Current Events > Did the live action Resident Evil movies even have a coherent plotline?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I kind of saw them in bits and pieces scattered over several years on cable (supplemented with Wiki plot summaries), but as far as I can tell, there was absolutely nothing resembling a coherent plotline or direction after the first two or so movies.

Characters routinely disappeared and reappeared with no explanation, major deaths happened offscreen but then turned out to be fake or were just disregarded, characters were killed off en masse offscreen between movies, plotlines and arcs never really went anywhere, and major events seemed to be retconned for no reason, like the world becoming a giant desert over time in one of the movies seemingly not being a thing after that.

Was there an actual overarching plot beyond "Overpowered lady kills zombies" hidden in there? Because it kind of seems like there was no clear direction in the series whatsoever and that all of the movies just did their own things with no real regard for story. It's kind of impressive in a way tbh.

---

yeah they did.

---

Yeah

1 - Umbrella fucks up
2 - Racoon City is totally fucked
3 - It got it out of Racoon City and has infected the whole planet.
4 - Let's fuck up Wesker and Umbrella
5 - Oh wait, he's trying to help
6 - Didn't watch.


---

I'll admit that I never saw any of the final movie (I read the plot summary, and it seemed awful, especially considering that the penultimate movie set up like five supporting characters who literally all get offscreen'd between movies), but it felt like anything beyond "Here's more zombies" kind of got chucked out after the third movie.

I'm still skeptical of any stronger plot elements there or significant direction between movies. Characters like the little girl from the second movie and K-Mart or whatever from the third just ended up seeming to vanish with no explanation given, and like I said, the whole desertification plotline seemed to get dropped too. It sort of feels like every movie exists in a vacuum with a few random returning characters and cameos in lieu of actual planned progression or development.

---

Of course there was.

---

In a way yes, although really the Paul W.S Anderson directed ones are the most important. Basically they're a commentary on video games/video game logic and also the artificial nature of cinema. The plot is as coherent as it needs to be. The films are a lot more intelligent and worthwhile than some people (usually angry nerds who don't grasp the concept of an adaptation) make them out to be. I like them a lot but then I have absolutely no fondness for the Resident Evil games.

---

p-m posted...

In a way yes, although really the Paul W.S Anderson directed ones are the most important. Basically they're a commentary on video games/video game logic and also the artificial nature of cinema. The plot is as coherent as it needs to be. The films are a lot more intelligent and worthwhile than some people (usually angry nerds who don't grasp the concept of an adaptation) make them out to be. I like them a lot but then I have absolutely no fondness for the Resident Evil games.

Can you expand upon that? I'd honestly love to hear more about that, because that sounds like an interesting angle to it.

Watching them casually made them feel incredibly disconnected to me, but I'd be interested to hear more about that view.

---

They can't even keep the plot consistent.

As an example what is something we learned in the first movie and apocalypse? The Red Queen was createdby Dr. Ashford, who modeled it after his daughter Angela, who had a disease that left her in crutches, and as time went on she'd get gradually worse. So he created the T-Virus to cure her, but she would have to regularly inject the anti virus to keep it in check. Umbrella then stole it from him for their research.

Ok cool, cool. But wait...the last movie tells us that Marcus created the T-Virus to cure his daughters (Alicia's) progeria, and it was touted as a miracle cure, however an incident occurred and Marcus didn't want Umbrella messing with it and Wesker and Isaacs killed him. After that Isaacs created the Red Queen.

They couldn't even keep that consistent.

---

Some of them are better than others.

The first one still holds up as a good zombie movie imo. Nothing ground breaking but fun.

2 and 3 are kinda blargh though

picks back up with 4 and 5 kinda making fun of themselves.

6 was a let down in terms of what was teased as a set up for it. You can tell the budget got slashed

---

From what I saw, the overarching plot is that Umbrella continuously gives superpowers to a woman who's trying to kill them.

---

The second movie is more or less RE3, but with the story accommodating that atrocious Alice character instead of my beloved Jill.
---

dotsdfe posted...

whatever from the third just ended up seeming to vanish with no explanation given, and like I said, the whole desertification plotline seemed to get dropped too.

Extinction (3) was to be the last one, but it did well enough that they continued on. They solution to the issue of a desert planet and that there was a cure for all the zombies? Ignore it in the next one because, hey, 3D is now big again and they came up with a shotgun that shoots quarters.

These movies collapse when placed under any scrutiny while contained to just themselves (Chris kept in a cell since the outbreak makes zero sense, for example). When stacked against each other, it gets worse.

---

I can't wait to see what he does with the Monster Hunter movie next
---

So_Hajile posted...

Extinction (3) was to be the last one, but it did well enough that they continued on. They solution to the issue of a desert planet and that there was a cure for all the zombies? Ignore it in the next one because, hey, 3D is now big again and they came up with a shotgun that shoots quarters.

These movies collapse when placed under any scrutiny while contained to just themselves (Chris kept in a cell since the outbreak makes zero sense, for example). When stacked against each other, it gets worse.

That honestly makes a ton of sense. I felt like the movies had a fairly clear sense of progression and in-universe consistency at first, but it felt like more instances of plot holes, retcons, and characters vanishing started occurring up after the third one. I could see that being the case for sure.

---

I've seen up to like 4 I think. The plot seems to drop after the first 2 movies. I dont even remember anything about the plot in the later ones. It was just random shit

Agreed that four and five really seem seem inconsistent, especially from a "How does a corporation still function?!?!" point of view. I *will* say the last movie's explanation for WHY Umbrella was doing what it did made more sense (and in way had a nice character arc for Alice and the red queen)

Wewillrocku posted...

no they didn't.

Milla's boobs
Zombies
Guns go bang bang
Milla's boobs

That is any of the Resident Evil movies.

---

I havent seen them in a long time, but i remember one thing they liked to do was start a plot point at the end of a movie and then quickly discard it in the next movie and move on to something else.

---

dotsdfe posted...

That honestly makes a ton of sense. I felt like the movies had a fairly clear sense of progression and in-universe consistency at first, but it felt like more instances of plot holes, retcons, and characters vanishing started occurring up after the third one. I could see that being the case for sure.

It's made even more evident when you watch Afterlife (4) and notice how much back peddling it does. Extinction ends with a cure for the planet and the infected while Alice and her clones are going to take out Umbrella. Cut to Afterlife, no mention of the cure in Alice's blood, the world looks about normal, the disappearance of the White Queen infected still everywhere, the clones are quickly killed off and God-mode Alice (psychic powers and such) are taken away....although she barely comes off as de-powered in any other manner. It's a reset button.

Good thing they cut out the scene in Extinction's script in which Alice finds out her real name is Janice Prospero. Can't see the sequels opening up with "My name is Janice" after all those times. :p Oh, and the script originally explained what happened to Angela Ashford from Apocalypse (2). Another vanishing character.

About The Final Chapter (6)....yeah, it blows. Retribution (5) ends with all the main characters teamed up with Wesker for a major showdown against all the monsters. Final Chapter begins with the aftermath and all the characters are killed off. Totally anti-climatic. I'd say it's the second worst in the franchise.

I'd actually like to see a director's cut of Retribution. Anderson was forced to cut out 45-60 minutes of character building scenes to instead make it play out more like a video game where the characters go from one action set to the next. The problem is that the movie brings back several versions of characters which could have been fun to explore....except they're quick fodder to kill off.

Lastly, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation is to blame for writer / director Paul W.S. Anderson's constant involvement. He had nothing to do with Annihilation and thought it was crap. He didn't want to see the Resident Evil series fall just as hard so he made sure to spearhead the sequels. Of course, would it have been better if he hadn't? Is the franchise as bad as Annihilation?

---

archedsoul posted...

Yeah

1 - Umbrella fucks up
2 - Racoon City is totally fucked
3 - It got it out of Racoon City and has infected the whole planet.
4 - Let's fuck up Wesker and Umbrella
5 - Oh wait, he's trying to help
6 - Didn't watch.

you should really finish the whole thing since it wraps up nicely given the overall quality of the series.

---