Jump to content

Talk:Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleResident Evil: Apocalypse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 19, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 20, 2008Good article nomineeListed
December 22, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2018Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Virus

[edit]

Removed reference to the antivirus being widely known, since nobody knows much about the virus in the movie anyway (outside the umbrella staff and not even all of them know about it), only Alice identifies the antivirus when Angie gives her the lunchbox.

Minor fix

[edit]

Where did people get the age-recommendation board for these movies? Both list both Resident Evil films as getting a K-18 (equal to the American M or AO rating) in Finland, when both only recieved a K-15. I've fixed it, but could the person who put it there explain where he got it from and if he bothered to check the validity of the source? One mistake is bad enough, two is just weird. (user:HannuMakinen)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Resident Evil: Apocalypse. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]

I've removed the genre from the lead that was just pulling from BoxOfficeMojo. Per MOS:FILMGENRE, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and reflect what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." I'll try to compile some reviews to see how the film was labeled and list them here for further discussion shortly. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: I could have put more sources there, I just didn't see why we needed several citations for something that was not contested. I hope you compile your reviews very shortly. The film could indeed be broadly considered sci fi and thriller, the other two genres listed as BoxOfficeMojo, but I'll be surprised if you don't find that horror and action are the most commonly cited genres. Damien Linnane (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually to get things started in the meantime, as per the sources for the popular film websites already in the article, rather than individual reviews:
  • Rotten Tomatoes lists it as Action / Horror only
  • Box Office Mojo lists it as Action / Horror / Sci Fi / Thriller
  • Metacritic lists it as Action / Horror / Sci Fi / Thriller
  • IMDB lists it as Action / Horror / Sci Fi
  • AllMovie lists it as Action / Adventure / Horror / Sci Fi
So all five sources consider it Action and Horror, and four out of five consider it to be Sci Fi. Anything else is supported by less than half of the websites. So from the outset, even though it's not unanimously considered sci-fi, you appear to have a case for adding the sci-fi genre (which is fine by me at least). What you don't have, is a case for removing Action Horror in the meantime. I don't think it's a good idea to remove content from Wikipedia in the absence of doing research, which you freely admit you haven't done yet. I feel like researching something first and then removing it if it turns out to not be accurate would be a better course of action. Damien Linnane (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things, we don't use IMDb as a source at all per WP:RS/IMDb. I don't really like using Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, Metacritic (allmovie perhaps, but as a quick-catch all. Unrelated, but that site's genres really broke loose lately). I'd like to focus on sources that have actually can confirm have seen the film and preferably have some human being credited to categorizing them rather than ...whatever or whoever fills in the others. I think we can agree a source that actually has a name attached to it is a superior one.
For a featured article, we shouldn't just be picking and choosing BoxOfficeMojo or any source and follow the Manual of Style.
  • Seattle Post-Intelligencer - "The original "Resident Evil," written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, was less a zombie movie than a big-screen gaming experience set in a contained underground lab turned techno-dungeon [...] The sequel, which literally springs from the cynically ironic coda of the first "Resident Evil," is a straight zombie apocalypse rooted in a satire of unchecked corporate arrogance." source
  • Village Voice - "Jumping from set piece to set piece (and genre to genre) with on-to-the-next-level informality"[1]
  • Austin Chronicle - "Like its predecessor, Resident Evil: Apocalypse has the look and feel of a modestly budgeted European horror knockoff. It's nowhere near as god-awful as last year's House of the Dead, a genuinely terrible zombie film ...." source
  • San Francisco Gate - "Action horror. You can tell a lot about a zombie movie by the quality of the undead. There are filmmakers who take the rotting flesh and exploding brains seriously (the recent "Dawn of the Dead" remake is a good example), and there are directors who pour oatmeal on the heads of a few dozen extras, instruct them to stagger toward the camera and move on to their next project [...] Resident Evil: Apocalypse" belongs in the latter category, providing zombies that are somehow less convincing than the ones from Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video." here
  • Hollywood Reporter - "This sequel to 2002's video game-inspired "Resident Evil" is an eclectic mix of science fiction and horror welded together by some heavy-duty action sequences [...] lackluster mix of science fiction and horror improves toward the end."source
  • Zombie Movies : The Ultimate Guide "Essentially, the film is a big-action movie dressed up as a horror flick; it's about as terrifying as Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island (1998) and significantly less entertaining." Glenn Kay, 2008. Page. 243.
  • AV Club: "A sequel to a mediocre video-game adaptation, the new science-fiction/horror-action hybrid Resident Evil: Apocalypse benefits from being graded on a generous curve."
  • Sight & Sound (December 2004) (Jamie Russell). "Capcom's Resident Evil established a new template for videogames, dubbed 'survival horror', Rather than simply blasting on-screen enemies, players were given a finite supply of ammunition and forced to choose when to fight and when to flee. it made for a creepy, claustrophobic experience that subverted traditional ideas of winning. Apocalypse replaces this clammy sense of dread with a series of action sequences." (page 62)
So I tried to pull from these accessible reviews that discussed the genre. And yes, what we expected to happen did happen. From what I've counted, I've got two sources stating it's an mix of various genres (action, horror, science fiction). Most discussions after focus on the action sequences, but I do feel that the Zombie Movies book more of an action film dressed up as a horror film and SPI saying it's a "straight zombie film" (unlike the first film). Perhaps to balance these out, some sort of action and zombie film mix? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add:
  • BBFC: "sci-fi action horror"
  • AFI: "action horror"
Mike Allen 20:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, specifically AFI says "Genre: Horror" and sub-genre as "Action". There is again, no signifying thing on the database that anyone has seen these films who is writing about them. Looking further, in the book Contemporary Action Cinema (2011) , the author describes the series as a "action horror" hybrid (don't have a page number on this as it's from google books). Currently, action horror films re-directs to "Action film#Hybrid genres". But as this, links to the action film article foremost, this might be okay if it balances out with the other citations that push it towards horror. That being said, i'm seeing a lot of science fiction now again too, so it's grown complicated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my change citing WP:BRD, but it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD. You made a bold change, then I reverted it. Reverting my reversion when the discussion isn't concluded and without consensus strikes me as a pretty aggressive course of action. WP:BRD states "To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit." You are the one trying to make a change that you know is contested. You're edit was reverted, and now you're citing the very guideline that advises not to edit war your contested change back in as your reason for doing so.
I don't really like using Rotten Tomatoes, Box Office Mojo, Metacritic ...
So are you basing this on the fact you personally don't like these websites, or on a precedent or guideline that they shouldn't be used for genres? If there is a guideline that individual reviews take preference, please link it.
I think we can agree a source that actually has a name attached to it is a superior one.
No, I could not disagree more. I think aggregate sites like RT or Metacritic that base the genre on multiple reviews, rather than individual opinions, are much more reliable. If there's a source here that I think should be given the least amount of weight its the Zombie Movies book by Glenn Kay, who appears to have little notability himself and is writing for an independent press. Yes, the source appears to satisfy WP:RS, but I don't consider it anywhere near as reliable as RT, Metacritic, BBFC or AFI.
Based only on the sources you've cited, my vote would still be for Action horror. You're absolutely right that there's no consensus among the sources you've found, but 'Zombie' is not found more frequently than 'horror' even among these sources, so I see no need to change it, and I think the sources Mike Allen also support Action horror as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not having backing for this, but per WP:BESTSOURCES we should "basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements." As well as that genre is subjective. As films involve creative topics, WP:SUBJECTIVE states " it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public." This is why I try to avoid subjective material to RT or Metacritic as there is no relative information on how this information is tabulated. I'm more curious where you think Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic base their genre on multiple reviews, as I see no evidence towards that in the years i've been browsing these sites. I can name a few wikiprojects (and can provide them if needed) that suggest using these site as last possible alternative when trying to cite information. Anyways, I apologize on the BRD. You are correct, I've misinterpreted it. You can feel free to re-add the genres with or without a source, but I'd suggest tagging it for discussion as we haven't really taken a serious look per my points above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have evidence that sources like RT base their genres on multiple reviews, but do you have evidence that they don't? So yes, if you want to use that argument I would appreciate you linking to any projects that say not to use them. I'm not doubting that's been said somewhere, but I've never seen anyone mention this and I've been writing featured film articles for a while now, so I'd like to see the context. Personally I'd argue that sources like RT and Metacritic are "the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources". The Kay book, on the other hand, appears to be the work of a single person who has written a couple books on films as a hobby. This should not be considered the "best respected and most authoritative reliable source" on genres.
Anyway, I have looked at your sources. You put a lot of effort into compiling them, so thanks. The genres I'm seeing in the order you listed are:
  • Zombie (a straight zombie apocalypse)
  • No discernable genre ([jumps from] genre to genre)
  • Horror / Action (European horror knockoff ... terrible zombie film [accidental misquote - referring to another film] action setpieces)
  • "Action Horror"
  • Sci Fi / Horror / Action (mix of science fiction and horror welded together by some heavy-duty action)
  • Action (dressed as) Horror
  • "Sci Fi / Horror Action"
  • Action (clammy sense of dread with a series of action sequences) - you could argue this is listing it as horror too, though just saying they did a bad job of replicating the horror in the games, though I'm not counting it below)
So by my count the 'votes' from individual reviews are Action (6), Horror (4), Sci Fi (2) and Zombie (1)
The 'votes' from other sites above (not including IMDB) are Action (6), Horror (6), Sci Fi (4), Thriller (2), Adventure (1)
So either way, I'm seeing an overwhelming case for Action Horror. There's a moderate case to add Sci Fi. There appears to be a much lesser case to add Zombie as a sub-genre. I'm inclined to go with the two most popular results for the sake of simplicity. Damien Linnane (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly there is nothing written on metacritic or rotten tomatoes on how they categorize them. Per WP:RSP "Rotten Tomatoes is considered generally reliable for its review aggregation and its news articles on film and TV." which is the only thing I'd use it for. Ditto for metacritic. Other projects such as WP:VG/RS echo similar statements. As for having to show you how they gather that I formation, the burden is on you I'm afraid to find how they gather their genre/release date/credits material. I generally agree that it appears an action and horror hybrid is the best source, but I'm curious what source we should cite. I'm leaning towards the published book source I found later as it's probably the highest quality as a source, but open to hear other ideas. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally just cite it to any one (or a couple) of the multiple sources that list it as Action Horror only. But you're the only person who has an issue with the referencing, so just source it to whichever one(s) you prefer as long as the genre doesn't get changed, since the consensus that it's Action Horror is clear. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether we agree with it or not, it's whether we follow the rules and apply sources that should be used. I.e, it previously was sourced cherry picking select sources. We aren't supposed to have multiple sources apply for one thing. But either way, I think one should suffice for now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re your edit here: [2]. I didn't consider this conversation to be ongoing. Personally I'd like to source it to Rotten Tomatoes, but since you have a problem with that I told you to source it to whatever you wanted, purely to satiate you in the hopes this conversation would end, since you are the only person making an issue out of this. Since you wouldn't do that, I've now taken the liberty of choosing one of the sources you provided. If you don't like the one I chose, again, just change it to whichever one you prefer. For the record not only is there absolutely nothing wrong with multiple sources for one thing, it's actually commonplace. But again, you want one source, so just pick whichever one you want and be done with this. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one added recently, but it wasn't even a source that stated the genre. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, I've found the page number from the Contemporary Action Cinema book, and used that. If there are any further issues, feel free to ping me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request removal of dubious sources

[edit]

I did an investigation recently into the chain-of-custody for an IGN article regarding the film's casting. The source used by Wikipedia is titled "Anderson Shopping for Resident Talent". It was published on 21 May 2002 (over a year before filming began) and cites an apparent interview with Paul W.S. Anderson regarding casting ideas - specifically that Natasha Henstridge was contacted to play Jill but due to her business Mina Sorvino is their next pick.

The source of this is a dead Resident Evil fan site named "Umbrella HQ" which, thanks to Wayback Machine, we can gather was short-lived forum site. Checking Usenet however, I have THIS 27 April 2002 post regarding Natasha, citing an 18 May article the movie rumour site CountingDown.com titled "Director Paul Anderson's Update on Casting". This article appears to be the original source of IGN's article. CountingDown further claims "AMI" is their source, but the links provided takes you to a computer website about BIOS upgrades, which even Usenet readers at the time thought was suspicious.

Searching more into CountingDown, the same writer cited AMI in a 6 April titled "Director Paul Anderson Announces New Cast Members". This article is also an 'interview' in which Anderson claims Natasha Henstridge "will" be Jill, and Gina Phillips will play Claire Redfield. This is the only source regarding Phillips being in the movie, as any other article ultimately leads back here.

On 6 July 2002 CountingDown reports on an Empire interview with Anderson (a real one) in which he clearly debunks the AMI rumours - "no basis in truth there. I haven't finished the script so we haven't gone out to anybody yet".

To summarise this investigation -- two hoax interviews were published in Spring 2002 relating to film casting, got the attention of IGN, were debunked by Anderson, forgotten about, and the differences between the hoax and the reality were assumed to just be actors turning down roles. I strongly insist the passages naming these actors be removed entirely.-- OsirisV (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly put a lot of effort into researching this, which is admirable. Most of what you posted above falls under WP:OR, especially what Usenet readers thought was sceptical. However, the Empire source is solid. That alone invalidates what IGN and ScreenRant reported. However, we can't white-wash over the fact misreporting happened. Misreporting, as you've just astutely demonstrated, is part of this film's history, and this article is supposed to summarise the film's history. Accordingly, this should instead be incorporated into the article, rather than pretending it never happened. I've now made this change. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Resident_Evil:_Apocalypse&oldid=1256361578"