- Barbarian and Weapons director Zack Cregger is making a Resident Evil film that avoids adapting existing game characters.
- He claims the movie will be faithful to the games’ tone and lore, but tell an entirely new story.
- Fans are skeptical after years of botched Resident Evil adaptations that strayed from the source.
- Hollywood has a habit of “reimagining” instead of delivering the faithful adaptations fans want.
- A faithful adaptation could still succeed, but Cregger risks alienating the core fanbase before filming even starts.
Zack Cregger is on a hot streak after Barbarian and Weapons, so naturally Hollywood handed him the keys to one of gaming’s biggest horror franchises: Resident Evil. The catch? He’s not interested in telling the story of Leon, Jill, or any of the characters fans have been waiting decades to see done right on the big screen. His film will “respect the lore” and act as a “love letter to the games”… just without any of the actual game plots.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is exactly how almost every failed Resident Evil adaptation has started. “It’ll capture the spirit.” “It’ll be faithful in tone.” “It’s a reimagining.” Translation: brace yourself for another spin-off that uses the brand name for recognition while refusing to give fans the thing they’ve been asking for since 1996—a faithful, atmospheric, on-screen version of the games they love.
To be fair, Cregger is an excellent filmmaker with a sharp sense of tension and pacing. If anyone could take a fresh angle on Resident Evil and make it work, it might be him. But the history here isn’t on his side. Paul W.S. Anderson’s Resident Evil films devolved into action-comedy sci-fi fan fiction by movie three. Welcome to Raccoon City tried to cram two games into one film and ended up pleasing no one. The Netflix series… well, let’s just say it made people nostalgic for the Anderson era.
This is the curse of adaptations: Hollywood can’t resist “fixing” what isn’t broken. Games like Resident Evil already have tight, cinematic narratives. The first game is practically a ready-made movie script—isolated setting, small cast, rising tension, a ticking clock. Yet studio logic says, “Why adapt the thing people love when you can slap the name on something else entirely?”
Cregger says his story will be “obedient to the lore” while being completely original. That’s a fine line to walk. Too original, and it’s just another zombie movie with the Resident Evil logo slapped on. Too “obedient,” and people will wonder why you didn’t just adapt one of the existing classics.
Fans aren’t unreasonable—they know you can’t translate a game one-to-one. But when you deliberately avoid the main characters and storylines that made the franchise iconic, you’re asking them to take it on faith that you “get it.” After two decades of misfires, that faith is in short supply.
If Cregger nails the atmosphere, respects the survival horror roots, and remembers that Resident Evil is more than just zombies and explosions, he could actually deliver something worthwhile. But if this turns into another generic “inspired by” project, it’ll be just one more missed opportunity in a long line of them—and the fans will go right back to saying the games are still the only real Resident Evil.
Hollywood After Dark 