Prepare to be angry...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdut8tSkE5g

W T F!

I love zombie movies....they're my favorite monster genre.

RESIDENT EVIL SUCKS!

You've got one serviceable movie. It was decent, but didnt deserve a sequel.

The first sequel...SUCKED. The movie not only wasnt even about zombies, but it wasnt even about the video game? I dont remember genetically enhanced supermodels in the Resident Evil series of Video games.

Comfortable in the beleif that there would be no more Resident Evil movies thanx to sequel suckitude, I was surprised to see a third movie. This movie could only be watchable with the silouette of a janitor and two robots in the lower right hand corner. No way this series is going to go on.

Then I see this Trailer. I really want to punch somebody in the throat. Plugging James Cameron in order to polish up your dogsh!t and try to call it Godiva Chocolate? Shameless bastards.

Lemme tell you something, if you pay money to see this movie in the theatre with the new more expensive 3D tickets, you need to be locked up because you are hopelessly insane and stupid. This series is a horrible example of how movies dont even have to be remotely intelligent or even watchable to make money nowadays. One day I will take a dump, snap on a rubber glove, throw the feces onto several peices of paper, then take a trip to Hollywood in order to sell my new blockbuster script. Apparently, that's all one has to do in order to make Sci-Fi/Horror/Action movies nowadays. (Transformers, GI Joe, Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull)

The people responsible for this film have no talent in filmmaking whatsoever...they need to stop.

This movie promises ACTION, ADVENTURE, and MILA....

...in truth Renfeild in Dracula got a better deal. (promised immortality....then killed)


(and for those of you wondering, no, I dont spend money on this series...not since I was let down by Pt 2. I am of the opinion that movie makers should reap the rewards of their labours. I do not collect pirated movies, but have a movie collection of well over 1000 films on dvd/blue ray and a huge collection of videos...all bought legally. The Resident Evil series, isnt worth my hard earned dollar. I will eventually see this car wreck for free on the internet because I'm feeling bored and masochistic one day.)

Please God, let this series die before people ruin more of my favorite game series with gakky movies.

Resident Evil 4: Mila Jovavich will work for food.

Or

Resident Evil 4: U R Base R Belong to us.

But it has MILA JOVAVICH!!! She could be doing her TAXES and it'd still be HAWT!!!

Milla Jovovich in:

Taxtime

Sign me up!

(Loved her in the Fifth Element! Which is a movie with some decidedly 40K-ish influences too!)

Im going out ona limb here, and going to guess Ill like it. I like all the other Resident Evil movies..... Ill say that I ALSO love the movie WaterWorld, if you have to ask me WHY about Resident Evil

They have a golden opportunity here. I'm talking Milla Jovovich making out with one of her clones, full frontal nudity in 3D.

It can't not fail.

avantgarde wrote:They have a golden opportunity here. I'm talking Milla Jovovich making out with one of her clones, full frontal nudity in 3D.

It can't not fail.

Oh, if only it were true...

*cries hot tears of fearful anticipation*

avantgarde wrote:They have a golden opportunity here. I'm talking Milla Jovovich making out with one of her clones, full frontal nudity in 3D.

It can't not fail.

I had not smiled all day, now I am smiling.

Thanks.

KingCracker wrote:Im going out ona limb here, and going to guess Ill like it. I like all the other Resident Evil movies..... Ill say that I ALSO love the movie WaterWorld, if you have to ask me WHY about Resident Evil

I want to say I liked the third resident evil movie but I in no way want to be associated with anyone who liked waterworld.

Waterworld wasn't really a bad movie, just not a great one. It was tainted more by the events surrounding the movie than the movie itself.

KingCracker wrote:Im going out ona limb here, and going to guess Ill like it. I like all the other Resident Evil movies..... Ill say that I ALSO love the movie WaterWorld, if you have to ask me WHY about Resident Evil

I wish more people were like you. Haven't seen WaterWorld (I'm scared to) but I loved all of the Resident Evil movies. Gotta admit, they did get steadily more and more epic as the series went on (the virus spreading first across the laboratory, then the city, then the US/world) and the battles were pretty good. My only complaint was giving Alice psychic powers - though I haven't played many of the games, they were always about regular soldiers. Elite soldiers, yes, but regular, flesh-and-blood soldiers. Making one of the main characters able to control matter and energy just seems silly.

I really don't see why there's so much hate for the movies. At least they're better than Uwe Boll's travesties of gaming.

Warterworld's worth watching just for the quad AA gun and the old dude in the tanker at the end. I rate the first Resident Evil film too, cunning remake of Aliens that it is.

Res Evil 4? Not that I don´t like Milla Jovovich but seriously...

Someone could make a movie about paint drying and if it had Mila I'd watch it.

She IS the reason to suffer through Resident Evil movies.

A-P wrote: Res Evil 4? Not that I don´t like Milla Jovovich but seriously...

Hello, and welcome!

Ahtman wrote:Waterworld wasn't really a bad movie, just not a great one. It was tainted more by the events surrounding the movie than the movie itself.

VERY good point - it really isn't that bad of a movie!

Don't the vast majority of resident evil games suck too? Four was pretty good, but most people seemed to dislike five and everything before four was a review in poor story telling, awful voice acting, mediocre graphics, god-awful writing, incredibly poor controls, and a camera system so bad that room corner fixed cameras are now known to be "the resident evil style".

A bad series of movies would appear to fit perfectly alongside the games.

Bad acting fits perfectly with the resident evil series.

well this is execly what i`ve bin hopin for, since i watched the third movie. just when i finished the third i cruised the web to get to know when or if there might be a fourth installment of this great kick ass movie series.
true it is not a full zombie movie but i like the kickass attitude of mila. also the other chars i think also dead by now are true fun to watch and not in a bad way either. i mean who really needs another movie like night of the walking deaths or so any more? every genre has to reinvent it self and it did so in matter of zombieflicks by the resident evil series.
true the trailer looked a bit to me as if its some kind of matrix and ultra violett mix. also i hope that there will be rather more dirty outfits of mila than her looking all smouth and clean in a catsuit. i think the fetching redsuit from the first and the leathergarterlook were by far the bestlooking outfits of her. also i loved her dirty hairdo^^

looking forward of resident evil 4 with glowing eyes^^

Here's what I gathered from this trailer - And bear in mind I have no speakers at work, so that was a silent preview.


The story is about some chick that gets lost while flying her plane and, being really intelligent, decides to stop in LA, which is clearly very much on fire, and ask for directions. She sees a bunch of planes and lands, -thinking- it's an airport when clearly it's an aircraft graveyard.

Fail.

Then she meets some wierd Lesbian Ninja that's part cat judging by how quickly and how much her pupils expand when suprised. Lesbian Ninja loves to run round throwing shurikens in slow motion, and decides that Random Lost Girl needs to learn Lesjitsu. Random Lost Girl proceeds to dress in black and point her guns at stuff because she's a big Matrix fan.

Fail.

Then Random Lost Girl decides she should run some guy over with her plane, which for some reason is taxiing down a road in the middle of LA. She misses said guy, and it makes you wonder why she tries to run him over to begin with, instead of just putting a hole in his face with a shotgun.

Fail.

Random Lost Girl later finds herself jumping off a building to get away from Zombies. Hopefully she can fly. This raises the question of why she even bothered to stop in a burning, zombie filled version of LA to begin with.

Fail.

Meanwhile, Lesbian Ninja decides to break into some big huge base and kill a bunch of guards, when she probably would've done just fine for herself without it. While she's killing everyone, Random Lost Girl manages to crash her plane into a large warehouse that makes it's money storing empty wooden pallets and hordes of zombies. While she escapes from the warehouse and Lesbian Ninja kills more nameless guards with assault rifles that can't even kill one chick with swords, two random people that are (so far) completely unexplained confront an evil guy that even has red eyes to make sure you know how evil he is. His special attack is that he throws his sunglasses at you. No really, that's his special move.

Fail.

Now, we've gone too long without another slow-motion Ninja scene from Lesbian Ninja, so she kindly throws in a slow-mo spread eagle dive, then she fights some big Zombie with a hammer. At the same time, her and Random Lost Girl, who seems to have escaped from the pallet storage warehouse, point a shotgun at some Zombie that's about to eat their faces but decide not to shoot it. Maybe they're from PETZ (People for the Ethical Treatment of Zombies), because we haven't actually seen them kill any zombies yet. Lesbian Ninja then goes back to doing flips over the giant zombie with the hammer.

Fail.

Random Lost Girl is also a genius, in case viewers were not aware, because she goes running right through the middle of a crowd of zombies. It also seems she's learned the art of dramatic Slo-Mo sequences from her friend Lesbian Ninja, because she then does a sort of 'tripping dive' through a randomly exploding door. Not to be deterred from more plotless action however, her and Lesbian Ninja then run around spraying rounds from their UZIs into a bunch of columns, then getting into an elevator while wearing black leather, because they totally don't want to blatantly rip things from the Matrix. They follow this shortly thereafter by having a gunfight with some grey haired man in a suit. Diving out a window that seems to effortlessly break when they jump into it, yet wasn't shattered by the spray of bullets that appear to have hit it, they proceed to fire off into the air above them while falling in slow-mo with their backs to the ground. Once more, -totally- not stealing scenes from the Matrix -at all-.

Fail.

The preview finally ends with them falling down several hundred floors into a central courtyard and Lesbian Ninja using her sword as a throwing knife, which will, I assume, break their fall. In short, it's the same Resident Evil films people have been watching since the first sequel came out.

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't the vast majority of resident evil games suck too?

Pretty much. Four was great because they went back to the drawing board and made a whole name game. Five took the controls from Four and all the bad stuff from the rest. The co-op was a great idea, but to see the proper execution, play Left 4 Dead.

Ha, I've always loved the "You were almost a JILL SANDWICH!"

I'd rather see
"28 months later" myself, but I can settle for this, in the mean time.

I quite liked films 1&2, though the other one was just very, very poor, edging towards terrible.

I don't have great hopes for the new one.

I've been waiting for quite a while for this to come out. I actually enjoyed the movies up to this point. The only qualm I've really had is the psychic powers. It really makes no sense. That said, the trailer doesn't seem to make the movie out as very good compared to the others. Oh well I'll just hope.

I think Deadshane should take the gloves off, re-post and tell us how he REALLY feels about it.

Look guys... the truth is obvious... video games made from movie premise (starwars battlefront woot!) are sometimes cool.... movies made from video game = not. Also, with only the occasional exception, movies with a "2" or "3" or something afterwards are generally to be avoided. (except for Free Willy 7 which rocked) That's hollywood for ya.

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't the vast majority of resident evil games suck too? Four was pretty good, but most people seemed to dislike five and everything before four was a review in poor story telling, awful voice acting, mediocre graphics, god-awful writing, incredibly poor controls, and a camera system so bad...

Sounds like a description of most games pre 2000s. None of those thing make or break a game, or at least they didn't back then.

whatwhat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't the vast majority of resident evil games suck too? Four was pretty good, but most people seemed to dislike five and everything before four was a review in poor story telling, awful voice acting, mediocre graphics, god-awful writing, incredibly poor controls, and a camera system so bad...

Sounds like a description of most games pre 2000s. None of those thing make or break a game, or at least they didn't back then.

That would be true, but Resident Evil had ALL of them piled into one game (And a few sequels). I can think of plenty of pre-2000 games that had only one or two of those problems and was still a fantastic game.

Erm, really. By todays standards most old games have "ALL of them" as you say. Lets see... poor story telling, having trouble thinking of one game pre 2000 which I can actually remember a worthwhile story besides maybe zelda or final fantasy. awful voice acting, most games didn't even bother with voice acting back then and had lines of text you had to read, where the dialogue ussually read like a childrens book. Mediocre graphics, again no different from any other game of it's time they were no worse than most of what was being released at the time. God-awful writing, again nothing remarkably different from other games of the time. Incredibly poor controls and a poor camera system , third person games haven't overcome either of these problems until very recently.

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

I just caught the third one on tv over the weekend. After grimly sitting though it I can honestly say the only way I'm sitting through another one is if someone straps me to a chair and forces me to watch, like in Clockwork Orange.

My opinions of the RE films;


1: Great film, could find a fault with it

2: Started straying off track, wasnt all bad, but not great.

3: Why did they release it? huge waste of money on a film that fits into nothing.

4: ill watch it when it comes out, might aswell since there isnt much out lately worth watching




About the only decent film ive watched lately was hurt locker.

whatwhat wrote:

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

Some of them were. I think you're also forgetting that resident evil was a shovelware license that has had nearly 20 games. Most of them terrible.

Erm, really. By todays standards most old games have "ALL of them" as you say. Lets see... poor story telling, having trouble thinking of one game pre 2000 which I can actually remember a worthwhile story besides maybe zelda or final fantasy.

Zeldas stories are always iconic, but they are never good. They are simple childrens stories. Final fantasy was the opposite, sprawling epic tales designed for 14 year olds. I think you're confusing where I mention story and presentation of story.

awful voice acting, most games didn't even bother with voice acting back then and had lines of text you had to read, where the dialogue ussually read like a childrens book.

Click the youtube link. The resident evil series is classic because of it's campy and awful dialogue.

Mediocre graphics, again no different from any other game of it's time they were no worse than most of what was being released at the time.

Sure they were. Muddy texture work and unrecognizable monsters were pretty commonplace but unlike parasite eve, legacy of kain, banjoe kazooi, and quite a few other games it didn't really have a noteable visual flair. It was just boring looking.

God-awful writing, again nothing remarkably different from other games of the time. Incredibly poor controls and a poor camera system , third person games haven't overcome either of these problems until very recently.

It kind of makes you wonder why people are mad at the movies for not following the games storylines when they are awful. As for cameras and controls, third person games overcame those when mario64 came out. Probably sooner. The problems have been solved for years, capcom and resident evil in general is just lazy.

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

And survival horror games of the time were all known to have awful controls and poor graphics. It was a genre of bad games that floated on top of the "horror" idea and a total lack of competition.

I,like Deadshane,am a Zombie film fanatic.
I will literaly watch ANY zombie film I happen upon,just to see how it stacks up...I am often disapointed.
Concerning the Resident Evil films,I thought the first one was ok (nothing great,but watchable) and thought the rest were gak,as I belive this latest instalment will also be.
The only thing I find remotely enjoyable about the last few RE films is of course Milla Jovovich,I could watch her read the phone book and still be happy...
Basicly ,when it comes to zombie films,there are very few that are really well done,most of those are either the works of Romero or Fulci,and the rest are "hit or miss".
Sure most of the RE films blow,but they could be much worse...check out "Children shouldn't play with Dead things", "House of the Dead" (damn you Uwe Boll) or any of the "Return of the living Dead" films.

I rather like all of the RE films.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I rather like all of the RE films.

Does this qualify as a shocking revelation???

Alpharius wrote:

Cheese Elemental wrote:I rather like all of the RE films.

Does this qualify as a shocking revelation???

Oi! Just what are you implying?

I've seen about a half hour of the first movie. I have no idea if it was any good or not, but I do know that ludicrous wire-fu stunts set to heavy metal are just not for me. I'm also a fan of zombie movies, but the appeal for me is ordinary people surviving in a horrific world, and once people start doing flying kicks then it's clear the movie is about other things and I lose interest.

Deadshane1 wrote:This series is a horrible example of how movies dont even have to be remotely intelligent or even watchable to make money nowadays. One day I will take a dump, snap on a rubber glove, throw the feces onto several peices of paper, then take a trip to Hollywood in order to sell my new blockbuster script. Apparently, that's all one has to do in order to make Sci-Fi/Horror/Action movies nowadays. (Transformers, GI Joe, Indiana Jones/Crystal Skull)

Dude, this is how it's always been. This is how it will always be. Decent, original ideas in functional have a long development time, and are a very risky proposition. Another film that's similar to another movie that made money and can be tied in to merchandise and video games is a lot more likely to make money, and it and can be slotted into the production and release schedules quite neatly.

If people spent some time finding out what movies were actually good before handing over their money, then there'd be profit to be had in making sure a film is decent. But audiences don't and never have, so we get what we deserve.

First off, I am HUGE fan of the games (1, 2, and Nemesis...some of the others)...the films are horrible and prison skull-feth raped the storyline....

but the lack of love for RE1 and 2, the games, makes me feel like this...

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

Some of them were. I think you're also forgetting that resident evil was a shovelware license that has had nearly 20 games. Most of them terrible.

Erm, really. By todays standards most old games have "ALL of them" as you say. Lets see... poor story telling, having trouble thinking of one game pre 2000 which I can actually remember a worthwhile story besides maybe zelda or final fantasy.

Zeldas stories are always iconic, but they are never good. They are simple childrens stories. Final fantasy was the opposite, sprawling epic tales designed for 14 year olds. I think you're confusing where I mention story and presentation of story.

awful voice acting, most games didn't even bother with voice acting back then and had lines of text you had to read, where the dialogue ussually read like a childrens book.

Click the youtube link. The resident evil series is classic because of it's campy and awful dialogue.

Mediocre graphics, again no different from any other game of it's time they were no worse than most of what was being released at the time.

Sure they were. Muddy texture work and unrecognizable monsters were pretty commonplace but unlike parasite eve, legacy of kain, banjoe kazooi, and quite a few other games it didn't really have a noteable visual flair. It was just boring looking.

God-awful writing, again nothing remarkably different from other games of the time. Incredibly poor controls and a poor camera system , third person games haven't overcome either of these problems until very recently.

It kind of makes you wonder why people are mad at the movies for not following the games storylines when they are awful. As for cameras and controls, third person games overcame those when mario64 came out. Probably sooner. The problems have been solved for years, capcom and resident evil in general is just lazy.

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

And survival horror games of the time were all known to have awful controls and poor graphics. It was a genre of bad games that floated on top of the "horror" idea and a total lack of competition.

So obviously you were either too young or old and gakky and didn't really pay attention to anything relating to video games back then. 1, EVEN WITH its campy voice acting, had amazing music, terrific mood, and beuatiful photorealistic (for the the time) textures. 2 just came and showed it up, I love RE2, it is one of my favourite games. POOR STORYLINE??!! ARE YOU SMOKING BASIL AND PENCIL SHAVINGS? the storyline from resident evil 1 and 2, with 3 and 0 adding to the mystique are brilliant, and SO many films and games have stolen from it. Shun Nishigaki made the music of RE 1 and 2...he is a genius, and the mood he set, along with (especially 2's) the beautiful HIGHLY detailed backgrounds is just excellent. The only game that came out around that time that is better would be LoZ: OoT, or FFVII, 2 of the greatest games ever...oh, and fething MARIO KART 64.

everybody should petition for a NETHACK movie... where an big ascii "@" symbol attacks big ascii "D" graphics dragons while running around a maze made of dots.

Looks like they ran a crap movie through photoshop a million times.

Bad art is bad art no matter how well you polish it to distract the dumb masses.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

You're forgetting they were highly popular games in their time, they're the reason it's now a major franchise and has four movies adapted from it. Maybe they haven't stood the test of time but then few of the best games of their own time do.

Some of them were. I think you're also forgetting that resident evil was a shovelware license that has had nearly 20 games. Most of them terrible.

I'm trying to point out to you that there are an abundance of other people who don't share your ill opinions of the games, which you are trying to pass off as objective fact.

Does it look terribly cheesy? Yes!

Will I go see it anyway? Yes!

Ever drive by a train wreck?

So obviously you were either too young or old and gakky and didn't really pay attention to anything relating to video games back then.

Well that, or they generally were games that were pretty poor and existed on the merits of existing in the vacume of a new genre.

ARE YOU SMOKING BASIL AND PENCIL SHAVINGS?

I dunno. Did you just say that the resident evil storyline was original? Big evil corporation accidentally releases a virus that turns people into zombies, oh, and they had been working on bio weapons too I guess so elite military team gets sent in to investigate. Original? Really? Reeaaaaaaly? Are you sure you don't mean utterly generic?

So obviously you were either too young or old and gakky and didn't really pay attention to anything relating to video games back then. 1, EVEN WITH its campy voice acting, had amazing music, terrific mood, and beuatiful photorealistic (for the the time) textures.

Yeah, it sure does look photorealistic in here.

There were better looking games.

I'm trying to point out to you that there are an abundance of other people who don't share your ill opinions of the games, which you are trying to pass off as objective fact.

If the size of the fanbase equalled actual quality the twilight thread running concurrently to this one would be full of fans instead of whining.

the first movie was pretty good (considering the quality of the visuals, definately looked photoshopped.)

However, with hollywood in general, what more are you expecting? It's no different than the gaming industry where you have..... 7? 8? Call of Duties, upwards of 20 RE games, 10 something Halo's...... If it sells, its going to be milked really, really badly.



Personally, I am hoping the Prince of Persia movie will be good. It looks good, anyway.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Yeah, it sure does look photorealistic in here.

There were better looking games.

I'm trying to point out to you that there are an abundance of other people who don't share your ill opinions of the games, which you are trying to pass off as objective fact.

If the size of the fanbase equalled actual quality the twilight thread running concurrently to this one would be full of fans instead of whining.

Firstly, hardly. Secondly, metal gear is two years younger. And thirdly, arguing right and wrong on something which is completely subjective does nothing more than prove arrogance and self righteousness on your part.

And thirdly, arguing right and wrong on something which is completely subjective does nothing more than prove arrogance and self righteousness on your part.

I never claimed to be humble.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I never claimed to be humble.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I proudly present to you ShumaGorath! Here, at his best.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So obviously you were either too young or old and gakky and didn't really pay attention to anything relating to video games back then.

Well that, or they generally were games that were pretty poor and existed on the merits of existing in the vacume of a new genre.

ARE YOU SMOKING BASIL AND PENCIL SHAVINGS?

I dunno. Did you just say that the resident evil storyline was original? Big evil corporation accidentally releases a virus that turns people into zombies, oh, and they had been working on bio weapons too I guess so elite military team gets sent in to investigate. Original? Really? Reeaaaaaaly? Are you sure you don't mean utterly generic?

So obviously you were either too young or old and gakky and didn't really pay attention to anything relating to video games back then. 1, EVEN WITH its campy voice acting, had amazing music, terrific mood, and beuatiful photorealistic (for the the time) textures.

Yeah, it sure does look photorealistic in here.

There were better looking games.

I'm trying to point out to you that there are an abundance of other people who don't share your ill opinions of the games, which you are trying to pass off as objective fact.

If the size of the fanbase equalled actual quality the twilight thread running concurrently to this one would be full of fans instead of whining.

Metal Gear came out on September 3, 1998.

Resident Evil came out on March 22, 1996.

And if you actually understand how game textures work, and how they are applied to the environments and models, yes, those walls and textures are very photorealistic for the times, please, have a knowledge base before you argue something you know nothing about.



for 14 years ago that's pretty badass.

2 is even better.

as far as the plot, show me something the predates this storyline that makes this utterly generic?...it is NOW, because people have stolen it...

and glancing at people playing the game and then taking your loose knowledge of the movies and formulating a plot synopses is pretty lame...

the storyline is brilliant...it is EXTREMELY rich in character development, scientific history, and intrigue...


go here....
http://residentevil.wikia.com/Umbrella_Corporation
and read it, and click on all of the links to find out more...it really is very interesting.
all of these stories can be backed up by not only the games and novels, but The Wesker Report...





.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, and you will also see how loosely Anderson based the movies on the games....

and how much of a feth tard he is.

Shuma is correct in that the "plot" behind the RE games wasn't "original", the use of "evil corparations" unleashing some sort of "catastrophe"upon the public and trying to cover it up has been used quite a bit in the horror genre...however,how much of anything is particularly "original" anymore?
That being said,I complettely enjoyed the RE games,and thought they were fairly decent looking as well,plus...they are just plain fun to play,of course I may be biased due to that whole "zombie love" I suffer from.

We can all hate on the parts we dont like all we want.

But considering its still popular since 1996?
And 26 games released onto multiple platforms?
4 and soon to be 5th movie?

They have to be doing something right?. Or perhaps we just have different taste then the rest of the populace they are able to make money off from.

What i think of this movie?
Like all 3 D movie it looks so lame , oh sunglasses and debris flying towards the screen OH NOES!

The number of games you release does not a good series make.

The quality of the games, however, does.
Look at the Heroes of Might & Magic series or the Command and Conquer series for an example.

Kanluwen wrote:The number of games you release does not a good series make.

The quality of the games, however, does.
Look at the Heroes of Might & Magic series or the Command and Conquer series for an example.

I think the point Luna is making is that obviously there are plenty of people who like the game for it to warrant 26 sequels.

Heh.

Funny, because it seems every time they release a new sequel the sales figures go down outside of everywhere except Japan.

Oh right yes. So that would of course be people realising the games are shyte all of a sudden, rather than the possibility that the sequels aren't living up to the standards of their predecessors?

Pop quiz.
Two girls, two guys, on a double date in a pub somewhere, sometime.
Conversation about the Resident evil games props up all of a sudden.
Now the girls both like/dislike(pick one) the games, and believe them to be good/terrible.
However the guys both share the opposite opinion of the games.
Now Guy A surmises the issue of whether the games are good or terrible is highly subjective, therefore considers any argument pointless and stays quiet.
Guy B on the other hand, surmises he of course has to be right and argues that his point of view has to be correct.
Who gets laid?

And if you actually understand how game textures work, and how they are applied to the environments and models, yes, those walls and textures are very photorealistic for the times, please, have a knowledge base before you argue something you know nothing about.

Just for reference I work in graphic design and have done a pretty good amount of 3d animation.

You should probably learn what a pre rendered environment is, since it's pretty clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

for 14 years ago that's pretty badass.

Sure they were. Muddy texture work and unrecognizable monsters were pretty commonplace but unlike parasite eve, legacy of kain, banjoe kazooi, and quite a few other games it didn't really have a noteable visual flair. It was just boring looking.

Now, if you had read my post you would note that I thought the horror genre in general had pretty poor graphics, but that the RE series in particular suffered from attempts at realism during a generation of consoles that were physically incapable of such. Thus they lost artistic visual flair and gained.... Nothing! Their competitors, several of which ALSO survive to this day (such as silent hill) had much better visual aesthetics.

as far as the plot, show me something the predates this storyline that makes this utterly generic?...it is NOW, because people have stolen it...

and glancing at people playing the game and then taking your loose knowledge of the movies and formulating a plot synopses is pretty lame...

You are reeeeaaally bad at identifying what an original plot is. Evil corporations, zombies, and bio weapons have been a staple of science fiction for half a century, likely longer. Even when taken together you basically have captain planet except remove the planeteers and throw in gunwielding supercops.

But considering its still popular since 1996?
And 26 games released onto multiple platforms?
4 and soon to be 5th movie?

Actually until four the games average ratings in media have been getting categorically lower with every sequel. They hit a high point with 2 that they didn't reach again until four over a decade later. They then lost it again.

Funny, because it seems every time they release a new sequel the sales figures go down outside of everywhere except Japan.

Resident evil four is the best selling RE game to date, with five trailing immediately behind.

Oh right yes. So that would of course be people realising the games are shyte all of a sudden, rather than the possibility that the sequels aren't living up to the standards of their predecessors?

Well they didn't until four. They stayed exactly the same over and over again (when every other genre got better). That said, four was the interesting plot and the good game, they actually took some chances and made a good RE game there. Just don't look to the Wii for innovation in an RE game and you can see that they're trying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:Oh right yes. So that would of course be people realising the games are shyte all of a sudden, rather than the possibility that the sequels aren't living up to the standards of their predecessors?

Pop quiz.
Two girls, two guys, on a double date in a pub somewhere, sometime.
Conversation about the Resident evil games props up all of a sudden.
Now the girls both like/dislike(pick one) the games, and believe them to be good/terrible.
However the guys both share the opposite opinion of the games.
Now Guy A surmises the issue of whether the games are good or terrible is highly subjective, therefore considers any argument pointless and stays quiet.
Guy B on the other hand, surmises he of course has to be right and argues that his point of view has to be correct.
Who gets laid?

The interesting thing is that this is a forum dedicated to plastic toy men, and you're example is painfully ironic.

ShumaGorath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Oh right yes. So that would of course be people realising the games are shyte all of a sudden, rather than the possibility that the sequels aren't living up to the standards of their predecessors?

Pop quiz.
Two girls, two guys, on a double date in a pub somewhere, sometime.
Conversation about the Resident evil games props up all of a sudden.
Now the girls both like/dislike(pick one) the games, and believe them to be good/terrible.
However the guys both share the opposite opinion of the games.
Now Guy A surmises the issue of whether the games are good or terrible is highly subjective, therefore considers any argument pointless and stays quiet.
Guy B on the other hand, surmises he of course has to be right and argues that his point of view has to be correct.
Who gets laid?

The interesting thing is that this is a forum dedicated to plastic toy men, and you're example is painfully ironic.

Only if you believe being into "plastic toy men" therefore means you can't get laid. Me, I don't. ymmv

Shuma , i bet you like FF Spirits Within

LunaHound wrote:Shuma , i bet you like FF Spirits Within

No, that movie sucked pretty bad. Better than the final fantasy VII movie though. By a long shot. A really long shot.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma , i bet you like FF Spirits Within

No, that movie sucked pretty bad. Better than the final fantasy VII movie though. By a long shot. A really long shot.

How about compared to RE movies? I think Spirits is better? they didnt slack off on the quality and the story.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma , i bet you like FF Spirits Within

No, that movie sucked pretty bad. Better than the final fantasy VII movie though. By a long shot. A really long shot.

How about compared to RE movies? I think its better?

Oh, as compared to the RE movies? Yeah, it was pretty good by comparison. It was a bit more cerebral, had a nice visual flair, good cg, and wasn't a generic shakycam action movie. It's failure as a story came from a studio that failed while trying really hard. The resident evil movies failed because they were simplistic summer action movie crap.

Funfact: Smart and well written action movies make less money than ones with simplistic and generic plots, even when they have similar special effects and acting.

Hollywood movies vs Sundance movies

LunaHound wrote:Hollywood movies vs Sundance movies

Good movies vs bad movies. A lot of film fest flicks are pretty awful too.

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Hollywood movies vs Sundance movies

Good movies vs bad movies. A lot of film fest flicks are pretty awful too.

Yes , but Hollywood is more inclined via making profit to select the type that will appeal to mass.

Long story short , Hollywood isnt the one to blame.

Blame the mass that finds such and such appealing , Hollywood is merely giving them what they want.

whatwhat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The number of games you release does not a good series make.

The quality of the games, however, does.
Look at the Heroes of Might & Magic series or the Command and Conquer series for an example.

I think the point Luna is making is that obviously there are plenty of people who like the game for it to warrant 26 sequels.

Yep

6/7

ShumaGorath wrote:

And if you actually understand how game textures work, and how they are applied to the environments and models, yes, those walls and textures are very photorealistic for the times, please, have a knowledge base before you argue something you know nothing about.

Just for reference I work in graphic design and have done a pretty good amount of 3d animation.

You should probably learn what a pre rendered environment is, since it's pretty clear that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Graphic design has literally nothing to do with the way games are constructed an put together. But I have been doing pro GD for 3 years now, want to piss further than me? It doesn't fething matter.

A pre rendered environment, is a space where every object has been rendered in a 360 degree view so that no matter where you are, you are seeing the correct side of the object(s). Everything 3D rendered is pre rendered, every object, animation, movieclip(if we are talking flash) etc. Back in the mid 90's, games were limited to simple textures, and only minor, if any, bump-mapping. If something was shaded, or highly textured (brick, scales, thorns, spikes), the lights and shadows were incorporated into the color of the texture. To get a "reaslitic look" like many of the textures, game designers would employ the same tactics used today, using a PHOTO of an object, texture, item, etc. On OLDER games, items would not even me modeled, just flat images placed on vertical 3d planes (I.e Doom). the planes would move in accordance with the player, always facing you...very weird. In RE 1, 2, 3, CV, Survivor, RE 2.5, Most interactive elements of the games were modeled and rendered and animated separate to the background. main character, enemies, guns, muzzle flares, bullets, puke, blood, slime, etc... The backgrounds, and most of the non interactive peices of the game (ie. pillars, posts, doors etc) were rendered as planes with textures applied to them. They were lit, but not bump mapped. Which is why a pillar or item that may move, like one of the puzzle sequences will seem brighter than everything around it. It has its own rendered and animated lighting. Shading happened, but was incorporated into the texture, or pre animated and parented to whatever was the light source.

I think, what Capcom did with the 32-bit RISC (33.9MHz) playstation 1, was groundbreaking. They were working with 2mb! of ram and 1mb of video ram. Do you realize that amazing environemtns they were able to pump out of that?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shuma , i bet you like FF Spirits Within

No, that movie sucked pretty bad. Better than the final fantasy VII movie though. By a long shot. A really long shot.

You have to be a fan of FFVII to love Advent Children, if you are, and you still hate it....well.......I'll get you some of these...

ShumaGorath wrote:Funfact: Smart and well written action movies make less money than ones with simplistic and generic plots, even when they have similar special effects and acting.

that is why Michael Bay makes so much money....

IG_urban wrote:If something was shaded, or highly textured (brick, scales, thorns, spikes), the lights and shadows were incorporated into the color of the texture. To get a "reaslitic look" like many of the textures, game designers would employ the same tactics used today, using a PHOTO of an object, texture, item, etc. On OLDER games, items would not even me modeled, just flat images placed on vertical 3d planes (I.e Doom). the planes would move in accordance with the player, always facing you...very weird. In RE 1, 2, 3, CV, Survivor, RE 2.5, Most interactive elements of the games were modeled and rendered and animated separate to the background.

Yep Which is why the "areas" only follow specific camera angles, usually 1 lol.

which is a shortcut to getting around the memory capabilities of the PS1

I remember when the first Medal of Honor came out and people called it 'bar setting' and 'groundbreaking' because it was one of the few FPS games at the time that offered actual 3d modelled enemies. I remember playing it for the first time as a kid and being totally blown away by the awesome graphics.

Fast forward and now I'm Sad Panda, because kids these days are growing up with that stuff. They won't really see how far things have come and really only like games for the graphics

IG_urban wrote:which is a shortcut to getting around the memory capabilities of the PS1

Yep , i fully understood what you are talking about.

In a way , they do that to movie similarly in Alien when the team went to Space Jokey's ship in that giant egg room.

metallifan wrote:I remember when the first Medal of Honor came out and people called it 'bar setting' and 'groundbreaking' because it was one of the few FPS games at the time that offered actual 3d modelled enemies. I remember playing it for the first time as a kid and being totally blown away by the awesome graphics.

Fast forward and now I'm Sad Panda, because kids these days are growing up with that stuff. They won't really see how far things have come and really only like games for the graphics

Dont be sad panda! half of the fun and realism are experienced through your brain and imagination itself!

Because the realism now is still very far from hologram or stuff like matrix :3

Well this degraded rather quickly. Yes the trailer clearly indicates this will be a sub-par movie on every level for the intelectually inclined. However, watching a Resident Evil movie for any kind of intelectual stimulation is like watching Death Race trying to find Shakespear quotes. It just isn't going to happen. I will watch this movie after it hits dvd to save money and I know I will enjoy it for everything over the top it will offer. I know I'm either going to think effects are cool or be laughing during the silly parts. Although it doesn't stay true to the games (just like most game to movie translations) it is able to follow its own story. Everything has progressed to the point its at along the same line. They do need to release some Cliff notes or make RE2.5 to fill in the MASSIVE story gap between 2 and 3 but even with the gap there are no issues picking up where the movie is going.

As for the games all the arguing I've seen is I'm right, your wrong, deal with it. It has mostly been based on facts that don't really matter. People enjoy what they want to. I liked Waterworld and all the numbered RE games. If the graphics are whats stopping you from giving RE1 a try pick it up for Gamecube. It got a massive graphical overhaul and was exactly like the original. They threw in a few new twists and challenges but nothing that truly turned it into a new game. So any more on topic comments on why you will love/hate this movie?

Graphic design has literally nothing to do with the way games are constructed an put together. But I have been doing pro GD for 3 years now, want to piss further than me? It doesn't fething matter.

I'm confused as to how graphic design has nothing to do with the way games are constructed and put together. They are fields which utilize the same tools to the same ends. 3d animation in game design has more constraints to it due to the restrictions inherent to interactivity and hardware limitations, but the fields aren't particularly different. I've worked on a few games mods (mostly source engine) before, and the skills translated quite well in my opinion.

A pre rendered environment, is a space where every object has been rendered in a 360 degree view so that no matter where you are, you are seeing the correct side of the object(s). Everything 3D rendered is pre rendered, every object, animation, movieclip(if we are talking flash) etc. Back in the mid 90's, games were limited to simple textures, and only minor, if any, bump-mapping.

If by bump mapping you mean really rough emboss mapping on pc games then yes. Games were capable of bump mapping during the 90's, but thats a minor point.

If something was shaded, or highly textured (brick, scales, thorns, spikes), the lights and shadows were incorporated into the color of the texture. To get a "reaslitic look" like many of the textures, game designers would employ the same tactics used today, using a PHOTO of an object, texture, item, etc.

Yeah, I know. I've done tessellated texturing for environments before and I've textured prop models in the past (never got very good at handling lcsm unwrapped meshes, so my texture work on more complex models wasn't the best).

I think, what Capcom did with the 32-bit RISC (33.9MHz) playstation 1, was groundbreaking. They were working with 2mb! of ram and 1mb of video ram. Do you realize that amazing environemtns they were able to pump out of that?

Console memory has always been sparse. The xbox had what? 64 megs of onboard video memory? Programming specifically to hardware allows for excellent results. I have no doubt about the technical proficiency of the RE team at capcom, they probably squeezed every pixel, but I believe that the environments they crafted were visually quite boring, even for the day. Games like Clock Tower or Parasite Eve created far more interesting environs then were seen in RE1.

You have to be a fan of FFVII to love Advent Children, if you are, and you still hate it....well.......I'll get you some of these...

It was odd seeing the split in my friends between people that loved Advent Children and those that hated it. You could split them perfectly down the line of which ones still loved to play the game and those that did not.

Although it doesn't stay true to the games (just like most game to movie translations) it is able to follow its own story. Everything has progressed to the point its at along the same line. They do need to release some Cliff notes or make RE2.5 to fill in the MASSIVE story gap between 2 and 3 but even with the gap there are no issues picking up where the movie is going.

Well there likely wasn't anywhere for them to go after armageddon. The franchise had essentially ended. A prequel wouldn't have worked out particularly well, and a fourth film in line would just fall apart so they didn't have much choice. It would have been nice if they had used four as a starting point, it has the makings of a good movie plot in there. Spanish accents, an established hero, mysterious enemies, an excellent and foreign setting, and a great overall "feel" to it. Sadly they just decided to make underworld four.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Graphic design has literally nothing to do with the way games are constructed an put together. But I have been doing pro GD for 3 years now, want to piss further than me? It doesn't fething matter.

I'm confused as to how graphic design has nothing to do with the way games are constructed and put together. They are fields which utilize the same tools to the same ends. 3d animation in game design has more constraints to it due to the restrictions inherent to interactivity and hardware limitations, but the fields aren't particularly different. I've worked on a few games mods (mostly source engine) before, and the skills translated quite well in my opinion.

I will agree that tool interfaces, at times, in certain programs...COULD BE SLIGHTLY related....but your stretching man. Have some humble pie.

ShumaGorath wrote:If by bump mapping you mean really rough emboss mapping on pc games then yes. Games were capable of bump mapping during the 90's, but thats a minor point.

umm...no. Bump mapping is applying a pixel by pixel perturbation to all of the normals (angles) of a pre rendered surface, so when illumination is applied, it reacts accordingly. EVERY item with ANY type of texture in a 3d space is bump mapped. And rendering this pre..say.... 2004 was disastrously-painstakingly long and grueling so most developers just opted not to do it at all.

I will agree that tool interfaces, at times, in certain programs...COULD BE SLIGHTLY related....but your stretching man. Have some humble pie.

I'll eat the pie, but are you using a version of maya or 3dsm that I wasn't? I suppose if you're working in engine with unreal engine 3 or something the development tools are right there for most items, but you still have to duck out to use zbrush or photoshop occasionally. I think your overstating the differentiation between graphic design and the artistic production side of game design. I mean, one of those thing is the other.

umm...no. Bump mapping is applying a pixel by pixel perturbation to all of the normals (angles) of a pre rendered surface, so when illumination is applied, it reacts accordingly. EVERY item with ANY type of texture in a 3d space is bump mapped. And rendering this pre..say.... 2004 was disastrously-painstakingly long and grueling so most developers just opted not to do it at all.

Wasn't perp pixel shading virtually impossible in consoles before the ps2 (and even then not utilized since it was a costly software emulation process)? A few computer games utilized it before the new millennium, but those were rare in the extreme.

Quick question.

Will Milla Jovovich be naked in this one?

Dreadwinter wrote:Quick question.

Will Milla Jovovich be naked in this one?

Better question: will MULTIPLE Millas be naked in this one(since she's running around with all her clones and what not) at the same time?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I will agree that tool interfaces, at times, in certain programs...COULD BE SLIGHTLY related....but your stretching man. Have some humble pie.

I'll eat the pie, but are you using a version of maya or 3dsm that I wasn't? I suppose if you're working in engine with unreal engine 3 or something the development tools are right there for most items, but you still have to duck out to use zbrush or photoshop occasionally. I think your overstating the differentiation between graphic design and the artistic production side of game design. I mean, one of those thing is the other.

umm...no. Bump mapping is applying a pixel by pixel perturbation to all of the normals (angles) of a pre rendered surface, so when illumination is applied, it reacts accordingly. EVERY item with ANY type of texture in a 3d space is bump mapped. And rendering this pre..say.... 2004 was disastrously-painstakingly long and grueling so most developers just opted not to do it at all.

Wasn't perp pixel shading virtually impossible in consoles before the ps2 (and even then not utilized since it was a costly software emulation process)? A few computer games utilized it before the new millennium, but those were rare in the extreme.

it wasn't impossible, just too chunky to deal with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I use Max, Maya, 2010, zbrush 09, toxik 2010, mudbox, and have been using the adobe creative suite since before it was the creative suite. *around PS5

Back on-topic: Hollywood is what they call a specialised economy. This is because all movies are produced in order to fulfill a specialised need, namely maintaining the producer's cocaine habit.
"Hey Spielberg, where's the blow?!"
"Uhh... s%$# the well's run dry, greenlight Resident Evil IV right now go go go!"

Commissar Molotov wrote:But it has MILA JOVAVICH!!! She could be doing her TAXES and it'd still be HAWT!!!

QFT. A full frontal of a hottie is a full frontal of a hottie, so context doesn't really matter.

I use Max, Maya, 2010, zbrush 09, toxik 2010, mudbox, and have been using the adobe creative suite since before it was the creative suite. *around PS5

See? The programs utilized in motion graphic design and videogame design are often times the same. I use maya 10, have been sampling zbrush, the creative sweet since photoshop 7 (though I didn't pick up illustrator until a few years later, then after effects and indesign after that). What's the difference between zbrush and modbox (Other than obvious issues relating to one being an autodesk program)?

I most commonly use at this point Maya, AE, photoshop, illustrator, final cut (though mostly just to cut up footage), motion (for the sake of laziness), and sparse web editing tools.

Hah, I should keep you on retainer for my maya questions. Learning it in a vacuum (this school is pretty poor) has been a big case of trial and error.

I wonder if a mod can split the posts in this into 2 different threads. One for the people who know how to stay on topic and another for people who want to have a contest about who knows more about how 3d graphics are rendered and what was used at what time period. That way its easier for me to avoid that pointless argument.

rocklord2004 wrote:I wonder if a mod can split the posts in this into 2 different threads. One for the people who know how to stay on topic and another for people who want to have a contest about who knows more about how 3d graphics are rendered and what was used at what time period. That way its easier for me to avoid that pointless argument.

I responded to you in one of my posts, but you glazed it over.

my main issues with the movies besides the high speed trainwrecking of the REAL(game) story...

is within five years the virus dried up all of the oceans and killed off almost all life on the planet......

IMpossible.

What. It was just a really thirsty and drastically illogical virus. Now we can go down and see what all those critters look that were hiding deep in the ocean.

but they are all zombies now!!! wtf!?

the opening line of the new movie is going to be...."the virus, after realizing that by impossibly draining all of the earth's oceans and killing almost all life, therefore killing it's chances of getting to space (OMG 5th movie X___x), decided to fill up all of the oceans, create some babies, uninfect all of the animals, and grow new plant life...............IN 3 fething D!!!!!!1111one"

*que Michael Bay splosiunz*

The virus wants to get into Spehss?

Will it fight Spehss Mehreens once it gets there?

I hope so..then we would have plague marines.

bewbs?

hungryp wrote:bewbs?

& beaver, if previous are any indication...

(not that there's anything wrong with that)

Into space we go. Lets just turn the RE movie series into the worlds longest prequel to Jason X. Umbrella was behind the Crystal Lake incident the whole time.

rocklord2004 wrote:Into space we go. Lets just turn the RE movie series into the worlds longest prequel to Jason X. Umbrella was behind the Crystal Lake incident the whole time.

Interesting concept.
Actually it's probably best not even to joke about such an idea,as some producer/director may be inspired to take your idea and run with it.

I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

rocklord2004 wrote:I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

If you ever decide to take on Uwe Boll ,I will personaly help you hide the body and buy the drinks afterwards.

rocklord2004 wrote:I wonder if a mod can split the posts in this into 2 different threads. One for the people who know how to stay on topic and another for people who want to have a contest about who knows more about how 3d graphics are rendered and what was used at what time period. That way its easier for me to avoid that pointless argument.

So how good is this thread now that its back on topic?

its gak. lol. boring.

rocklord2004 wrote:I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

Except when Boll did that "Bring it on" match, he explicitly banned anyone who had any form of boxing, martial arts, or self-defense history.

So he was pretty much beating up movie nerds and fatties.

Kanluwen wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

Except when Boll did that "Bring it on" match, he explicitly banned anyone who had any form of boxing, martial arts, or self-defense history.

So he was pretty much beating up movie nerds and fatties.

That's because it was never about a fair fight, it was about beating up people who rated his movies as bad. And yet, none of them got that and so no one secretly trained between when they were invited and the match(which was several months to almost a year, IIRC).

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

Except when Boll did that "Bring it on" match, he explicitly banned anyone who had any form of boxing, martial arts, or self-defense history.

So he was pretty much beating up movie nerds and fatties.

That's because it was never about a fair fight, it was about beating up people who rated his movies as bad. And yet, none of them got that and so no one secretly trained between when they were invited and the match(which was several months to almost a year, IIRC).

See, but therein lies the problem. He didn't reveal until afterwards that he had boxed for years.

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I guess I should practice boxing so I can take on Uwe Boll after he turns that into another "I read the box, thats good enough" game to movie incarnation. Who else would make such a thing?

Except when Boll did that "Bring it on" match, he explicitly banned anyone who had any form of boxing, martial arts, or self-defense history.

So he was pretty much beating up movie nerds and fatties.

That's because it was never about a fair fight, it was about beating up people who rated his movies as bad. And yet, none of them got that and so no one secretly trained between when they were invited and the match(which was several months to almost a year, IIRC).

See, but therein lies the problem. He didn't reveal until afterwards that he had boxed for years.

Actually, he HAD. At least to some of the people he turned down(or they got it from another source). There were people talking about how he used to box BEFORE it went down, which is why he chose Boxing to begin with.

Even still, I'd wanna know a little about what I was doing before just showing up for a fight.

Nobody I'm aware of knew about it until after the fight, where he bragged about it on camera and his website.

But shhh, let's not talk too much about He Who Must Not Be Named before he starts coming after us!

ShumaGorath wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I wonder if a mod can split the posts in this into 2 different threads. One for the people who know how to stay on topic and another for people who want to have a contest about who knows more about how 3d graphics are rendered and what was used at what time period. That way its easier for me to avoid that pointless argument.

So how good is this thread now that its back on topic?

Enjoy your new avatar Shuma


EEEEny way. Whats your favorite moments from the un-namable director or in RE? I love how they can't decide if they want gore or not with the RE movies and with Alone in the Dark there is a scene where a bullet is digitally inserted, misses, and still kills the target. Gotta love good directing :3.

rocklord2004 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

rocklord2004 wrote:I wonder if a mod can split the posts in this into 2 different threads. One for the people who know how to stay on topic and another for people who want to have a contest about who knows more about how 3d graphics are rendered and what was used at what time period. That way its easier for me to avoid that pointless argument.

So how good is this thread now that its back on topic?

Enjoy your new avatar Shuma


EEEEny way. Whats your favorite moments from the un-namable director or in RE? I love how they can't decide if they want gore or not with the RE movies and with Alone in the Dark there is a scene where a bullet is digitally inserted, misses, and still kills the target. Gotta love good directing :3.

I decided to ask once the conversation turned to talking about the lead actors beaver (thanks DD!)

That troll is too cute to be shuma.

LOL.