What did you think of Wentworth Miller as Chris?assuming you watched afterlife..

PunkMaister wrote:

00biohazard wrote:

Dude Im not stupid so dont condescend. I know the movies wouldnt even exist without the prior agreement with capcom and sony. I know they make money off of the films. But you said capcom placed restrictions on the characters chris and claire redfield. This is bullshit. All capcom cares about is cashing its check at the end of the day. Thats why character restricitions make no sense, Capcom doesnt give a fuck, and Anderson only keeps throwing more and more characters in the movies because he doesnt know what the hell hes doing.

Anderson logic: Milla Jovovich kicking ass + random VG characters that have almost nothing to do with their game counterparts, put in there to grab the attention of the VG crowd + explosions, blood, CGI, monsters, and oneliners = next RE movie. You just cant defend the unjustifiable bro. People will watch anything as long as there is sex and extreme violence. Throw in zombies and you have the formula to Andersons success. And the only reason I watch the live action movies is because I love RE so much, that I want to watch the live action characters anyway. But afterlife was the last straw. Im watching retribution pirated.

Actually now that you mention it while there is plenty of gore and violence in the RE films and occasional nudity there has been little to no actual sex of any kind in the films.

By sex I mean scantily cladded sexy females who kick ass. Not the actual act of intercourse lol

00biohazard wrote:

By sex I mean scantily cladded sexy females who kick ass. Not the actual act of intercourse lol

LMAO for a moment an image of an scene like that of the movie Shoot E'm Up flashed in my mind.

Sony is only a distributor for the live action films. They have no say in what goes on with them. Even Capcom doesn't have any say. With the CGI movies, they do. Both of them.

00biohazard wrote:

Jill, Carlos, and nemesis are in apocalypse

Don't forget the weird ass appearance of Nicholai.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Sony is only a distributor for the live action films. They have no say in what goes on with them. Even Capcom doesn't have any say. With the CGI movies, they do. Both of them.

But since they own the copyrights they are the ones ultimately responsible for it all. Had it been the author of the Harry Potter novels she would have ditched Anderson in a nanosecond they don't because as some other poster said they don't give a damn about their own source material, my point is the Fans should really direct their anger at Capcom and Sony because they are the root of the problem. Anderson is just the symptom.

Capcom and Sony still don't have anything to do with the script or how the characters are used. There's no Capcom nor Sony representatives on the set. My guess is that Capcom stays content as long as Anderson doesn't bring in the game universe.

Why do you keep blaming Sony? lol. It makes no sense! Sony has NOTHING to do with anything. Not even the GAMES. You just don't really understand how the business works. Directors and producers hold the most rights in film making. If Capcom wanted to, I am sure they could have held onto the movie license, but they did not. Therefore, they gave up the right to interfere with the live action films. So now the director (Anderson) and the production companies (I think there are about 3) are basically the ONLY ones who call the shots. Capcom and Sony are NOT production companies of the live films.

That said, Capcom and Sony ARE 2 of the production companies for the CGI films. So yes, they have a LOT to do with the CGI films.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Why do you keep blaming Sony? lol. It makes no sense! Sony has NOTHING to do with anything. Not even the GAMES. You just don't really understand how the business works. Directors and producers hold the most rights in film making. If Capcom wanted to, I am sure they could have held onto the movie license, but they did not. Therefore, they gave up the right to interfere with the live action films. So now the director (Anderson) and the production companies (I think there are about 3) are basically the ONLY ones who call the shots. Capcom and Sony are NOT production companies of the live films.

That said, Capcom and Sony ARE 2 of the production companies for the CGI films. So yes, they have a LOT to do with the CGI films.

If that were true they would not be making any money from the live action films and they do so they have never given their copyrights nor will they ever. If Capcom wanted it could put a stop to Anderson just as it did with George Romero.

...It is true and you are wrong. Capcom is the creator of RE and they do make money from the live action films. Just because they don't take part in the live action movies doesn't mean they don't make money. Ever heard of royalties?

Hmm. Well I think everyone in the world knows about Romero's script being turned down. As for Capcom owning the copyrights, it isn't necessarily true. Constantin Films bought the rights. Whether this means they hold exclusive rights to the entire franchise or not is unclear. More than likely, it is a complex agreement between Capcom and Constantin. I can't say this or sure, but Capcom probably can't stop these films from being made now.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Hmm. Well I think everyone in the world knows about Romero's script being turned down. As for Capcom owning the copyrights, it isn't necessarily true. Constantin Films bought the rights. Whether this means they hold exclusive rights to the entire franchise or not is unclear. More than likely, it is a complex agreement between Capcom and Constantin. I can't say this or sure, but Capcom probably can't stop these films from being made now.

If they stopped Romero they could just as easily stop Anderson the only reason they do not is because his movies do make money and thus he can endlessly dish out sequel after sequel.

Romero wasn't actually hired. They didn't "stop" him, they just never hired him to begin with. Screen writers kind of have it rough. They rarely get much attention, they have stiff competition (which is why Romero wasn't hired and Anderson was), and they have tough deadlines. I've heard horror stories of director's being absolutely ridiculous to the writers of their movies.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Romero wasn't actually hired. They didn't "stop" him, they just never hired him to begin with. Screen writers kind of have it rough. They rarely get much attention, they have stiff competition (which is why Romero wasn't hired and Anderson was), and they have tough deadlines. I've heard horror stories of director's being absolutely ridiculous to the writers of their movies.

Hold the presses since when is George Romero just a screenwriter the guy is a director and producer best known for his zombie films which is the reason Capcom first went to him. As to why CapCom greenlighted Anderson that will always remain an unexplained sniglet of the universe.

PunkMaister wrote:

NiteKrawler wrote:

Romero wasn't actually hired. They didn't "stop" him, they just never hired him to begin with. Screen writers kind of have it rough. They rarely get much attention, they have stiff competition (which is why Romero wasn't hired and Anderson was), and they have tough deadlines. I've heard horror stories of director's being absolutely ridiculous to the writers of their movies.

Hold the presses since when is George Romero just a screenwriter the guy is a director and producer best known for his zombie films which is the reason Capcom first went to him. As to why CapCom greenlighted Anderson that will always remain an unexplained sniglet of the universe.

Well Romero is also a writer. He is a Producer/Director/Writer. Some time he does all three jobs for one movie, sometimes two, sometimes just one. For Resident Evil, he was only going to be a writer. They could have had him direct it if they wanted him to. But being a Director does not limit you to only doing that. Mel Gibson is a famous actor, but he still only directs sometimes.

I'm kind fo glad that Romero wasn't selected to film the RE series. Sure, the Dead movies are classics, but the only one that I truly enjoyed was Day of the Dead. And the dialogue for Land of the Dead was not all that good.

As to the original question, yeah Miller do a good job considering what he was given, which wasn't all that much.

That makes no sense who had they picked as a director back then then?

I guess Romero was going to direct it as well. But it is not uncommon for a production company to hire a writer first and then hire a separate individual later on to direct it. You seem to think that the producer, director and writer are always the same person. In fact, more often than not, they are entirely different people and may never even meet.

Did you guys think it was a chump move on Andersons part to just randomly write off Chris and Claire, saying they were, ´abducted by Umbrella?´

00biohazard wrote:

Did you guys think it was a chump move on Andersons part to just randomly write off Chris and Claire, saying they were, ´abducted by Umbrella?´

Yes I did.

Tell me what HASN'T been a chump move by Anderson regarding these movies.

But it was just so...dumb, I mean, what writer does that?has he no self respect for even his own movieverse?

I thought he did a fine job. I am glade he wasn't on steroids. He reminded me of the old chris, the one I liked.

00biohazard wrote:

But it was just so...dumb, I mean, what writer does that?has he no self respect for even his own movieverse?

As long as the money keeps coming in, he probably doesn't care. Which is a shame, since Extinction was actually a pretty well-developed film.

Worse than Chris was that lame ass Jill after the credits. She only had like 1 minute of screen time, but I'm convinced that the actress is worse than Megan Fox...