Batman doesn’t need to be in the movie, but it does need to directly connect to that world. It must have some amount of world-building with a connection, otherwise, again, there’s no reason for it to exist as a movie about the character Clayface.
I did acknowledge that It will, but it doesn’t need to connect to that world for it to be a great film. What it needs to is being a profitable film and if it doesn’t at least be great, so it will wash the bad reputation of the past DC Universe away.
I don’t buy that argument. There is no reason for any movie to exist, other then to make money. It doesn’t need to tie into the larger DCU to justify it’s existence. It needs to be a good movie first and formost, the fact that it’s a DCU movie will help built the DCU and expand it’s world building is a nice benefit.
1 Like
To clarify, it doesn’t need to exist as a move about Clayface. The entire purpose of using an already existing character in a film like this is to draw attention to the history that character is tied to. If this were to be standalone, no connection to any other DC character, there’d be no point in it being about Clayface, a supporting character defined by their link to other DC characters. Characters like Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, etc, can exist in a vacuum without any of their supporting characters. There supporting characters cannot do the same, not successfully, and not in a way has justified that story’s existence.
Disagree. Movies exist to entertain. They may be allowed to exist in order to make money, but the reason for their existence is to entertain. I see your point and I’m just nitpicking, but the hairs should indeed be split.
You’re factually wrong there. Movies exist to make money for the studios that make them. Entertainment value is why they make money, but not why they exist. No one is going to spend millions of dollars (or even hundreds of thousands) to make a movie solely for the entertainment value with zero interest or care in how much money it makes.
To put it another way, the most entertaining movie ever made would NOT exist if the people made it didn’t think it would be profitable.
The only exception to this is propaganda films or public documentaries - which may be made for other reasons besides profitability including education or to change the mind of the public. Your standard Hollywood fare is purely financially driven.
1 Like
No. If moves didn’t provide entertainment for those who desired it, they wouldn’t make money to begin with. Their purpose, try the service the provide, is entertainment. They would not exist if they didn’t do that, and so that is why they exist. That they make money for studios is what allows them to come into existence, but that factor comes into play only after there is an audience or consumers to make money from in the first place.
In order to avoid upending the purpose of this thread, I will only say this and then drop it…
You’re confusing purpose with mechanism. A movie studio is a business and it exists to provide value to the shareholders/investors of that business. The way it does that is by making a product - in this case movies. The reason that movies make money is that people pay to see them because they are entertaining, but they don’t exist solely to be entertaining.
A movie is no different from a blender or a car. It’s a product that provides utility in one way or another that people are willing to pay for, but the earnings of that product are the reason that it exists.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t people involved in the making of a movie that do it for reasons other than monetary gain. Art, as a form of expression, certainly exists and artists do things for personal reasons beyond the financial, but we’re not talking about why an actor played a role, why a writer wrote a script, or why a director chose one way of filming a scene or another. The people who are responsible for the movie existing are acting for profit - not entertainment value.
You will never read a review of a movie that declares that the movie lost money but was still successful because it entertained people.
Feel free to disagree with that all you like, but it’s true.
1 Like
The movie works as a tool for those who make money to utilize it for that purpose, but that’s not what it exists for. It is to entertain. A car is made by those who seek to make money by making it, but it does not exist because someone decided to make money from it, it exists to transport people. A blender is made by people who seek to use its creation to make money, but that’s not what the blender was made for, it was made to blend food ingredients. Even if money weren’t a factor, someone would have still made these things and they’d still be used because there are people who would want to use them. Movies are made to entertain people because people crave that, and movie studios use that to their advantage to profit from, but even if money were not involved, people would still make movies and others would still go see them. Money is why they are allowed to be made, but it’s not what they’re made for. And that is to be my final word on the subject.
Usually anything with the Resident Evil title outside the games is something I’d turn a blind eye towards, but when I heard the director of Weapons was attracted to this, I decided to give the trailer a chance. It looks promising I gotta say.
3 Likes
If this movie again ditches the Hunters for the Lickers i’m gonna be pissed. I just want to see my favorite RE Monsters on the big screen for once.
2 Likes
If there even is a Licker in the movie, the Hunters are pretty cool though. But in reality I don’t care, I just hope it’s good. There is a good chance it will be good with Zach Cregger and Shay Hatten behind the wheel.
2 Likes
The trailer looks like a decent horrormovie but i would never guessed its Resident Evil if i didnt knew before
1 Like
Cregger is intentionally disregarding the mythology of the games, and this project will be entirely something new for the franchise which is good.
best way to set the expectations is to set them similar to something like Evil Dead Rise where it’s kinda its own thing with a few wink and nods.
2 Likes
It wasn’t the last three times they did that.
2 Likes
Full disclosure, I know it’s based on a game that I never played but know nothing about them beyond the name “Wexler” and “Umbrella”. The only franchise media I’ve seen are the movies that Milla Jovovich did. Is this the same thing as that?
No, this is a reboot. The second or third reboot actually.
1 Like
There’s been multiple? I guess it’s been a while since I’ve seen one of these…
Trust me, you did not miss much.
2 Likes
while I agree with this. I trust the person who got hammered in the ass so many times that he died to make a decent adaptation that we’re in safe hands.
I wouldn’t be that sure. Yes it will be a new approach to the franchise. Cregger is a fan of the series.
He said he doesn’t want to adapt the storyline of the game, due to the game doing it so well and to him it’s redundant. His approach is to follow a character who experiences the same events as our heroes from the games. Leaning towards the same formula.
That said Rey, from the John Campea show (my favourite film podcast) has read the script and without spoiling anything, he confirmed that there are plenty of nods towards the games mythology. Of course I can’t verify this. But he does get sends scripts and is so far very creditable.
But will it lean as hard into it as Welcome to Raccoon City or like the six other films? Doubtful.
