Contributing writer for The Artifice.

Junior Contributor III

  • Lurker
  • Sharp-Eyed Citizen
  • ?
  • Articles
  • Featured
  • Comments
  • Ext. Comments
  • Processed
  • Revisions
  • Topics
  • Topics Taken
  • Notes
  • Topics Proc.
  • Topics Rev.
  • Points
  • Rank
  • Score

    Latest Articles

    Latest Topics


    Zombies, Realism, and Resident Evil

    Mentioning 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.


      Why 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?

      • We have to consider that a film may very well end up being stand alone. It could flop. And if it does, it' better to have a more open-close storyline than an open-ended something that may never truly end. An exception is the Amazing Spiderman where the Green Goblin is still kicking. – SpectreWriter 9 years ago
      • Man of Steel is a great movie to look at. Superman doesn't kill, so by having him forced to kill General Zod brought a whole new dynamic to Superman that we don't normally see and helped set the stage for what the new DC Cinematic Universe will be. – tdrumm7 9 years ago
      • You also must remember the business side of making a Comic Book Film. Some studios may be wary of signing on villains for multiple films in case the fans do not approve of the portrayal. In addition, fans typically want to see new and exciting stories. After a while, fans become bored with the same villain appearing over and over. – cdenomme96 9 years ago
      • ^^Actually Man of Steel is a poor movie to look at. In John Byrne's run, Superman executed a depowered Zod (and Faora and Quex-Ul) with Kryptonite. In the theatrical cut of Superman II, Superman threw a depowered Zod into a chasm under the Fortress of Solitude from which he was never seen to emerge again. Superman killing Zod is well established in both previous comics and films. Superman has also used lethal force against the Antimonitor, Darkseid, Brainiac, and Doomsday in both comics and various adaptations. – Winter 9 years ago

      Sorry, no tides are available. Please update the filter.

      Latest Comments

      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.

      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