Resident Evil: Welcome to Racoon City

[Turo602]

Fact of the matter is, the video game fans don't make the profit for the studio. If we only made a movie for the fans, the budget would be for direct to video. It's the unfortunate truth.

Just as Hardware works in the film industry, so do I. And, it's not as simple as a 1:1 translation from the video game to a movie. Arguing that it can be done is a moot point. Of course it can be done. They can make a movie that has 100% accurate costumes and scenery and monsters. But, it would just be too weird to be taken seriously.

Just like Ninja Turtles was too weird to be taken seriously yet til this day is one of the most profitable comic book films of all time whereas the Michael Bay TMNT movies were a complete failure with audiences despite all the "necessary" changes they made to the source material to connect to your general audience.

This whole "I work in the film industry" argument is such a weak argument anyway. You're not Martin Scorsese, your ideas and knowledge aren't somehow granted superiority because you "work in the industry." Plenty of clueless douchebags work in Hollywood and not everyone understands adaptations anyway. James Cameron being a great example of someone with far more experience than anyone on this forum in the film industry yet was going to make a terrible Spider-Man movie.

Right now, this entire "insert property is too silly to be taken seriously because of so and so" is as weak and tired as it has always been and has been proven wrong time and time again. I honestly don't understand why people still refuse to give audiences credit like they can't buy into already successful ideas without someone catering it specifically to needs people didn't know they even had because this entire film is somehow dependent on Jill's clothing.

 

[Bran]

Just like Ninja Turtles was too weird to be taken seriously yet til this day is one of the most profitable comic book films of all time whereas the Michael Bay TMNT movies were a complete failure with audiences despite all the "necessary" changes they made to the source material to connect to your general audience.

This whole "I work in the film industry" argument is such a weak argument anyway. You're not Martin Scorsese, your ideas and knowledge aren't somehow granted superiority because you "work in the industry." Plenty of clueless douchebags work in Hollywood and not everyone understands adaptations anyway. James Cameron being a great example of someone with far more experience than anyone on this forum in the film industry yet was going to make a terrible Spider-Man movie.

Right now, this entire "insert property is too silly to be taken seriously because of so and so" is as weak and tired as it has always been and has been proven wrong time and time again. I honestly don't understand why people still refuse to give audiences credit like they can't buy into already successful ideas without someone catering it specifically to needs people didn't know they even had because this entire film is somehow dependent on Jill's clothing.

Well... you do you.

 

[Turo602]

Well... you do you.

Always have. Keep making your independent films.

 

[Jonipoon]

Fact of the matter is, the video game fans don't make the profit for the studio. If we only made a movie for the fans, the budget would be for direct to video. It's the unfortunate truth.

Just as Hardware works in the film industry, so do I. And, it's not as simple as a 1:1 translation from the video game to a movie. Arguing that it can be done is a moot point. Of course it can be done. They can make a movie that has 100% accurate costumes and scenery and monsters. But, it would just be too weird to be taken seriously.

I've worked in films before too and studied at film school for 2 years, but I generally don't use it as an argument to prove my point. In all honesty it'd be a pretty boring world if only professionals were allowed to criticize topics related to their profession (Although there are obvious exceptions like unqualified people claiming to know better than medical doctors).

I never said they should make a movie for the fans, all I said is that they should respect the source material which is a whole different story. And if you haven't noticed from earlier set photos, the people behind this movie are committed to making 100% accurate locations, so it's not like they can't do better when it comes to the characters - they simply chose not to. I mean look, they couldn't even give Claire a ponytail...

 

[Bran]

I've worked in films before too and studied at film school for 2 years, but I generally don't use it as an argument to prove my point. In all honesty it'd be a pretty boring world if only professionals were allowed to criticize topics related to their profession (Although there are obvious exceptions like unqualified people claiming to know better than medical doctors).

I never said they should make a movie for the fans, all I said is that they should respect the source material which is a whole different story. And if you haven't noticed from earlier set photos, the people behind this movie are committed to making 100% accurate locations, so it's not like they can't do better when it comes to the characters - they simply chose not to. I mean look, they couldn't even give Claire a ponytail...

I have to clarify here, because there seems to be some misunderstanding. At no point was I using my profession to silence, or suggest that no one is allowed to critique. I was using my background as a point of reference behind WHY I stated my position.

Sure, they managed to create some exteriors that are similar to the video game. But the director, costume designers, producers, et all have made the creative decision to tone down the video game costumes in order for it to feel more natural. I just don't see the point in worrying about the lack of a ponytail or Jill not having shoulder pads.

I'm more concerned with the TONE of the film, and whether the changes in the story all connect to make a coherent film. I'm not concerned with this being a great adaptation; I'm concerned with it being a great film. A great HORROR film.

I can get behind all the changes they are making, as long as the result works for the film. There is no way hardcore fans are watching this movie and being happy. It's 2 games crammed into a 125 page screenplay (about 125 minutes). Every character has been changed or had story elements added to create character arcs. A good bit of monsters are missing. Hell, whole characters are missing. Both stories have been slimmed down to their base elements so that they could be woven into the narrative that Roberts wanted to tell. The first act is just getting to everything we see in the games.

I'm willing to hold out judgement until I at least see a trailer. But, so far, everyone involved has said the right things to at least get me interested in what they're doing.

That's all. I'm not here to start arguments or silence anyone's opinions, I was just voicing my own opinion based on my own observations.

 

[Ikawaru]

 

[Ark2000]

Thanks for the picture MellowYellow. Personally my opinions about the film are still the same after seeing this one, but i do have one question. Is it just me, or does Jill wears something underneath that looks like blue top from RE 3?

 

[Bran]

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City has been rated R for strong violence, gore, and strong language.

https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3682095/resident-evil-welcome-raccoon-city-officially-rated-r-strong-violence-gore/

 

[Jonipoon]

I have to clarify here, because there seems to be some misunderstanding. At no point was I using my profession to silence, or suggest that no one is allowed to critique. I was using my background as a point of reference behind WHY I stated my position.

Sure, they managed to create some exteriors that are similar to the video game. But the director, costume designers, producers, et all have made the creative decision to tone down the video game costumes in order for it to feel more natural. I just don't see the point in worrying about the lack of a ponytail or Jill not having shoulder pads.

I'm more concerned with the TONE of the film, and whether the changes in the story all connect to make a coherent film. I'm not concerned with this being a great adaptation; I'm concerned with it being a great film. A great HORROR film.

I can get behind all the changes they are making, as long as the result works for the film. There is no way hardcore fans are watching this movie and being happy. It's 2 games crammed into a 125 page screenplay (about 125 minutes). Every character has been changed or had story elements added to create character arcs. A good bit of monsters are missing. Hell, whole characters are missing. Both stories have been slimmed down to their base elements so that they could be woven into the narrative that Roberts wanted to tell. The first act is just getting to everything we see in the games.

I'm willing to hold out judgement until I at least see a trailer. But, so far, everyone involved has said the right things to at least get me interested in what they're doing.

That's all. I'm not here to start arguments or silence anyone's opinions, I was just voicing my own opinion based on my own observations.

Now, Claire isn't a soldier or a police, but it's commonplace for female soldiers to put their hair back in a knot or ponytail if they have long hair, so this whole thing about ponytails being too video-gamey is pure BS. However, this small detail is the least of my problems when looking at everything that looks or feels worrysome about this film.

You cannot be serious when you say that you're not concerned with this being a great adaptation. If that's not important, then why even call it Resident Evil in the first place? It it's all about making a great film and nothing else, the writers and producers should've made their own original story and not just slap the name Resident Evil on it. Being a great film and a great adaptation goes hand in hand, and like I've mentioned before there are many examples of this. It's just a shame that people have gotten used to accepting "mediocrity" as a golden standard for video game adaptations.

I've actually been vocal in the past about my concern with them cramming the stories of 2 games into one, and this still remains my biggest issue with the film. This hasn't changed. It would take a REALLY good writer to be able to pull that off, and I'm confident that Johannes Roberts isn't capable of that. What they should've done is to focus on the first game and keep it simple and to the point.

 

[Bran]

Now, Claire isn't a soldier or a police, but it's commonplace for female soldiers to put their hair back in a knot or ponytail if they have long hair, so this whole thing about ponytails being too video-gamey is pure BS. However, this small detail is the least of my problems when looking at everything that looks or feels worrysome about this film.

You cannot be serious when you say that you're not concerned with this being a great adaptation. If that's not important, then why even call it Resident Evil in the first place? It it's all about making a great film and nothing else, the writers and producers should've made their own original story and not just slap the name Resident Evil on it. Being a great film and a great adaptation goes hand in hand, and like I've mentioned before there are many examples of this. It's just a shame that people have gotten used to accepting "mediocrity" as a golden standard for video game adaptations.

I've actually been vocal in the past about my concern with them cramming the stories of 2 games into one, and this still remains my biggest issue with the film. This hasn't changed. It would take a REALLY good writer to be able to pull that off, and I'm confident that Johannes Roberts isn't capable of that. What they should've done is to focus on the first game and keep it simple and to the point.

Great adaptation and great movie don't go hand-in-hand. My favorite game is the original Resident Evil, but to make a faithful adaptation is literally impossible. And, I'm not talking about adapting gameplay or puzzles or any other grasping of straw arguments. I'm speaking merely on a story structure and characterization level. The basic idea works, but you have to change aspects of the plot to make it work, or it becomes a forced story.

As for why they called it Resident Evil? That's simple. Because it makes money. Unless you got a bankable director, something like (insert ripoff title) is making less money than Resident Evil. It's instant name recognition. Half the marketing is done for you. It's every studio's wet dream.

And for changes? That's also easy. Every person working on a film comes on board with their own ideas and interpretations of what they want to do with the project. The director has a particular vision, the cinematographer has his own ideas for lighting and camera movement, the producer has ideas he wants to insert, the costume, set, and Creature designers all have their input. And the studio wants it to reach the widest audience possible. Sure, they do fan service (gotta try and make the fans happy) but studios want the general audience. THAT is where the money is.

I can't give details, but recently I submitted a screenplay for a franchise. Big fan of that particular franchise. Some things I wouldn't personally do if it was my project, but that's the thing... its not my project. So, I went with what they wanted, put in elements the fans might enjoy, even changed some things to improve the story. I just concentrated on writing a really good screenplay. A really good story. It's a business. Studios are there to make money with their product. If Constantin Film makes a faithful Resident Evil movie but it only makes its budget back, then it's a failure. But, if they make a movie that isn't faithful and it ends up hitting it big with people that never even played the games and it makes $700 million, then it's a success. Thats the end game.

 

[Turo602]

Money good. Quality bad. Sounds like Hollywood alright. Taking a beloved property and twisting it and forming it into their own little pretentious vision because they know audiences better than the audience themselves. Who cares if Resident Evil fans hated the Paul WS Anderson films, they made money from a bunch of people who don't play video games. That's the bar for adaptations and the money justifies it I guess. As long as it's a movie we can watch, it's good. It did its job, we can all go home happy knowing it exists as a real film now.

It's totally impossible to faithfully adapt Resident Evil with respect for the source material. The cast HAS to be garbage otherwise it'll never work. Stories NEED to be jumbled together otherwise it would never work. Characters HAVE to be altered in strange ways and completely omitted otherwise it just won't work. There's no other possible way to make a good Resident Evil film that's faithful to the source material and actually does it justice. No way in hell. It just can't be done and definitely won't be praised or make money at all without horrible changes that make it more appealing than the name Resident Evil itself.

Trust me. I know movies.

 

[Jonipoon]

Great adaptation and great movie don't go hand-in-hand. My favorite game is the original Resident Evil, but to make a faithful adaptation is literally impossible. And, I'm not talking about adapting gameplay or puzzles or any other grasping of straw arguments. I'm speaking merely on a story structure and characterization level. The basic idea works, but you have to change aspects of the plot to make it work, or it becomes a forced story.

It's not impossible. You just have to think outside the box and look at what the game is really about; RE1 is at its core detective/mystery fiction with a mix of sci-fi and horror, so that's what the screenplay should focus on. It's not a game about zombies, it's a game about a conspiracy surrounding bioengineering that happens to involve zombies. Puzzles and gameplay aspects are basically irrelevant in this regard. A good template to look at for inspiration would be the first Alien film with its slow build-up in tension, slowly revealing snippets of new information before dropping big bombs such as the android reveal towards the end. A similar reveal in RE1 could be Wesker's betrayal, the truth about the virus, or both.

 

[Turo602]

It's not impossible. You just have to think outside the box and look at what the game is really about; RE1 is at its core detective/mystery fiction with a mix of sci-fi and horror, so that's what the screenplay should focus on. It's not a game about zombies, it's a game about a conspiracy surrounding bioengineering that happens to involve zombies. Puzzles and gameplay aspects are basically irrelevant in this regard. A good template to look at for inspiration would be the first Alien film with its slow build-up in tension, slowly revealing snippets of new information before dropping big bombs such as the android reveal towards the end. A similar reveal in RE1 could be Wesker's betrayal, the truth about the virus, or both.

Exactly. There's so much potential for a Resident Evil film and the thing practically writes itself. From the opening moments of Bravo Team's slaughter through the rookie eyes of Rebecca Chambers, to the introduction of STARS at the police station and the shady dealings of Wesker and Chief Irons, the blackmail of Barry Burton, and the whole Umbrella conspiracy.

There's so much lore and lots of characters they could use, some that could also have bigger roles in a potential sequel like Chief Irons and William Birkin, while not present in the first game, could easily be implemented into scenes of a film based purely on all the lore the series has already established to make for a richer and more consistent story than what's present in the games.

Lisa Trevor herself could also be the central character of the mansion with all her history that we only ever got to read about in the games that a film could actually depict on screen. Something this movie looks to be doing, but again, this could all be done without breaking anything and staying faithful to the material.

No one is asking for a 1 to 1 depiction of the game's sh*tty dialogue and writing. But the story itself works on paper and already resonates with so many people. There's absolutely no reason to cram another game in there and not do either justice by the lack of screen time and development each one will get.

The Resident Evil 2 remake was already a worthy adaptation of the original game with better writing and acting and is so popular and recent that people will no doubt be left feeling like this movie dropped the ball if it doesn't live up to the expectations set by the game.

 

[Bran]

Well, the good news is... if this reboot fails, you'll get another in 5 years.

 

[SpaceOwlHoot]

I can't give details, but recently I submitted a screenplay for a franchise. Big fan of that particular franchise. Some things I wouldn't personally do if it was my project, but that's the thing... its not my project. So, I went with what they wanted, put in elements the fans might enjoy, even changed some things to improve the story. I just concentrated on writing a really good screenplay. A really good story. It's a business. Studios are there to make money with their product. If Constantin Film makes a faithful Resident Evil movie but it only makes its budget back, then it's a failure. But, if they make a movie that isn't faithful and it ends up hitting it big with people that never even played the games and it makes $700 million, then it's a success. Thats the end game.

When can you share that with us?

 

[Bran]

When can you share that with us?

When a decision has been made by those higher than me. Pandemic has made some studios take longer making decisions, since a lot of stuff is done remotely. Now it can take months, instead of weeks. It's a big opportunity. Even if I fail, its still experience earned. And it can open doors to other opportunities down the road. My agent has been very supportive and keeping me informed. Once I hear an answer, I can let you know.

I have other projects in various stages that I am working on meanwhile.

 

[Ark2000]

So, from what i understand, there's supposed to be some "love triangle" between Chris, Jill and Wesker in this film? I hope this is not true, because honestly, adding something like this into RE adaptation, in my opinion, is stupid. I know, there are many fans who for years wanted Jill and Chris to hook up in games, and while that's something i can take it or leave it, creating the whole "Chris and Wesker fighting for Jill's heart" bull**** or anything like that is last thing that's needed. But if this whole side-plot is in the film, well, i hope at least Roberts did a better job with it than what George Romero tried to do in his '98 script by making Jill and Chris a couple, because it sure as hell didn't exactly worked there.

 

[Ikawaru]

So, from what i understand, there's supposed to be some "love triangle" between Chris, Jill and Wesker in this film? I hope this is not true, because honestly, adding something like this into RE adaptation, in my opinion, is stupid. I know, there are many fans who for years wanted Jill and Chris to hook up in games, and while that's something i can take it or leave it, creating the whole "Chris and Wesker fighting for Jill's heart" bull**** or anything like that is last thing that's needed. But if this whole side-plot is in the film, well, i hope at least Roberts did a better job with it than what George Romero tried to do in his '98 script by making Jill and Chris a couple, because it sure as hell didn't exactly worked there.

The Romero script would probably have been quite good if not for the fact that he changed Chris completely. Seems like a simple fix though and it's too bad the people involved in that project couldn't just have him make the proper adjustments and keep him on board.

Oh well, no since longing for roads not taken. I did not like Andersons films at all and this one being a notch or two better isn't really saying much. Would have been more badass if they did a trilogy or something like LOTR, where each film was like 3 hours long at least. I think such an grand project would have been well received and would make bank maybe not LOTR bank but still highly successful in its own right.

 

[Ark2000]

The Romero script would probably have been quite good if not for the fact that he changed Chris completely. Seems like a simple fix though and it's too bad the people involved in that project couldn't just have him make the proper adjustments and keep him on board.

It has its problems, but i always did liked Romero's script. And i always felt that what it needed the most was just a major dialogue polish, because the one in the script was pretty bad in places. Few character changes like making Chris actual STARS member but maybe still keeping the past connection he has with the mansion, and different ending/final scene where Raccoon City is not destroyed (i always wondered what would Romero's take of second and third game be like), and it would have been good adaptation.

 

[Bran]

From what I uncovered, Wesker and Jill are a thing, and Chris has affections for Jill.

Chris not being a S.T.A.R.S. member was George's idea, as it worked for the themes and social commentary he wanted to do. Chris being Native American was something he was told to write. Barry being African American was a holdover from the McElroy draft before Romero, same with Barry and Wesker serving together, as well as S.T.A.R.S. being a special forces group.

Romero's dialogue was amazing in comparison to McElroy's draft. The worst part is the romance elements. I felt, once they get into the mansion, the dialogue improves (minus Rosie, Sullivan, and Aiken's).