It's impossible to gauge a wider community's feelings towards something, thanks to the simple problem of 'the angriest usually shout the loudest', and even if they're the minority, it usually doesn't sound like it. I've had this problem with a lot of things, but Zach Cregger's upcoming Resident Evil film is the latest victim.
Despite some promising trailers, some fans just can't get behind this film. People have complained about it existing outside of the games—running parallel to the events of Resident Evil 2 instead of a shot for shot imitation. The fact that it will include some liberal interpretations of what the T-virus is capable of has also ruffled some feathers. To which I say, Tolstoy got it right—If you look for perfection, you'll never be content.
I'm going to get crucified for saying this, but here it goes: some fans get too caught up in 'lore accuracy'. Yes I'd be pissed if Zach Cregger started trying to drastically change iconic elements of Resident Evil, like erasing Umbrella from the records or renaming Raccoon City to Badger Town (even though that kind of slaps). But I think we need to have more faith in Cregger, given his clear love of the games and outstanding filmography, which includes bangers like Barbarian and Weapons—bro knows how to make an outstanding horror film.
Lore-abiding citizens
I'm not convinced by the argument that this film will just be a good horror movie, rather than a good Resident Evil adaptation for lore-specific reasons, either. Especially given how liberal Capcom itself has been with the 'established truth' in Resident Evil.
While the main story remains the same across the originals and remakes, some smaller details have been changed for the sake of creating a better story, or just for funsies. One example that comes to mind is Krauser's allegiance in Resident Evil 4. In the original, he's working for Wesker and is sent to grab a sample of the ambfer, but in the remake he's on Saddler's side, working as one of his henchmen. Why change this? Well, it connects to another change the remake made: making Saddler more menacing and mysterious.
Instead of having him wander around the village and speaking to Leon directly, Saddler works in the shadows during the remake and only shows himself more towards the end of the game. But this means he's not out and about for vital moments, and someone had to grab the amber for him. If Krauser had just taken it back to Wesker then the game would have ended there and then, a real anti-climax. So the decision was made to turn Krauser into Saddler's henchman, so he could chill out in his evil lair while also progressing the story.
Likewise, Capcom changed Brad Vickers' death in the Resident Evil 3 remake, having him bitten by some joe-schmo zombie while saving Jill instead of getting turned into a shish kebab by Nemesis.
I really appreciate how Capcom treats Resident Evil as an ever-evolving story.
When did the outbreak kick off in Raccoon City? Well if you're going off the original games, there'd been several outbreak scenarios by September 25th and the city is already feeling it, Resident Evil 3 which was made in conjunction with Resident Evil 2 at the time even added a military blockade which wasn't there when Leon and Claire entered the city. But the Resident Evil 2 and 3 remakes make it clear that September 25th is the main start, with just one example of a 'cannibal' case being cited a few weeks prior.
Capcom's most recent entry into the series, Resident Evil Requiem, actually takes some lore from the Outbreak spin-off series, which contradicts Resident Evil 2 and 3 in parts. It also uses Leon's original story of being late for his first day at the RPD instead of the remake retelling which says he was told to stay away, and decides that Raccoon City wasn't completely destroyed after the thermobaric missile.
Let's also not forget that Requiem does a 180 on Spencer's character. Turning one of the most inhumane villains in the series into a remorseful old man whose last act in this world is to undo his life's work in an attempt to make the world a better place. That was wild.
But one of the funniest decisions Requiem made was Zeno. It was so clear that the devs wanted to drag Wesker up from the bottom of that volcano, but just couldn't justify it, so they just went 'fuck it, there's a clone of Wesker who is genetically predisposed to wearing trenchcoats and sunglasses'—but I thought Zeno was great, so no complaints here.
I don't mean to nitpick any of this—that's not the point. In fact, I really appreciate how Capcom treats Resident Evil as an ever-evolving story. Not having to be unwaveringly loyal to the lore means the team can make the best games possible, which sometimes means changing old choices so it works better now. The latest games in the series and remakes are better for it.
The T-virus has also been shown as an ever evolving threat, with Requiem adding a twist which makes the infected remember and reenact their most prominent memories whether that be cleaning, cooking, or eating loads and getting angry. So I think Cregger is well within his rights to play on how the T-virus will affect the infected in his film.
For me, the key to a good Resident Evil adaptation is all in the vibes—understanding what makes these games so scary and how to best honour its survival horror roots, which it seems Cregger gets. But as with everything, you shouldn't judge a book by its cover. Even if I am super excited to see a Resident Evil movie that understands vibes over a strict adherence to lore, I'll wait until I see the film to judge it fairly.
So give Cregger some grace for pete's sake. I, for one, am just happy the whole film industry hasn't been forever scared off from trying to adapt the games by Paul W. S. Anderson.
