Kupek wrote:Zeus wrote:If that's the case, that would be a big problem for me. You can't ignore the comics and just do what you please with it.
What's so sacred about canon? Some of the best <i>comics</i> I've read where ones where they turned the canon up on its head. You seem to care more about staying true to canon than appreciating a story for what it is, and I don't understand that.
There's a big difference between the creators or curators of a franchise turning on its head and some execs who don't know and don't care about anything that was done in the past with respect to the franchise screwing it up hoping to make a quick buck.
I have no issues with changing things; in fact, I rather enjoy it. But it has to be good and there has to be a reason for it. Christopher Gans changed the end of Silent Hill 'cause he though the devil ending wouldn't work in a film setting, but otherwise, much of Silent Hill was kept in tact 'cause it did work. Harry was changed to a woman (didn't really affect anything) and they changed Dhalia and her group to give them a different role to fit the ending better, but that's about it. The atmosphere - the most important part of the game IMO - and many of the plot elements and even the locations were the same. To me, these changes were fine 'cause we are talking about two different forms of entertainment here. Dark Knight was similar for a comic book series.
The RE movie makers thought a lot of stuff was just silly so they updated it by using very basic elements of the franchise and just doing what they please with it. This is stupid, IMO, and only proves that the execs on this film care to use the name and some very basic elements SOLELY to play to those who played the game and just do whatever they want with it. They've got all these story elements and built up audience for these elements, they don't have to change it. The entire freakin' reason they paid for the rights is 'cause there's an audience they feel is there from playing the game which is substantial enough to watch the film, so why completely screw it up?
It's 'cause they think they can plop formulaic movie elements into a licence to make it better. They're not doing it because the canon needs a change, they're doing it because they want to make money ONLY and are doing what they've done in the past without caring how it fits. This is often the case and you end up with just complete drudge (see Doom or Wing Commander). There was no reason for the change other than to fit some pre-conceived notion of what makes a good film so the change was completely useless.
Now, that doesn't mean that these changes will always turn out to make a shit film. I've never made it a secret (mostly 'cause of my relentless teasing of Eric, who's relishing in the fact that my beloved cartoon is getting the treatment his beloved game did) that I liked RE and think it was a good movie, better than Silent Hill...even though the reason for the changes were stupid and useless and Silent Hill was as close to the video game as a licenced film I've seen. But what it does mean is that there's an extremely good chance that it will be shitty. Look at the other shitty video game movies (Street Fighter, Super Mario Bros, Doom, Wing Commander, etc.) versus the good ones (umm, Mortal Kombat 1, Silent Hill...maybe?) and you'll see the ratio HEAVILY favours it turning out shitty.
This is the basis of all my bitching about the Transformers movie. From the changes I've heard about ("We will NOT have any robots turning into guns, that I can assure you" - Michael "Motherless Fuck" Bay) and the plot elements released, my favourite cartoon is getting the RE treatment, no doubt about it. And with Bay at the helm and Speilberg producing (he's been on a slump for a decade), there's extremely little hope of it turning out as good as RE.
Like Eric and RE, I'm not happy about it, and now you at least know why the parody of himself thinks that way.
)
