>Shounen
>Fan-Service
>Zombies
>"b-but they deviate from the games!"
Resident Evil's story is so poorly written anyway that it hardly matters. Fact is, the story of Alice could actually fit in that world.
Even if it didn't, don't pretend RE games a narrative powerhouses. They, like any good game, are carried by their gameplay.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
I liked the first movie, Apocalypse was okay, haven't seen the rest.
Yeah these are great. The ones after it are complete garbage
This. I vaguely remember the one on the ship and remember thinking
"Yup, a good ending".
But then they made like three more???
The second trilogy is just the director dicking around with experimental filming ideas. I like them in their own way. They embrace the batshit.
Experimenting around is supposed to be done in pre production bro. If it works in pre production you film it for real. The frick was this guy doing?
No I mean the films exist primarily to be experiments in and of themselves. A lot of the stuff in Afterlife and Retribution was exploring action filmmaking using 3D cameras.
He also wanted them to be highly experimental narratively, but the studio threw a hissy fit over his cut of Retribution, and ordered the film to be reworked so that every plot point is foreshadowed with exposition. Originally it was meant to be a surreal dream logic film.
Look at it another way. Paul W.S. Anderson's new movie, which I'm really hoping doesn't suck, was created because he's unhappy with how fantasy and sci-fi films look lighting-wise. So he teamed up with Herne Hill Media, whose staff did the VFX on every RE film since Extinction, and together they devised a new virtual production pipeline. It's the first theatrical film shot entirely on greenscreen with Unreal Engine virtual production systems. His idea was that by building videogame fidelity versions of the environments ahead of time, the greenscreen set lighting could be matched to it. He refers to this as a unified lighting scheme across foreground and background, and the lack of such a scheme is why he feels big budget movies look terrible. Because they shoot the foregrounds and THEN they decide how the background is going to look. You see this problem with Furiosa, where they clearly can't decide what direction the sun is between trailers.
Then they shoot the live action plates on greenscreen, then they upgrade the backgrounds. Throughout this whole process they can see how the final version is going to look, approximately. This is a huge amount of work, and it's a highly untested method of film production. All because he thinks mainstream movies have bad lighting.
Even if the film is dogshit it will at least look good. I couldn't help noticing that Avatar 2, for all its visual prestige, has a lot of the same issues PWSA talks about, where the lighting of the live action plates doesn't match the lighting of the CG environments, and it looks pasted in as a result.
Ok but looking good isn't the only thing the audience wants. You can wow people with imagery but we need a solid script this time. All of Paul's movies have the hallmark of terrible cliche writing and flat cardboard cutout character acting.
The only memorable thing in his films are the choreography and action sequences. Everything else is terrible.
Anderson is a big French New Wave fan and he doesn't really care about dialogue or traditional storytelling. He likes the idea of "looking cool and not saying much". He also doesn't know how to direct actors, and he's pretty transparent about that.
>trilogy
they are all good. schlock kino.
the others are quality schlock.
Its a shame Mila has
>no breasts
>broad shoulders
>narrow hips
>is tall
>strong chin
Wait a minute.
Is Mila a troon???
She has three children and Paul certainly didn't give birth to them.
Art thou certain of thy claim?
No just Ukrainian
What's wrong with tall?
Apocalypse is one of the most badass movies ever made. This is the one where Mila runs down a skyscraper and zombie hookers right
while the stunt is dangerous and a great setpiece, I thought she looked goofy running down.
I think that Extinction is a natural stopping point, but I wouldn't trade Retribution for anything. This isn't like Terminator movies after 3 or Transformers movies after 3. These films are valuable contributions.
The split between the films reminds me a bit of the Star Wars Original Trilogy and the Prequels, complete with the first trilogy being directed by three different people, then the original director returning for the next three.
Resident Evil: Extinction > Day of the Dead. I've never seen an argument for Day of the Dead being better that doesn't boil down to George Romero fanboyism.
Joseph Pilato's performance is on another level
Oh, he's great in DotD. But the film as a whole feels like a worse version. It feels like LA Takedown vs HEAT. The problem with a lot of Romero's later works is that they were shot more professionally but none of the other production values matched, so the whole thing felt like a high school play.
Granted, Extinction is a loose remake, but there are scenes that are nearly 1:1, like this, and Extinction feels so much better in terms of filmmaking craft. This was Russell Mulcahy, who was, or is a pretty decent filmmaker who made some very bad films over the years. But in this case, things worked out.
?si=4-SMxbMBK8hLEAlX
?si=d78vHvmQ368WgaAD
I'M RUNNIN' THIS MONKEY SHOW NOW FRANKENSTEIN!
Hi Paul
Your movies suck. RE1 was actually pretty good but you dropped the ball hard after and just kept spilling more and more spaghetti.
How did he drop the ball, exactly? (Bearing in mind that his plan from the start was to kill everyone and end the series on a super downbeat note.)
Also, any problems with Apocalypse aren't his fault because he didn't direct it.
>This isn't supposed to be like the videogame
>Ok it's like the videogame
>But it's not like the videogame
>But we are adding sporadic characters and imagery from the videogame when we need inspiration
>But it's not like the videogame guys!
Make a decision
Is this the videogame or is this your pseudo matrix ripoff film? The story is like a schizophrenics interpretation of RE.
I'm not really seeing a problem. You break the games down, borrow bits and pieces here and there, but focus on telling your own story. The odd film out is Apocalypse, and he didn't direct that one. If he had directed it, it probably would have turned out different. I can't help noticing that when The Final Chapter goes on its bizarre retcon spree, the one movie that seems the hardest hit is Apocalypse. I sometimes wonder if Paul Anderson dislikes it. I know Milla dislikes it, but Paul has never shat on it.
So you didn't see a problem with introducing a main character like Chris Redfield, unceremoniously putting him in a box like he's some kind of action figure, taking him out of the box, then dropping the plotline completely and then never following up on it ever?
That's the kind of shit we see in these films. None of this shit makes any sense none of these plotlines go anywhere. Even casual audiences are sitting there scratching their heads just thinking "Ok the action scenes look good but really wtf is going on here?" these films constantly jump around from one unexplored idea to the next.
Film 3 ends with a teaser for a possible film set in japan. That goes nowhere. Film 2 ends with all of the heroes suited up in Umbrella uniforms and they ride off into the sunset. Immediately film 3 begins in a post apocalyptic wasteland the entire world is pretty much a total fricking wasteland "huhh what I thought it was just that one city now the whole world is destroyed in seemingly the span of a couple months" Las vegas is already completely covered in sand. Why?? It's like 600 years passed but in the context of the film it's been what? A year or 2? These films are schizo I'm sorry.
Chris Redfield etc are just fanservice. The only real character of importance in the RE movies is Alice. The movie series is about understanding her trip through wonderland, confronting the red queen, etc.
>Chris Redfield etc are just fanservice
That's part of the problem. Why even introduce these shallow cardboard cutouts(that don't even attempt to emulate their game counterparts) then? It pisses off the fans of the games and the people who have only seen the movies are just confused. "Why is this person important? Why is this guy just chilling in a box in an abandoned prison?" No explanations we get fricking nothing and it goes nowhere.
A character alot of casual fans liked from the second movie Jill just disappears off the face of the earth in the 3rd film only to reappear at the end of the 4th in her RE5 videogame outfit but completely re-contexualized. There are so many head scratching moments in these movies where it's seems like there are corporate decisions mandating certain images/characters etc and there are just too many damn cooks in the kitchen it's like these films are written by 30 different people who all want their own "Wild Wild West Giant Spider" moment.
I think you're maybe not the target audience? For me I'm just happy to see the things I recognize, even as they are re-imagined for the AU of the film series. I also liked the Silent Hill movie quite a bit. I'm not beholden to the games, the games are the games and that's that. For me the fun of the movies is recognizing familiar names and faces, but then seeing the novel inventions of the movie makers. It's fundamentally a series about Alice where everything else is window dressing so I don't take their superficiality to heart. I can't imagine what its like to watch the movies not having played the games though, that seems like it would be weird.
>I can't imagine what its like to watch the movies not having played the games though, that seems like it would be weird.
I watched this films with mixed company I had played the mainline 1-2-3 games before and the people around me hadn't played the games. The majority of people liked the first film as did I despite it not being faithful whatsoever to the games, but then over the course of the series the dropoff started. 2 got a little too ridiculous and 3 was kind of fun but storywise it was making less and less sense as a cohesive narrative. Then 4 comes and interest among my friends and family just dropped off a cliff. Nobody including myself really wanted to watch these films anymore, but I would kind of just suffer through them anyways because I usually watch the majority of films just out of curiosity.
After a bit you do tend to watch them just for hammy scenes or familiar faces. The first RE movie is good though, it's a solid mix of RE1&2. Alice is quite plainly inspired by Ada, which makes Ada's later inclusion a bit funny. But you simply have to take that in stride.
For anyone who thinks the live action movies are bad, watch the cgi ones. Those ones are much worse in terms of abusing the lore. Capcom went pretty deep into superhero territory leading up to RE6(game) and the cgi movies reflect that.
I'll just point out that Resident Evil: Afterlife DOUBLED its predecessor's box office. Audiences liked Afterlife's over the top Kurt Wimmer action antics WAY more than the horror-leaning stuff the earlier movies did.
Every Resident Evil movie opens with narration explaining the entire plot up to this point. How do people have difficulty following them?
>It pisses off the fans of the games and the people who have only seen the movies are just confused. "Why is this person important? Why is this guy just chilling in a box in an abandoned prison?" No explanations we get fricking nothing and it goes nowhere.
I don't think casual viewers are confused at all. John Wick movies do the same thing. People pop in and out of John Wick's life. His mechanic didn't return for 3 and 4.
Chris explains why he's in prison. He was a soldier as part of a special unit, and they thought he was an escaped prisoner when the chaos hit.
Implicitly, we are to assume that characters who don't reappear between sequels are probably dead. We know from leaks that Chris was intended to be dead in the Arcadia attack. But Capcom would never let that happen. Jill, Chris, Ada, Leon, etc. are not allowed to die. Milla has explicitly said this in interviews back in 2017.
>A character alot of casual fans liked from the second movie Jill just disappears off the face of the earth in the 3rd film only to reappear at the end of the 4th in her RE5 videogame outfit but completely re-contexualized.
Scheduling conflict. She was originally co-lead in Extinction but they had to replace her with Claire. They could have maybe recast, but that Anderson doesn't seem to like doing that.
Anyway, her re-appearance is explained in-universe as her being under Umbrella's control. Where she's been isn't important.
>it's seems like there are corporate decisions mandating certain images/characters etc
Capcom did tend to request the inclusion of certain elements for cross-media promotion purposes. But it's not that overt to most people.
To be absolutely fair, the films were at the mercy of scheduling issues and studio meddling. Extinction had to be heavily rewritten because Jill's actress was busy. The Final Chapter had to be almost completely rewritten because their budget was cut and they couldn't afford to bring back the cast of the previous film.
However, the fact that the movies are singularly focused on Alice is kind of important because she's the glue that holds it all together. The continuity of each film is focused on her and her journey.
It's very similar to Mad Max. You go crazy if you try to make sense of the slipshod continuity of the Mad Max films. Who was born when, how long has it been, how did the world of Mad Max become apocalyptic, exactly? It's not super important.
Yeah. You have to take the RE movies as a non canon fever dream of a magical clone girl with amnesia and not some kind of canonical entry into a broader franchise. They are purely for fun. And Milla is the perfect actress for vacuous fun.
>So you didn't see a problem with introducing a main character like Chris Redfield, unceremoniously putting him in a box like he's some kind of action figure, taking him out of the box, then dropping the plotline completely and then never following up on it ever?
Not at all. He's just a character. Supporting cast comes and goes.
>Film 3 ends with a teaser for a possible film set in japan. That goes nowhere.
Film 4 literally opens in Japan.
>Film 2 ends with all of the heroes suited up in Umbrella uniforms and they ride off into the sunset. Immediately film 3 begins in a post apocalyptic wasteland the entire world is pretty much a total fricking wasteland "huhh what I thought it was just that one city now the whole world is destroyed in seemingly the span of a couple months"
This was meant to happen in the first movie, BTW. The White Queen and the intro sequence with the red dots spreading over the earth is from the first movie's screenplay. The studio whined about franchise potential so they made the ending of the first movie less bleak. As for Apocalypse, the film ends with Alice under Umbrella's control. They planned to shoot a scene showing how Alice left the group, but they couldn't get Jill's actress back due to scheduling issues so they just ignored it.
>Las vegas is already completely covered in sand. Why??
Why not? The desert has reclaimed it. It's 5 years.
>Film 4 literally opens in Japan.
For all of like 5 minutes then we get a giant Blade 2 style fight scene against a bunch of guys in helmets then we are flying in stealth bombers to fricking nowhere again. Around the time of these films alot of people though we were going to get another fun adventure in Japan for a whole film with hordes and shit like apocalypse in a new setting(with presumably better funding, costumes, action, etc.)
Let's just talk umbrella for a minute.
What exactly is going on here? This entire universe is fricking annihilated and this cartoonishly evil corporation is still performing more unsanctioned experiments and are seemingly insulated from the entire global economy crashing. This story is just laughable mustache twirling shit and destroying the world was the biggest mistake they made for the sake of piggybacking on mad max imagery for the third film.
>Around the time of these films alot of people though we were going to get another fun adventure in Japan for a whole film with hordes and shit like apocalypse in a new setting(with presumably better funding, costumes, action, etc.)
I'll again note that I'm not convinced Anderson likes Apocalypse. I think one of the biggest differences between Apocalypse and his films is that Apocalypse is a zombie movie. His movies are action/horror films that happen to feature zombies. And the zombies don't have a huge amount of screen time.
The plot of Afterlife is Alice completing her objective of blowing the shit out of Umbrella's Tokyo facility, then recuperating, then trying to find the mysterious Alaskan settlement from the previous film. Overall the movie is a bit wheel-spinning because offscreen the White Queen is supposed to be working on an anti-virus. Then Retribution picks up directly where Afterlife left off, and Alice is trapped. Things derail from there.
Honestly, Afterlife is filler and the whole film could have been a 20 minute intro sequence to Retribution.
>Honestly, Afterlife is filler and the whole film could have been a 20 minute intro sequence to Retribution.
Probably would of been a better decision. Afterlife has alot of baffling decisions and it was the beginning of the HUGE decline in storytelling in these films. I will say that 3 jumped the shark a bit but at the time the people around me were still laughing about it and were entertained by fonzy jumping the shark. Then 4 comes and now Fonzy is jumping 4 more sharks and I'm noticing that I'm watching these films with an ever dwindling crowd.
>After a bit you do tend to watch them just for hammy scenes or familiar faces. The first RE movie is good though, it's a solid mix of RE1&2. Alice is quite plainly inspired by Ada, which makes Ada's later inclusion a bit funny. But you simply have to take that in stride.
Ok I watched these films because despite the narrative being a mess they did offer some pretty slick action sequences and imagery. Yea some of my friends and I were there to laugh at the hammy shit in it, but I remember these films were kind of like "an event" it wasn't as if we were going to see a good movie it was more like a spectacle and when we saw 4 in 3d there was this intro sequence with a japanese girl half zombified girl standing in the rain(gotta admit I had gotten pretty high before I walked into the theatre) but that visual sequence alone with the slow panning camera and the 3d was actually pretty mindblowing. So I generally only watched these films for those moments and sadly though it wasn't something that could be replicated on a small screen it was a theatre IMAX type experience that I would only get once.
I will say there are alot of things in these films that are VISUALLY godlike but the baggage is there. We get bogged down in bad storylines and there are alot of unexplored characters. I felt like wesker was kind of half assed also he was introduced too late, had too little development. char limit
I don't think Afterlife and Retribution really care about traditional narrative. They are more about vibes. That's evident from the opening scene of Afterlife.
?si=twOKKTXjs5t4CJL0
Originally Anderson wanted the plot of Retribution to be extremely confusing. You would have no idea what the frick was going on for most of the movie, then you'd begin to understand that Alice was in a simulation. The studio didn't like this. I'd love to get the director's cut.
The best memory I've had from these films is just seeing the first one in a packed theatre. It entertained. The laser hall sequence contained a really good twist where everyone thinks the squad leader is going to survive then the laser turned into a grid. It was one of those iconic action movie moments. Even though like I said it didn't follow the plot of the games it didn't really matter at that point because they weren't weaving game narratives and characters into these films yet it was just a self contained experience. Small cast, zombie movie, good action, etc. I think what helped that movie was alot of lightning in a bottle too though that iconic theme, the atmosphere, the small cast etc. Now the visuals don't hold up but at the time they were cutting edge. The ending was also really good as others have mentioned with alice just walking off with that police shotgun into this dying empty city.
Afterlife was a fun experience because like I said the 3d IMAX shit intensified everything but narratively it was past the point of us even really caring about what kind of story they could tell we just cared about seeing the next crazy action sequence and the creatures.
I personally feel in terms of combining filmmaking quality with narrative, 1 and 3 are the best. 6 has maybe best writing in terms of dialogue, but the story itself is an incoherent mess. (The whole umbrella death squads scheming to kill all the remaining settlements when the timer runs out thing is baffling).
2 has the funnest dialogue, and is action packed, but it's very loosy goosy. The series as a whole never recaptured the tightness of the first movie. Though to be fair, it's not a unique problem. None of the Alien sequels recaptured just how tightly made Alien was. None of the Terminator sequels are as simple and elegant as the first Terminator.
>2 has the funnest dialogue, and is action packed, but it's very loosy goosy.
Yea 2 got a little loony toons and at the time I didn't notice it but on a rewatch alot of the effects, costumes, and prosthetics were REALLY BAD and Nemesis looks like something out of a some comic con cosplayers closet. The dialogue was pretty fun though there are some quotable moments basically anything with the black guy my friends were quoting that guy for years.
>The series as a whole never recaptured the tightness of the first movie.
It's definitely a shame that these movies didn't live up and it was just a sign of things to come regarding ALL videogame film tie ins though and it just became a general expectation among audiences "Oh let's go see how they butcher this one next" was the general consensus. I can't remember when these films became peak goyslop but it was probably around the Mark Wahlburg baffling Max Payne film where audiences had just had enough with video game tie ins and we were shifting into the Marvel film over saturation.
>and Nemesis looks like something out of a some comic con cosplayers closet.
I thought Nemesis was fine. It's a well done practical costume augmented with CGI to make the eyes more expressive.
>I thought Nemesis was fine
I did too until I rewatched it a few years ago. There are some shots that reveal too much. His movement is also really really bad and it's just letting the audience know that this is just a big dumb rubber suit.
To compare him to something else just look at the pyramid head from the Silent Hill film and it's night and day. Pyramid Head still holds up and he was used more sparingly in that movie and they shot it from angles to cover up the deficits in that costume. Nemesis is too exposed especially during the fight sequence where he's just moving around like a big dummy.
>Las vegas is already completely covered in sand. Why?? It's like 600 years passed but in the context of the film it's been what? A year or 2?
This is honestly what would happen if they weren't constantly sweeping sand out of Vegas. If you were paying attention at school when they told you how sand dunes form (it's one of those important things every REAL MAN has to know, like how Ox-bow lakes form) you'd know how fast a fine can form even when it is just a patch of grass that the windborne sad is constantly piling up against. Now imagine that is a car, a strip club or a casino the sand can like up against. Something solid like that will provide a stronger structure for the dunes but there will be more blow outs than when a fine is formed with marram grass roots providing a more resilient matrix.
They were actually very accurate with their set in RE3 and it suggests that Anderson spent a lot of time researching what it would look like. He is the Kubrick of our time.
The apocalyptic imagery of the RE movies is very Planet of the Apes inspired, and you can find some of it in the film he made just before the first Resident Evil. Amusingly, the destroyed Twin Towers appears to be based on the Mario 1993 Twin Towers scene, just flipped.
>it's one of those important things every REAL MAN has to know, like how Ox-bow lakes form
Nah nobody knows about that. The majority of working class guys would call you a gay nerd for asserting something like that.
It's a very important part of the national curriculum in the UK. I was talking to a friend about how cool Ox-now lakes are at the pub the other day during the football and as a result of that a load of us are hiring a minibus next week and going down to some of our local ones to do some flow testing and drink some beers and crisps. Going to be awesome. One of them , Smelly Dave, is working class and managed to aquire the flow testing kits.
the laser hallway scene still makes me uncomfortable to this day so I don't rewatch that one.
The ending with alice wienering the shotgun is just
instant splooge-worthy. Really made me anticipate the other films. While I do enjoy them I wanted more survival and game centric premises.
Legit this wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't amazing or anything but it was actually a pretty promising start to something that could of been great. Then everything after it just became a Troma level joke.
What is your issue with the sequels? What don't you like about them?
>These movies suck
>Everything after 4 sucks
>Why?
>b-because it became a stupid action movie of a game series and the movies already were too!
>what???? FOUR DIDN'T DO THAT NO FRICK YOU YOUF UCKING DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT GAMES 4 DID NOT MAKE IT AN ACTION GAME EVEN THOUGH IT IS IDENTICAL TO 5 AND 6 IN EVERY SINGLE WAY EXCEPT EVEN MORE moronic BY HAVING A MIDGET DEMON IN A MAGIC CASTLE NO THAT WAS COOL!! IT'S DIFFERENT!!!! IT'S NOT ACTION SCHLOCK UNTIL 5~!!!
Yeah 4 is shit, all the elderly RE know this. It's ok at best.
*RE fans
I like them, good solid action films and you get to see peak Jovovich minge and her large and in charge nipples at full excited engorgement.
To this day whenever someone says the words "purging process" I have a Pavlovian response.
She knew what she was doing as well, in the DVD commentary she draws attention to things like her "twot shot" and says it shows her commitment and faith in the film.
dvd commentaries of RE made me wish that I could have as much fun at work or anywhere really. It is a millennial time capsule.
The Russian interview is great
>The tech guys keep making my breasts bigger on the posters
The RE theme music is awesome. I remember seeing the first one in theatres, it was a great time. I don't think the movies and games should be pit against each other they both serve the same general vibe, which you might have had to have been there to fully appreciate.
The games rely on atmosphere and the looming sense of danger without that much action. I played the first game a few years back and I had to look up hints like close to 3 times since I was completely stuck. The book being able to be opened is one that I couldn't figure out on my own and only after I went and meticulously went to every room in the mansion with hunters running around did I pass the area.
They differ a bit from game to game, but the earlier ones were partially defined by the ability to avoid the majority of enemies. There was a fair amount of action if you were bad at the game and tried to brute force your way through. But its certainly the case the early games invoked particular sensations, which static camera angles contributed to. There is a special kind of 3rd personism that comes from seeing angles on your character as if you're watching from a security camera instead of being directly in control. Later games dropped this unfortunately.
The movies follow a similar pattern of degradation. At least the first one is quite pure, in terms of its overall ambience and creativity.
Retribution, after life, 1,2,,3
Extinction is fricking boring.
The film franchise is pure schlock and very entertaining to watch with friends, but Extinction is just fricking miserable.
I think Extinction is one of the best post-apocalyptic films ever made. It really captures the sense of being a lone wanderer at the end of the world. The Final Chapter is also interesting because it takes the world from Extinction and just royally fricks it. Extinction is a dying world. The Final Chapter is a husk. There can be no victory. Alice murders hundreds, perhaps thousands of Umbrella employees in storage out of sheer spite.
The movies were never intended to go past Extinction. That's why everything after Extinction has a "I don't give a frick anymore" quality. The plot was wrapped up in Extinction, Tokyo sequel bait aside. Alice was safe. Her blood would be used to end the t-virus pandemic. Everything after Extinction is either navel gazing arty-farty stuff or Anderson seemingly trying to crash the franchise with no survivors (The Final Chapter). The later films are less about the story and the characters and more about weird metacommentary on franchise filmmaking. It has an alienating effect even if a lot of people did enjoy the action spectacle.
The first three films are relatively grounded action/horror films. The second trilogy is fundamentally different in style, tone, and so on. They even completely ditch the original music style and motifs for the new Tomandandy sound. It's more of a soft reboot than anything the RE games have attempted.
Paul Anderson died and was cloned sometime during the second film. That's why all of a sudden the entire story of the movies revolves around cloning.
Movie 2 ends with "let's fight umbrella" but all of a sudden movie 3 is "nvm the world ended it's all desert apocalypse now". That's because the clone was told to watch the movies and maybe some shots from the games and make a story, and it's not the same as the original Paul's. Unfortunately that clone's body failed and died and they had to do that again every time.
3 "we have an army of superpowers and clones now"
4 "uhhh, every clone died and now Alice has no super powers"
"Now we have a boat filled with survivors and stuff"
5 "hey frick the boat everyone on board is dead"
"but look, all along US military was alive and defending the white house also superpowers are back"
6 "nevermind, everyone is dead, no superpowers, let's go into the nuclear crater this time also change the villain again"
Every movie undoes the ending and themes of the last one because the new clone wants to make his own movie instead of continuing the last clone's story. Mila never found out about her original husband's death or the fact that they keep giving her new clones.
The first movie was originally meant to end with apocalypse. The closing shot was Alice driving towards Manhattan and it's just silent and desolate. Sound familiar? It's the closing scene of The Final Chapter.
You will notice a pattern of Anderson trying to kill all the characters but being roped into a sequel anyway.
>Alice driving towards Manhattan and it's just silent and desolate. Sound familiar? It's the closing scene of The Final Chapter.
Huh?
The final scene is her on a motorcycle in a desert being chased by a giant zombie dragon as music kicks in before the credits roll.
You have a strange understanding of "desolate and silent" anon.
It would be a good trilogy if the first movie was good
The first movie needs a remake. Paul can write it, someone else can direct, Ever Anderson can play the Red Queen, who looked 16 in the original screenplay.
Speaking of Resident Evil, Planet of the Apes, and flim-flam continuity, I still wonder if In the Lost Lands is going to be set in the Resident Evil universe, but hundreds of years in the future. It seems like such low hanging fruit, though. Maybe they'll avoid it simply because of how obvious it is. From the co-writer:
>The film is based on a story by George RR Martin, which I bought years ago and which has now become a big budgeted epic fantasy film starring Milla Jovovich and Dave Bautista. I wrote the script in collaboration with British director Paul WS Anderson who put his unique vision on it, setting it in a dystopian future, a world in ruins, haunted by demons and monsters.
>The film is based on a story by George RR Martin, which I bought years ago and which has now become a big budgeted epic fantasy film starring Milla Jovovich and Dave Bautista
Uh oh
Is this like gonna be Elden Ring adjacent lol
Funny you mention that because I also wouldn't be surprised if it's basically off-brand Elden Ring but with some modern technology. Elden Ring's trailer came out in 2019. The game came out several months before the movie was shot. Plenty of time for influence to bleed in.
Yea not just elden ring but the whole fromsoftware canon like Demon Souls, Dark Souls, Bloodborne, etc.
>setting it in a dystopian future, a world in ruins, haunted by demons and monsters.
>a story by George RR Martin
>big budgeted epic fantasy film
This whole thing sounds really Fromsoft inspired which would be a smart move given the success of those games and the moronic internet loremaster community that formed around them.
"Zanzibart forgive me"- Myrmidon of Loss type shit would sell if the context was preserved in a film translation. Then you get the dipshit youtube doofus' posting their fan theories and 3 hour lore breakdowns then you stoke the fire by feeding them info and shit.
>trilogy
it went to shit when they started doing psychic abilities
and i completely agree that outside of raccoon city Resident evil cant tell a remotely serious story that has a good ending. all their animated films are complete garbage and require brain off