stand-alone"), simply because gamers hated it?

Could it be possible that the reason I said RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," was because outside reviewers hated it, and at the same time, gamers hated it because it didn't adhere enough to the game franchise itself?

There's no contradiction here. RE:A was a piss-poor stand-alone movie, and at the same time, it didn't follow the source material enough to be a non-stand-alone. It's in Limbo...Cinematic Purgatory, if you will.

[quote]If the movies were pure action but were done WELL as action films, I would have had NO PROBLEM with them at all. But I wasn't saying that once you have Umbrella/T-Virus/main characters you're free to do a gay porno and slap a "RE" title onto it. I just meant that you're not restricted to doing already-written story arcs. RE gives you a lot of freedom because its various games are not so interconnected or developed that you MUST preserve the stories.[/QUOTE]
Am I to understand that you're implying the movies were somehow side-stories to the actual games? A side-story that opens in the [i]mansion[/i]? A side-story whose "Raccoon City" looks nothing like the Raccoon City of the games? Perhaps it's just me, but I don't recall seeing any skyscrapers, office buildings, etc, in the games.

I don't think you're proving any point here, because...the RE movies are essentially bastard step-children of the original premise of "survival horror" that was ultimately discarded for the "better" "explosion" movie.

C'mon, lol.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Siren']I was talking about the people themselves, and I like Chinese because they're cute and they're cuddly and they're ready to please.[/quote]
???

[QUOTE]To compare adaptations simply because they're adaptations is missing the point...(that's all I'm going to quote; if you're so concerned about being quoted "out of context," it's all immediately above my post for people to read should they care to)[/QUOTE]
The comparison was limited to the question of preserving an already existing story arc. (I invite you to reread the post where I first mentioned X-Men.) That's all I brought in X-Men for. X-Men has multiple story lines, and yet a new one was written, still preserving the "X-Men-ness" of the film. Why did it still work? Because the story arcs aren't a pillar of foundation for the X-Men universe. The movie makes this quite clear.
RE games have multiple story lines and yet a new one was written for the films. My apparently subtle point was that it was possible, as with X-Men (this here was the limit of the comparison, really), to preserve the "RE-ness" of the source material with an entirely original plot (the games have a somewhat random plot every time themselves). It simply wasn't carried out.

[QUOTE]Oh, I have a sense of humor, just not here.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I can see how solemn of a practice this is for you, this posting on Otakuboards. Much like war, there's nothing funny about it. But you know, I just try to lighten the mood. It relieves tension in this stressful hour. It's my way of coping.

[QUOTE]No. The game itself = the entire game. The gameplay = how you get from Point A to Point B. They're not the same.[/QUOTE]
Metroid is 99% "getting from point A to point B." If it weren't for the gameplay, there'd be nothing left.

[QUOTE]If that were the essential objective, there wouldn't be anything else other than that. There would be no Magmoor Caverns; there would be no Phazon Mines. There would be no Impact Crater. You're viewing it in an incredibly simplistic fashion.[/QUOTE]
You simply added the locations in which you fight evil bees and expand your missile-carrying capacity, lol.

[QUOTE]The introductions don't count as part of the game anymore? As I recall, the "Game" was the entire thing. The "Gameplay" was what you've been referring to.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, yes, I must concede this. You are right, that was part of the game, and was actually a third of what you wrote in describing the storyline. Yes, a third is in the introduction, an introduction that takes about a minute of your time to watch. ...How CAN you legitimately count that as much of the storyline? How does that add to the game being story-driven? There's more of an introduction in the Killer Instinct instruction manual, for crying out loud.

[QUOTE]Okay, then Halo's story is more generic and basic than you've claimed. I'm not going to drag this off-topic, but just keep in mind that Halo's story was about as cliche-ridden, dumbed-down and simplistic as you can get, and that's without simplifying it, either, like I did with Metroid Prime's story. Prime's story has depth; you just refused to explore it. Don't let your preconceived notions of gaming dictate what the game and its story really are.[/QUOTE]
Nice job trying to "not change" the subject. At least Halo's characters adjusted to a changing plot. But I'm not claiming it's story-driven, because it's not. Morrowind, that's story driven. Metroid's story is static. The fact that you do the exact same stuff in the game regardless of whether you know the character's motivation behind it or not actually proves that. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of story-driven before you can discuss what does and what does not fall into that category.

[QUOTE]Right...I do believe that's the most simple thing you've said today, no offense. You're very determined to minimize Metroid Prime's story, aren't you? Even willing to go to those lengths of...misinterpretation?[/QUOTE]
Metroid's story is the very definition of minimal. No misinterpretation required.

[QUOTE]Prime is story-driven. As much as you may hate its story, it is story-driven. The plot becomes more complex as you go through the game; there are revelations regarding particular events, characters, and locales. There is a backstory to Tallon IV. The game is story-driven.[/QUOTE]
A backstory doesn't drive the game. A progressive plot does. If your character is reactive to the story, and more importantly if YOU are, then the game becomes story-driven. Knights of the Old Republic, that's truly story-driven. I'm sure you'll at least agree there. Metroid Prime is NOT.

[QUOTE]Very well then. Do explain how Gladiator's characters were inconsistent throughout the film, please? Their characterizations are pretty solid throughout; there are no continuity gaps I can detect in terms of character location/costuming. The Emperor remains a sneaky bastard up until the very end, when he dies. The sister remains honorable. Maximus is always determined to get revenge. What am I missing here?[/QUOTE]
Well, just thinking off the top of my head, there was Maximus's supposed devotion to his dead wife/child, and how in the end the point is that he is finally reunited with them, but in the middle of the film he totally tries to get into Lucila's (sp) pants. That's a pretty big deal. ...But the film has problems besides that.

[QUOTE]I find it humorous that simply because I say RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," based on the uninitiated reviews, you immediately think there's some contradiction there when I mention how gamers hated the movie as well, and you believe I'm treating RE:A as...relevant to the games themselves (read: "non-stand-alone"), simply because gamers hated it?[/QUOTE]
Think about how you presented your information. You said, essentially: the film was hated when treated as stand-alone. The film was hated when treated as non-stand-alone. It is therefore clearly not-stand-alone.
There's a HUGE flaw to the logical flow there. I don't understand how you're missing it.

[QUOTE]Could it be possible that the reason I said RE:A was "clearly not a stand-alone film," was because outside reviewers hated it, and at the same time, gamers hated it because it didn't adhere enough to the game franchise itself?[/QUOTE]
Again, the lack of logic. Just because outside reviewers hate a film doesn't mean it's not stand-alone. It just means outside reviewers hated it. It honestly doesn't even necessarily mean it's a bad film (although in this case it is). In fact I'm not sure RE:A [i]isn't[/i] a stand-alone film, to be honest. It was carried out so poorly overall that lack of plot or character development can't be attributed to lack of source material preservation so much as just horrible writing/directing.

[QUOTE]There's no contradiction here. RE:A was a piss-poor stand-alone movie, and at the same time, it didn't follow the source material enough to be a non-stand-alone. It's in Limbo...Cinematic Purgatory, if you will.[/QUOTE]
No contradiction, but no affirmation either, as far as the point discussed above is concerned. I hope you realize it by now.

[QUOTE]I don't think you're proving any point here, because...the RE movies are essentially bastard step-children of the original premise of "survival horror" that was ultimately discarded for the "better" "explosion" movie.[/QUOTE]
My point from the get-go was that you don't need to preserve a story-arc from the games to make a good Resident Evil movie. Do you disagree or something?

[Zeta]

Uhhh....the Halo story is anything but a generic story, lol.

[url]http://halo.bungie.org/[/url]

Click on the Halo Story link and you will see it is anything but a generic story, lol.

Just as you said for Metroid, you have to explore for the story, it is the same with Halo, lol.

Now that I read back through this post, I realize that Sciros is saying what I have been trying to say, I just failed miserably. I completey agree wtih this idea on the "RE-ness" of the film. How does it not have that feel? Raccoon City, Nemesis, Umbrella...It is all there, just not in the same straight forwardness of the game. Personally, I wouldn't want to see the exact game into the movie. Whenever a game has been produced into a movie, not once have I went in hoping it was the same as the game. It gets repetive i n my mind

[Brasil]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']???[/quote]I said, "just like Eric Idle" a few posts ago. Think about it.

[QUOTE]The comparison was limited to the question of preserving an already existing story arc. (I invite you to reread the post where I first mentioned X-Men.) That's all I brought in X-Men for. X-Men has multiple story lines, and yet a new one was written, still preserving the "X-Men-ness" of the film. Why did it still work? Because the story arcs aren't a pillar of foundation for the X-Men universe. The movie makes this quite clear.[/QUOTE]Again, X-2 was very, very hazy. The characterizations were muted and simple. The dialogue was overwritten. The actors had nothing to work with. It wasn't a tight script. It was too long for what it was trying to do. I'm more than confident that at least thirty or forty pages (thirty to forty minutes of screen-time) could and should have been cut from that script. How can a movie make anything clear when it's so muddled itself?

You're saying that the X-men story arcs aren't pillars of foundation for the X-men universe? So...there's just meaningless babble in every issue? Is it purely random? I haven't read X-men comics in a few years, but when I did, there was a rather strong emphasis on the story arcs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the characters shaped by their backstory in the comics? Just from histories influencing their actions, the story arcs are pillars of foundation there. Characters are shaped by history, and are further shaped in what they experience. How are story arcs not pillars of foundation?

Oh, because a muddled, hazy, and turgid X-men movie breaks box office records? Or is it just because you absolutely love that muddled, hazy, and turgid X-men movie?

[QUOTE]RE games have multiple story lines and yet a new one was written for the films. My apparently subtle point was that it was possible, as with X-Men (this here was the limit of the comparison, really), to preserve the "RE-ness" of the source material with an entirely original plot (the games have a somewhat random plot every time themselves). It simply wasn't carried out.[/QUOTE]"RE-ness?" The quality of being or state of Resident Evil. Okay, I'm trying to see how you can reconcile the massive action/adventure movie "RE-ness" with the game franchise's slower-paced, more methodical mood establishment "RE-ness."

[QUOTE]Yes, I can see how solemn of a practice this is for you, this posting on Otakuboards. Much like war, there's nothing funny about it. But you know, I just try to lighten the mood. It relieves tension in this stressful hour. It's my way of coping.[/QUOTE]What are you babbling about? So I'm not joking around. Big deal. It doesn't matter.

[QUOTE]Metroid is 99% "getting from point A to point B." If it weren't for the gameplay, there'd be nothing left.

Sorry, yes, I must concede this. You are right, that was part of the game, and was actually a third of what you wrote in describing the storyline. Yes, a third is in the introduction, an introduction that takes about a minute of your time to watch. ...How CAN you legitimately count that as much of the storyline? How does that add to the game being story-driven? There's more of an introduction in the Killer Instinct instruction manual, for crying out loud.

Nice job trying to "not change" the subject. At least Halo's characters adjusted to a changing plot. But I'm not claiming it's story-driven, because it's not. Morrowind, that's story driven. Metroid's story is static. The fact that you do the exact same stuff in the game regardless of whether you know the character's motivation behind it or not actually proves that. I think you need to reevaluate your definition of story-driven before you can discuss what does and what does not fall into that category.

Metroid's story is the very definition of minimal. No misinterpretation required.[/QUOTE][url="http://www.systemmetroid.com/"][u]Metroid Website[/u][/url]

[quote=Metroid Story]
The Chozo... Over millennia, this bird-like race of creatures made incredible technological and scientific leaps. Traveling at will through space, they built many marvels across the universe-technological wonders of unfathomable complexity and cities unmatched in beauty. They shared their knowledge freely with more primitive cultures and learned to care for and respect life in all its forms.

Even as their society reached its technological peak, however, the Chozo felt their spirituality wane. Their culture was steeped in prophecy and lore, and they foresaw the decline of the Chozo coinciding with the rise of evil. Horrified by the increasing violence in the universe, they began to withdraw into themselves, forgoing technology in favor of simplicity. Tallon IV was one of several refuges they built-a colony bereft of technology, built of natural materials and wedded to the land and its creatures.

The years passed, and in time a great meteor crashed into Tallon IV, sending a massive spume of matter into the atmosphere and impregnating the land with a cancerous element known as Phazon. This element immediately sank into the earth and water, poisoning life wherever it bloomed. Most plants and animals died, while others mutated into hideous forms.

The Chozo called upon all their knowledge and technology to control the power of the Phazon, but their efforts were doomed to fail. All they could do was build a temple over the crater at the impact site, separate the Phazon core, and seal it away. Believing that someday a savior would return to the planet, the Chozo left for an unknown destination, leaving nothing but engraved accounts of their time on Tallon IV.

In the year 2000 of the history of the cosmos, representatives from the many different planets in the galaxy established a congress called the Galactic Federation, and an age of prosperity began. A successful exchange of cultures and civilization resulted and thousands of interstellar spaceships ferried back and forth between planets. But space pirates also appeared to attack the spaceships. The Federal Bureau created the Galactic Federation Police, but the pirates' attacks were powerful and it was not easy to catch them in the vastness of space. The Federation Bureau and the Federation Police called together warriors known for their great courage and sent them to do battle with the pirates. These great warriors were called "space hunters." They received large rewards when they captured pirates, and made their living as space bounty hunters.

It was the year 20X5 of the history of the cosmos, and something terrible happened. Space pirates had attacked a deep-space research spaceship and seized a capsule containing an unknown life-form that had just been discovered on planet SR388. This life-form was in a state of suspended animation, but could be reactivated and would multiply when exposed to beta rays for 24 hours. It was suspected that the entire civilization of planet SR388 was destroyed by some unknown person or thing, and there was a strong possibility that the life-form just discovered was the cause of the planet's destruction. To carelessly let it multiply would be extremely dangerous. The Federation researchers had named it "Metroid" and were bringing it back to Earth when it was stolen by space pirates!

Deep below the surface of Zebes, the Space Pirates researched Metroids for many years, even as a young girl orphaned by their raid on the neighboring planet of K-2L was growing up among the Chozo. Trained as a warrior and infused with Chozo blood, Samus Aran donned a Chozo-made Power Suit and cut a swath through the Space Pirates' operation, destroying everything in her path, including the gargantuan mainstays of the Space Pirate army, Ridley and Kraid. She eventually made it to the core of their base, destroyed all the Metroids she saw, and seemingly blew up the Mother Brain.

But the Space Pirates were far from finished. They immediately split their survivors into two camps. One remained on Zebes to begin rebuilding their ravaged facility and resuscitating Mother Brain, Ridley, and Kraid. The second set out in search of a planet with powerful energy resources. They didn't search long before they discovered Tallon IV, which was still emanating huge pulses of energy from the Phazon contained beneath the Chozo temple. Entranced by the massive potential of the strange mutagen, they immediately moved in, retrofitting their laboratories, transporters, and life-support systems into the Chozo Ruins.

As the Space Pirates mined the Phazon and experimented with it, they found that its capacity to mutate was unlike anything they'd ever seen, and they promptly started combining it with indigenous life forms. They refined their operation; powering their machinery with thermal-powered engines sunk deep in the molten depths of Tallon IV, they drove deep mineshafts and mined more and more Phazon, shipping it to their two main labs in the Phendrana Drifts, where sub-zero temperatures made specimen containment safer. Research leaped forward: by harnessing Phazon's power, they were able to create untold horrors that soon patrolled the dark caverns below Tallon IV's crust.

The Space Pirates also transported many species to their orbiting ship for zero-G Phazon experiments, unaware that Samus Aran had finally tracked their ship to its low orbit. As they continued with their unnatural experiments, Samus sped toward Tallon IV, preparing to wipe them out once and for all.

Arriving at the station in orbit around the planet Tallon IV, she found a laboratory in shambles, overrun by strange mutant creatures and full of wounded and dying Space Pirates.

The pirates had been conducting all manner of ghastly experiments in the labs- experiments that very clearly went wrong. After a run-in with a giant mutated parasite queen and a newly mechanized version of Ridley, Samus barely escaped the station's self-destruct sequence. She then pursued Ridley to the surface of Tallon IV, hoping to discover what the Space Pirates were up to.

Samus' one advantage against the enemy came from a remnant of the Chozo civilization: a temple that was built to block access to the meteor's impact site. This impenetrable temple is all that was stopping the Space Pirates from gaining the full amount of Phazon they needed. Samus collected the 12 artifacts necessary to open the temple, in the process facing down the Mecha-Ridley and all manner of mutated and enhanced pirates.

The villains' ultimate goal had been to expose juvenile Metroids to Phazon and see what sort of mutations occurred. Samus found the most hideous result of their efforts at the impact crater in the form of Metroid Prime, an enormous, incredibly powerful Metroid mutation. After a lengthy, heated battle, Samus defeated Metroid Prime and destroyed the Space Pirate menace on Tallon IV, returning the planet to its natural state.

After serious consideration of how terrible and destructive the Metroid life form was, the Galactic Federation sent another research ship to SR388. This trip was to make sure their was no more Metroids left on the planet.

After a short time the Federation received an emergency notice from the research base. They had lost contact, and the research ship was missing. The base had already sent a search and rescue party, but after their initial contact, the rescue ship was not heard from again.

A special combat group was assembled consisting of armed soldiers from the Federation Police and was immediately dispatched to SR388. After transmitting their primary landing data, they also were never heard from!

Rumors spread fast, and again, the whole galaxy was seized with the fear of Metroids.

With this limited information, the Federation was positive that a Metroid must still be surviving, hiding deep in the planet underground. Even one living Metroid could easily wipe out an entire planetary civilization. So, the Galactic Federation called its members to an urgent conference to find a way to overcome this menace. They quickly came to one conclusion, which was unanimous and simple....Give Samus Aran the order to exterminate the Metroids!

Samus, charged with her mission from the Galactic Federation, hurried to the planet SR388.

The Metroids on SR388 were more advanced than the creatures on Zebes. These monsters could shed their skins and grow even stronger. Samus worked deep below the surface and blasted all of the Metroids in her path. Her final victory was against the enormous Metroid Queen. When the queen was defeated, Samus discovered a Metroid egg which hatched before her eyes. Even this hardened bounty hunter could not destroy the Metroid larva. When the larva sensed Samus' presence, it clung to her as though it had found its mother. Samus packed up the Metroid larva and took it with her to the Space Science Academy on the Galactic Federation Space Colony where scientists study the creature and understand its special organic structure.

The Science Academy scientists found out that the energy-producing properties of the Metroid could benefit humankind. Their report suggested that the Metroids may have originally been created for peaceful purposes. Just when it seemed peace and order had been restored, Samus received an emergency directive from the Galactic Federation:

EMERGENCY! EMERGENCY! Return immediately to the Space Science Academy!

When Samus made her way to the research facility, she found the building in ruins and the Metroid larva was nowhere to be found. Out of the darkness came a group of Zebesian space pirates and their leader, Ridley, who had the Metroid larva in tow. The pirates fled to a rebuilt planet Zebes and Samus followed them, resolving to finish them off and save the hatchling!

In the final battle with Mother Brain, the hatchling saved Samus, giving up its life in the process. Samus succeeded in defeating Mother Brain, but the universe lost the promise of using Metroid for the power of good.

SR388, former home of the Metroids. After so many years, the remaining creatures on this planet still seemed to be trying to recreate a natural hierarchy, one without Metroids at the top.

Biologic Space Labs was hired by the Federation to observe this restructuring of the ecosystem. And because of my experience on SR388, the Federation governor for this sector hired Samus to provide field assistance on the planet. So, once again she found herself drawn to the planet.

The biological sample collection was going smoothly on the planet's surface when Samus came into contact with an organism she had never before encountered. The organism was an undiscovered unnamed parasitic life form, which the researchers later called ?X.? Thinking little of it at the time, Samus boarded a ship and set out for the next collection point.

Suddenly Samus felt her entire body seize up, and she lost consciousness. The ship began to drift away from planetary orbit toward an asteroid belt.

Thankfully, an auto-escape pod jettisoned Samus from the craft before the ship was destroyed. The researchers in the newly constructed research station orbiting SR388 sent a shuttle to recover the pod shortly thereafter. However, in the time since Samus's infection, the X had multiplied rapidly in her body and had even infected her Power Suit.

Her heart rate and blood pressure dropped rapidly as she fell into a deep coma. The Onboard Medic Simulation predicted only a 0.873% prognosis for survival. Samus was transported to Galactic Federation HQ for emergency medical treatment.

The fact that the Power Suit contained biological components and was also integrally connected to Samus's body seemed to worsen the matter. The Federation surgeons were unable to remove the suit while she was unconscious. Their only choice was to cut and remove parts of the infected suit from her still-unconscious form; immediately after, they sent the suit parts to the Biologic Space labs research station for study.

Even with the parts removed, however, the X infection was spreading rapidly through her nervous system, and the researchers monitoring her deterioration knew of no cure.

Someone proposed a desperate treatment: create a vaccine from Metroid cells. Apparently the Federation had preserved a cell culture from the last Metroid. The scientists quickly prepared and administered the vaccine. The symptoms of the infection disappeared instantly, and all of the X parasites within Samus died in moments.

When Samus woke, the scientists told her that the hatchling had saved me once again.

Almost immediately after Samus awoke, she received a distress call from the research station.

?Emergency! Explosion of unknown origin in the Quarantine Bay!?

The screams from the com receiver were loud enough for Samus to hear even in the infirmary. She knew that something terrible was about to happen. She immediately boarded the ship the Federation had provided her and sent a reply message:

?Docking with Biologic Space labs station in 10 minutes. Prepare the landing bay!?

Upon arriving, Samus found that the X were somehow brought aboard the station and had overrun it. She then began a frantic mission to look for survivors and neutralize the X before they destroyed the research platform entirely. Samus was aided by a remote supercomputer, which she dubbed Adam, who gave her mission objectives and supplied her with new weaponry. Adam guided Samus through the various areas of the station as she battles the X in its various incarnations.

Once her mission began, Samus learned of the X's horrifying ability to mimic any organism that it has infected, including her. She soon encountered an X that had taken the form of the pre-infected Samus, complete with all her former weapons and abilities. Adam called Samus' nemesis the SA-X, and this doppelganger haunted her steps throughout the mission. In addition to the SA-X, Samus fought all manner of other infected creatures in the various sections of the station.

As Samus gained the upper hand against the X, she stumbled upon a shocking secret - a research lab containing Metroids was hidden inside the station. She found the SA-X fighting a host of juvenile Metroids as the lab area began to self-destruct. Samus barely escaped the lab section before it detached, destroying the SA-X and Metroids, but then Adam informed her that there were even more replicas of the SA-X on board, and worse, the Federation had been using her mission to study them and their application as a bio-weapon. Samus knew that when the Federation came for the X, it would infect them and spread throughout the galaxy, destroying everything in its path. She resolved to destroy the station, and herself, if necessary, to end this menace.

Adam advised Samus to start the station's self-destruct sequence after altering its orbital trajectory. This would capture SR388 in the radius of the station's explosion, destroying the planet as well. Samus did this, and then encountered another SA-X as she tried to escape the explosion. After defeating it, she approached her ship to find none other than the Omega Metroid. Amazingly, the essence of the SA-X she destroyed arrived and merged with Samus, enhancing her powers and allowing her to destroy the Omega Metroid and escape the station just before it destroyed both itself and SR388. Finally, it seemed the threat of the X and the Metroids had come an end. But of course, such things always have a way of coming back to haunt Samus...[/quote]The story seems pretty good to me.

[QUOTE]A backstory doesn't drive the game. A progressive plot does. If your character is reactive to the story, and more importantly if YOU are, then the game becomes story-driven. Knights of the Old Republic, that's truly story-driven. I'm sure you'll at least agree there. Metroid Prime is NOT.[/QUOTE]Firstly, when you study literature and such, you will come to understand that no backstory means no story. This holds true with games, as well. You don't have a game if you don't have backstory. A progressive plot certainly has something to do with narrative development, as do character involvement, but don't minimize backstory in establishing a story. The plot and characters grow out of the backstory.

Samus reacts to the story. She's involved in it; she's involved in how it progresses. You and Samus both play a role in the game. You both do affect the outcome. I don't see how it's all that different from KOTOR, apart from the Dark/Light Side feature and the RPG elements.

[QUOTE]Well, just thinking off the top of my head, there was Maximus's supposed devotion to his dead wife/child, and how in the end the point is that he is finally reunited with them, but in the middle of the film he totally tries to get into Lucila's (sp) pants. That's a pretty big deal. ...But the film has problems besides that.[/QUOTE]Yes, there's a kiss on her hand and a longer, tender kiss on her lips. I'd hardly consider that "totally [trying] to get in her pants," but perhaps my definitions are simply looser than yours? I'm sure that's the reason here. Maximus and Lucilla have a history together. He was and still is her protector. He fought for her and still fights for her. And let's talk about his character. He is chaste, as it were, and dedicated to his dead wife throughout the film.

Because of this, do you really think there's something sexual about his affection for Lucilla? Honestly, I think the sexual tensions are being projected by Commodus. His advances are clearly sexual; Maximus, however, his kiss with Lucilla is fairly innocent, I think. He's the protector; not the predator.

Is it possible you're seeing something that simply isn't there?

[QUOTE]Think about how you presented your information. You said, essentially: the film was hated when treated as stand-alone. The film was hated when treated as non-stand-alone. It is therefore clearly not-stand-alone.
There's a HUGE flaw to the logical flow there. I don't understand how you're missing it.

Again, the lack of logic. Just because outside reviewers hate a film doesn't mean it's not stand-alone. It just means outside reviewers hated it. It honestly doesn't even necessarily mean it's a bad film (although in this case it is). In fact I'm not sure RE:A [i]isn't[/i] a stand-alone film, to be honest. It was carried out so poorly overall that lack of plot or character development can't be attributed to lack of source material preservation so much as just horrible writing/directing.

No contradiction, but no affirmation either, as far as the point discussed above is concerned. I hope you realize it by now.[/QUOTE]Let's consider just what "Stand-alone" means, shall we? It implies that something can survive without any other support. That is essentially what it means. What are the implications of this? A "Stand-alone" work is judged solely on its own and by its own merits. There is nothing else to gauge its worth on.

Now, who would be evaluating a "Stand-alone" movie? An outside reviewer. Perhaps you do not understand what I mean when I say "outside reviewer." Allow me to clarify. [url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5953399/"][u]This is an outside reviewer[/u].[/url] She is one who is going into that movie with absolutely no idea of what the source material is or what it's like. Nowhere in that review does she indicate she has any familiarity at all with the game franchise. To her, she is viewing RE:A as a Stand-alone movie, because she is unaware of the source material.

And, lo and behold, she very much disliked the movie, simply on the merits and evaluation criterion of reviewing just a regular release that had no previous game franchise to base itself on.

Because she is an outside reviewer, RE:A becomes a "Stand-alone" movie, and fails in it. It collapses. The very definition of "Stand-alone," as we've established, describes something that can survive on its own. RE:A does not, and thus, isn't a Stand-alone movie. When taken out of the context of the gaming franchise, it's incoherent and very badly executed.

But let's view it from the opposite side now. I'm not one to hold IMDB.com's message boards in any high regard, but occasionally, once in a blue moon, there are some really astute and intelligent commentaries on there. One member, MeltmanX, has some very intelligent comments on there as to why the RE movies falter when compared against the games. To clarify, comparing against the games is what a "Non-Stand-alone" movie is, a movie being reviewed by someone who is aware of the source material and what type of material it is. Libra113 asked what the problems were, as he/she had not played the games. MeltmanX replied:

[quote=MeltmanX]As you've said it, libra113, you haven't played the games, so you don't know what they're really like. I'm not gonna bash you for that, if you don't like them it's your choice. But what the games are about is you, on your own, with limited ammo and no martial arts trying to survive, or just to get a bit farther this time around, anyway. And that's a real challenge (well, at least on Hard it is).
Now, some people make stupid remarks about the puzzles ("the main guy would have to be a janitor, ROFL"), without realizing that they're used as a break from all the running and shooting around; maybe they never could solve them, maybe they just don't like how in the real world, a treasure box wouldn't have the key needed to turn on a machine to make an anti-virus to... whatever, that's how the game's are, and no amount of bitching will change that.

See my point yet? or do I have to go on?

[b]The real problem here is that they didn't even try to translate the gaming experience of tension and overall nervous excitement to the big screen. Instead we get bullet-time action and kung-fu monster fights, and that's not what we were looking for.[/b][/quote]I've also included [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318627/board/nest/11950984"][u]the thread[/u][/url].

I've bolded the precise idea.

Now, when reviewed by those knowledgeable about both the gaming franchise's approach and execution, and those who are also knowledgeable about what can be done in cinema, the movie is compared against the source material, being treated as a "Non-Stand-alone" movie, and, again, it collapses.

With this collapse and failure when it is judged as a "Non-Stand-alone" movie, it's virtually impossible to be considered a worthwhile "Addition" to/Adaptation of the source material.

Based on these evaluation points, both from a Stand-alone standpoint, and from the Non-Stand-alone standpoint, it's clear that the RE movies are unable to deliver in either, as it were, and thus drop into the Cinematic Purgatory...Limbo.

This isn't terribly hard to grasp. You just need to understand there are only two types of movie here, and the RE movies don't belong in either, based on the reviews and criterion of the respective evaluation types.

This is fairly basic film theory.

[quote]My point from the get-go was that you don't need to preserve a story-arc from the games to make a good Resident Evil movie. Do you disagree or something?[/QUOTE]Okay, and did they make a good Resident Evil movie when they butchered the story arcs?

Zeta, to answer your questions about Halo's plot, I checked the links, and it's all backstory. If we're going by what Sciros has been saying here, that backstory means squat, all of that backstory for Halo should also be considered squat. If we're treating it as a more than generic story, then I'm reading through it and seeing events and plot twists/devices/developments that are increasingly generic. It's stringing together military cliches. It's been done before, and not specifically in the Halo franchise.

[Zeta]

An abandoned ringworld with a deadly organism? A religious race bent on the destruction of the human race,using technology of the abandoned ringworlds creaters? Why does GS recognize MC having never met him before? Nor the human race? Ringworld with a Earth type atmosphere and geography?

That is just the stuff in the game itself. If you explore the game, and listen and watch, you will see that it is said out in the open. ;)Now how is that generic? I see no similarites to any of those in any games I have played, nor heard of? Please clarify. I find that to be quite original in my mind. Only thing coming close(where Halo had much inspriration from) was in two sets of books, the Vang series, and the book Ringworld(I believe there is more than one book about this? not too sure)

Naturally, I shouldn't be talking about this, seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. ^_^;; I'm done now.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']Naturally, I shouldn't be talking about this, seeing as how it has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. ^_^;; I'm done now.[/quote]
Heh, I know. I don't want to stray off-topic, either, so I'll link this into the topic.

You asked how the plot to Halo wasn't generic.

[quote]An abandoned ringworld with a deadly organism? A religious race bent on the destruction of the human race,using technology of the abandoned ringworlds creaters? Why does GS recognize MC having never met him before? Nor the human race? Ringworld with a Earth type atmosphere and geography?[/QUOTE]
The Ringworld is essentially a weapon of mass destruction. This WMD is being used for Jihad by a group of radicalist religious fanatics.

GS is a computerized librarian who has a type of safeguard installed to prevent security breaches of sensitive information. These safeguards also prevent any unauthorized memory data recall/tampering. It's actually fairly similar to a few premises in Phillip K. Dick novels, various ideas in Terminator, even Asimov's I, Robot uses some of these ideas.

Establishing an atmosphere on an orbiting vessel isn't unheard of in previous science fiction works. Alien and Aliens have portions of the ships transformed into greenhouses.

This is just running off the top of my head.

Why do people treat Halo's plot as revolutionary? I think it's just because of the "fancy and polished sci-fi window dressing."

Now, how might this relate to RE:A? People are impressed by RE:A simply because of the special effects, because of the window dressing. They're choosing to ignore that much of what RE:A does has been done many times before, just not in such extravagance. You'll find that on the messageboard I linked to, much of the flaming is due to people wanting to ignore the "low plot" of RE:A, because they either:

A) Lack the pre-existing knowledge to be able to realize repeated cliches.

or

B) They're simply too caught up in the overall show to care about the substance.