Talk:Resident Evil (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DVD Cover[edit]

Changed the DVD picture to a better quality one. (Cipher Destiny 16:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Alice's character?[edit]

Should they mention that the whole Alice character doesn't appear in any of the videogames?!--200.76.103.97 (talk) 06:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

'Nationality' of Film[edit]

its not an american movie... it is an european production

  • More specifically, it was filmed in Germany. But the film was an american production.

Lindsey8417 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

    • WRONG!!!: It's a : British/German/French/American production. (AFAIK the production is mainly british and german)
    • After some research I've found this information: An American production company tried to get the rights for a film version of Resident Evil, but finally the European competitors got the rights. At first the movie started as a co-production of Constantin Film (German) and New Legacy (British). When the picturisation was in delay the French production company Davis Films joined Constantin Film. Later Impact Films (American?) joined the project and had a hand in the screenplay. Therefore the movie is officially declared as a European production(British/German coproduction), although French and American production companies participated.

If you still believe it is an American movie, then google and you will find out that on many sites only UK and Germany are mentioned as production countries.

    • At amazon.com I found out that the production companies are: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (German), Davis-Films, Impact Pictures, New Legacy

anyone know were i can get a copy of romeros origanal draft? i found it before online but i lost it now

  • I got mine at: [1]

Lindsey8417 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed sections of Trivia[edit]

I removed the first piece of trivia as redundant and possibly errorous. The way I understood it, there were only two entires in to the hive. Through the underground train-station as seen in the first film, and through a large "back-door" under Raccoon City as seen in Apocalypse. As far as I can tell there are no multiple mansions in the movie or the games. Also referring to the game is redundant since the films and the games take place in separate universes (see the Films-section of the main article). I also removed the part which claims that Capcom executives cameod as zombies. Either this piece of trivia must be moved to the Zombies section or somebody needs to cite their sources (the other zombie-appearances were refered to in the DVD commentary). (HM)

I've removed the section about character deaths. There're spoilers, and then there are pointless spoilers, and I think this list of three characters' deaths was redundant. It had the air of having been written by someone who just wanted to say as much as they could think of to say about the film and I don't think it really added anything to the article. - Shrivenzale 16:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel[edit]

"laser grid protection system that slices about twenty of the "super team" members into little pieces." - more like 4-6 people in the version I saw? Ojw 22:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bang on. Also, only one is sliced into little pieces. The rest are cut into two big pieces (excepting the guy who lost some fingers; two big pieces and a couple of little ones). Hey, did you just watch it on the TV as well? Jcb 00:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, was on UK television. I couldn't believe how dumb the film was (just loads of zombies popping up), until I looked on wikipedia and saw it was based on a computer game. Ojw 20:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that anyone wasn't aware this was based on a game. The storyline behind this film gets flesh out more (pun intended) in the sequel. 23skidoo 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary[edit]

It seems to me that the plot summary for this film is a little long... vote for abridging it? Crisco 1492 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ya, the list of major characters should be included with the main article... i think at least. Crisco 1492 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE2 Contest[edit]

Anyone remember the contest that was announced in the back of the instruction booklet for Resident Evil 2 that was supposed to give the winner a walk-on role in the RE movie? Should this be noted in the trivia section? --Jazz Remington 03:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Trivia sections are frowned upon. Lots42 21:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization edits[edit]

Whats with all the capitalization?

"Outbreak"

"Zombies" (multiple times)

"Halon" (a chemical)

"Hazmat" (a conjoined abbreviation) - maybe a proper name?

"Super Computer"

"Martial Arts and Weapons use"

There are so many I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just forgetting my english. Only nouns and proper names are capitalized, right? Hexrei 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, yes. Some people can go a bit mad with capitals. On the other hand, too little capitalisation can be a problem, too. What you were forgetting was your English. :o)
- Shrivenzale 16:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game and Movie Differences error[edit]

In the movie column, it states the "Many miles beneath the mansion is an Umbrella research facility" while the research facility or "The Hive" is in fact, not under the mansion, but under Raccoon city instead. The thing that's under the mansion is a transportation leading to the "The Hive" a few miles away from the mansion and miles under Raccoon city. 210.213.174.223 14:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This addition is a no-brainer, but in the games the zombies and other enemies COULD be killed by shooting them anywhere (eventually), but in the movie they could only be killed by shooting them in the head (except for the Licker, which still lived after being shot in the head) or destroying them completely. Also, though it took less bullets to kill them, the enemies wouldn't die after being shot in the head until their heads exploded (Ex: the dining room scene in the first game).24.118.227.213 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"in the games the zombies COULD be killed by shooting them anywhere" Though normal Zombies would come back as [Crimson Head] zombies in the [Resident Evil REmake] on GameCube, unless "destroyed completely"!?  Doktor  Wilhelm  01:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamecube remake isn't very consistent with the rest of the series, including the game it remakes, and I don't know if this has anything to do with trying to make it like the movies or not. Zombies could also be killed for good in the remake by burning their bodies, and in other games zombies would sometimes attack while on fire, but fire wasn't an issue in the movies so much, I presume because it would be difficult for the actors.24.131.170.13 (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary[edit]

Plot summary was said to be too long so I wrote a new version. Hope you like it. -TheHande 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Re1dvd.jpg[edit]

Image:Re1dvd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Residentevilusposternumkber2.jpg[edit]

Image:Residentevilusposternumkber2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Residentevilmoviekorea268.jpg[edit]

Image:Residentevilmoviekorea268.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Residenteeuropean postervil.jpg[edit]

Image:Residenteeuropean postervil.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ResidentEvilDVD.jpg[edit]

Image:ResidentEvilDVD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ResidentEvil fr.jpg[edit]

Image:ResidentEvil fr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Resident02.jpg[edit]

Image:Resident02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Works of' problem[edit]

I can't do it myself, but the other works of at the bottom of the page says 'alice in wonderland'... can someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaschnikoff (talk • contribs)

Yeah seroiusly what the hell is that all about? -someone else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.72.59 (talk • contribs)

I think the link between this film and Alice in Wonderland is superficial at best, so I'll remove the template. -- MisterHand 16:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dancers[edit]

I find it hard to believe professional dancers could screw up so -badly-, in that they all imitate random zombies identically. I get the impression someone got misinformed. But if this is what did happen, the section needs to be rewritten anyway, for general grammar and clarity. Lots42 21:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore your obvious negative opinion of the film and simply say that your request would not add to the information content of the page. The references to professional dancers is clearly on the DVD commentary and if you need a source go watch it. There is nothing wrong with the section and if you intend to remove informative content or replace it with uninformative content I most likely will undo your changes. -TheHande 15:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what? Slow down. It seems to me that something indicating the 'dancers goof' is in the DVD commentary should be inserted into the article. Since it was in the commenrary -I- am wrong. I will not be deleting anything. I don't think anything in my comment indicated I would be. In conclusion, a rewrite for grammar and clarity and to add in the 'in the commentary' fact should be applied. That's all. Lots42 04:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game References[edit]

I don't recall the movies as much but it seems to me the 'References to the Games' section has some big ol' duplicates... Lots42 22:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


About the merging[edit]

Whether they do or don't have the article of the Resident Evil game characters, I think this article should remain a seperate article.

All in favor say I

I... 201.141.242.199 22:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is not a substitute for discussing. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Merging Leon and Claire and Ada and Jill? No ways. Lots42 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Invisble?[edit]

The added twice by Special:Contributions/212.127.228.36, reverted once, cast entry of Henk Baker as Dr. Invisble(sic) looks awfully dubious to me, as IMDB entry has no such character or actor, and Google finds nothing. However, since uncredited actors and roles are not uncommon in films, I'll leave it for the Resident Evil experts here to decide. --Michael Devore (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the biggest RE fan ever, but I've read the books and played the N64 game like crazy; I never heard of a Dr. Invisible. Lots42 (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold[edit]

Note i don't normally review movie articles so may miss things which should be included for Featured Article status.

  • series of survival horror games developed by Capcom, and the first in the series of the Resident Evil trilogy - Remove the last part of this sentence as in the second paragraph you mention the trilogy
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the characters the actors play from the lead to keep it simple
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include a short mention of the film's reception in the lead reviews/$$$ it made
 Done Added worldwide gross and critical reception. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Russell Mulcahy in Apocalypse and Extinction. No need to mention the last part, keep the focus on the first film
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • beneath nearby Raccoon City - as far as i remember it was directly under the city
 Done You're right, the Hive is directly underneath and the mansion is nearby. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team then open
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • another unconscious victim suffering amnesia, while on transport
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk)
  • Alice and Spence, as well as the commandos, -> Alice, Spence, and the commandos
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are explained to be employees of the Umbrella" - the "are explained" sounds awkward suggest rewording
 Done Reworded: It is explained that Alice, Spence, and the commandos, are employees of the Umbrella Corporation... -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • She iswas also responsible for
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • , Lisa, attempted to -> attempts
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Capcom originally greenlit
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The screenplay originally revolved -> Romero's screenplay revolved...
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electronic Gaming Monthly - should not be in both italics and quote marks, magazines are in italics websites are left normal
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul W.S. Anderson then wrote a screenplay
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Boreanaz was originally intended - originally and intended mean the same thing here
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ",[9], remove comma after referenced
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge paragraphs in See Also
  • was also cast as Matt
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was revealed, announced?
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milla's -> refer to her with her second name
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul Anderson
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • are also references to the book
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • References required for the The zombies section
  • much of the undead look was largely accomplished through make-up.
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The resulting shot is laughable instead of terrifying. - Is opinion and needs to be attributed, refer to Paul as just Anderson
Removed "Paul" from the sentence.-Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, there was a shortage of manpower throughout the production, which is why people otherwise not affiliated with the film were used as zombies. Most notably producer Jeremy Bolt
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was originally planned
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • also suggested by Capcom executives, that the film wouldn't be released in 2001, but rather in 2002 - delink 2002
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fresh" should it be capitalized?
 Done The Rotten Tomatoes article has it lowercase, so, I guess lowercase. Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's spooky, suspenseful and jump-out-of-your-seat scary", however, Dave Grove from Film Threat noted that "I'll bet the video game is a lot more fun than the film." -> quotes need sources
 Done I couldn't figure out where the original editor found the quotations, but I added different ones with sources. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • film as a zombie movie set i - remove link to zombie
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2004. remove link to 2004
 Done Removed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish the review once these things are done. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since one of the other main editors who had nominated that article, hasn't made any changes, I'll go ahead and try to make some changes. Also, I must note to the reviewer: Kudos on bringing my hometown band's, As I Lay Dying, article to GA (hopefully FA?! soon). -Lindsey8417 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but i won't go for FA anytime soon with it, maybe one day
  • The film borrows many plot elements from the video game series. Although the film is a prequel to the video game series,[38] elements are borrowed from numerous video games including Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 3: Nemesis,[3] - the first sentence can be removed because it is redundant to the second (in italics)
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Removed.Empty2005 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director Paul Anderson has stated that the film's camera angles and several shot's allude to the video game's - just Anderson and it should be video games
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, is the Filming elements section necessary? It seems to go with the above section
 Done Fixed. Merged with above section. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the survivors make their escape from the Hive with a countdown as they fight the final boss, this is a reference to every Resident Evil game also ends with a five minute countdown during which the final boss must be defeated. Should final boss be in italics? (question) replace also with ,which - remove "final" from the last bit
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, near the beginning of the film - remove also
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous elements from the film have been referenced in several of the video games released after the film's original release - Numerous elements from the film have been referenced in video games released after the film's release - try remove the repetition of "release"
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resident Evil Outbreak is linked twice in a sentence
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • inside the Hive has also been used -> inside the Hive was used
  • the character of Red Queen has also made an appearance
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game and movie differences - necessary?
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • October 2002 - remove link to October unless a full date is put in
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Slipknot to Slipknot (band)
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Plague should be in quotes as it's a song
 Done Removed. Empty2005 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something that will probably be brought up at FAC is that the image Image:Aliceresidentevil.jpg can be replaced with a free picture of Milla and say the exact same thing as the current picture does not reference the film.
 Done Fixed. Empty2005 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikiquote box messes up the references, it's currently reflist|2 but it looks like reflist|3 because the wikiquote box is in the reference section
 Done -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 30 needs formatting
 Done Fixed. Empty2005 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 38 to the IMDB trivia page is not reliable as it is a wiki. Same with 21
 Done Fixed. Empty2005 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put categories in alphabetical order, not required for GA but it looks nicer! :)
 Done Fixed. Empty2005 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'm done here (takes a deep breath) M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should of been more clear on the images. The uploaded version of the images are too big, not the size of them in this article. Just resize them and re upload. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Fixed that :D -Lindsey8417 (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, pass. Make sure to try and get other editors experienced with film articles if you want to get it to featured status. M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The creatures"[edit]

The section labeled The Creatures makes it seem unique to this film that production crew played parts due to budget problems...in any case the whole section is full of odd grammar I'm not too sure how to fix. Lots42 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the section and moved it up, although im not to sure about the grammar itself. Empty2005 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Marking and release[edit]

it say here that Paul W.S Anderson wanted the film to be a pg-13. This is wrong. On the DVD making of. Anderson clearly says that he didn't want the film to be a pg-13 and always had in mind the film to be R rated. Someone can you please change as this is fault information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amg4ever (talk • contribs) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certificate ratings box[edit]

Is it absolutely necessary to have a Ratings box - in the Production section - which includes every single rating in the world? It looks too much like fancruft. Nreive (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official rating for Australia is MA, not M. Can this be changed, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienzor (talk • contribs) 08:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Movie Has Nothing To Do With The Games![edit]

The R.E movies have nothing to do with the games other than the people. and in the last one they people everyone in it!? Leon, Alice,redfield,Wesker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.224.188 (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virus makes zombies. Check. Big fleshy monsters. Check. Evil corporation attempting a cover up. Check. I'd say the plot is a dead-ringer for the real thing. The only difference being that instead of bland computer-generated characters we have bland characters played by real actors. Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing your dissappointment of the film. If you have to complain, start a blog or go to IMDb though at the latter you will not be the first one to complain. -TheHande (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Hannu. The template is certainly there, they tried not to make it a live action copy of the video game.BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protagonist, Alice.[edit]

In the film, Alice's name is never mentioned and you do not find that out until the seconded installment in the film, it is not in the place for the article to mention her name.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character's name is in the film's credits. -TheHande (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up[edit]

In the effort to make this artical a great example. Does anyone have any ideas to really make this a better artical. As much as I like detail, I think the plot can be shortened up. I added some to the intro.

I think more pics would certainly help. Are we allowed to use pics as long as we give credit or does it have to fall under the free use guidelines??

Discuss!BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, more pics would not help. They fall under WP:NONFREE and should be used sparingly, and only when they fall well within the guidelines. The plot is too long. For other things needed, see WP:MOSFILM for the appropriate sections a film article should have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, thanks!

BlackScreaminMachine (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Aliens' section[edit]

The 'Aliens' section is chock full of typos...I know I could fix it but I'm not even sure if it's noteabl enough... Lots42 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I do not understand the relevancy of similarities between this and any other movie deserving a whole section. More like a footnote or trivia to me. Im pretty sure other series could be found featuring identical plot scheme / twists across several sequels. 87.205.164.63 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE Degeneration has nothing to do with this film![edit]

Darn it, why do all my edits trying to clarify that Resident Evil Degeneration is not only set in another storyline (the real RE storyline for that matter) but that it wasn't made by those who did the hollywood trilogy get deleted? It was the product of a partnership between Capcom and Sony Pictures, is full CG and is considered canonical in Capcom's vision, whilst the RE trilogy is only BASED upon it. To me, it's important that nobody would mistake it as being a sequel to the live-action films or such. Can't anyone help, or then tell me how I can edit it in a way it won't be removed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.254.2 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making unsourced presumptions. The movie is marketed as being part of the film series. Find reliable sources that says it is not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I've never heard of it being marketed as part of the film series, and I'd be surprised to since it isn't the case... I guess citing a source is what I should do though. I had actually forgotten about that, thanks for the tip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.254.2 (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... you removed it? That's what I tried to do the first time and it got reverted for vandalism... Well, I'm glad it's finally sorted out :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.213.254.2 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, with the source you added, it showed it wasn't intended to be a part of the series, so removing was fine. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image[edit]

What does File:Resident Evil Milla.jpg contribute to the article that can't be explained by text alone (i.e., just saying that Jovovich was in the film)? How does it contribute "significantly"? I don't see how it meets the non-free content criteria. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it contributes at all and should be removed. Would also question the newspaper image - does not need an image to explain that it was done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(There is another similar non-free image in the Milla Jovovich article, I left a message at Talk:Milla_Jovovich#Non-free_image). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of Matt[edit]

Is there another version of this movie with this description? Any time I have seen it Alice wakes up in the shower, quite alone. Matt is introduced seconds before the team crashes through the windows, as he tackles her from out of nowhere to shield her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.53.23 (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

The film has primarily been produced by Constantin and Bernd Eichinger and was therefore mainly shot in Berlin. For a good article there is too much information missing about the German part of the production. As far as I know, Eichinger already bought the rights for RE in 1997 (pretty much earlier than the given 1999 in the article), and Romero later said, that it was Eichinger who disliked his sreenplay draft and than engaged Anderson. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the film had been a project of Constantin, Andersons role with his british company only getting bigger in the following years when Eichinger stepped back and only took the role of an executive producer in the following sequels. Yet, there's absolutely nothing written about Constantin in the article. Here e. g. is an interview with Eichinger about his new movie Resident Evil, where he explains that he always wanted to do something with Zombies and that RE didn't include any running blood because he doesn't like violent movies. That e. g. would be a very good explanation for RE-Fans why the movie had been so relatively harmless. ;) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing adding something to the article? The source you've provided is unfortunately in German, though I know Spiegel is a pretty big magazine, so it can probably be used as a source if you outline what change you want to make to the production section. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot length[edit]

Many film plot summaries on wikipedia have long summaries. This plot summary is equal in detail and in length to the summaries for the plots of the "Star Wars" films. 71.80.205.197 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is, but the guideline at WP:FILMPLOT is pretty clear that summaries should generally not exceed 700 words, and I'm not sure why this film would merit an exception. If the Star Wars films are exceeding that, I would call that a case for reducing their summaries, not expanding this one. DonIago (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

@Doniago: With only 2 nationalities (diff-link) (German being the main one as Paul Anderson's British company is actually a two-men-company of him and Jeremy Bolt) I didn't see any problem. Also, I actually only took that from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film), thinking that this article should be good enough as an example, and didn't know about WP:FILMLEAD. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Germany and England are listed at the source provided for the production companies in the infobox. If you want to reinsert the nationalities and just copy the source as a citation there, that would satisfy my concerns. I think it would be better if at least a little more information could be provided, but I won't be a stickler for it. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more complex per the references as they basically say English created and German produced. Per FILMLEAD looks like a good case for not putting a nationality in the intro sentence but expanding on what is happening later in the lead. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole "English" (I prefer British) part of that is the hiring of Paul Anderson as writer and director with his one-man-company (one man because his partner Jeremy Bolt doesn't have credits). Hiring foreign directors should be pretty normal. That's the reason why I would mainly call that film a project of Constantin Film sharing the revenue with the director's personal company in the end. (In the commentary of a film Anderson and Bolt make an ironic statement roughly like: "The two of us are Impact Films, are we?") Of course I didn't leave away the British part in my opening sentence but the second nationality being there because of the director's personal money transactions, I don't really see a problem with mentioning the quite clear double nationality.
Doniago, actually, I was already criticising that for a good article there is faaaaar too less information about the production two sections above. It's clear that the production should be better discribed in the future. In this first film Anderson has not already been the main person in its development (other than the following years when he became more important and Constantin "only" sent Robert Kulzer in 2007, who then made his very first movie as a main producer). It was Oscar-nominated Bernd Eichinger (the man who was responsible for RE (his first ever horror film) not to be really scary and to disappoint most fans) who already bought the rights in 1997 and disliked Romero's script. Eichinger did that pretty much on occasion – as he's known to have bought any successful rights he could get – and, given his pretty different projects and actual dislike of horror movies (although he always wanted to make one as he states in the Spiegel interview from above), it would have been better if he wouldn't have done that. However, that's not the point here.
Oh, and doesn't anyone want to comment on my Harry Potter mention? Actually the work between Constantin and Anderson even widened on a pretty regular (and not rather occasional anymore) basis on different movies made by him and Constantin, e. g. The Three Musketeers (2011 film). Given that established teamwork, lasting for 15 years now, I really think that calling their movies "German-British" would be fully matching. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I think I've noticed a pretty severe mistake on all the Resident Evil articles: Sony is mistakenly held as the films' producer, rights owner or something like that as they are regularly mentioned as e. g. green lighting the production of the movies. However, as far as I know, Sony (with its company Screen Gems) has only been the distributor of the movies for the American market.
Having never played the games, I thought they might be the American producers of the games but I couldn't find information for that in Resident Evil. When I occasionally looked at Jeremy Bolt's article this time I directly spotted the mistake as Sony Screen Gems was represented as the producer/employer of the movies or anything else, which didn't make any sense as Sony had to pay Constantin in order to be able to distribute the movies. I'll guess that the many Sony mentions are based on the same mistake. The articles should say that, depending on the context and time, either Capcom or Constantin (who got the rights from Capcom) green-lit the production of the movies. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SamWinchester000: I personally don't have much of a problems with dual nationality listed even if that does go against the recommendations of MOS/FILMLEAD and if that is how the film is generally described in reliable sources. In general common practice seems to be OK with dual nationalities, if justified by production info, and like all MOS recommendations exceptions might be permitted based on good reasons and strong consensus. I personally start to have a real issue when more than two are listed and at that point there really isn't any national identity that means anything. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, I would definitely not list more than two nationalities, as well. However, as I said Constantin and Anderson are working together on a regular basis nowadays. So, calling their established cooperation German-British should be OK. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the plot section written for people with amnesia?[edit]

The featured links include, among others, "thief", "naked", "cop", "arrest", "elevator" and "train" (some of those are repeated at every instance, too.) Is it a joke or vandalism? Kumagoro-42 20:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think got rid of all the overlinking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Resident Evil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Resident Evil (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1074616013"