by Lysander » Wed Dec 03, 2003 6:25 pm
Alright, goddamnit, since the subject's come up, I'm going to go and explain everything I hate about that movie.
The first problem I'll go into is that it and the games contradict each other on three very obvious points, which I will go into now because I am a raving Resident Evil fan and it does not deserve to get raped the way the Paul Anderson movie did to it. I mean, they *had* a script written by *George frigging Romarrow*, for crissakes, and while it was laughably hokey in several spots it could have been rewritten into something awesome.
1. Timing and location. I'm going to *assume* that the mansion the movie starts out in is the Spencer mansion which you get so personally acquainted with in the first RE game. I am further going to assume that the outbreak in question is the outbreak which takes place in the first RE game. I will *furthermore* make a good guess that the "hive" is the complex of labbs under Raccoon City which you hang around in for the latter half of RE2, by the wayy that there's a huge train ride from the mansion to the hive. There's only one problem with this scenario: this movie, and don't believe what that dumbfuck narrator is telling you, must be taking place a few days after May 11th, 1998. If we assume that William Birkin's complex from RE2, which takes place on September 29th and 30th 1998, is the one that gets shut down at the end of the movie, then we *also* have to assume that Umbrella, Inc. decided to break their fully-sealed T-virus-infected laboratory open to give Birkin a place to work, only to lose it to Hunk's extraction team at most four months later. Furthermore, if indeed the outbreak ends up taking place at this "hive" *first*, then we have to deal with the idea that a T-virus outbreak happens right under Raccoon City and no one got infected by it.
2: how the virus was spilled. The movie has the thief saccidentally (?) spilling it when he tries to take it. The game has a disgruntled employee deliberately causing the outbreak to fuck shit up for the company. (for the record, that employee had been shot to death 20 years ago by the company's paramilitary squads because he was getting too powerful with his advances with the virus. Um, yeah, I'd be pissed too.) Okay, its possible that the virus outbreak in the movie is one completely unrelated to any of the ones in the games. But that still means that there was a T-virus outbreak in the same facility *twice*, (because, really, Birkin's place is the only place it *could be*) which is kinda goofy.
3: the licker/hunter thing. Now, I seriously do not understand *what* Paul Anderson was smoking when he wrote this in, but he could not be more wrong about, well, anything in that scene. *First*, Lickers are *not* biological experiments. They are what happens when a human gets hit with the T-virus twice, which explains why they basically look like humans turned inside out, plus the claws and the, uh, tongue. *Second*, Lickers and Hunters are *completely different creatures*. A licker is not going to turn into a Hunter no matter *how* much it eats, period. *Nor* will it turn into a seven-foot-tall Licker, either, which is by the way the *next* problem with the scenario, namely that Hunters don't look a goddamn thing like that! Hunters were the (quite cool, IMHO) two-foot tall green lizard things with huge freakin' claws which would slash you across your hamstrings to immobilize you and then slice your head off while you're standing helpless. Hunters *were* the genetically-engineered killing machines, and they were very good at it. Lickers and Hunters are so completely *different* that its hard to find qualities that are *similar* about them. Furthermore, that huge seven-foot-tall thing at the end of the movie is something that the creators just *made up*, which they have *no* right to do, thank you very much.
The other huge problem I have with the movie is its incredibly idiotic way it treats zombies. Zombies, in this movie, act much more intelligently and are much stronger than they by any rights should be. A zombie, upon seeing something it can eat, will walk slowly towards that thing and attempt to eat it. No questions asked. It will not stand there looking at you hungrilly, it will not hiss at you, and it damn sure will not *lunge* at you. Zombies to not contain the muscle structure *to* lunge at you. If a zombie were to lunge at someone, it would fall down with a broken ankle. And, as I've touched on before, zombies never, *ever* start *hissing* at you and baring teeth at you aggressively, because they are not *aggressive*. All they see is food, eat. They don't hiss. They moan and groan pathetically. Seriously, any zombie horror-watcher, anywhere, knows this shit better than the creators of Resident Evil, and the fact that I have to spell it out for them in this forum is just sad.
Alright, goddamnit, since the subject's come up, I'm going to go and explain everything I hate about that movie.
The first problem I'll go into is that it and the games contradict each other on three very obvious points, which I will go into now because I am a raving Resident Evil fan and it does not deserve to get raped the way the Paul Anderson movie did to it. I mean, they *had* a script written by *George frigging Romarrow*, for crissakes, and while it was laughably hokey in several spots it could have been rewritten into something awesome.
1. Timing and location. I'm going to *assume* that the mansion the movie starts out in is the Spencer mansion which you get so personally acquainted with in the first RE game. I am further going to assume that the outbreak in question is the outbreak which takes place in the first RE game. I will *furthermore* make a good guess that the "hive" is the complex of labbs under Raccoon City which you hang around in for the latter half of RE2, by the wayy that there's a huge train ride from the mansion to the hive. There's only one problem with this scenario: this movie, and don't believe what that dumbfuck narrator is telling you, must be taking place a few days after May 11th, 1998. If we assume that William Birkin's complex from RE2, which takes place on September 29th and 30th 1998, is the one that gets shut down at the end of the movie, then we *also* have to assume that Umbrella, Inc. decided to break their fully-sealed T-virus-infected laboratory open to give Birkin a place to work, only to lose it to Hunk's extraction team at most four months later. Furthermore, if indeed the outbreak ends up taking place at this "hive" *first*, then we have to deal with the idea that a T-virus outbreak happens right under Raccoon City and no one got infected by it.
2: how the virus was spilled. The movie has the thief saccidentally (?) spilling it when he tries to take it. The game has a disgruntled employee deliberately causing the outbreak to fuck shit up for the company. (for the record, that employee had been shot to death 20 years ago by the company's paramilitary squads because he was getting too powerful with his advances with the virus. Um, yeah, I'd be pissed too.) Okay, its possible that the virus outbreak in the movie is one completely unrelated to any of the ones in the games. But that still means that there was a T-virus outbreak in the same facility *twice*, (because, really, Birkin's place is the only place it *could be*) which is kinda goofy.
3: the licker/hunter thing. Now, I seriously do not understand *what* Paul Anderson was smoking when he wrote this in, but he could not be more wrong about, well, anything in that scene. *First*, Lickers are *not* biological experiments. They are what happens when a human gets hit with the T-virus twice, which explains why they basically look like humans turned inside out, plus the claws and the, uh, tongue. *Second*, Lickers and Hunters are *completely different creatures*. A licker is not going to turn into a Hunter no matter *how* much it eats, period. *Nor* will it turn into a seven-foot-tall Licker, either, which is by the way the *next* problem with the scenario, namely that Hunters don't look a goddamn thing like that! Hunters were the (quite cool, IMHO) two-foot tall green lizard things with huge freakin' claws which would slash you across your hamstrings to immobilize you and then slice your head off while you're standing helpless. Hunters *were* the genetically-engineered killing machines, and they were very good at it. Lickers and Hunters are so completely *different* that its hard to find qualities that are *similar* about them. Furthermore, that huge seven-foot-tall thing at the end of the movie is something that the creators just *made up*, which they have *no* right to do, thank you very much.
The other huge problem I have with the movie is its incredibly idiotic way it treats zombies. Zombies, in this movie, act much more intelligently and are much stronger than they by any rights should be. A zombie, upon seeing something it can eat, will walk slowly towards that thing and attempt to eat it. No questions asked. It will not stand there looking at you hungrilly, it will not hiss at you, and it damn sure will not *lunge* at you. Zombies to not contain the muscle structure *to* lunge at you. If a zombie were to lunge at someone, it would fall down with a broken ankle. And, as I've touched on before, zombies never, *ever* start *hissing* at you and baring teeth at you aggressively, because they are not *aggressive*. All they see is food, eat. They don't hiss. They moan and groan pathetically. Seriously, any zombie horror-watcher, anywhere, knows this shit better than the creators of Resident Evil, and the fact that I have to spell it out for them in this forum is just sad.