Media Resident Evil 2 (1/25/2019)

[Vulture Lives]

The fact we see a " flash forward " to an adult version makes me think the kid is just in flash backs

What makes you think that it's a flash forward? Her face is in shadow in one shot, and then out of the shadow in the next. I watched that part of the trailer a few times and see no indication that it's a flash forward.

 

[Vulture Lives]

You've got a point. Looking at the screenshots on the previous page again the proportions looks the same, and the background does too.

Yeah. It functions more as a reveal.

 

[bwh1990]

Annette looks 20 years too old, and is a goblin. Ugh.

 

[Kiva]

What makes you think that it's a flash forward? Her face is in shadow in one shot, and then out of the shadow in the next. I watched that part of the trailer a few times and see no indication that it's a flash forward.

You've got a point. Looking at the screenshots on the previous page again the proportions looks the same, and the background does too.

In the first picture its clearly a kid, in the second its clearly an adult. The hair On the adult is slightly more wild, noticeably at the back, longer. Behind the kid on the left is a door, and on the right a brick wall, behind the adult to the left is what appears to be a branches and to the right a plastered wall with a crack. The only thing the same is they are wearing the same shirt. And the shoulders on the adult are way more broad, the facial structure is different.

 

[bwh1990]

In the first picture its clearly a kid, in the second its clearly an adult. The hair On the adult is slightly more wild, noticeably at the back, longer. Behind the kid on the left is a door, and on the right a brick wall, behind the adult to the left is what appears to be a branches and to the right a plastered wall with a crack. The only thing the same is they are wearing the same shirt. And the shoulders on the adult are way more broad, the facial structure is different.

I keep the brightness down on my phone to conserve the battery charge, I turned it up and yeah, you're right. I hope that's not supposed to be Ada. One of her strongest traits is how mysterious she is. I always figured "Ada Wong" isn't even her real name.

EDIT: I did a speedrun through the gamecube version , Claire A, Leon B tonight, 'cause I couldn't sleep, and I really hope they give Leon and Ada more time to develop feelings for each other. They tried in the original, but I didn't ever really buy Ada falling in love with Leon and him falling in love with her. They have less than a dozen interactions over the course of one evening, over the span of at most six or seven hours, or an hour and a half in my latest speedrun (yeah slow I know).

When Annette tells Leon she found out that Ada's a spy, he's like "that's not true, I KNOW her!". I'm sittin' there thinkin' "uuuh, no ya don't buddy ol' pal. Like, AT ALL." I forgot about Leon's ADAAAAAAA!!!!!! when she "dies". It's supposed to be all emotional and I just had to laugh, it was so corny and unearned. Probably my only real criticism of the original RE2.

 

[bwh1990]

 

[Vulture Lives]

In the first picture its clearly a kid, in the second its clearly an adult. The hair On the adult is slightly more wild, noticeably at the back, longer. Behind the kid on the left is a door, and on the right a brick wall, behind the adult to the left is what appears to be a branches and to the right a plastered wall with a crack. The only thing the same is they are wearing the same shirt. And the shoulders on the adult are way more broad, the facial structure is different.

I still disagree. Her hair is the same length between both shots. Maybe her hair is disheveled in an ever so slighty different manner between the shots, but the length is more or less the same.

As far as the background is concerned, we're comparing a wide shot to a close-up. The close-up could easily be framing out certain things that are visible in the wide, especially if the angle of the camera is even slightly different between the shots. Or, maybe the close-up was taken after she walked a few more feet into the room, which would change what we see behind her. Nonetheless, there are similarities in both shots. The wall looks the same. Both shots have water coming down from above.

She's wearing the same shirt in both shots, which should not be brushed aside so easily. It's very telling.

I don't see any significant difference in the broadness of the shoulders. Seems like confirmation bias on your part. Again, we're comparing a close-up to a wide - it's not an accurate method of comparison if you're trying to determine a difference in size between two objects. I also don't think that you can make a reasonable comparison between her facial structure in both shots, given that her face is almost entirely in shadow in the first shot.

If it turns out that you're correct, I'll be the first one here to sing your praises. But, I really don't think that you have enough information right now to be making these definitive statements that it's so obviously a flash forward, because it's not remotely obvious that it's a flash forward. It's nothing more than your personal theory based on very little. My opinion is that the shot exists simply to reveal that she has a disfigured face.

 

[bwh1990]

You both make good points, I personally can't tell who's correct here, and I kinda don't care. I'm more concerned with Annette's manish goblin face. Good gravy she looks terrible. Was their goal to make her so ugly everybody would shut up about Claire's new face? That's my guess.

 

[Kiva]

I still disagree. Her hair is the same length between both shots. Maybe her hair is disheveled in an ever so slighty different manner between the shots, but the length is more or less the same.

As far as the background is concerned, we're comparing a wide shot to a close-up. The close-up could easily be framing out certain things that are visible in the wide, especially if the angle of the camera is even slightly different between the shots. Or, maybe the close-up was taken after she walked a few more feet into the room, which would change what we see behind her. Nonetheless, there are similarities in both shots. The wall looks the same. Both shots have water coming down from above.

She's wearing the same shirt in both shots, which should not be brushed aside so easily. It's very telling.

I don't see any significant difference in the broadness of the shoulders. Seems like confirmation bias on your part. Again, we're comparing a close-up to a wide - it's not an accurate method of comparison if you're trying to determine a difference in size between two objects. I also don't think that you can make a reasonable comparison between her facial structure in both shots, given that her face is almost entirely in shadow in the first shot.

If it turns out that you're correct, I'll be the first one here to sing your praises. But, I really don't think that you have enough information right now to be making these definitive statements that it's so obviously a flash forward, because it's not remotely obvious that it's a flash forward. It's nothing more than your personal theory based on very little. My opinion is that the shot exists simply to reveal that she has a disfigured face.

 

[ironwez20]

They are wearing the same shirt tho and she has her head down so her hair is a bit different .

 

[Vulture Lives]

Uh, you cropped and zoomed in on one of the pictures. That isn't useful. At the bare minimum, the object in both shots needs to be at the same angle and distance from the camera in order for any size comparison to be worthwhile. But, your side by side comparison does a good job of illustrating that the hair is basically the same length between the shots, and that her face is too obscured by shadow in the first shot to be able to draw any reasonable conclusions about a difference in facial structure. The differences in the background do absolutely nothing to indicate a flash forward. It looks like the same general location, anyway. The color of the wall is the same. There's rain in both shots. She simply stepped out of the shadows and into the light in the second shot.

 

[Kiva]

Do you think that the lit up image, the image on the right in the last picture is a child or an adult?

 

[Vulture Lives]

I could very easily accept that the face on the right is underneath the shadow on the left.

 

[Kiva]

I could very easily accept that the face on the right is underneath the shadow on the left.

Would you say this is 8-12, or 18-22?

 

[Vulture Lives]

You've hardly addressed any of my points, and I think that you're shifting the goal posts a bit. You don't think that the face on the right could be underneath the shadow on the left. I disagree. We're gonna have to wait till January to find out.

 

[Kiva]

You don't think that the face on the right could be underneath the shadow on the left.

No, i dont. And neither do you. Thats why you avoided the question, twice.

 

[Vulture Lives]

You've avoided addressing the vast majority of the points that I've made. I clearly stated that I have no problem believing that the face on the right could belong to the figure on the left, which directly addresses the point that you're trying to make. I'm not going to bother speculating on her age, cause there's too much room for interpretation. According to you, I'm lying about what I actually think - why would I do that? If I thought that it was a flash forward, then I would've agreed with you at the start, and this conversation would've never happened. I don't care about whether or not it's a flash forward. I cared about the fact that you were presenting your speculation as undeniable fact, based on very flimsy evidence. I felt as though it needed to be challenged.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, I'm bowing out of this conversation. I'm satisfied with the arguments that I've made, most of which you've neglected to address, and nothing more will be gained by going around in circles. Time will tell on the matter. Hope everyone enjoys the game.

 

[bwh1990]

 

[Kiva]

You've avoided addressing the vast majority of the points that I've made.

You didnt make any points, you just " what if'd " mine. You were asking me to question the things i said in my own post. Which makes no sense. You wanted me to debate myself.

I clearly stated that I have no problem believing that the face on the right could belong to the figure on the left, which directly addresses the point that you're trying to make.

No, my point is that the face on the right COULDNT belong to the face on the left. Thats the entire point. I think the girl on the right is an adult, and the girl on the left is a child. I think the trailer is edited to flash forward in time revealing the child character as an adult therefor we get no child enemy type in the game. Thats the whole reason you have been trying to catch me out and then changed the narrative 3 times when i asked you to answer a simple question.

For the sake of everyone's sanity, I'm bowing out of this conversation.

I feel embarrassed for you. So it might be the right thing to do. You might be 100% right, and i might be 100% wrong but the fact you questioned everything i said and when i asked you 1 question 3 times you tried to run away shows the lack of your ability to debate. I eagerly await your return on January 25-26. Either i am sending you rep points, or you are sending them to me. I really wish you would stick around though. Id rather we debated until the game, and after the game came out. I dont care who is wrong or right. You just seem to want to disprove me for some reason and i have no idea who you are.

 

[ironwez20]

View attachment 427605

Would you say this is 8-12, or 18-22?

That’s a kid with a very grown up face. The shirt are the same in each shot. They probably made her look grown to get by on restrictions for using a child in violent ways.