First 8 Minutes of Degeneration

[Helegad]

The RE movies are a totally different continuation, you need to remember that.

I enjoy the movies, because I never expect them to live up to the games.

Also, of course Alice is the OMG_big_badass_bitch_n00bz_lookouts_shesgonna_pwns U!!! woman, but every movie needs one. I suppose PWSA [i]could[/b] have used a video game character. Yeah, that is a bad choice.

[Canas Renvall]

With RE5 Capcom at least tries to redeem itself (while keeping RE4 gameplay) and make the main hero less over the top (Wesker beating crap out of Chris)

Did anyone not notice Chris punch four or five people to the ground with one good whack in the trailer? Need I mention his inhuman strength by giving Sheva a boost. Not only does she jump up to the ledge about five feet above her, but she doesn't touch the edge at all! She launches about ten feet and lands perfectly. Or when he boosts her across to another building, he sends her so high she has time to do a flip or two and land on one knee like an anime samurai.

[Biohazard EX]

Well, no, what I get out of the game is mostly scares, which the movies failed dismally at. In the movies, Umbrella is apparently so powerful they can wall a city in days, buy off hundreds if not thousands of people, and of course remain functioning when goverments fall. I personally think that may have been a little over the top.

I agree, there are plenty of similarites between the movies and the games. Guns, girls, commandos and zombies. On the other hand I don't recall the game having Nemesis bow down to Jill and fight someone for her, or the US Army throwing up an impeneterable wall in a couple of days. And I don't remember Jill killing people with her mind, or driving through a stained glass window on a bike, back flipping off that and shooting some lickers. I don't seem to recall complaining about the guns, girls, commados or zombies. I do complain about the stained glass though. I like stained glass. Was the door too easy or something?

See, now, the thing that bugs me the most about people complaining about the movies is that they complain about the same things that are evident in games. Frankly, the movie (either of them) was ten times more scary than RE4 or UC. And from the looks of it, there isn't gonna be a single scare in RE5 or Degeeration either. At least the movies TRIED to make certian parts scary or creepy. And they succeeded in a lot more aspects than either of the past 2 RE games.

And no, none of those things happened in the games. But, again, people don't know what they want. Because there were plenty of things in the movies that happened in the games as well, like when Alice dropped the gun and then did the same thing that Claire did in CV/X. But then people complained that Alice stole that move from Claire. Frankly, that move is a lot more believable coming from someone with super powers.
But either way, the movies aren't carbon copies of the games, so obviously there's gonna be some new things about them. I just don't see why people overthink everything. Do you know why she drove through the stained glass window on a motorcycle? Because it was spectacular. Simple as that. Why can't things be spectacular for the sake of spectacular anymore? It's not like she did something too crazy or over the top. She crashed a bike through a window. Big deal. The doors WERE being crowded with zombies, so no, it wasn't too easy. The door probably would've been harder to get through.

You also complain about Nemesis being good, and your only reasoning is that it was a bad choice. Again. I can easily say the same thing about the games. People can justify RE4 by saying, "Capcom wanted to do something fresh. blah blah blah." That doesn't change the fact that Ganados were a horrible choice to introduce to the Resident Evil universe. And if you like Ganados, then you can see how it's just a matter of opinion.


Oh, and Mr. Zombie, to answer your question. It's like I said, I see the movies in a different context from the games. Anderson's movies are fine action movies that involve some of the concepts that made me like Resident Evil. But the difference between the movies and the newer games is that, all these bad things about newer games, they're trying to include in the game canon. And where there was the mansion incident and the Raccoon City incident, in that world, I don't want there to be Ganados, or overly cheesy characters like Salazar, Sergei or what they've turned Wesker into. I don't want there to be a guy who can backflip his way out of a complicated laser grid, and just about any other obstacle. The games are where they are. And the movies are somewhere completely different. And it is BECAUSE the movies aren't trying to tie directly into the games, that I am able to enjoy them.
Had Capcom created RE4, renamed Leon and Ada something different, and changed the title, I'm sure I would enjoy RE4 as well. But because RE4, UC and RE5 are trying to tie into the game canon, which I'm very fundamental about, that's why I denounced them.

[Jill Lover]

That part in the movie is hilarious... there is a camera mistake or a montion issue because one of the frames in the movie is pretty slow.. I prefer watching Claire doing that... is was more believable than in RE2... But that's because there was something that didn't match with that scene... (the edition of the camera angles didn't convice me)

[Mr_Zombie]

Frankly, the movie (either of them) was ten times more scary than RE4 or UC.

No, they weren't.
RE4 had at least three (and I think only those three) moments where I was scared: when Dr. Salvadore appeared for the first time, every time there were Regenerators (especially on my first playthrough, when I didn't have so much ammo) and with the oven Gonado. UC wasn't scary at all because it was a simple shooter, nothing more, nothing less - you see enemy, you shoot enemy, you go ahead; you can't even run away.

And movies weren't scary also, because they were more of an action, less of a horror movies. Especially in Apocalypse and Extinction, where there were so many non-import characters and unkillable Alice.

And from the looks of it, there isn't gonna be a single scare in RE5 or Degeeration either.

And you can tell that just by seeing 10 (first) minutes of the movie (that's like 1/9 of the entire movie, before hell is unleashed), and by watching few gameplays/trailers from a 10+ hour game?

like when Alice dropped the gun and then did the same thing that Claire did in CV/X. But then people complained that Alice stole that move from Claire. Frankly, that move is a lot more believable coming from someone with super powers.

First and for all, when CV was released people complained about that Claire, a 19-year-old student, is able to do a gun-fu and kill several people with one shoot without the blink of an eye...

Why can't things be spectacular for the sake of spectacular anymore? It's not like she did something too crazy or over the top.

It shouldn't be specatular because it's supposed to be a horror movie about people trying to survive during the zombie nightmare. Just like Leon shouldn't jump through the window from the second floor or Ada do all those those backflips (especially when she's wearing a damn dress :/). Sure, it looks cool and all, but at the same time it ruins the atmosphere.

And to be clear here, I am to not of a big fan of all those cool moves that everyone (except Ashley) likes to perform in RE4 and UC.

You also complain about Nemesis being good, and your only reasoning is that it was a bad choice.

No, from Darkmoon said, it was a bad idea because RE universe (in games and in movies) were full of people that turned into a monster due to a virus infection (T or G); you don't see Birkin saving Annette's life, do you? Instead he impregnates his own daughter and kills his wife. Yet Nemesis, that, as we can see earlier in the movie, is somewhat controller by Umbrella, managed to retain human feelings and help the main heroine.
Also, what I was saying, it ruined the character for me, because it turned one of the greatest and scariest monsters in the RE universe into a monster with human feelings :/.

[Biohazard EX]

Well, none of the things you mentioned about RE4 scared me. Especially regenerators. I still don't understand why people think they're scary. I've never found them scary at all.
In the movies, the scares might have been cheap, (things popping out loudly), but that was the main source of scares in RE2 anyway. So even the earlier games come from there.
And again, you say the movies focus on action, not horror. Yes, that's true, but so do the games now. RE4 is an action game, and very unhorror. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune had moments that were scarier than anything in RE4. But that's okay, because RE4 is made by Capcom and they say it's Canon.
Like I said, the difference is, the movies aren't trying to tie into the games. They might not be true to where the game came from, but as far as I'm concerned, they're a separate franchise entirely that borrows from some of the key concepts of the games.

The key concepts which the games have since abandoned. So the movies are more true to what Resident Evil is about, than RE4. Aside from character names and the title, there was nothing about RE4 that indicated that it's a Resident Evil game.

My point is, people easily accept that fact. Even after they say, "Yeah, Leon sucked. Ganados sucked." they still say, "I can't wait for RE5." But it's gonna be the same thing. And Capcom's writing is worse than anything Anderson wrote. But that's okay because it's Capcom and their word is god. Right?
But the fact that Capcom is staying less true to their own franchise than Anderson doesn't matter. As long as Chris and Wesker are in it, oh and look! It's Spencer! I guess it's true to the franchise now.
It's not.

And from the reviews about Degeneration I read, it's ALL action anyway, so no, it's not going to be scary. The same arguments you're saying about the movies DO apply to Capcom today.

[WeskerSexyCheez]

RE4 was personally scarier than the films for me because I am deeply, DEEPLY afraid of chainsaws... And I hated the Regenerators... And Iron Maidens... And the Verdugo...

But I think the films had some really good moments when they built up the tension enough and then it was all ZOMBIE IN YO FACE, BITCH! That freaked me out. Except for in the third one... That wasn't scary at all, all action, but probably better than the second.

But seriously... People found the Regenerators scary because they are~~~~ *whine whine whine* ^^

[Biohazard EX]

I thought the third movie was scarrier, better written, and overall a better movie than Apocalypse. I mainly liked Apocalypse visually (destroyed streets, zombies, Umbrella and STARS, Jill, Nemesis, Lickers, etc. Eye candy.), and because of LJ.

I feel the same way about Regenerators as I do about the leech men. They're very, very annoying, but didn't scare me one bit.

[Helegad]

Regenerators were very scary for me the first time round, but then the second time round I managed to score an infinite launcher, so they didn't pose any scariness.

Personally, I love the big guys. They drop lots of monies!

[TheSelfishGene]

I just don't see why people overthink everything. Do you know why she drove through the stained glass window on a motorcycle? Because it was spectacular. Simple as that. Why can't things be spectacular for the sake of spectacular anymore? It's not like she did something too crazy or over the top. She crashed a bike through a window. Big deal.

I don't want there to be Ganados, or overly cheesy characters like Salazar, Sergei or what they've turned Wesker into. I don't want there to be a guy who can backflip his way out of a complicated laser grid, and just about any other obstacle.

Pot kettle?

[Biohazard EX]

Erm... Don't know what pot kettle means.
Or the point you're trying to make...

[Darkmoon]

If things just have be spectacular why can't Leon back flip through lazer beams? It's visually impressive and such, and about as believable as Alice able to find a way to get a motorbike through a window thats, what, thirty feet above ground? If spectacular should be spectacular just for the sake of spectacular then things like Leon defying gravity aren't really a big issue. If things should be realistic, as I feel, then spectacular needs to resemble reality and both the movies and the last three RE games take it violently in the rear because they're all about the same, in terms of realism.

I'm starting to find your rants against people supporting Degeneration, RE4 and RE5 a little...disturbing. Some people do like them, and hate the movies, just as you hate the movies, but you seem to be having a real issue. And you also seem to blind to the fact a lot of folks, myself included, have totally demolished RE4 as a Resident Evil and said if RE5 is more of the same it will be a great game...but a crap Resident Evil. Not everyone, or even a the majority, are automatically assuming the game will be pure awesome.

I myself have stated the game will suck if the horror elements aren't added back in, some puzzles aren't returned and the AI for Sheva and the new Manji Ganado things isn't given a serious upgrade. And I've said it a lot. I know you disagree and that only by giving the game tank controls, zombies and the Umbrella coroporation can it be any good, but those things are unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things. Scares, puzzles and an enemy that makes me worried rather than reach for a knife. I'd like exploration but, honestly, I have no hope for that whatsoever being added. New games just take too much effort to include more than a few choices in where to go.

And yeah, Nemesis turning good makes no damned sense storyline wise or by what we know of T-monsters in general. And I felt it really weakened the character. Can anyone hold up there hand and say, "Well, actually, having Nemesis turn good after being pummled in hand to hand combat and then killed by a falling helicopter was so much better than the nearly unstoppable beast stalking you through Raccoon City's streets without mercy, remorse or care to who and what it killed?" Honestly, which version is better?

Even then, linking Nemesis to Alice rather than Jill was not a wise move, because it basically denied Jill any real role in the story. All the important plot points, the virus the girl has, Nemesis, the guy in charge of the evacuation...it all led back to Alice. And so ALice resolved them all. Hell, even the outbreak is from the Hive of the first game rather than Birkin's super happy lab.

[Biohazard EX]

See, that's exaggerating things, again. Finding a bike, crashing through a window, it's not that difficult. Not nearly as difficult as jumping through the lasers the way Leon did. I mean, really watch that scene. It's almost as if the lasers avoided him on purpose. Even Uber Alice couldn't have done that.

And umm... At what point did I say I have something against people supporting Crapcom's latest work? I'm just saying, I don't see how people can ridicule the movies about the exact issues that plague the games.

But being as hardcore as I am about Resident Evil, it really doesn't matter if RE4 and RE5 are great games. If they're bad Resident Evils, they're not worth bothering with. I mean, Metal Gear Solid is a great game. But if you take MGS3 and put a Resident Evil sticker on it, then what's the point of playing it if the storyline and the whole purpose of the game is thrown away? Unless you only like Resident Evil casually, in which case, it's just another game. But Resident Evil used to be my absolute favorite series. And still today, I consider RE1, 2 and 3 sacred. So I can't look forward to RE5, because a bad Resident Evil game is not worth tainting the entire canon for, even if it is a good video game overall.

But with the movies, it's different. Sure, they can abandon some realism, add laser beams, insane stunts, etc. But they've established that in the very first movie, so it's not that over the top when you watch the latter two. See, Resident Evil is (or was, in case of the games) classified as a Science Fiction piece of work, in terms of its storyline. What I mean is, in science fiction, you create a world, and it's not that everything has to be believable, but you, right off the bat, establish some rules for your universe, like, "T-Virus is made by Umbrella. The zombies die if you shoot them in the head. These people are normal people and don't do any crazy stunts." And then you work within the rules that you've established.
In the very first RE movie, we see laser beams, holograms, some pretty crazy stunts. Let's face it, bouncing off the wall and kicking a dog in the face isn't really average person material. But they've established those things in the first movie, and work within those bounds. There were no giant spiders or hunters in the first movie. And if they had introduced them in the latter movies, it would've seemed a bit inconsistent.
Like with RE4, there were no ancient parasites which dwelled in the earth for centuries. Suddenly they introduce this whole new element that doesn't work with the man-made viruses, or things like that. Now you're turning Science Fiction into fantasy. And with Fantasy, the rules are limitless, so now they've got overdramatic characters, creatures that grow 10 times their size in a matter of seconds with no nourishment or signs of instability in their transformation. And all this stuff that, frankly, seems more like Onimusha material.
But that aside. Why I denounced the new games, yet am able to enjoy the movies. Like I've said many times, the reason I'm able to enjoy the movies is BECAUSE they're not trying to tie into the sacred 3 RE games, or into the overall canon of the games. Alice can kick all the ass she wants as long as they're not saying, "Yes, she kicked all that ass while Leon and Claire were in the RPD, during the game. It all happened in one continuity." The movies are a different franchise altogether, to me. And if the movies came first, people would be saying, "Why did they get rid of Alice and gave that supporting character Jill the lead role? And why is Nemesis all relentless, when it's Matt underneath?"
They're two separate franchises entirely, to me. But still the movies contain familiarities like the zombies, T-Virus and Umbrella. That's what Resident Evil is about to me. Not who the main character is, or how they interpreted certain monsters. So the Licker transformed. Big deal. I thought it was cool in its own way.
So Nemesis is self aware underneath that programming Umbrella instilled in him, so what? It's not interfering with game Nemesis. Or game Lickers. Or game Jill, or game Claire. It is what it is. And like I said, I think RE movies are great action movies, that I enjoyed more than films like Spider-Man 3, or Transformers. And they just happen to include Umbrella, T-Virus, etc. The very things that made me like Resident Evil.

[WeskerSexyCheez]

I just had a thought that I might need to keep my Sixaxis controller on me when I watch the film... Resident Evil 4 totally RUINED my ability to relax during cutscenes and I don't think I'll make the transition too well... My fingers were even curled up during Extinction sometimes...

[TheSelfishGene]

Pot kettle = The pot calling the kettle black.

Sure the movies can have spectacle for the sake of being spectacular. But anything fancy in the games isn't on? I don't understand your reasoning.
I acknowledge that Resident Evil 4 has more unrealistic action then the Resident Evil games that preceeded it. Even if you didn't enjoy the game for that reason, it doesn't really matter. It's not like the old games have vanished into the aether... Surely you can still enjoy those for what they are.
I totally agree that Resident evil 4 is not as good as 1, 2 or 3. But that doesn't mean that I can't enjoy Resident Evil 4 for what it is. Yes, it's different. Yes, it's not as good as the old games. But I found it to be a fun game.

So what if Capcom aren't going to make any more classic style games? Sure, I agree it's sad. But as I said, it's not like the old games have disppeared. There are TV series that I lament over the axing off... Bands I love that have tapered off into a shadow of their former awesome selves... Radio shows that my life used to revolve around... Films that had one too many sequels, games that never got a strong sequel. I agree it's sad, but I still, at the end of the day, the damage is done.

What originally appealed to me in the games was the realism. It was science fiction, but seeming a very good mimic of reality. I really got the impression that this could happen in real life. But the more I studied, the more I realised that just the science in the game is enough to underline the realism they once had. With Wesker's return in CODE: Veronica it became pretty obvious that Capcom didn't care for what they once had. I treat the story with about as much seriousness as it shows that it deserves (ie. Not a whole lot).

As for the films. Yes they are action films. But even as such, I don't think they are great films, for a whole host of reasons. The first I addressed in the last episode of the podcast, and am getting ready for a critique of the second and third film for the next show. The whole thing turns into a farce by the third film, with Alice's telekinetic abilities. The second film's action isn't so bad. But the film seems to have an 'action-above-all-else' attitude, which confuses the flow. I really liked the first 20 minutes. Apocalypse actually tries something the first and third didn't, which was having characters explore places, in the dark, in silence, and not knowing what was around the corner. Probably closest to the games that the films got. I'm talking about the church right before Alice enters, and later at the school.

I've seen Degeneration in it's entirety. I'm not sure if you listened to my review, but there are several reasons as to why I prefer it over the films written by Paul Anderson. Spoiler:

show spoiler

Mostly for the relevance the characters have to the existing series.

Now you're turning Science Fiction into fantasy. And with Fantasy, the rules are limitless, so now they've got overdramatic characters, creatures that grow 10 times their size in a matter of seconds with no nourishment or signs of instability in their transformation. And all this stuff that, frankly, seems more like Onimusha material.

Both are fiction, so it's the same kettle of fish really. And the older games are guilty of having over dramatic characters and creatures that grow in seemingly an instant. Brian Irons, Alfred Ashford. Both way over the top. As for monsters, the G-imago grows from the size of a dinnerplate in a matter of seconds. In outbreak that G-imago seems to grow even bigger. Nemesis and Steve Burnside also have massive growth spurts. So this is nothing new or unique to Resident Evil 4. And even if I see it happen in Resident Evil 5, I won't be too bothered about it. As long as the game is fun to play. I haven't found the story to be very appealing or interesting since CODE: Veronica. But hopefully that won't stop me from extracting some level of enjoyment out of RE5. And if there is no redeeming feature to be found, then I'll happily to lambast the game.

If you want to deny yourself of the possibility of enjoying the game, then that's your prerogative. Same goes for degeneration. And you're right that you're free to express your opinion here, but I'd guess that most people don't want to bother discussing with people who are closed-minded or dogmatic. When I say that I mean people at both ends of the scale.

I'm gonna enjoy Degeneration. That's all there is to it.