Who was introduced to RE by Anderson's First Film

I was, when the first film came out on DVD I loved it.
Brought me REALLY into Zombie films as a Kid and of coursed introduced me into the franchise.
I went out and rented REmake for it.

Now as in defense of Anderson's FIRST film, he originally, intended it to be a prequel it makes slight sense (Yet that would mean the Hive was either suppose to be a Representation of the Arklay Research Facility)
But relation to the Series itself aside, on the Deluxe Edition of film, one of the extras had Anderson talking about the adaption; now yeah, look at the movie.
You've all seen it yea? Well it does have a majority of reference and nods to the games, a numerous amount of shots with camera angles like the games, the movie feeling claustrophobic and surprisingly! Anderson himself pointed out, there a a crap load of doors OPENING in the movie.

Sure, we as fans want a faithful adaption but that first movie, was pretty good in my opinion and I think a lot of people wouldn't have known about the series without it.

I guess it depends on the age of the viewer. Those of us who are "ahem" slightly older played the games in the mid- to late nineties (not meant to be sarcastic...just a nod to my rapidly approaching middle-age ). Bottom line is that even if the hardcore fans of the games may not squeal in delight at the movies we have to admit that the films have obviously done well enough for themselves to warrant sequels; and, in cases such as yourself the films inspired you to give the games a try.

I wasn't introduced by the movie, but I think the first Anderson film was great, and I know that you Soul are a true RE fan, so I think that is a prime example of someone getting ushered in by one of the films and getting the games as well.

All of the things you defended it with are very good, as it was meant to be a prequel, and with how RE0 ruined it for him I would have done the exact same thing he did with Apocolypse, at that point he had no choice but to make it his own.

I'm also slightly older than most here. I remember playing the first game in the mid-nineties. As for the movies doing well for themselves, it makes me think of credit card companies. Credit companies do very well for themselves, but how they do it is wrong. Hence the economy almost eating my job. And @Spike, Anderson shouldn't have made the series his own to begin with. That's where he failed. Even if the movies have made him money, he failed in my mind. There is no excuse for taking someone else's creation and making your own original story for it as a prequal or sequal or whatever. Think about what would have happened if Peter Jackson obtained the rights to Lord of the Rings just to turn around and throw the books aside to make a sequal to Return of the King. Heads would have rolled. Anderson could have at least made the mansion look like the game's mansion. He's an epic fail. Taking someone else's creation and making out like it's yours is the same as stealing in my mind. To end...No. I was not introduced by that film.

Okay, for future reference..
I don't want this to be a Anderson Hate thread.
So just post if you were introduced by the first film-
No offense Nite.

NiteKrawler wrote:

I'm also slightly older than most here. I remember playing the first game in the mid-nineties. As for the movies doing well for themselves, it makes me think of credit card companies. Credit companies do very well for themselves, but how they do it is wrong. Hence the economy almost eating my job. And @Spike, Anderson shouldn't have made the series his own to begin with. That's where he failed. Even if the movies have made him money, he failed in my mind. There is no excuse for taking someone else's creation and making your own original story for it as a prequal or sequal or whatever. Think about what would have happened if Peter Jackson obtained the rights to Lord of the Rings just to turn around and throw the books aside to make a sequal to Return of the King. Heads would have rolled. Anderson could have at least made the mansion look like the game's mansion. He's an epic fail. Taking someone else's creation and making out like it's yours is the same as stealing in my mind. To end...No. I was not introduced by that film.

Well an unforseen event happened for Anderson, where RE0 came out with a better take on how it all started, regardless of whether the movies are consistent with the games or not, I think that from a movie critics point of view they are pretty nice, but from the view of a person who is a big RE fan, there is obviously going to be a biased opinion, and recreating the games would be quite a task, I hardly think that the same experience from the RE games can properly be put into the movies.

Anderson making the movies his own is like SD Perry making the novels her own, just that she doesn't get many complaints...

Soul wrote:

Okay, for future reference..
I don't want this to be a Anderson Hate thread.
So just post if you were introduced by the first film-
No offense Nite.

Well it's my opinion. It's not like I was being offensive. If anything, I made it a little more cerebral by throwing in some philosphy. And @Spike, I've only read the "Umbrella Conspiracy" book by S. D. Perry and it was exactly like the game. It barely strayed at all. She even decribed the rooms correctly. And what I was trying to say about anderson and the first film is just that he shouldn't have made the movie a prequal to begin with. It wasn't his place to do that because he didn't create the series.

Spike991 wrote:

I think that from a movie critics point of view they are pretty nice."

No offense, but that's why not just anyone can become a film critic. Roger Ebert gave the first film 1/5 stars. Then he reviewed the 2nd. It received .5/5 stars. He never reviewed the 3rd. (Wonder why...) I'll end how he ended.

"Oh, and the film has a Digital Readout. The Hive is set to lock itself forever after 60 minutes have passed, so the characters are racing against time. In other words, after it shuts all of its doors, and gasses and drowns everybody, it waits 60 minutes and really shuts its doors--big time. No wonder the steel doors make those slamming noises. In their imagination, they're practicing. Creative visualization, it's called. I became inspired, and visualized the theater doors slamming behind me." --Roger Ebert

I thought that the first film was ok but the second one in the series is his best one

NiteKrawler wrote:

I'm also slightly older than most here. I remember playing the first game in the mid-nineties. As for the movies doing well for themselves, it makes me think of credit card companies. Credit companies do very well for themselves, but how they do it is wrong. Hence the economy almost eating my job. And @Spike, Anderson shouldn't have made the series his own to begin with. That's where he failed. Even if the movies have made him money, he failed in my mind. There is no excuse for taking someone else's creation and making your own original story for it as a prequal or sequal or whatever. Think about what would have happened if Peter Jackson obtained the rights to Lord of the Rings just to turn around and throw the books aside to make a sequal to Return of the King. Heads would have rolled. Anderson could have at least made the mansion look like the game's mansion. He's an epic fail. Taking someone else's creation and making out like it's yours is the same as stealing in my mind. To end...No. I was not introduced by that film.

I really don't think that comparing the ticket BUYING public to credit companies holds any water at all. I'll repeat my premise and the way things have happened before and since: the bean-counters don't greenlight movies unless they will make the studios more money. Pretty simple math. I'm not the biggest fan of the films...and I even started a thread a couple of months back where I bemoaned the fact that the first RE film was originally to be a very faithful adaptation of the first game. Such was not to be. However, I can appreciate the films for what they are. IMO thankfully we all have RE Degeneration for "authentic" RE chills and thrills. If people can enjoy both the game universes and the films, then I guess they come out ahead of folks who can't. Twice the fun for them.

NiteKrawler wrote:

Soul wrote:

Okay, for future reference..
I don't want this to be a Anderson Hate thread.
So just post if you were introduced by the first film-
No offense Nite.

Well it's my opinion. It's not like I was being offensive. If anything, I made it a little more cerebral by throwing in some philosphy. And @Spike, I've only read the "Umbrella Conspiracy" book by S. D. Perry and it was exactly like the game. It barely strayed at all. She even decribed the rooms correctly. And what I was trying to say about anderson and the first film is just that he shouldn't have made the movie a prequal to begin with. It wasn't his place to do that because he didn't create the series.

Spike991 wrote:

I think that from a movie critics point of view they are pretty nice."

No offense, but that's why not just anyone can become a film critic. Roger Ebert gave the first film 1/5 stars. Then he reviewed the 2nd. It received .5/5 stars. He never reviewed the 3rd. (Wonder why...) I'll end how he ended.

"Oh, and the film has a Digital Readout. The Hive is set to lock itself forever after 60 minutes have passed, so the characters are racing against time. In other words, after it shuts all of its doors, and gasses and drowns everybody, it waits 60 minutes and really shuts its doors--big time. No wonder the steel doors make those slamming noises. In their imagination, they're practicing. Creative visualization, it's called. I became inspired, and visualized the theater doors slamming behind me." --Roger Ebert

Well what I mean by Perry making the novels her own, is by her changing characters names and taking a few steps of her own to fill in gaps, much like Mr. Anderson did with his prequel...

No offense taken, as everyone has their own opinion, I believe that Ebert's late partner had given the original Wes Craven Scream movie a bad score, but most everyone loved it, and he even gave the sequel a good score...

I wasn't saying I was a movie critic, only that when I watch movies I look at it from all of the different perspectives and appreciate all of the things about them, music, acting, etc, and with all of that taken in, and my knowledge of the RE games I gave it a good opinion myself, which says that even though I love the games, I can even get over the fact that the movies don't follow the game's story and enjoy the RE films for what they are, a movie with it's own canon.

Duralumin, you may not fully understand what I meant with the credit company analogy. Credit companies make a lot of money in questionable ways. In my opinion, Anderson made a lot of money in a questionable way. He took someone's creation and molded and obscured it to make money. My personal philosophy is that if you want to use someone else's creation, then you use it exactly. I have no doubts that the movies were successful as the box office numbers speak for themselves.

@Spike: I see where you're coming from. I'm glad that you can see past what I cannot. It means you have more things to enjoy than I.

Whether anyone likes the movie story arc or not, you can't deny the positive impact they've had when they inspire someone to pick up the game.

Same thing with the Doom movie. I've heard a lot of complaints about it, but after seeing it I was still inspired to go play the game. Had I not seen that movie, I'd never have played a great game like Doom III.

True GL. Although I've heard some complain that the types of gamers that were brought in through these movies is a bad thing. But whatever, a gamer is a gamer.

NiteKrawler wrote:

True GL. Although I've heard some complain that the types of gamers that were brought in through these movies is a bad thing. But whatever, a gamer is a gamer.

I remember someone saying once that whatever ushered you into the RE series is a good thing, there are a few things about the movies that can be confusing for people just getting into the RE series, which isn't a good thing, but once you get the differences then it should be ok then, if you still don't have a good opinion of the RE movies after that, then that is it, there will probably not be anything to make you like them.

Oh that reminds me lol. Some posts back someone said something about RE 5's story being confusing. I don't remember who said it but what exactly is confusing here? Elizabethtown....Now THAT'S a confusing storyline...

NiteKrawler wrote:

Oh that reminds me lol. Some posts back someone said something about RE 5's story being confusing. I don't remember who said it but what exactly is confusing here? Elizabethtown....Now THAT'S a confusing storyline...

Yeah, it was one of the least confusing actually. I have found RE2 and RE3 to be confusing at times, and just anything during the Raccoon City Incident, including the Outbreaks.

One thing that relates to the movie that sort of confused me before I realized that the movies and games are not connected is how in the movies they showed the STARS members doing a fast-rope descent and showing over a dozen nameless STARS members, when there were actually only two teams...

Yeah I thought RE 2 was quite confusing as well. But I was young when I played it. And I hated that scene with STARS. When I first saw them, I was all like "Oh hell yeah! Time for some ass kickin!" My dreams were quickly shattered when they were all decimated in seconds. Felt like a slap in the face. It was like the movie just out and said "F you man."

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Thank you Charlie! Amen.

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

Spike991 wrote:

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

After that shitstorm that was Land of the Dead, I've lost all respect for George Romero and his movie-making abilities.

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

After that shitstorm that was Land of the Dead, I've lost all respect for George Romero and his movie-making abilities.

I was going to mention Land Of The Dead, not very good I must say, the characters were okay, but the zombies were terrible, what was he thinking....

Spike991 wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

After that shitstorm that was Land of the Dead, I've lost all respect for George Romero and his movie-making abilities.

I was going to mention Land Of The Dead, not very good I must say, the characters were okay, but the zombies were terrible, what was he thinking....

Genre murder?

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

After that shitstorm that was Land of the Dead, I've lost all respect for George Romero and his movie-making abilities.

I was going to mention Land Of The Dead, not very good I must say, the characters were okay, but the zombies were terrible, what was he thinking....

Genre murder?

Maybe, and the bugdet didn't seem very high, it had plenty of good weapons and location was okay, but the zombies seemed low-budget..

And the part where the one got a machinegun, and they went into the lake....

Spike991 wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

Ghost Leader wrote:

Spike991 wrote:

charlieRE2 wrote:

i played resident evil when it first came out in 96. its no secret that i greatly dislike the films for many many reasons. the director who they originally wanted was the director that should have done it in my opinion. anderson shouldn't have messed around with the story line.

Yeah they originally wanted Romero to direct, that might have made it a different experience, but I still don't hate Anderson for it, as Resident Evil is quite a unique experience that would be very hard, if at all possible to replicate in the form of a movie.

After that shitstorm that was Land of the Dead, I've lost all respect for George Romero and his movie-making abilities.

I was going to mention Land Of The Dead, not very good I must say, the characters were okay, but the zombies were terrible, what was he thinking....

Genre murder?

Maybe, and the bugdet didn't seem very high, it had plenty of good weapons and location was okay, but the zombies seemed low-budget..

And the part where the one got a machinegun, and they went into the lake....

I've seen better movies with lower budgets. The original Night of the Living Dead, for example.