Resident Evil: Welcome to Racoon City

[Ikawaru]

As a side note, I do like how they decided to show Raccoon City as a dying town. And, yeah, it does try to get a John Carpenter-ish vibe: even the font for the title cards is straight out of "Escape from New York". The RPD part kind of feels like an attempt at doing "Assault on Precinct 13" with zombies - except it doesn't quite work. It's a very mixed bag at the very least. I don't hate it but I don't love it either.

I thought that was the dumbest thing of the movie. It's like saying Springfield, Missouri is going to rot and die immediately if their biggest economy booster leaves. Not only is that historically unrealistic (It took many decades for Detroit to get to its current state) but it came off as waaay too dystopian (but not in a good way!) and absolutely killed the atmosphere of the movie. Most disaster movies from the 90's at least had a colorful cast of characters and a vibrant backdrop to keep it rich but this just came off as dead and empty and lifeless.

 

[Bran]

I thought that was the dumbest thing of the movie. It's like saying Springfield, Missouri is going to rot and die immediately if their biggest economy booster leaves. Not only is that historically unrealistic (It took many decades for Detroit to get to its current state) but it came off as waaay too dystopian (but not in a good way!) and absolutely killed the atmosphere of the movie. Most disaster movies from the 90's at least had a colorful cast of characters and a vibrant backdrop to keep it rich but this just came off as dead and empty and lifeless.

I think the idea was that the majority of the population were Umbrella employees. So, when everything Umbrella leaves, and 60% of the population goes with it, everyone realized... that was it. It's also not stated how long it's been since they officially left. And it's supposed to be a smaller city, not the metropolis like the game it seems. Where I'm from, that actually happened a lot. The coal towns in my area, a lot of them just died. Raccoon kind of reminded me of a few I've been to where they are basically on life support. So, wasn't THAT unrealistic or stupid.

 

[Ikawaru]

Doesn't change the fact it was a dumb decision for the movie but then again there's that thing called 'budget' that I'm sure played into that decision pretty strongly.

 

[Hardware]

Doesn't change the fact it was a dumb decision for the movie but then again there's that thing called 'budget' that I'm sure played into that decision pretty strongly.

Dude, there's plenty of towns around the world that went down the drain the minute the big company that kept most people employed closed down.

Personally, I don't think setting the movie in a rural town was a budget decision either: I think they went back to how RE1 writer Kenichi Iwao imagined Raccoon City (see the link below).

You don't need a big budget to set your movie in a large city: you just need access to areas that look like they might belong to one and then send a 3rd Unit to shoot coverage of an actual metropolis to intercut with what the Main Unit has filmed. It is especially easy with a fictional place like Raccoon City because it can be anywhere and you're free to avoid specific hallmarks.

https://www.crimson-head.com/interviews/kenichi-iwao

 

[Ikawaru]

You are wrong as usual and the movie was a bland dystopian mess. Go watch some Eurojank film or something, or film one.

 

[Hardware]

You are wrong as usual and the movie was a bland dystopian mess. Go watch some Eurojank film or something, or film one.

...was that supposed to offend me? Try harder.

 

[Mr.R]

For the ones who watched the movie, is Irons a psychopath or a villain on it? Of course, use the spoilers cover to it, so it doesn't give that for the ones who still haven't. (I didn't, but I don't mind knowing that stuff and I've been curious about his role)

 

[Hardware]

For the ones who watched the movie, is Irons a psychopath or a villain on it? Of course, use the spoilers cover to it, so it doesn't give that for the ones who still haven't. (I didn't, but I don't mind knowing that stuff and I've been curious about his role)

It's one of the story's loose ends - he's not a psycho but he knows at least some secrets...even though it's never explained why. He abandons the precinct, essentially leaving it in Leon's hands, only to hastily return when Umbrella's soldiers shoot at his car as he tries to get out of town. Personality-wise, he's a jerk but he doesn't seem to be one of the bad guys...it's actually hard to tell who the individual bad guys are, save for Birkin. Wesker is more like a tragic character than the straight-up villain he was in RE1.

 

[Hardware]

As a side note, the Resident Evil Wiki is reporting the movie budget to be 25 million dollars. That's a more likely amount for the movie we saw. We all know other people did much better with less, but moviemaking isn't an exact science...especially when you have a union crew.

 

[Bran]

As a side note, the Resident Evil Wiki is reporting the movie budget to be 25 million dollars. That's a more likely amount for the movie we saw. We all know other people did much better with less, but moviemaking isn't an exact science...especially when you have a union crew.

I find it hilarious that it would only be $25M. Not disagreeing with you, I just find it hilarious because the 2002 movie was smaller scale and had a reported budget of $33M, which adjusted for inflation is $48.2M today.

 

[Hardware]

I find it hilarious that it would only be $25M. Not disagreeing with you, I just find it hilarious because the 2002 movie was smaller scale and had a reported budget of $33M, which adjusted for inflation is $48.2M today.

Well, to me it looked like something in that range. Hell, the RPD prison block looked like my grandma's basement dressed up with two fake cells by the art department. The 2002 movie was small-scale for Hollywood standards I guess...but you cannot really compare what moviemaking was 20 years ago (jeez, it's been 20 years already?) with what it is now. It's a very different world. Economics aside, the whole thing got turned upside-down with digital cameras and cheaper CG (and filmmakers becoming more reckless with it - 20 years ago they were wary to use it, nowadays it's "CG for everyone!"). The 2002 movie looks way more expensive than WTRC (it didn't look that cheap back in the day, to be honest: it was cleverly put together)...and it was.

I reckon they didn't pump more money into it because it's a straight-up horror movie. Why they did allow such an ambitious script with not enough money to do it, it's beyond me. I reckon it all happened very fast (for movie production standards, that is).

 

[Hardware]

I heard movie theaters in the US have already stopped showing WTRC: is that true?

 

[Bran]

I heard movie theaters in the US have already stopped showing WTRC: is that true?

The one in my area still has it showing into next week. Then again, probably won't play after next week with all the other films releasing this month.

 

[Hardware]

The one in my area still has it showing into next week. Then again, probably won't play after next week with all the other films releasing this month.

Yeah, even in my neck of the woods it seems that next week is going to be its last run...some multiplexes might keep showing a little longer but the amount of screenings per day is already dropping. As I thought, making it a theatrical-only release didn't do it any good.

Pretty shockingly, the prospective price for the upcoming Blu-Ray is effin' high - 35 dollars for an HD Blu-Ray that is not even a multi-disc set (or so it seems) is too expensive.

https://www.amazon.com/Resident-Evi.../ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

[Bran]

Yeah, even in my neck of the woods it seems that next week is going to be its last run...some multiplexes might keep showing a little longer but the amount of screenings per day is already dropping. As I thought, making it a theatrical-only release didn't do it any good.

Pretty shockingly, the prospective price for the upcoming Blu-Ray is effin' high - 35 dollars for an HD Blu-Ray that is not even a multi-disc set (or so it seems) is too expensive.

https://www.amazon.com/Resident-Evi.../ref=tmm_blu_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

I'm choosing to believe those prices aren't real, especially as the DVD is listed at $30. I'm going to assume those are placeholder prices until all the features, etc are determined.

 

[Hardware]

I'm choosing to believe those prices aren't real, especially as the DVD is listed at $30. I'm going to assume those are placeholder prices until all the features, etc are determined.

Yeah, that'd make sense. I am going to get the BR for the sake of collecting (even though I have all the other RE movies on DVD)

 

[Hardware]

Well, the game is now available for rent (at a full DVD\BR price) on Amazon Prime Video - if you're in the US at least. For some reason, on this side of the pond, despite the fact the movie was released in most of Europe one day after the US, it's nowhere to be found. This is all pretty weird.

 

[Bran]

Yeah, that'd make sense. I am going to get the BR for the sake of collecting (even though I have all the other RE movies on DVD)

Are other countries still playing it? I think it more or less dried up in the US, so they moved onto digital to squeeze some more money out.

 

[Hardware]

Are other countries still playing it? I think it more or less dried up in the US, so they moved onto digital to squeeze some more money out.

I think it's still playing in places like the UK where its release was delayed. The weird thing is how fast they dropped it on streaming and how much they are charging for just renting it (19.90$). I reckon it didn't do as well as they were hoping.

 

[Maverick1]

Doesn't change the fact it was a dumb decision for the movie but then again there's that thing called 'budget' that I'm sure played into that decision pretty strongly.

The fact is it was a great decision and it makes perfect sense, it wasn't budget related decision. The execution just wasn't there.

Well, to me it looked like something in that range. Hell, the RPD prison block looked like my grandma's basement dressed up with two fake cells by the art department. The 2002 movie was small-scale for Hollywood standards I guess...but you cannot really compare what moviemaking was 20 years ago (jeez, it's been 20 years already?) with what it is now. It's a very different world. Economics aside, the whole thing got turned upside-down with digital cameras and cheaper CG (and filmmakers becoming more reckless with it - 20 years ago they were wary to use it, nowadays it's "CG for everyone!"). The 2002 movie looks way more expensive than WTRC (it didn't look that cheap back in the day, to be honest: it was cleverly put together)...and it was.

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.

As a side note, the Resident Evil Wiki is reporting the movie budget to be 25 million dollars. That's a more likely amount for the movie we saw. We all know other people did much better with less, but moviemaking isn't an exact science...especially when you have a union crew.

Much better movie of course, but it's not the same thing as scale relative to budget. They had to do 40-50 mln movie with 25 mln budget, nobody would do a great job in those circumstances.