Agree with all this except Afterlife
It deserves to be 6/10, has comfy kino environments and Ada is fricking banging
Apocalypse is definitely the best, only way it could've been better is if Jill was the protag
yeah but Wentworth Miller is a HORRIBLE Chris Redfield, the gimmicky 3D shit is obnoxious, and it feels very cheap and amateurish compared to the first three
Oh shit just realized I was talking about Retribution being kino and not afterlife, mixed them up
Frick
In conclusion, agree with your ratings
Have a kino Retribution trailer
>yeah but Wentworth Miller is a HORRIBLE Chris Redfield
He's fine. >the gimmicky 3D shit is obnoxious
It gives the film a very interesting look and feel. They were trying to push the boundaries of 3D filmmaking, and its work helped inform Retribution. >and it feels very cheap and amateurish compared to the first three
I disagree. It feels like a huge upgrade in production values. But it is far less interested in conventional realism. It's far more interested in slow motion and expressionistic visuals.
>The last S in STARS has a different meaning in the movie >The Trinity of b***hes >Sienna Guillory pantyshots in RE: Apocalypse >Rejected George Romero script >Milla Jovovich vegana slip >Red Letter Media's Afterlife hysteria >Nickelback was supposed to have a song in the live action movies >Scrapped RE: Apocalypse animated series >Crew member death on set of live action films >Alice clones are an allegory for the Krenski Paradigm
Some of the production decisions in these movies are bizarre. It's honestly baffling how these movies even managed to get made with all the problems they faced after the first one
>Sienna Guillory pantyshots in RE: Apocalypse
Only good thing about these movies
Yes, it's cinema. In a few decades when the RE game series is a footnote, people are still going to be watching these movies, and baffled that they were once controversial. And they'll universally agree that 2 is the weakest one (2 is propped up by game fans who only like it because it loosely follows the plot from one of the games).
None of these current videogame franchises will be around in a few decades. You may as well argue that Fortnite is going to be a cultural presence in a few decades.
None of these current videogame franchises will be around in a few decades. You may as well argue that Fortnite is going to be a cultural presence in a few decades.
Think about it this way. Nobody in the current generation has played the old Resident Evil games. Videogames have a far, far, far worse recency bias problem compared to cinema.
Yes. Just as people are still watching movies from the 1980s and 1990s. It's only really when you go to the 70s and before that the stylistic simplicity of cinema becomes a problem. In Resident Evil's case, people will be (re)discovering the Resident Evil films for many years to come. It helps that the films have aged super well. They'll get a boost when Paul W.S. Anderson eventually bites it and his "visionary auteur who redefined multiple genres" reputation is cemented.
>Just as people are still watching movies from the 1980s and 1990s.
Maybe movieheads. Most people watching movies aren't looking for anything from that era. > In Resident Evil's case, people will be (re)discovering the Resident Evil films for many years to come.
And you don't think that will happen once Capcom releases the old games in the future?
Hell even if you say they won't, "movie" playthroughs are pretty popular on YouTube. So the fanbase for the games will still be big. >They'll get a boost when Paul W.S. Anderson eventually bites it and his "visionary auteur who redefined multiple genres" reputation is cemented.
What multiple genres have that hack redefined?
Which do you think is going to be watched/played in 30 years? >Terminator 3. >The videogames based on Terminator 3.
what a terrible comparison. First off, who is rewatching Terminator 3? And secondly, the Terminator 3 games aren't special. The Resident Evil games sure are.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>And you don't think that will happen once Capcom releases the old games in the future?
They haven't re-released the old games now. What makes you think that'll change? >Hell even if you say they won't, "movie" playthroughs are pretty popular on YouTube.
They're not that popular. It ultimately ends up being a niche thing, like Silent Hill. The new Silent Hill film didn't get greenlit because of the games. It got greenlit because the 2006 film is relatively well known all these years later.
It's an issue of access and the way in which videogames age. Anyone in 2024 can pick up the 2006 Silent Hill film and watch it. But relatively few will ever play the original Silent Hill 2. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil game is, they'll name something recent. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil movie is, they'll name something from decades ago, and this has less to do with quality and more to do with how audiences engage with videogames vs films.
Why do you think Capcom have made so many RE remakes, but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet? Because the RE movies haven't aged. At most they would do some director's cuts with better CG. But there is a permanence to film. There is a disposability to videogames. >What multiple genres have that hack redefined?
Cosmic horror (Event Horizon), car movies (Death Race), zombie movies (Resident Evil). If his new film is a hit, he'll be the face of GRRM adaptations-slash-fantasy cinema. Basically think like Peter Jackson but skinnier. >First off, who is rewatching Terminator 3?
A lot of people. It's a super popular film. It only got more popular after Dark Fate came out and was a bad version of T3.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>They haven't re-released the old games now. What makes you think that'll change?
They started rereleasing the Mega Man games, they'll do the Resident Evil games soon enough. >They're not that popular. It ultimately ends up being a niche thing, like Silent Hill. The new Silent Hill film didn't get greenlit because of the games. It got greenlit because the 2006 film is relatively well known all these years later.
Why are you comparing Silent Hill to Resident Evil? Silent Hill as a whole has only sold 9 million copies. The Resident Evil Games have sold 150 million.
And anyway, the games not being relevant for years later doesn't matter when they're iconic. Even the new Silent Hill movie will replicate the game's atmosphere instead of being original else like the old movies. >It's an issue of access and the way in which videogames age. Anyone in 2024 can pick up the 2006 Silent Hill film and watch it. But relatively few will ever play the original Silent Hill 2.
Anyone can watch it, but who will actually remember it? Meanwhile anyone playing Silent Hill 2 will remember it. >If you ask people what the best Resident Evil game is, they'll name something recent. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil movie is, they'll name something from decades ago, and this has less to do with quality and more to do with how audiences engage with videogames vs films.
Many people will still think that the original Resident Evil 4, released almost 20 years ago now, is the best of the series. Even if it has dated controls. >Why do you think Capcom have made so many RE remakes, but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet?
Capcom is doing remakes because of the original having a remake. >but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet? Because the RE movies haven't aged. At most they would do some director's cuts with better CG. But there is a permanence to film. There is a disposability to videogames.
Why would film studios remake bad zombie movies?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Many people will still think that the original Resident Evil 4, released almost 20 years ago now, is the best of the series.
A vast majority of fans have never played RE4 and never will.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Anyone can watch it, but who will actually remember it?
There's a reason everyone thinks that Silent Hill has ash falling from the sky. Similarly, the upcoming Return to Silent Hill is likely going to completely override SH2 and SH2 Remake in the public consciousness.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Why would film studios remake bad zombie movies?
Same reason they're desperately trying to keep the series going without Milla, Paul, and Jeremy. The franchise prints money. Or it used to print money.
This week is the 7th anniversary of RE: The Final Chapter, which made a modest 312M on a budget of 40M. It was followed by a reboot that made 42M on a budget of 25M.
Audiences have spoken. No Alice, no buy. So a remake will probably happen in the near future. But remakes of iconic and beloved films often fail. It's unenviable.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Cosmic horror (Event Horizon), car movies (Death Race), zombie movies (Resident Evil). If his new film is a hit, he'll be the face of GRRM adaptations-slash-fantasy cinema. Basically think like Peter Jackson but skinnier.
Bro all of these are minor hits at best. What movies were influenced by Event Horizon? What movies were influenced by Death Race? You can't redefine a genre when no one copies you. >A lot of people. It's a super popular film.
This is an anecdote at best, where's your proof? At most, people are watching fight scenes on YouTube.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>What movies were influenced by Death Race?
Mad Max Fury Road, for one.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Bro all of these are minor hits at best.
The Resident Evil films are huuuuge. The only real competition is World War Z and I am Legend and both of them borrow liberally from Resident Evil. Event Horizon is the basis for all cosmic space horror. It proved very influential in the videogame space, oddly, with imitators like Dead Space and Mass Effect. And Death Race revolutionized car movies with its gritty tone, focus on practical effects, and fast editing.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>The Resident Evil films are huuuuge. The only real competition is World War Z and I am Legend and both of them borrow liberally from Resident Evil.
Notice I didn't mention the RE movies? I do know they had some influence on cinema. But still; it only influenced horror movies. The Resident Evil games have influenced games beyond horror. > Event Horizon is the basis for all cosmic space horror.
Uh no? Solaris? Even if you mean modern cosmic space horror... what imitators are there exactly? >It proved very influential in the videogame space, oddly, with imitators like Dead Space and Mass Effect.
Dead Space maybe, but how exactly is Mass Effect similar? > And Death Race revolutionized car movies with its gritty tone, focus on practical effects, and fast editing.
So what movies are like Death Race?
>Anyone can watch it, but who will actually remember it?
There's a reason everyone thinks that Silent Hill has ash falling from the sky. Similarly, the upcoming Return to Silent Hill is likely going to completely override SH2 and SH2 Remake in the public consciousness.
>There's a reason everyone thinks that Silent Hill has ash falling from the sky.
Yeah, and? Misconceptions are common. >Similarly, the upcoming Return to Silent Hill is likely going to completely override SH2 and SH2 Remake in the public consciousness.
Except it won't, because Silent Hill will continue to live on past that movie. It's remained relevant far past 2013 after all. >Same reason they're desperately trying to keep the series going without Milla, Paul, and Jeremy. The franchise prints money. Or it used to print money.
Or maybe people just found out those movies just flat-out suck?
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Most people watching movies aren't looking for anything from that era.
People watching zombie movies are. You do have a point about the distinction between movie buffs and the normies, though. Like, who is actually watching Aliens or RoboCop or whatever in 2024? Young people just watch Tiktok, they're not interested in movies.
>go to the 70s and before that the stylistic simplicity of cinema becomes a problem
not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays. Also there was more care put into the visuals of films back then, every film today just goes for "realism". I do love the RE films though.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays.
As a huge fan of older films, I think I phrased that badly. Pre-80s films tended to have this rough, "real" feel to them. The audio mixing, the staging, the pacing -- pacing was a hugely different thing back then. Unfortunately a lot of audiences got weaned onto the Star Wars approach to filmmaking which was a lot more flashily edited, brisker paced, and so on. There was a real shift coming into the 80s and the likes of Star Wars and Jaws mark the turning point in the style of cinema.
It's tough because if you try to show a modern person a film like Planet of the Apes from the 1960s, so much about how the film is made, how it's paced, the way in which the story is told doesn't fit their post-Star Wars conception of storytelling.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Ah, yeah I completely agree with you. I'd love to see more films nowadays that have an "older" feel.
>go to the 70s and before that the stylistic simplicity of cinema becomes a problem
not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays. Also there was more care put into the visuals of films back then, every film today just goes for "realism". I do love the RE films though.
>not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays.
As a huge fan of older films, I think I phrased that badly. Pre-80s films tended to have this rough, "real" feel to them. The audio mixing, the staging, the pacing -- pacing was a hugely different thing back then. Unfortunately a lot of audiences got weaned onto the Star Wars approach to filmmaking which was a lot more flashily edited, brisker paced, and so on. There was a real shift coming into the 80s and the likes of Star Wars and Jaws mark the turning point in the style of cinema.
It's tough because if you try to show a modern person a film like Planet of the Apes from the 1960s, so much about how the film is made, how it's paced, the way in which the story is told doesn't fit their post-Star Wars conception of storytelling.
This even extends into the 1980s. If you show a modern moviegoer Romero's Day of the Dead, they're probably going to find it a bit hokey, but when it was made it was a very serious, scary movie.
Honestly this is SUPER relevant for Resident Evil because (in addition to RE3 being based on Day of the Dead) the films entered the market in a time when Romero zombies were seen as stupid and goofy. "Braiiiins" was a punchline. So the RE films had to try to reinvent the stylistic conventions of zombies to make them seem cool again. And most modern zombie films are either like 28 Days Later or like Resident Evil. It's almost unheard of to have moaning Romero-style zombies because audience tastes and perceptions changed.
You liking Jill doesn't make 2 good. 2 is only a decent film when placed in a trilogy. When placed on its own, it's a clusterfrick and it almost made Milla quit the franchise because she hated working on it and hated how it turned out as a movie. They had to woo her back for Extinction. She put Apocalypse on the same level, in the same breath, as Ultraviolet.
The only reason Apocalypse is artificially inflated is because of RE game fans who wanted the movies to be like the games, so they latch onto the one movie in the series that is sorta like the games. It's insipid. Now I'm not waying that Apocalypse is without merit. It has some neat ideas. But its quality as a film is all over the place.
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/milla-jovovich-on-resident-evil-and-her-ultraviolet-beef/
There was another interview I couldn't find where she spoke at a conference and publicly apologized for Apocalypse and said the film went off the rails because of the "money people", and she promised that Extinction would be a return to form. Behind the scenes the first draft of Extinction didn't have Milla because there were serious concerns they couldn't get her back.
She later warmed to Apocalypse a bit, and said that as a middle entry in the trilogy it's a fun movie. But she was not happy with it overall.
Thanks for the sauce. Although I still love Apocalypse it's interesting to read about the film's production.
3 months ago
Anonymous
The fact Apocalypse is decent, and MK Annihilation is shit is a good example of how important a figure like Jeremy Bolt (producer) can be. People think that Anderson was the one calling the shots. Anderson was off making AvP for Fox. Bolt was the guy on the ground keeping Apocalypse from imploding. He's not particularly well known, but he's the reason the RE films came in on time and under budget. he's very good at his job.
But yea, Apocalypse could have turned out absolutely terrible instead of uneven. It could have killed the RE series. But it's rough, yet watchable, pulpy, fun. I do love how camp the film is, compared to the others which take themselves very seriously.
I don't give a flying frick about the games, never liked them and never will. Apocalypse is still easily the best of the film series, because it's hilarious and awesome. Hot women kung fu fighting zombies in a graveyard, Milla running down the side of a skyscraper, based black comic relief guy, it's like a cheesy 80s drive-in movie but made in the 2000s on a big budget. Your opinion is shit
>Apocalypse is still easily the best of the film series, because it's hilarious and awesome. Hot women kung fu fighting zombies in a graveyard, Milla running down the side of a skyscraper, based black comic relief guy, it's like a cheesy 80s drive-in movie but made in the 2000s on a big budget.
I'm referring to more aspects of technical quality. Like not having the lead actress redub every line in the movie because she forgot how to play Alice during the entirety of filming, and then called the producer (Paul W.S. Anderson) in a panic saying the movie was a "fricking disaster" because she's just seen the rough cut, and saying "We have to redo the entire thing".
I understand appreciating the fun, pulpy tone of Apocalypse. GTA Motherfricker! All that stuff is really fun. But in terms of film quality, in terms of the cohesion of the film, the polish, the pacing, Apocalypse is messy. It's the messiest film in the series. From a certain perspective, though, it's the most fun, and I can understand that perspective.
>Apocalypse is still easily the best of the film series, because it's hilarious and awesome. Hot women kung fu fighting zombies in a graveyard, Milla running down the side of a skyscraper, based black comic relief guy, it's like a cheesy 80s drive-in movie but made in the 2000s on a big budget.
I'm referring to more aspects of technical quality. Like not having the lead actress redub every line in the movie because she forgot how to play Alice during the entirety of filming, and then called the producer (Paul W.S. Anderson) in a panic saying the movie was a "fricking disaster" because she's just seen the rough cut, and saying "We have to redo the entire thing".
I understand appreciating the fun, pulpy tone of Apocalypse. GTA Motherfricker! All that stuff is really fun. But in terms of film quality, in terms of the cohesion of the film, the polish, the pacing, Apocalypse is messy. It's the messiest film in the series. From a certain perspective, though, it's the most fun, and I can understand that perspective.
Apocalypse is a bit like Mario Bros 1993 in that the actor(s) hated working on it, the film fell apart during production, the director got blacklisted -- he never directed another film, instead returning to second unit work, which he's really good at -- but you can't deny it has style.
I looked at Alexander Witt's IMDB and it turns out he directed two movies that both came out last year (Sayen and Sayen: Desert Road). Did they film both of these back to back? If so it seems like an odd decision for a bottom of the barrel movie that nobody outside of Chile would watch. I read an interview with Witt for No Time To Die in which he talks about wanting to direct more. He probably ruined his chances once again.
3 months ago
Anonymous
I looked at the same interview I was talking about and he actually mentions the Sayen movies. Apparently it's a trilogy lol
3 months ago
Anonymous
more info
3 months ago
Anonymous
Very interesting. Sayen had escaped my notice. I'm happy he's directing again, but it seems like Sayen did not fare well. Being memory holed on Prime Video probably didn't help.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>that nobody outside of Chile would watch
I can assure you that no one here watched it either. The movie is beyond moronic and its target demographic is the minority of a minority of a minority.
Yes. Part of the reason the Resident Evil franchise has endured is its willingness to reinvent itself. The creative masterstroke of Extinction completely abandoning the aesthetic of the first two films. Of Afterlife discarding the original music for something bold and incredible. A lot of similar franchises fell into a rut. Same old, same old. You never knew what you'd be getting next with RE. Every film subverted expectations and pushed boundaries.
Then Paul W.S. Anderson and Jeremy Bolt left and everything imploded. But even then, Welcome to Racoon City and Resident Evil (2022) are not without their charms. They're just not visionary works of art like the original six films were.
>wear the Resident Evil characters as skin suits to tell a different story.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? It's how you make a truly great adaptation of a flawed property that has some interesting ideas.
>The last S in STARS has a different meaning in the movie >The Trinity of b***hes >Sienna Guillory pantyshots in RE: Apocalypse >Rejected George Romero script >Milla Jovovich vegana slip >Red Letter Media's Afterlife hysteria >Nickelback was supposed to have a song in the live action movies >Scrapped RE: Apocalypse animated series >Crew member death on set of live action films >Alice clones are an allegory for the Krenski Paradigm
Some of the production decisions in these movies are bizarre. It's honestly baffling how these movies even managed to get made with all the problems they faced after the first one
RE1 - 8/10
RE: Apocalypse - 9/10
RE: Extinction - 6/10
RE: Afterlife - 3/10
RE: Retribution - 5/10
RE: The Final Chapter - 1/10
Agree with all this except Afterlife
It deserves to be 6/10, has comfy kino environments and Ada is fricking banging
Apocalypse is definitely the best, only way it could've been better is if Jill was the protag
yeah but Wentworth Miller is a HORRIBLE Chris Redfield, the gimmicky 3D shit is obnoxious, and it feels very cheap and amateurish compared to the first three
Oh shit just realized I was talking about Retribution being kino and not afterlife, mixed them up
Frick
In conclusion, agree with your ratings
Have a kino Retribution trailer
>yeah but Wentworth Miller is a HORRIBLE Chris Redfield
He's fine.
>the gimmicky 3D shit is obnoxious
It gives the film a very interesting look and feel. They were trying to push the boundaries of 3D filmmaking, and its work helped inform Retribution.
>and it feels very cheap and amateurish compared to the first three
I disagree. It feels like a huge upgrade in production values. But it is far less interested in conventional realism. It's far more interested in slow motion and expressionistic visuals.
Ada Wong was in Retribution, not Afterlife
>Sienna Guillory pantyshots in RE: Apocalypse
Only good thing about these movies
Yes, it's cinema. In a few decades when the RE game series is a footnote, people are still going to be watching these movies, and baffled that they were once controversial. And they'll universally agree that 2 is the weakest one (2 is propped up by game fans who only like it because it loosely follows the plot from one of the games).
The RE games are more popular than ever with no sign of stopping anytime soon so I dunno about that broski
None of these current videogame franchises will be around in a few decades. You may as well argue that Fortnite is going to be a cultural presence in a few decades.
Think about it this way. Nobody in the current generation has played the old Resident Evil games. Videogames have a far, far, far worse recency bias problem compared to cinema.
> Nobody in the current generation has played the old Resident Evil games.
And you think anyone is watching shit movies from the 2000s?
Yes. Just as people are still watching movies from the 1980s and 1990s. It's only really when you go to the 70s and before that the stylistic simplicity of cinema becomes a problem. In Resident Evil's case, people will be (re)discovering the Resident Evil films for many years to come. It helps that the films have aged super well. They'll get a boost when Paul W.S. Anderson eventually bites it and his "visionary auteur who redefined multiple genres" reputation is cemented.
>Just as people are still watching movies from the 1980s and 1990s.
Maybe movieheads. Most people watching movies aren't looking for anything from that era.
> In Resident Evil's case, people will be (re)discovering the Resident Evil films for many years to come.
And you don't think that will happen once Capcom releases the old games in the future?
Hell even if you say they won't, "movie" playthroughs are pretty popular on YouTube. So the fanbase for the games will still be big.
>They'll get a boost when Paul W.S. Anderson eventually bites it and his "visionary auteur who redefined multiple genres" reputation is cemented.
What multiple genres have that hack redefined?
what a terrible comparison. First off, who is rewatching Terminator 3? And secondly, the Terminator 3 games aren't special. The Resident Evil games sure are.
>And you don't think that will happen once Capcom releases the old games in the future?
They haven't re-released the old games now. What makes you think that'll change?
>Hell even if you say they won't, "movie" playthroughs are pretty popular on YouTube.
They're not that popular. It ultimately ends up being a niche thing, like Silent Hill. The new Silent Hill film didn't get greenlit because of the games. It got greenlit because the 2006 film is relatively well known all these years later.
It's an issue of access and the way in which videogames age. Anyone in 2024 can pick up the 2006 Silent Hill film and watch it. But relatively few will ever play the original Silent Hill 2. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil game is, they'll name something recent. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil movie is, they'll name something from decades ago, and this has less to do with quality and more to do with how audiences engage with videogames vs films.
Why do you think Capcom have made so many RE remakes, but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet? Because the RE movies haven't aged. At most they would do some director's cuts with better CG. But there is a permanence to film. There is a disposability to videogames.
>What multiple genres have that hack redefined?
Cosmic horror (Event Horizon), car movies (Death Race), zombie movies (Resident Evil). If his new film is a hit, he'll be the face of GRRM adaptations-slash-fantasy cinema. Basically think like Peter Jackson but skinnier.
>First off, who is rewatching Terminator 3?
A lot of people. It's a super popular film. It only got more popular after Dark Fate came out and was a bad version of T3.
>They haven't re-released the old games now. What makes you think that'll change?
They started rereleasing the Mega Man games, they'll do the Resident Evil games soon enough.
>They're not that popular. It ultimately ends up being a niche thing, like Silent Hill. The new Silent Hill film didn't get greenlit because of the games. It got greenlit because the 2006 film is relatively well known all these years later.
Why are you comparing Silent Hill to Resident Evil? Silent Hill as a whole has only sold 9 million copies. The Resident Evil Games have sold 150 million.
And anyway, the games not being relevant for years later doesn't matter when they're iconic. Even the new Silent Hill movie will replicate the game's atmosphere instead of being original else like the old movies.
>It's an issue of access and the way in which videogames age. Anyone in 2024 can pick up the 2006 Silent Hill film and watch it. But relatively few will ever play the original Silent Hill 2.
Anyone can watch it, but who will actually remember it? Meanwhile anyone playing Silent Hill 2 will remember it.
>If you ask people what the best Resident Evil game is, they'll name something recent. If you ask people what the best Resident Evil movie is, they'll name something from decades ago, and this has less to do with quality and more to do with how audiences engage with videogames vs films.
Many people will still think that the original Resident Evil 4, released almost 20 years ago now, is the best of the series. Even if it has dated controls.
>Why do you think Capcom have made so many RE remakes, but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet?
Capcom is doing remakes because of the original having a remake.
>but the film studios haven't remade the RE movies yet? Because the RE movies haven't aged. At most they would do some director's cuts with better CG. But there is a permanence to film. There is a disposability to videogames.
Why would film studios remake bad zombie movies?
>Many people will still think that the original Resident Evil 4, released almost 20 years ago now, is the best of the series.
A vast majority of fans have never played RE4 and never will.
>Anyone can watch it, but who will actually remember it?
There's a reason everyone thinks that Silent Hill has ash falling from the sky. Similarly, the upcoming Return to Silent Hill is likely going to completely override SH2 and SH2 Remake in the public consciousness.
>Why would film studios remake bad zombie movies?
Same reason they're desperately trying to keep the series going without Milla, Paul, and Jeremy. The franchise prints money. Or it used to print money.
This week is the 7th anniversary of RE: The Final Chapter, which made a modest 312M on a budget of 40M. It was followed by a reboot that made 42M on a budget of 25M.
Audiences have spoken. No Alice, no buy. So a remake will probably happen in the near future. But remakes of iconic and beloved films often fail. It's unenviable.
>Cosmic horror (Event Horizon), car movies (Death Race), zombie movies (Resident Evil). If his new film is a hit, he'll be the face of GRRM adaptations-slash-fantasy cinema. Basically think like Peter Jackson but skinnier.
Bro all of these are minor hits at best. What movies were influenced by Event Horizon? What movies were influenced by Death Race? You can't redefine a genre when no one copies you.
>A lot of people. It's a super popular film.
This is an anecdote at best, where's your proof? At most, people are watching fight scenes on YouTube.
>What movies were influenced by Death Race?
Mad Max Fury Road, for one.
>Bro all of these are minor hits at best.
The Resident Evil films are huuuuge. The only real competition is World War Z and I am Legend and both of them borrow liberally from Resident Evil. Event Horizon is the basis for all cosmic space horror. It proved very influential in the videogame space, oddly, with imitators like Dead Space and Mass Effect. And Death Race revolutionized car movies with its gritty tone, focus on practical effects, and fast editing.
>The Resident Evil films are huuuuge. The only real competition is World War Z and I am Legend and both of them borrow liberally from Resident Evil.
Notice I didn't mention the RE movies? I do know they had some influence on cinema. But still; it only influenced horror movies. The Resident Evil games have influenced games beyond horror.
> Event Horizon is the basis for all cosmic space horror.
Uh no? Solaris? Even if you mean modern cosmic space horror... what imitators are there exactly?
>It proved very influential in the videogame space, oddly, with imitators like Dead Space and Mass Effect.
Dead Space maybe, but how exactly is Mass Effect similar?
> And Death Race revolutionized car movies with its gritty tone, focus on practical effects, and fast editing.
So what movies are like Death Race?
>There's a reason everyone thinks that Silent Hill has ash falling from the sky.
Yeah, and? Misconceptions are common.
>Similarly, the upcoming Return to Silent Hill is likely going to completely override SH2 and SH2 Remake in the public consciousness.
Except it won't, because Silent Hill will continue to live on past that movie. It's remained relevant far past 2013 after all.
>Same reason they're desperately trying to keep the series going without Milla, Paul, and Jeremy. The franchise prints money. Or it used to print money.
Or maybe people just found out those movies just flat-out suck?
>Most people watching movies aren't looking for anything from that era.
People watching zombie movies are. You do have a point about the distinction between movie buffs and the normies, though. Like, who is actually watching Aliens or RoboCop or whatever in 2024? Young people just watch Tiktok, they're not interested in movies.
>go to the 70s and before that the stylistic simplicity of cinema becomes a problem
not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays. Also there was more care put into the visuals of films back then, every film today just goes for "realism". I do love the RE films though.
>not the same anon you are replying to but films before the 70s had very dynamic camera movements, I'd say even more so than movies nowadays.
As a huge fan of older films, I think I phrased that badly. Pre-80s films tended to have this rough, "real" feel to them. The audio mixing, the staging, the pacing -- pacing was a hugely different thing back then. Unfortunately a lot of audiences got weaned onto the Star Wars approach to filmmaking which was a lot more flashily edited, brisker paced, and so on. There was a real shift coming into the 80s and the likes of Star Wars and Jaws mark the turning point in the style of cinema.
It's tough because if you try to show a modern person a film like Planet of the Apes from the 1960s, so much about how the film is made, how it's paced, the way in which the story is told doesn't fit their post-Star Wars conception of storytelling.
Ah, yeah I completely agree with you. I'd love to see more films nowadays that have an "older" feel.
This even extends into the 1980s. If you show a modern moviegoer Romero's Day of the Dead, they're probably going to find it a bit hokey, but when it was made it was a very serious, scary movie.
Honestly this is SUPER relevant for Resident Evil because (in addition to RE3 being based on Day of the Dead) the films entered the market in a time when Romero zombies were seen as stupid and goofy. "Braiiiins" was a punchline. So the RE films had to try to reinvent the stylistic conventions of zombies to make them seem cool again. And most modern zombie films are either like 28 Days Later or like Resident Evil. It's almost unheard of to have moaning Romero-style zombies because audience tastes and perceptions changed.
Which do you think is going to be watched/played in 30 years?
>Terminator 3.
>The videogames based on Terminator 3.
2 is the best for one reason only
2 is the best for many reasons, the main one being that it's just a fricking blast to watch. It's the most video game movie to ever video game movie
True, I was just looking for reasons to post more jill/sienna
stop it, my dick can only get so hard
Main reason
You liking Jill doesn't make 2 good. 2 is only a decent film when placed in a trilogy. When placed on its own, it's a clusterfrick and it almost made Milla quit the franchise because she hated working on it and hated how it turned out as a movie. They had to woo her back for Extinction. She put Apocalypse on the same level, in the same breath, as Ultraviolet.
The only reason Apocalypse is artificially inflated is because of RE game fans who wanted the movies to be like the games, so they latch onto the one movie in the series that is sorta like the games. It's insipid. Now I'm not waying that Apocalypse is without merit. It has some neat ideas. But its quality as a film is all over the place.
>it almost made Milla quit the franchise because she hated working on it and hated how it turned out as a movie
Sauce? Never heard this before
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/milla-jovovich-on-resident-evil-and-her-ultraviolet-beef/
There was another interview I couldn't find where she spoke at a conference and publicly apologized for Apocalypse and said the film went off the rails because of the "money people", and she promised that Extinction would be a return to form. Behind the scenes the first draft of Extinction didn't have Milla because there were serious concerns they couldn't get her back.
She later warmed to Apocalypse a bit, and said that as a middle entry in the trilogy it's a fun movie. But she was not happy with it overall.
Thanks for the sauce. Although I still love Apocalypse it's interesting to read about the film's production.
The fact Apocalypse is decent, and MK Annihilation is shit is a good example of how important a figure like Jeremy Bolt (producer) can be. People think that Anderson was the one calling the shots. Anderson was off making AvP for Fox. Bolt was the guy on the ground keeping Apocalypse from imploding. He's not particularly well known, but he's the reason the RE films came in on time and under budget. he's very good at his job.
But yea, Apocalypse could have turned out absolutely terrible instead of uneven. It could have killed the RE series. But it's rough, yet watchable, pulpy, fun. I do love how camp the film is, compared to the others which take themselves very seriously.
I don't give a flying frick about the games, never liked them and never will. Apocalypse is still easily the best of the film series, because it's hilarious and awesome. Hot women kung fu fighting zombies in a graveyard, Milla running down the side of a skyscraper, based black comic relief guy, it's like a cheesy 80s drive-in movie but made in the 2000s on a big budget. Your opinion is shit
>Apocalypse is still easily the best of the film series, because it's hilarious and awesome. Hot women kung fu fighting zombies in a graveyard, Milla running down the side of a skyscraper, based black comic relief guy, it's like a cheesy 80s drive-in movie but made in the 2000s on a big budget.
I'm referring to more aspects of technical quality. Like not having the lead actress redub every line in the movie because she forgot how to play Alice during the entirety of filming, and then called the producer (Paul W.S. Anderson) in a panic saying the movie was a "fricking disaster" because she's just seen the rough cut, and saying "We have to redo the entire thing".
I understand appreciating the fun, pulpy tone of Apocalypse. GTA Motherfricker! All that stuff is really fun. But in terms of film quality, in terms of the cohesion of the film, the polish, the pacing, Apocalypse is messy. It's the messiest film in the series. From a certain perspective, though, it's the most fun, and I can understand that perspective.
Apocalypse is a bit like Mario Bros 1993 in that the actor(s) hated working on it, the film fell apart during production, the director got blacklisted -- he never directed another film, instead returning to second unit work, which he's really good at -- but you can't deny it has style.
I looked at Alexander Witt's IMDB and it turns out he directed two movies that both came out last year (Sayen and Sayen: Desert Road). Did they film both of these back to back? If so it seems like an odd decision for a bottom of the barrel movie that nobody outside of Chile would watch. I read an interview with Witt for No Time To Die in which he talks about wanting to direct more. He probably ruined his chances once again.
I looked at the same interview I was talking about and he actually mentions the Sayen movies. Apparently it's a trilogy lol
more info
Very interesting. Sayen had escaped my notice. I'm happy he's directing again, but it seems like Sayen did not fare well. Being memory holed on Prime Video probably didn't help.
>that nobody outside of Chile would watch
I can assure you that no one here watched it either. The movie is beyond moronic and its target demographic is the minority of a minority of a minority.
Yes. Part of the reason the Resident Evil franchise has endured is its willingness to reinvent itself. The creative masterstroke of Extinction completely abandoning the aesthetic of the first two films. Of Afterlife discarding the original music for something bold and incredible. A lot of similar franchises fell into a rut. Same old, same old. You never knew what you'd be getting next with RE. Every film subverted expectations and pushed boundaries.
Then Paul W.S. Anderson and Jeremy Bolt left and everything imploded. But even then, Welcome to Racoon City and Resident Evil (2022) are not without their charms. They're just not visionary works of art like the original six films were.
They're all fricking shit and wear the Resident Evil characters as skin suits to tell a different story. It's no different than live action Halo.
>wear the Resident Evil characters as skin suits to tell a different story.
Is that supposed to be a bad thing? It's how you make a truly great adaptation of a flawed property that has some interesting ideas.
1 > 5 > 3 > 6 > 4 > 2
Ukrainee prostitute. Her beloved state has no more women. She won't even send her daughter though.
I wonder about the overlap between people who don't like the second Resident Evil trilogy and people who don't like the Star Wars prequels.
Of the highest order.
I always liked how The Last Jedi copied a bunch of scenes from Resident Evil and Ultraviolet. You know which ones.
If you forget they are game adaptations, 1 and 2 were not bad at all.
>The last S in STARS has a different meaning in the movie
>The Trinity of b***hes
>Sienna Guillory pantyshots in RE: Apocalypse
>Rejected George Romero script
>Milla Jovovich vegana slip
>Red Letter Media's Afterlife hysteria
>Nickelback was supposed to have a song in the live action movies
>Scrapped RE: Apocalypse animated series
>Crew member death on set of live action films
>Alice clones are an allegory for the Krenski Paradigm
Some of the production decisions in these movies are bizarre. It's honestly baffling how these movies even managed to get made with all the problems they faced after the first one
Very much so. Last one is a bit shit tho.