MovieChat Forums > [Rec] 4: Apocalipsis (2014) Discussion > So, why did they...[SPOILERS]

So, why did they...[SPOILERS]

posted 9 years ago by svalinanikola
12 replies | jump to latest

...abandon the demonic possession angle?

I see that some people say demonic possession was abandoned as soon as the worm was introduced in the second movie.

I don't know, I assumed that's how the demon looks like, it enters someone's body and can spread possession via bites on others.
Think of it like this: puppet master and the puppets.

There's no rules about demons and possessions, they can mak whatever they want, so there can be a worm demon like that if they want it to be.

Besides, if you think that doesn't mean anything because the worm was introduced, how there's no demonic possession etc. then a bunch of scenes in REC2 make no sense.

And that's exactly the problem with 4. Now lots of scenes from 2 AND 3 don't make any sense whatsoever. They really screwed up now.

In 4 it didn't seem like there was any demonic angle, stuff about church and demons is mentioned but is put aside and the whole thing is treated as a virus and the worm is just a parasite.

The corsses, rooms that weren't there before etc., all those things are ignored.

[–] SheWorksHardForTheMoney 9 years ago

I think they learned from their mistakes is what happened. They were painting themselves into a corner with the whole possession/vampiric storyline. I think they chose the right path for the final installment honestly. Part 4 is probably my second favorite of the series, with the first being my favorite.

[–] svalinanikola 9 years ago

I don't see how they wrote themselves into a corner with that.

What, ordinary zombies story would let them make even more sequels?

[–] Blackarachnia1996 9 years ago

This guy is just a fanboy defending crap. They didn't write themselves into a corner with the possession plot, it made them notable. Now it's just another zombie flick, and a bad one at that. It's like saying Resident Evil wrote itself into a corner because it is based on a virus instead of being like Romero/Walking Dead by leaving the cause unknown. So there's no merit to his statement.

[–] SheWorksHardForTheMoney 9 years ago

So now I'm a fanboy because I liked [REC] 4: Apocalipsis? Ok there. I'll go on record stating I hated the third part. Does that tarnish my fanboy-ism? And Romero's script for Resident Evil was laughably bad.

Sounds to me you're just a hipster troll, who hates anything that isn't at least 20 years old.

[–] Blackarachnia1996 9 years ago

And Romero's script for Resident Evil was laughably bad.

I was talking about the Resident Evil games verses Night of the Living Dead... Romero still referenced the T-Virus in his RE script. This came out of nowhere as I did not mention it... stop pulling *beep* out of your ass.

Sounds to me you're just a hipster troll, who hates anything that isn't at least 20 years old.

Again, pulling *beep* from your ass... this "insult" came out of nowhere as well and has no merit. Checking out my ratings would prove this as untrue.

You're a fanboy because you're defending crap by universal review from fans, moviegoers, and critics (check Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes). What makes somebody an honest reviewer is acknowledging the drawbacks, but if they still liked the movie those drawbacks didn't bother them. For example, I liked the movie The Pyramid, but I can admit that it had wooden acting and glaring cinematography errors...

[–] SheWorksHardForTheMoney 9 years ago

Just because critics and the average moviegoer didn't enjoy Rec 4 means I'm supposed to automatically jump on the bandwagon and instantly hate it as well? That is what you're suggesting right? Because if I enjoyed myself it makes me a fanboy.

Where in the bloody heck did I say the movie didn't have drawbacks? Please show me. I choose to focus on the positives, rather than fill a message board with a bunch of bellyaching comments. Movies that I hate or dislike I stay away from commenting on because they've already taken up my time. It's your prerogative if you want to invest so much energy into being negative.

To appease you, I'll list some of the things I disliked so that you don't think I'm just trolling, even though you're the negative Nelly who is making stuff up because I don't share the same hatred for the film as you do.

1) While the ending came full circle, the final scene felt tacked on to leave room for a sequel or a reboot with different characters.

2) The characters were much too reckless when killing the infected. The action sequences were exciting but at the expense of realism. The blood is highly contagious and there was too much flying blood to not have someone infected by this manner.

Voila.

[–] deadbodieseverywhere17 9 years ago

Ok there. I'll go on record stating I hated the third part.

Sadly, the third was at least a horror movie. Part 4 was just a regular movie with a couple of background (I'll call them zombies too). Changing, for the most part, everything they had accomplished in the first two movies was really pointless. I didn't hate part 4, but it added nothing to the series and it didn't give it the ending it deserved.

"The Martian Manhunter is the heart of the Justice League." - The Flash (Barry Allen)

[–] ventilation-shaft 9 years ago

While I generally liked the 4th installment, it IS the weakest of the series. And the reason is in no small part exactly due to the abandonment of the demonic possession angle.

The "REC" franchise had something pretty unique going on. It started of as a generic zombie/infected type of story, then veiled it with quite a bit of spooky mystery by the introduction of demonic possessions. There's a hefty mythology behind it all (angels, demons, God(s), damnation, etc.).

Furthermore, I can't recall a film that featured a sort of scientific approach to a demonic possession. What "REC" had been hinting all along is that the priests tried to find a vaccine/antidote to a gene in the blood causing the possessions. Possessions being in fact gene mutations is a novel concept, as far as I've seen.

"REC 2" played even more directly to this angle, and even 3, while only tangentially related to 1 & 2, deepened the occult / supernatural occurrences (albeit rather cryptically).

Then comes "REC 4" and suddenly its basically an alien parasite, nothing less and nothing more. Which was pretty disappointing, all considering.

------------
http://coolawesomemovies.com/

[–] curtiscee 9 years ago

Poor writing and an incoherent narrative. The way the priest controlled the rabies-infected/zombies/demons/parasites--see where I'm going with this?--via crosses and biblical reciting and holy water in [REC] 3 can only be described by holy intervention, especially since the demons were visible in mirrors and other reflective surfaces. Unless the parasite was truly just a physical incarnation of the demons in [REC] 3, then abandoning the demonic connection isn't what happened, but a poorly constructive narrative in a sequel that simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[–] haunt_freak 9 years ago

The parasite was intelligent and was using supernatural/possession as a cover. Can't get rid of a parasite via exorcism.

=============
ARE YOU A PARTY ANIMAL?
http://www.facebook.com/business.trip.film

[–] Seth_Rogue_One 9 years ago

Cause the scriptwriters on this movie were complete dumbasses or they were forced to write it as such cause they were planning on making more REC movies with that tv host woman as the hero, probably a combination of both

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS!!!

[–] texasbeast-38912 8 years ago

You guys only interpreted the infection as being purely biological here, just as the authorities in this film did.

It happens all the time. People see what they expect to see--not what they don't. They got confirmation of what they expected, magnified of course, so they went with that operating theory as to how the infection worked.

Remember the father of Jennifer in the apartments? He took her antibiotics to try to fight his own infection, thinking in terms of some of the childhood diseases he had helped to treat. (Never mind that everybody else had been describing this as more of a virus than a bacteria, so antibiotics wouldn't have any effect anyway.) He interpreted what he was observing in terms of what he was familiar with.

That the docs and soldiers approached the infection as a purely biological virus tells us more about them--not about the infection.

Where was the ship chaplain? The token ship religious nut or holy roller? Apparently such sorts weren't even welcomed by the ship crew, either.

The fact that this movie doesn't explore the supernatural angle doesn't mean that this movie turns its back on the supernatural. It means that the CHARACTERS did.

---

I would be curious to know how these decidedly non-religious types took control of this operation away from the Vatican types. How did THAT go down? Secular military-industrial complex vs. the Catholic Church? That had to have been dramatic.