Resident Evil: Welcome to Racoon City

[Hardware]

Actually you can. You could do a lot more with 33 mln 2002 money than with 25 mln 2020 money, very obviously, especially if we consider Covid-related expenses in that miserable budget. 2002 movie looks way more expensive than WTRC because in fact it was way more expensive And overuse of CGI from some cheap VFX house makes any movie look cheap.

Dude, that's what I said - the 2002 movie is more expensive. Even though the two processes cannot really be compared beyond a certain point. In 2002, they had to use CG sparingly and rely more on practical effects (the Uber-Licker actually existed as both an animatronic and a puppet\suit). In 2020, they used CG for stuff that really didn't need it and had to cut on the practical effects (aside from the zombies, pretty much everything else is CG - Lisa is played by an actress, but that's more a matter of costume design than make-up and she's not the same creature from the games - no tentacles and disfigured face glimpsed underneath the skin mask). They are really the opposite, the Ying and the Yang. Some people online speculated WTRC was only made so that Constantin could retain the rights to the franchise (something similar happened to the Hellraiser movies) - I wouldn't be surprised if it will turn out to be true and the real goal was to get the Netflix deal for the RE series (which will probably be terrible too).

 

[Gun Powder B]

Resident Evil 2002 had double the budget Welcome to Raccoon City had, discounting Covid expenses of course.

You must be registered for see links

Not sure they could have saved this film with a more proportional budget but it probably couldn't have hurt...lol

 

[Maverick1]

Dude, that's what I said - the 2002 movie is more expensive. Even though the two processes cannot really be compared beyond a certain point. In 2002, they had to use CG sparingly and rely more on practical effects (the Uber-Licker actually existed as both an animatronic and a puppet\suit). In 2020, they used CG for stuff that really didn't need it and had to cut on the practical effects (aside from the zombies, pretty much everything else is CG - Lisa is played by an actress, but that's more a matter of costume design than make-up and she's not the same creature from the games - no tentacles and disfigured face glimpsed underneath the skin mask).

I'd say overuse of cheap CGI and underuse of practical effects is a common problem in the industry these days, so many films don't look like films now, more like animated features with actors' close-ups inserted here and there.

Some people online speculated WTRC was only made so that Constantin could retain the rights to the franchise (something similar happened to the Hellraiser movies) - I wouldn't be surprised if it will turn out to be true and the real goal was to get the Netflix deal for the RE series (which will probably be terrible too).

I don't think it's true, they would've done Greg Russo's version if it was an attempt to quickly make a movie to retain the rights. And WTRC will look like a masterpiece compared to what they are doing with Netflix series. Constantin just doesn't care about quality, never did, they want a big profit, but they don't want to invest much.

 

[Ark2000]

I don't think it's true, they would've done Greg Russo's version if it was an attempt to quickly make a movie to retain the rights. And WTRC will look like a masterpiece compared to what they are doing with Netflix series. Constantin just doesn't care about quality, never did, they want a big profit, but they don't want to invest much.

If that leaked script for first episode is anything to go by, i will say it right here, despite its problems, WTRC will still be better Resident Evil adaptation than Netflix series. And it's just a theory i have, but if rumors about Russo's script were true, like how it was going to be more like Resident Evil 7, i can see see why Constantin would go with different version. Maybe they thought how more people would be interested in movie based on Raccoon City storylines from original games (or remakes), instead of one based on more recent game. Or maybe Russo's script just wasn't good, which is another big possibility.

 

[Hardware]

Resident Evil 2002 had double the budget Welcome to Raccoon City had, discounting Covid expenses of course.

You must be registered for see links

Not sure they could have saved this film with a more proportional budget but it probably couldn't have hurt...lol

What I am trying to explain here is that a movie made 20 years ago cannot be compared to what it is done now in terms of costs, because it's all quite different now. Resident Evil 2002 was shot on 35mm, WTRC was shot digitally (and, no, this is not the reason why it looks cheap - every movie\series you watch these days, including dramas, is shot with digital cameras - save for a little minority): this element alone makes a world of difference because filmstock had specific costs which you don't find anymore. One could argue that high-end digital cinema cameras cost a lot in data management and storage, but the costs of buying, processing, transferring to tape for editing, negative cutting, scanning for VFX, color grading, printing etc. that came with shooting film are unmatched. And this is without taking into account all the other aspects of movie production.

Just converting the budgets according to inflation doesn't work because we are talking about an industry that was reshaped by technological innovation: it's the same as flatly comparing the costs and profits of a cotton mill before and after the Second Industrial Revolution.

We can all agree that WTRC cost less than 2002 RE and it shows. How much less it actually cost in practical terms, that's hard to tell. Especially because we don't actually know the actual budgets these movies had - what production companies and studios declare is usually an inflated amount. Sometimes it is so because they factor in everything they spent on the movie (including hiring writers who wrote drafts that were never used, concept artworks with similar fates, and so on). Sometimes it's just "creative accounting". Sometimes it's both.

 

[Bran]

If that leaked script for first episode is anything to go by, i will say it right here, despite its problems, WTRC will still be better Resident Evil adaptation than Netflix series. And it's just a theory i have, but if rumors about Russo's script were true, like how it was going to be more like Resident Evil 7, i can see see why Constantin would go with different version. Maybe they thought how more people would be interested in movie based on Raccoon City storylines from original games (or remakes), instead of one based on more recent game. Or maybe Russo's script just wasn't good, which is another big possibility.

It was never confirmed what the plot of Russo's script was. His interviews only stated that he modeled the tone from Resident Evil 7, the sense of fear and dread. It never stated he was adapting 7 itself as a movie.

 

[Gun Powder B]

Just converting the budgets according to inflation doesn't work because we are talking about an industry that was reshaped by technological innovation: it's the same as flatly comparing the costs and profits of a cotton mill before and after the Second Industrial Revolution.

The Terminator is vastly superior to ANY Resident Evil movie and it's about the same timespan apart from RE 2002 than WTRC and RE 2002 and it has VERY barebones special effects.

I don't believe it's a relevant argument in this medium. It's just the sign of the times, films just flat out suck nowadays.

 

[Hardware]

The Terminator is vastly superior to ANY Resident Evil movie and it's about the same timespan apart from RE 2002 than WTRC and RE 2002 and it has VERY barebones special effects.

I don't believe it's a relevant argument in this medium. It's just the sign of the times, films just flat out suck nowadays.

The Terminator is a better movie because it has a better story and is more cleverly put together - if we were to judge it from a mere technical standpoint, it would be wiped away by 2002 Resident Evil. Young people nowadays would laugh at the stop-motion endoskeleton or the unconvincing, rubbery Arnold mannequin when the character self-repairs in front of a mirror.

Film technology didn't drastically change from 1984 to 2002. Aside from the fact movies began being edited on AVID digital systems (making creative editing faster and more open-ended), slight increases in film speed, and digital sound, movies made in the 90s were mostly made the same way as they were in the 80s. The first movie that was color graded in a digital suite from top to bottom was "Brother, where are thou?" in 2000 but the process remained a luxury very few could afford in the next years. Despite its pristine look, 2002 Resident Evil was still graded photochemically and, even though fact CG was introduced more than a decade earlier, the amount of actual CG shot is minimal because it was still highly expensive in those days.

Things really began to change when the original Red One (uber-flawed camera if you ask me) was introduced in 2008-ish, which increased the number of digitally-captured movies and it did so with relatively-inexpensive tapeless recording and a user-friendly post-production workflow. But digital back then was still the alternative. Then Arri introduced the original Alexa camera in 2010, and all of a sudden filmstock lost its number one spot and was quickly relegated to Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan's movie. At the same time, computer technology became cheaper (making owning a CG-capable workstation a realistic proposition for many) and Digital VFX vendors began appearing everywhere, while less than 10 years earlier there were only about a dozen facilities in the world that could offer that kind of service.

 

[Hardware]

It was never confirmed what the plot of Russo's script was. His interviews only stated that he modeled the tone from Resident Evil 7, the sense of fear and dread. It never stated he was adapting 7 itself as a movie.

I am one of the many who was misled into thinking he actually was about to adapt 7 - it seemed very obvious to me at that time because the game was a success. Whether or not it was in the intentions, thank goodness they never did go in that direction. But I cannot honestly see anyone (not even Constantin) doing something like that: for movie-going audiences (who only partially overlap with the gaming crowd), RE is about people with big guns shooting zombies and monsters while doing ridiculous stunts. Making a clone of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with fungal monsters would've definitely disoriented people at this stage. Luckily for them, RE2make became a success as well, so they managed to roll in WTRC, which, despite it trying to be a horror movie, is still about people shooting guns at zombies and monsters.

 

[Bran]

I am one of the many who was misled into thinking he actually was about to adapt 7 - it seemed very obvious to me at that time because the game was a success. Whether or not it was in the intentions, thank goodness they never did go in that direction. But I cannot honestly see anyone (not even Constantin) doing something like that: for movie-going audiences (who only partially overlap with the gaming crowd), RE is about people with big guns shooting zombies and monsters while doing ridiculous stunts. Making a clone of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with fungal monsters would've definitely disoriented people at this stage. Luckily for them, RE2make became a success as well, so they managed to roll in WTRC, which, despite it trying to be a horror movie, is still about people shooting guns at zombies and monsters.

Another thing that makes a difference is director... JAMES CAMERON directed The Terminator. (I know you know this, Hardware... it's more for others posting on here). James Cameron worked under Roger Corman, and had a background in matte paintings and cheap effects. He entered the film industry learning ways to stretch a budget.

@Hardware is correct that by today's standards, people mock the special effects of The Terminator. They are clearly dated. I love them for being practical. But I can't deny that they haven't held up today.

The Terminator is also a smaller film in scale. It has a small cast of characters, and much of its effects are done cheap. It just looks really good because of Cameron's direction and background.

 

[Gun Powder B]

I think everyone knows Jim directed Terminator

And who needs CGI when you have scenes like this:

You must be registered for see medias

You must be registered for see medias

How about, you know, focus on a good story and actually, you know, DIRECTING instead of going the loser route of George Lucas, who obsessed over special effects which ruined his career. George is like the biggest warning in film history, and directors by and large I think made it a point to focus more on being more realistic than CGI.

 

[Bran]

I think everyone knows Jim directed Terminator

And who needs CGI when you have scenes like this:

You must be registered for see medias

You must be registered for see medias

How about, you know, focus on a good story and actually, you know, DIRECTING instead of going the loser route of George Lucas, who obsessed over special effects which ruined his career. George is like the biggest warning in film history, and directors by and large I think made it a point to focus more on being more realistic than CGI.

Because doing things practical runs the risk of higher insurance, many takes if the effects don't go off the way you want, not to mention it costs thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars per day on set. The quicker you get through filming the better. That's why many Productions have switched to digital characters, effects, and locations.

The technology used in The Mandalorian is going to be rolled out on more Productions as the years go on.

It's just how the industry is moving.

If you want an 80's style movie, well... you're gonna have to make them yourself and find the financing.

 

[Ark2000]

Maverick already went into details about earlier draft of the script for WTRC;

You must be registered for see links

And it looks like there were even more differences in even earlier drafts;

You must be registered for see links

Some of the rumors i heard, and i'm sure other fans here also did, is how the movie almost had Hunter and Mr X, before they were cut out of the script. I guess based on this concept art, this could be true.

 

[Maverick1]

You must be registered for see links

Some of the rumors i heard, and i'm sure other fans here also did, is how the movie almost had Hunter and Mr X, before they were cut out of the script. I guess based on this concept art, this could be true.

Interesting, but most likely they are related to Greg Russo's version, there were no other creatures in early Roberts' draft.

 

[Jonipoon]

I finally watched the film a couple of weeks ago and it suffered from the exact same issues that I predicted beforehand.

The biggest issue of the film is that it tries to cram the stories of RE1 and RE2 into one story, and it obviously doesn't work. The film is a disjointed mess and suffers from too many characters going into different places. Both RE1 and RE2 have very simple straight-forward stories, and that's why they work so damn well. I actually kind of enjoyed the scenes with Alpha Team at the RPD being instructed by Chief Irons to investigate the Spencer Mansion, and most of the stuff involving them and the mansion felt the closest to the source material. Which only got me thinking - why not just make a movie based solely on the first game? It would've been SO much better instead of the crap we got.

The whole idea of turning Raccoon City into an already abandoned run-down city felt like a cheap excuse in terms of budgetary concerns regarding people. Obviously it would be more expensive to have hundreds of zombies running amok on the streets, so instead they went the easy route of simply having the city be more desolate in the first place. The problem is that it doesn't make sense for this half-abandoned town to still employ two full Stars teams of highly skilled policemen and women. Like why? Realistically they would've been fired a long time ago. Addionally, with Umbrella already having left the town it felt like a central villain was taken out of the story. Overall the city felt so empty, and the lack of zombies and people made it feel less scary and more like a cheap TV show.

Another problem is that the movie changes basically all of the characters' personalities and backstories, including their motivations and goals. The character that suffers the most from these changes is William Birkin, whom suddenly is a generic bad guy and not the troubled, relatable victim we saw in RE2. And for some reason he's a scientist AND the head of an orphanage? Like... why? I mean I get that the orphanage was supposedly run by Umbrella but this is seriously some horrendous screenwriting. Yet the two biggest misinterpretations of this film are undeniably Hannah John-Kamen and Avan Jogia as Jill and Leon, respectively. I don't understand how you can get more un-Jill and un-Leon than these two, and it has less to do with the fact that they look nothing like their in-game counterparts but rather their personalities being a far cry from the source material. Jill is not supposed to be a whimsical douchebag full of sass and callbacks, and Leon is not supposed to be an incompetent fool whom acts like he doesn't even want to be a cop.

Surprisingly, the character that ended up being most game-accurate was Chris, because besides being an orphan his personality remains very similar to the games. I really enjoyed Robbie Amell's portrayal of the character and he did a good job at being the most relatable and human character in the film. Mainly because he's badass yet not perfect. Unlike his sister Claire, whom is badass and perfect. Claire is generally an OK character though, but that's got more to do with Kaya Scodelario being the most competent actress of the bunch and not the actual script being good. The problem with Claire is that what makes her whole character work in RE2 is that she's looking for her brother. Her whole character arc is built around her searching for Chris, a trait that even continues well into the plot of Code Veronica. That's her motivation for going through all of the hellscapes in the games. When you take this motivation away from her, she becomes an empty generic shell. They could've saved her character a bit by having Sherry accompany her, but nope, the screenwriters couldn't even give her Sherry. Instead Sherry is completely shoehorned into the ending which feels nonsensical.

A few other things I didn't like, mainly nitpicks:

- Making Jill romantically interested in Wesker and vice versa? Terrible idea.
- Keeping a misplaced character like Lisa Trevor around just for the sake of a deus ex machina moment? Please.
- Having transformed Birkin retain his intellect and being able to talk? Get out.
- Generally poor use of fanservice such as "Itchy, tasty" being written in blood on a window.


A few things I actually liked:

- The scene filmed from inside the car where Chief Irons tries to get out of the city. One-shot, great take and use of suspense, you can't really see what's going on outside, but you can hear it. Easily the best part of the entire film, so much that I wonder if a separate director did this shot. It felt very indie and didn't quite fit with the rest of the film.
- The zombie attacks inside the Spencer Mansion. Great use of darkness and suspense, I really wished we'd seen more of this.
- Robbie Amell's portrayal of Chris and Donal Logue's portrayal of Chief Irons.

 

[Maverick1]

The whole idea of turning Raccoon City into an already abandoned run-down city felt like a cheap excuse in terms of budgetary concerns regarding people.

The movie was inspired by John Carpenter's work, Roberts is a fan of Carpenter, making Raccoon half-abandoned run-down town wasn't really a budgetary decision, but more of making Raccoon Carpenteresque town. Early script actually had crowds of people, it was a lot less desolate, cutting crowds was a budgetary decision, but town concept probably wasn't.

The character that suffers the most from these changes is William Birkin, whom suddenly is a generic bad guy and not the troubled, relatable victim we saw in RE2. And for some reason he's a scientist AND the head of an orphanage? Like... why?

Because... he experimented on children? Don't really get this complaint, it makes perfect sense in this case.

But hey, I know it's RE forum and I'll probably make some people angry, but I don't see the problem in changing personalities and backstories here because let's be honest, most characters in first RE games had no depth whatsoever, they were generic good and bad guys who just look cool, I replayed first RE remake and it didn't even have a real introduction to them, this would never translate well to a live action movie, only Tom Cruise could carry wooden blanks on paper, it needed changes to make it work.