Contributing writer for The Artifice.
Junior Contributor III
games Write this topicZombies, Realism, and Resident EvilMentioning the Resident Evil games and realism in the same sentence may seem strange, but when compared to other zombie apocalypse fiction, they are, in a sense, remarkably grounded. Other famous zombie works, from Night of the Living Dead to World War Z make the unfounded assumption that a slow-moving, unintelligent horde of creatures who can only spread their infection by biting, can easily overcome a modern military, a supposition that has little basis in fact. Even the very premise of the zombie horde itself does not hold up under scrutiny, as the means of infection would realistically confine a majority of outbreaks to the local level, something no apocalyptic scenario wants to acknowledge. The Resident Evil games are different. All outbreaks are local, and occur not through random chance, but through human error and/or deliberate malfeasance, with the virus itself being a bioweapon. Said outbreaks are contained, with varying degrees of ease, by either special forces units, or more general military action, despite the fact that the zombies are reinforced by a veritable army of other bioweapons. The largest chunk of real estate ever lost to the undead consists of a single city, doomed by bad luck and a perfect storm of local corruption and federal attempts at a cover-up–and even then, the damage is quite easily contained. This article would examine this aspect of the Resident Evil games, exploring why it takes such a radically different approach from a majority of zombie fiction, and looking at the degree to which this is a more realistic scenario than that depicted across the genre as a whole. |
film Write this topicWhy Do Comic Book Movies Kill Their Villains?Comic books are notorious for never truly killing off any major characters, even the villains. Yet for many years, the exact opposite has been true of comic book films, wherein villains display a remarkable tendency to die off at the end of their debut movie. Is this simply the result of the films not needing the villain for future entries in the franchise, or is there a more fundamental difference between mediums at work here? What are some of the advantages of removing a villain completely from play? What are some of the disadvantages? And for that matter, why are comics so often willing to resurrect a deceased foe, while films almost never do it?
|
American Psycho: A Post Modern Horror | |
I’d say actually the DCAU is where people started getting the idea that Darkseid was a Superman villain. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
Definitely check it out. Probably the best Pre-Crisis Superman story. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
I concur, and there’s a reason why Mongul is number one on this list. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
The characters are similar, though order of appearance is the other way round. Brainiac debuted 1958, Ultron 1968. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
That was Mongul II, the original’s son, who lacks most of his dad’s brains. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
Darkseid’s a god and one of the biggest bads in the DC Universe. Mongul’s just an alien conqueror, and a tier down the power scale. Where Mongul is stronger than Superman, Darkseid’s a match for the whole of the JLA and then some. | 10 Superman Villains Who Don't Need Kryptonite |
I’d add Marvel’s Runaways to the list, given that the initial story arc would be fairly easy to adapt. | Comics That Deserve Their Own Show/Film |
Overall a good analysis. One thing that might have been improved would have been if you had defined “post-modern” a little better. After reading the article I’m aware of how the film is different from prior slasher films, but not quite how that makes it “post modern”. Fun read though.