MovieChat Forums > Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2017) Discussion > Maybe Ashford lied to Angela...

Maybe Ashford lied to Angela...

posted 7 years ago by redfield-40200
10 replies | jump to latest

About the creation of T-Virus and Anti-Virus. Just a thought. If you were a father, with a sick kid and somehow managed to get a sample of the T-Virus, wouldn't you lie to your child to sound more like a hero?

When there was an incident of the T-Virus, Dr. Isaac's and Wesker covered it up by killing Marcus.

But in this case, all Ashford did was cure her daughter. And Umbrella is trying to cover up the tracks, in case, another incident (like the one in the gondola of the 6th film) happens.

I'm not trying to find logic out of this horrible written script of a franchise, but if you are looking for a loop hole, there you go. Just pretend Ashford lied. Cause we KNOW Ashford created the T-Virus from Angela's mouth. Unless there is another scene where Ashford states it hahaha. I guess I can skim through the movie just to see if he actually states it or if it only comes from his daughters words.

[–] whatisthisidonteven2017 7 years ago

I also skimmed through the movie. I agree that I believe it's never explicitly stated he created the T-Virus (although, yes, that was obviously the intended explanation at the time).

The scene with Angie explaining it is abstract enough (she only explicitly says her father made the Anti-Virus she has; she never mentions the T-Virus, Alice does, to which she doesn't respond; Daddy Ashford is shown working on a monitor but it doesn't say "Creation of T-Virus" or something that would destroy the theory) that you can even pretend it was the case of a little girl that didn't know the details, her father told her "Angie, you have to take this Anti-Virus I made for the T-virus I injected you, ok?" and she figured her father was, probably, also involved with the creation of the T-virus as well. Maybe her father spent all time working, so she barely saw him and never quite got the details, so what she knows for sure is he created the Anti-Virus but suspects he had a hand in the T-Virus as well.

I prefer this over the lying theory and weirdly, it works ok for me. It's not as much of an explicit contradiction as I thought it was before I rewatched parts of Apocalypse.

[–] redfield-40200 7 years ago

Exactly! I also believe there was more than one defined scientist that went into the creation of the T-Virus. Dr. Isaacs was a scientist also who worked for Umbrella.

I feel like there are three different anti-viruses in this franchise.

In the first two films, you get the "anti-virus" that is blue. You inject it into someone who was recently bitten and they are cured.

By the third movie, you have another virus that they talk about needing that Alice's blood can only be the resolution. We all know Alice bonded with the T-Virus, she didn't mutate. Maybe they needed her blood to create an anti-virus that would turn the far gone infected back to normal state. I mean couldn't Alice injected herself with one of Angie's anti-virus and be normal again? Why didn't she do it?

By the 6th film, they explicitly emphasize "Airborne anti-virus." Instead of injecting it into an infected individual you release it via air. It probably isn't the same as the first two "anti-viruses" that were in the script, because you have a far more range (apparently it takes years) to cure everything infected vs. just one.

[–] whatisthisidonteven2017 7 years ago

Agreed on all counts.

[–] terrorfirmer-ie 7 years ago

In the first film as well, the cure only works in a very limited window, after that it has no effect. Remember how the Red Queen refused to let Rain leave The Hive because the anti-virus would not be effective on her due to the advanced stage of the virus.

[–] redfield-40200 7 years ago

That's true! So the "anti-virus" in the first two films, was not the finalized cure.

Didn't Angela have to regularly inject the anti-virus in her? She had a lot of scars on her forearm, when Alice mentioned she was infected on a mass level.

This is obviously not the same cure as the "anti-airborne virus" in the 6th film.

[–] terrorfirmer-ie 7 years ago

Yes, totally different. So it's not a continuity error like some people have made out. It still adds up even with TFC's crappy storyline, it would make sense that Umbrella would make a temporary/limited cure available to staff at The Hive, but not the genuine cure.

Still, I prefered when the movies were about a major pharmaceutical company dabbling in illegal research in the real world vs. the nonsense of the later movies especially 6.

[–] redfield-40200 7 years ago

It only got crappy because of Extinction. Paul started with the cloning plot. So if there is a plot hole, 'Blame it on a clone!'

Just an excuse for Paul's horrible writing.

Alice "I killed you."
Isaac's "Yet here I am."
Alice "I killed your clone."

Then we learn there is ANOTHER Isaacs. I love The Final Chapter, but I feel like Paul leans way too much on the clones. I bet if there is more sequels, Wesker will pop up again and then Paul will use the 'Clone' theory. Paul isn't that stupid to just forget about Wesker having powers, yet he showed none in TFC.

[–] terrorfirmer-ie 7 years ago

I think it's a hook for another film. Wesker at The Hive was a clone, ergo no t-virus powers, and the weak death.

He was actually leading an attack elsewhere at the time - perhaps against main characters who will once again re-appear in a new chapter. That would be convenient.

The thing is, Paul may not be a great writer, but as you say, he's not stupid. The first two movies made perfect sense, had good character developement, and while they were as cheesy as hell, they progressed logically to a conclusion.

Why he got so lazy is beyond me but he's proved that he CAN write a passable story for a film of this calibre. What I can't understand is that at multiple points in the process, people must have SURELY mentioned to him the serious confusion and continuity issues the script for The Final Chapter was creating.

That's what makes me so mad. If every film was plagued by glaring, massive plot holes and major, narrative breaking inconsistencies, I'd be OK with it by this stage. But the first few movies don't have this problem at all.

[–] redfield-40200 7 years ago

1). He only cares about Alice, his wife.

2). He only made it for the money.

Like my other theory, I feel like he is saving his major plot holes for other films. After 5 films, we knew nothing about Alice and suddenly by the 6th outing, we get a proper closure.

So my guess is, let's say a new chapter is made and instead of Alice we get Claire Redfield as the main character. We see her riding off in the distance and she recaps everything from the past films from getting captured by Umbrella on Arcadia and escaping to The Final Chapter. She'll probably have dialogue that will address Chris and K-Mart, while searching for them.

That's why I think he should've treated the tagline to something other than 'The Final Chapter' cause he's implying there won't be anymore. And by no more, we need a proper closure for everyone, not just Alice. But we all know 'The Final Chapter' was only hinting at Alice. Most viewers aren't going to grasp the reality of things and treat it as THE FINAL ONE. And imagine that. It did hurt him at the box office. Can't even break 30 million.

It should've been titled "Insurgence" and left the film the way it was. It would've performed better, knowing it isn't titled as the final one and people will realize, "Hey maybe we'll get a proper understanding of the missing characters in the next film..."

[–] eric_m_bi 7 years ago

Originally, Final Chapter was supposed to reveal Angela's fate but it's clear that got rewritten, perhaps to allow Anderson's and Jovovich's daughter a part in the script, or maybe they thought audiences would be disturbed to see Angela die on screen. :/

As far as I'm concerned, Dr. Ashford is still the creator of the T-Virus and the creation of the Red Queen.