• Welcome to the Resident Evil Community Forum!

    We're a group of fans who are passionate about the Resident Evil series and video gaming.

    Register Log in

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021)

I don't know why people expect a Resident Evil adaption to be "good", when none of the game scripts were ever more than padding for the gameplay. There were always cheesey dialogues and over the top mutation scenes, and any lore/plot consistency went out of the window after RE3.

Capcom is notorious for good games with weird plots, that implode as soon as the series has more than two installments. Lost Planet? Dino Crisis? Devil May Cry? None of those games is a true sequel, they're all more or less "loosely based" on an amalgamation of their predecessors. Monster Hunter is the best example: While there is a ton of lore, it's basically just warglblerg to justify going on a trek to spank dinos.

So, I have really no idea, how a good Resident Evil movie (series) is supposed to look like. I liked the mystery part of the first movie and the action was pretty much on spot, but it didn't fit into the game lore. The second movie was more or less an RE3 parody, but it had a lot of RE DNA and fans complained about it not fitting the lore. It only went really bad, when they went the apocalypse route, abandoning any RE-ishness and made it a super hero magical girl story. I still found it entertaining to watch, but the last movie not only broke all promises made by the one before, but was nothing but a strobe light metal party with a bad script.

In a sense, the RE movies represented the games pretty well. Something something virus, what is dead isn't dead, who cares about the lore? The difference is, that those games had superb gameplay that makes the dumb plot and almost-comical characters forgivable. This also why RE6 was torn to pieces when it was new, RE5 is ****ed on these days and RE7 is basically the most controversial game in the series: Playing those games isn't as fun as it used to be, at least for some of us, so we have time worrying about plots.

Resident Evil was always the video game version of the horror movie landscape of the past decade. It took what made those horror flicks great and warped it into something playable, with a huge focus on the game side of things. Now they wonder, why turning it back into a movie is hard. That's a lot like making a cow out of burger patties.
 
Awebb said:
I don't know why people expect a Resident Evil adaption to be "good", when none of the game scripts were ever more than padding for the gameplay. There were always cheesey dialogues and over the top mutation scenes, and any lore/plot consistency went out of the window after RE3.

Capcom is notorious for good games with weird plots, that implode as soon as the series has more than two installments. Lost Planet? Dino Crisis? Devil May Cry? None of those games is a true sequel, they're all more or less "loosely based" on an amalgamation of their predecessors. Monster Hunter is the best example: While there is a ton of lore, it's basically just warglblerg to justify going on a trek to spank dinos.

So, I have really no idea, how a good Resident Evil movie (series) is supposed to look like. I liked the mystery part of the first movie and the action was pretty much on spot, but it didn't fit into the game lore. The second movie was more or less an RE3 parody, but it had a lot of RE DNA and fans complained about it not fitting the lore. It only went really bad, when they went the apocalypse route, abandoning any RE-ishness and made it a super hero magical girl story. I still found it entertaining to watch, but the last movie not only broke all promises made by the one before, but was nothing but a strobe light metal party with a bad script.

In a sense, the RE movies represented the games pretty well. Something something virus, what is dead isn't dead, who cares about the lore? The difference is, that those games had superb gameplay that makes the dumb plot and almost-comical characters forgivable. This also why RE6 was torn to pieces when it was new, RE5 is ****ed on these days and RE7 is basically the most controversial game in the series: Playing those games isn't as fun as it used to be, at least for some of us, so we have time worrying about plots.

Resident Evil was always the video game version of the horror movie landscape of the past decade. It took what made those horror flicks great and warped it into something playable, with a huge focus on the game side of things. Now they wonder, why turning it back into a movie is hard. That's a lot like making a cow out of burger patties.
Click to expand...

Everything you just said could be applied to almost any adaptation. "Ninja Turtles is silly, why does anyone expect an adaptation to be good?" "Spider-Man will never work on screen." "Watchmen is impossible to adapt." There's this thing good movie directors do, and it's called being faithful to the material but also understanding the medium in which they are adapting it to and grounding it so the average viewer could connect with it. Cheesy English dialogue from a 1996 game made by Japanese people isn't what is expected on the big screen. An adaptation, especially of an aged storied video game franchise, creates an opportunity to tell those stories in a much better way that improves the plot and characters while still retaining the basic ideas and elements that make it Resident Evil.
 
I explained in length, why I think this is the case here, your expansion is unnecessary, but you actually prove my point: A good, faithful Spider-Man movie cannot exist, because there is no unified Spider-Man lore. Marvel has so many alternative universes for every character, that any debate about lore is irrelevant. This "it's not true in this case, because there are other examples" might work if this was about video game adaptions, but it is about this specific game series.

No matter what you do, people will complain, because they expect a big name to result in a magically good adaption. You contradict yourself, you cannot be faithful to the RE source material and make something "good", because the RE universe is one big heap of inconsistent cheese that's meant as an excuse to push forward and fight BOWs.

If you want an RE movie to be, say, a scifi thriller like Phase IV, then that's cool, but RE is over-the-top B-movie material and anything "faithful to the source material" will be exactly that. Again, this is why RE7 is so problematic: There is no unified "thing" that RE is all about.
 
What you're saying makes absolutely no sense. I gave you examples of things that have been adapted that were once considered unadaptable but turned out great, but you're gonna tell me some nonsense about there needing to be a unified lore for something to be considered faithful or good? No one is buying that.

You also seem to have this absurd idea of what faithfully adapting something means. It's like saying you can't adapt a video game to a film without having gameplay otherwise it's not faithful to the material. It's an adaptation, it's bringing something from one medium to another. It's not going to be the same and it will never be the same, but that doesn't mean it's not faithful to the story, characters, or world of the games. They can play it serious, they can play it cheesy, but it can still be done well with a great script.

And you're insane if you think there isn't enough lore or story to pull from when the games themselves are filled with tons of files and lore that flesh out the basic plot that unfolds throughout the gameplay experience. Not to mention, the entire Resident Evil story has been expanded and retold on various occasions.
 
Awebb said:
I don't know why people expect a Resident Evil adaption to be "good", when none of the game scripts were ever more than padding for the gameplay. There were always cheesey dialogues and over the top mutation scenes, and any lore/plot consistency went out of the window after RE3.

Capcom is notorious for good games with weird plots, that implode as soon as the series has more than two installments. Lost Planet? Dino Crisis? Devil May Cry? None of those games is a true sequel, they're all more or less "loosely based" on an amalgamation of their predecessors. Monster Hunter is the best example: While there is a ton of lore, it's basically just warglblerg to justify going on a trek to spank dinos.

So, I have really no idea, how a good Resident Evil movie (series) is supposed to look like. I liked the mystery part of the first movie and the action was pretty much on spot, but it didn't fit into the game lore. The second movie was more or less an RE3 parody, but it had a lot of RE DNA and fans complained about it not fitting the lore. It only went really bad, when they went the apocalypse route, abandoning any RE-ishness and made it a super hero magical girl story. I still found it entertaining to watch, but the last movie not only broke all promises made by the one before, but was nothing but a strobe light metal party with a bad script.

In a sense, the RE movies represented the games pretty well. Something something virus, what is dead isn't dead, who cares about the lore? The difference is, that those games had superb gameplay that makes the dumb plot and almost-comical characters forgivable. This also why RE6 was torn to pieces when it was new, RE5 is ****ed on these days and RE7 is basically the most controversial game in the series: Playing those games isn't as fun as it used to be, at least for some of us, so we have time worrying about plots.

Resident Evil was always the video game version of the horror movie landscape of the past decade. It took what made those horror flicks great and warped it into something playable, with a huge focus on the game side of things. Now they wonder, why turning it back into a movie is hard. That's a lot like making a cow out of burger patties.
Click to expand...
The true question is, how people can know the reboot is good or not when the movie isn't out yet? But it happear some rumor are enough to call and judge something bad whitout even knowing how the movie look XD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Albertwesker959 said:
The true question is, how people can know the reboot is good or not when the movie isn't out yet? But it happear some rumor are enough to call and judge something bad whitout even knowing how the movie look XD
Click to expand...

Get a new schtick. Some of us have personal standards and know what we want as fans and consumers. We're not obligated to give something a chance if it already put us off. Not everything is a goddamn review.
 
Turo602 said:
Get a new schtick. Some of us have personal standards and know what we want as fans and consumers. We're not obligated to give something a chance if it already put us off. Not everything is a goddamn review.
Click to expand...
So you base yourself on Rumor that are probably fake... You have really good standard
 
I am definitely down for a movie reboot since the only okay RE movie was the first one and that is borderline at best. If they go in the direction of a more faithful game adaptation, I am all for it.

Hannah John-Kamen was good in Antman and The Wasp even if the writing for that film made it seem like there should've been a bigger bad guy in the end. But she was dynamite on the screen. If she ends up being our new movie Jill, I'd be cool with that.
 
UniqTeas said:
I am definitely down for a movie reboot since the only okay RE movie was the first one and that is borderline at best. If they go in the direction of a more faithful game adaptation, I am all for it.
Click to expand...

I agree. Between the movie and TV series, i'll take the movie. Although before giving any thoughts i would like to read the script or at least check out the trailer. I just hope it will really be more closer to the games, and i really, really hope they won't go into some of the modern trends, like turning Jill and other female characters into Mary Sues. I think that was one of the biggest problems in all those other ****ty RE films, specially since Jill and other RE girls are already badass and some of the best female video game characters, and completely changing them or adding some new characters in the film and doing the same thing all over again would be annoying, to say the least.
 
I look forward to a reboot.

I liked a couple of the movies but by the time The Final Chapter came along I was so disgusted with Paul Anderson as a storyteller it totally killed the movies for me. And I probably won't ever watch another Milla Jovovich movie, especially if his name is also attached to it.
 
Rain611 said:
I look forward to a reboot.

I liked a couple of the movies but by the time The Final Chapter came along I was so disgusted with Paul Anderson as a storyteller it totally killed the movies for me. And I probably won't ever watch another Milla Jovovich movie, especially if his name is also attached to it.
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was possible, but their upcoming Monster Hunter movie looks like it will be even worse. There was another one in which Anderson and Jovovich were involved in couple years ago, action sci-fi thriller Hummingbird. I remember that the original spec script from 2016 wasn't that bad, it was about female robot or cyborg on the run from her owners. Honestly i hope they won't do it and that they will be replaced, even if it was just an average script and story, it deserved someone better. Originally Zoe Saldana was going to star in it, but then she was replaced by Olivia Munn, who was then replaced by Jovovich. And once Anderson got on it, he of course re-wrote the damn script, even though it was highly praised by people.
 
The actual problem isn't Jovovich herself, who is a good actress actually, but the film she decide to make alongside her husband who is a mediocre (if not worse) movie director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a pointless discussion. Of course you can adapt something and make it good, I don't understand why some people defend the absolutely terrible Resident Evil films by W.S. Anderson by saying "the old games were cheesy anyway", that's not how it works. When adapting something from a book, game or anything else on the big screen, you ALWAYS have to make changes, cut content, add content, etc in order to make it fit the format of a 2 hour movie. The key is to respect the source material and have a clear vision of what you want to tell and show. As long as you do that as a filmmaker you can actually take a lot of liberties when writing the script and setting the tone. Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy for example, is in many ways vastly different from the books and has lots of content cut and events are placed in different orders. But they're still amazing movies, because they respect the source material while at the same time taking lots of liberties.

When it comes to these new rumors, I must say it sounds more and more like trash. If this is supposed to be more closely adapted to the video games, why are they throwing all of the big characters (Jill, Chris, Leon, Claire) into the same movie? Leon and Claire weren't at the mansion, so what exactly is the plan here? By making Claire Redfield the main character its already clear from the start that these writers have no idea what they're doing. Claire is no STARS member, she's the sister of Chris and her whole character arc is about finding her brother. If they want a strong female character as their main protagonist I don't understand why they're not just going with Jill. Jill is the perfect main character for a faithful adaptation of the first 3 games.

Oh and by the way I totally think Chris should be played by an Asian dude, Leon should be Mexican and Claire should be a lesbian. Lol. Nothing against Hannah John-Kamen, I actually feel she'd make a great Jill Valentine, but it surely must suck to be handpicked just because of your skin tone. Like "Hey Hannah we think you'd be a good Jill, not because of your acting skills, but because you're mixed-black."
 
I was also trying to figure out why they are using Chris, Jill, Leon and Claire, and then I realized what they all have in common - the RPD (except for Chris I guess, technically but he was a major driving force for Claire in 2). If I had to bet, they are probably having the movie take place between/around the events of RE2 and RE3. This would also justify the presence of Chief Irons. Doesn't sound too illogical. As far as Chris and Wesker goes, they could always hint at what happened in the mansion through flashbacks who knows. I feel like it's doable.
 
That's a good theory, @Rain611 , but it still doesn't explain why Claire should be the main character unless they completely change her backstory and motivations. Maybe they'll turn both Claire and Leon into STARS members? Sigh, now when I think about it it actually sounds like something they'd do.

One way of doing it would be combining the stories of RE1, RE2 and RE3 into one, by having the mansion incident work as a prologue sequence of around 10-15 minutes but not reveal Wesker's true intentions to the others. Then show Jill and Chris trying to do the investigation together, arguing with Chief Irons and so on before Chris is locked up in prison for assaulting Irons, and Jill is locked up at home. And then just let Raccoon City get infected and let the show begin with Leon and Claire arriving.
 
I get that they want to create their own story and not make a one for one re-shot of the game. And that makes sense. Without some intervention, the movies would be fairly boring if they were done one to one while we already know most of the story. I don't know how they'll include all of the characters, but it sounds way better than the Andersonverse. lol
 
UniqTeas said:
I get that they want to create their own story and not make a one for one re-shot of the game. And that makes sense. Without some intervention, the movies would be fairly boring if they were done one to one while we already know most of the story. I don't know how they'll include all of the characters, but it sounds way better than the Andersonverse. lol
Click to expand...
I think they also want to create they re own story whitout having to care about the game, so everyone can enjoy the movie whitout needing to play the game... It's uselles to make a game between re 1 and 2 or between re 3 and 4, and it's also uselles to make movie about main game
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom