Resident Evil: Apocalypse movie
- Thread starter Holdfast
- Start date
Ah but, you're not denying they're the same thing.
While I'm not quite as passionate about it as Cky, I do think it's unfair that fans of in many cases long running game franchises get admonished for decrying bad adaptations of those stories. Few Potter, LoTR, Marvel/DC and indeed Trek fans would tolerate such completely unfaithful film adaptations.
Believe it or not Teelie, many game franchises do have loyal fanbases, same as any scifi show or fantasy novels. Imagine someone doing Harry Potter films as dreary, gothic and emo as opposed to how they are done. Imagine the Dresden Files completely removed of all of their substance by stripping them of magic and "reinterpreting" them as a purely procedural PI/cop drama. Or a new B5 show done as a soapy, teen-angst drama.
Some game publishers are in fact wary of this, like Blizzard and Rockstar, refusing to license their games for movie adaptations. To date, there are only a few such films which even attempt to stay faithful, with many (often bad) directors using them instead as vehicles to try "their own spin" on it.
Granted, I like a radical interpretations as much as the next guy, but even nuBSG doesn't stray from the original's concept as much as the RE movies stray from the games.
I guess the point is, if you're going to make it so different as to "separate the two entities", why even bother attaching the name to the project at all? Why not just create an original* "separate entity" to begin with?
* = I know this is a difficult concept for Hollywood.
Believe it or not Teelie, many game franchises do have loyal fanbases, same as any scifi show or fantasy novels. Imagine someone doing Harry Potter films as dreary, gothic and emo as opposed to how they are done. Imagine the Dresden Files completely removed of all of their substance by stripping them of magic and "reinterpreting" them as a purely procedural PI/cop drama. Or a new B5 show done as a soapy, teen-angst drama.
Some game publishers are in fact wary of this, like Blizzard and Rockstar, refusing to license their games for movie adaptations. To date, there are only a few such films which even attempt to stay faithful, with many (often bad) directors using them instead as vehicles to try "their own spin" on it.
Granted, I like a radical interpretations as much as the next guy, but even nuBSG doesn't stray from the original's concept as much as the RE movies stray from the games.
I guess the point is, if you're going to make it so different as to "separate the two entities", why even bother attaching the name to the project at all? Why not just create an original* "separate entity" to begin with?
* = I know this is a difficult concept for Hollywood.
They are derived from the same thing, that doesn't mean they are going to taste look or smell the same.
And I know of loyal fanbases but fanbases also tend to react to the extreme any time their "universe" is altered outside of what they perceive as going too far. The movies are not that far removed from the games. They changed a great deal but at it's core, same thing. Zombies, Umbrella, bioweapons, etc. It's not the great chasm some people make it to be.
And I know of loyal fanbases but fanbases also tend to react to the extreme any time their "universe" is altered outside of what they perceive as going too far. The movies are not that far removed from the games. They changed a great deal but at it's core, same thing. Zombies, Umbrella, bioweapons, etc. It's not the great chasm some people make it to be.
Yeah, but Teelie, my whole point, and the reasoning behind why I don't like the films (other than the poor acting/casting, and very poor storyline) is exactly what you and QCzar have said.
Your point is that at it's core, it's the same. Yes, it's a zombie movie, but what they've done is make a poor adaptation of a successful game franchise, and just thrown those words and references in to make it seem like it's based off Resident Evil. It's not. You could go to any of the Dead series and add in the word "Umbrella" or "S.T.A.R.S" and look, you've got a Resident Evil adaptation.
The fact is, the movies were poorly written, and with an even worse cast (minus a few people who can act), so why not just make a completely fresh idea? Because people will realize that without the Resident Evil references, the film is a pile of wank.
Your point is that at it's core, it's the same. Yes, it's a zombie movie, but what they've done is make a poor adaptation of a successful game franchise, and just thrown those words and references in to make it seem like it's based off Resident Evil. It's not. You could go to any of the Dead series and add in the word "Umbrella" or "S.T.A.R.S" and look, you've got a Resident Evil adaptation.
The fact is, the movies were poorly written, and with an even worse cast (minus a few people who can act), so why not just make a completely fresh idea? Because people will realize that without the Resident Evil references, the film is a pile of wank.
So would you have preferred a direct remake of Resident Evil for 1, Resident Evil 2 for 2, and etc.? Anderson did want to do that and Capcom told him that they would go another route because they were worried that the film would affect sales of the games if it were a direct replica. He was told he could keep aspects but if he made a direct remake he was gone. So he made his own interpretation. If you wanted a direct remake of the games then be mad at Capcom and not Anderson - even though he does suck.
It could be worse we could've gotten the ones designed by George A. Romero which I even thought was horrible.
But, at the end of the day, the films have been a commercial success for Sony Pictures and Capcom and have even brought people into the game series - there was an article in Business Week about the effect of film adaptations on sales and it had a pretty good effect on the Resident Evil game series. They aren't going anywhere.
I for one can't wait until Part 4 when they add in the Plagas storyline from what's been said.
It could be worse we could've gotten the ones designed by George A. Romero which I even thought was horrible.
But, at the end of the day, the films have been a commercial success for Sony Pictures and Capcom and have even brought people into the game series - there was an article in Business Week about the effect of film adaptations on sales and it had a pretty good effect on the Resident Evil game series. They aren't going anywhere.
I for one can't wait until Part 4 when they add in the Plagas storyline from what's been said.
No, I would rather have no film based on Resident Evil.
There's also the obvious unsaid response: Don't like it, don't watch it.I don't like strawberry milk so I don't drink it.
Amen. People that go in expecting a movie to be EXACTLY like a TV show, game, book, etc, HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME for going in with the expectation in the first place when/if they are different.
Just go in WITHOUT expectations and see how things go.
You can go into a film with low expectations and still find what you're watching to be crap. Which is the case with the RE movies I might addThere's also the obvious unsaid response: Don't like it, don't watch it.
Amen. People that go in expecting a movie to be EXACTLY like a TV show, game, book, etc, HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME for going in with the expectation in the first place when/if they are different.
Just go in WITHOUT expectations and see how things go.
If they really wanted the two entities to be separate, they probably shouldn't have given them the same name
Then don't complain when someone can't separate the two entities. You cant have it both ways. Either the movies are supposed to be related to the games and they did a shit job at doing that or they aren't related and they should never have bothered with the name.
Related does not equate to the same or that it must prefectly follow the storyline to the detail. I'm complaining about fans who can't accept anything but a close adaptation that is terrible to watch on screen compared to how it plays out.
In the case of Resident Evil, it's the same in essence but it's not the same in the details of the story. The movie was begun from the start to be Resident Evil. That's not the same as taking say I, Robot, and tacking it onto a movie that was previously unrelated.
In the case of Resident Evil, it's the same in essence but it's not the same in the details of the story. The movie was begun from the start to be Resident Evil. That's not the same as taking say I, Robot, and tacking it onto a movie that was previously unrelated.
Similar threads
