| REGISTERIT'S FREE! |
 |
 |
 |
RECEIVE custom news |
|
|
TRACK your favorites |
|
|
BUILD your fan profile |
|
|
POST messages |
|
| LOGIN | SIGN UP TODAY |
|
| Resident Evil: Extinction |
 |
|
|
|
|
| POSTED Saturday, October 06, 2007 01:45:36 AM |
 |
| In the first Resident Evil movie alot of people complain about The Licker being in the first movie, actually, being the main boss at the end of the game. Yet, if the movie were more based on the game it would still make more sense to have The Licker in the first movie. In the game when infected with the T-Virus you turn into a zombie over time, mostly depending on how strong your inmunity is to the virus, once turned into a zombie your body still continues to mutate over time. Eventually your turn into a Crimson Head, (Ironically put in the third movie) which in simple terms, a super zombie. You get more aggressive, you develope claws, not big but substantial size to do serious damage and more intelligence than regular zombies. Your body still continues to mutate though with time eventually turning into The Licker. Now I'm not sure exactly HOW long the mansion has been empty in the game with the virus spread all over but by the time S.T.A.R.S team members arrive in the mansion, enough time would have passed to for some people to mutate into The Lickers. So basically, it still would make more sense to have the Licker in the first movie.
|
|
 Edit  Reply w/quote |
|
|
|
