Why the new 'Resident Evil' is what all adaptations should be, even if fans complain

After years where Hollywood has massacred video game adaptations, becoming a joke within the industry. Uwe Boll turned Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, or Far Cry into a poorly told joke, and since that moment gamers have turned their backs on cinema. But their problem wasn’t that they were bad adaptations: it was that they were bad movies that took the original saga lightly. They looked down on video games, believing that because they came from that medium they could be complete trash without any pretensions. However, over the years, games and […]

After years where Hollywood has massacred video game adaptations, becoming a joke within the industry. Uwe Boll turned Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne, or Far Cry into a poorly told joke, and since that moment gamers have turned their backs on cinema. But their problem wasn’t that they were bad adaptations: it was that they were bad movies that took the original saga lightly. They looked down on video games, believing that just because they came from that medium, they could be complete trash without any pretensions. However, over the years, games and cinema have made peace, reaching the opposite point: now, all movies are direct adaptations of games, leaving nothing to creativity or imagination. And, it seems, there is only one saga that can change that: Resident Evil.

Zach Cregger, the nemesis of gamers

Over time, Hollywood has found a way to shake hands with the video game industry: basically, doing a copy-paste with a bunch of references for the fans. Fallout, Uncharted, The Last of Us, or Super Mario Bros practically revere the original material, without any of them leaving their world open to the personality of their creators (if anything, The Last of Us with its special episodes that show alternative stories). Everyone was delighted: gamers, because it validates their tastes. Those who don’t pick up a controller, because they discover new stories. But in all this, where does auteur cinema stand? Is it not possible to tell anything new?

Zach Cregger, director of Weapons and Barbarian, is not manipulable. You cannot demand from him, in any way, to make the movie you want to see, because he is going to do what comes from his creative soul. The first trailer for Resident Evil is, in fact, the best possible news for fans of the saga: Cregger is taking it seriously, but that doesn’t mean he will return to Leon, Umbrella, the T-Virus, and that stuff. Precisely out of respect for the saga, he has decided that he wants to expand it and tell something more but without leaving aside the key elements: the keys, the weapons, the eerie atmosphere. This is not Capcom’s Resident Evil, but Cregger’s, and that’s how it should always be.

I think the same every time I see a live-action remake from Disney: What is the need to retell the same story with the same shots and in the same way? Are we so obsessed with nostalgia and so afraid of having our dreams shattered that we are doomed to see the same thing over and over again? I would appreciate it if, from time to time, an undeniable author would do whatever they wanted. Steven Spielberg directing Moana; Martin Scorsese making his version of The Rescuers; Emerald Fennell perverting Frozen. If we don’t mix, investigate, and destroy to recreate from the ruins, what do we have left? A continuous refrain of tranquility that gives us nothing but constant calm.

I don’t know if Resident Evil will be good or bad, but the trailer is certainly striking: we have already had a few adaptations that have ranged from the grotesque to the faithful, with little success. Now, finally, a steady hand has decided to do whatever it wants using only the foundations to evolve from there and, frankly, I can only support it. We should all do it, because keeping the movies we like stagnant and in an ether is a sign of laziness, little imagination, no adventure, and a desire to repeat ourselves. And that is exactly the opposite of what Resident Evil is.

When Mortal Kombat had its own theater production in the mid-90s… and it was a huge success

Although the official narrative claims that Street Fighter has always been much more popular than any of its competitors, from Tekken to The King of Fighters, the truth is that there is one that, at least in its beginnings, overshadowed it. Mortal Kombat, with its gore, its fatalities, and its absurd violence, was not only a subject of controversy worldwide after its release in 1992, but it also sold millions of copies and gave rise to a franchise based on comics, video games, television series, movies, and, to everyone’s surprise, even a play! Put on the […]

Although the official narrative claims that Street Fighter has always been much more popular than any of its competitors, from Tekken to The King of Fighters, the truth is that there is one that, at least in its early days, overshadowed it. Mortal Kombat, with its gore, its fatalities, and its absurd violence, was not only a subject of controversy worldwide after its release in 1992, but it also sold millions of copies and spawned a franchise based on comics, video games, television series, movies, and, to everyone’s surprise, even a theater production! Put on your tuxedo and bow tie, because we are going to the premiere.

You win! Fatality!

In 1995, the world was enjoying both Mortal Kombat 3 and Street Fighter II Turbo, in the golden age of one-on-one fighting games. And since the Capcom franchise bet on cinema, in that indelible piece of pop culture called Street Fighter: The Movie, Midway was not going to fall short: they would not only release their own adaptation in August (which was, by the way, an absolute blockbuster that annihilated its competition with 122 million raised against 99), but they would also expand their audience in September by hitting the stage with Mortal Kombat: Live Tour.

“You have played it… You have seen it… Now live it!” That was the slogan of the Mortal Kombat theater production, which announced that it would feature fighters from the three games in the franchise (at that time). Because at its core, it was literally that: a martial arts show with lasers, lights, and music, where the young audience could shout at the fighters. Something like Mexican wrestling, but much less brutal and grotesque. The plot was, as you can imagine, absurd: three warriors from Earth travel to the Outworld to rescue their comrades and find an amulet that can save our planet by defeating Shao Kahn.

It had a trick, as could be expected: during the show, the actors asked the audience to buy “dragon amulets,” for sale in the theaters, to save the Earth. Apparently, many fewer were made than the actual demand, and it was a shame because at one point the fighters asked for audience interaction to join their amulets with Liu Kang’s. And if you are thinking that this pantomime possibly took place in small local theaters or shopping centers, you might be surprised to know that its first performance was, no less, at the Radio City Music Hall in New York, which has a capacity of almost 6000 people. Quite something.

Later, the group split into two (to perform in two different places at the same time) toured over 200 cities, such as Cincinnati, Anaheim, or Roanoke, with a subsequent stop in Buenos Aires itself, to bring all the unnecessary violence to Argentina. The children of the time were mesmerized. The adults, as expected, not so much. It is unknown how much money they made from this work, but one can assume it was a good chunk, given that they even released an official recording on VHS. In the midst of Kombat-mania, they were not going to miss the opportunity to make some extra cash.

Little by little, the fanaticism for Mortal Kombat faded as they released video games uncontrollably, and today we find ourselves back in 1995, with new movies of Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat. Will either of the two franchises dare to make their own theatrical version or will the fear of cringe prevent them?