Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible 89

Posted by Zonk from the we-can-hope dept.
Like many upcoming nerdly pieces of media, the Doom movie had a showing at this year's Comic-Con. Gamecloud reports on the related panel and footage shown, and posits that against all odds the Doom movie might not suck. From the article: "Everyone on the panel said that every effort was being made to make the movie faithful to the game and that it will be a R rated film. While there will be some CGI, the Doom monsters like the Baron, the Imp and the Pinky Demon will mostly be real monsters created by the Stan Winston Studios (who created the creatures in all the Terminator movies, Aliens, Predator and many more)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible More

Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible

Comments Filter:
  • does that mean they undid all the changes to the script they had planned? Stuff about a research lab on Earth, aliens instead of demons, etc?

  • Backhanded compliment (Score:5, Funny)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:18PM (#13095326)

    It's pretty sad when the phrase 'might not suck' is actually a positive review.
    • The key word here is 'might' which loosely trasnlated means 'probably will'.
    • After being unimpressed with the LOTR trilogy I have not been to a mainstream movie theater since. I do subscribe to Sundance and do Indies around the area. My childhood memory of the LOTR is better than anyone's adaption. I used to be terrified of my Gollum and I'm unsure that children whom I've seen watch the movie without reading the book actually understand the depraved nature of an immortal simpleton.
    • They've been working on this movie forever.

      Gamers/nerds have been given steaming piles of crap in place of good movies, over and over again. We've also been given equally crappy GAMES based on movies.

      And don't even get me started on comic book movies.

      "Hey, it might not suck" isn't a "good review." It's a fervent prayer that Hollywood hasn't screwed up yet ANOTHER property that we know and love just to make a quick buck.

  • Computers not good enough for them now? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Webmonger ( 24302 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:22PM (#13095367) Homepage
    If there's one franchise that deserves all-CGI monsters, it's Doom. I mean, the first two outings featured sprite graphics-- how high can the standard be?

    I say we start a petition now for the monsters to be all CGI. Maybe we can get Carmack to whip up an engine for them.
  • So glad to hear they aren't CGing the monsters. Makes me think of the licker in the Resident Evil movie. That one monster ruined the entire look, feel and mood of the entire film.
  • Is the definition of "close as possible" translate to an alien virus instead of a portal to hell? It's not Doom, it's the Doom monster studio wrapped around some other story that some Hollywood script writer thought would be appealing to the mass market.
    • It's basically the Quake movie...not the Doom movie. Doom=Demons, Quake=Aliens....pretty simple. Although it sounds like they've gone back to Mars, which is good...

    • Re:close as possible? (Score:4, Funny)

      by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:51PM (#13095752)
      Personally, I thought 'portal to hell' would have more mass appeal than alien virus, but I think perhaps the Hollywood execs didn't think 'portal to hell' would bring that much hype because they already lived there, owned the rights for it, and felt it was rather boring.
  • I hope they stick to the storyline at least as far as having the monsters being minions of Hell, and not just some random bad guys that happen to live on Mars.
    • Yeah, the whole "demons from hell" thing is central to the idea of DOOM, if they dont have it, it will just be a lame Ghosts Of Mars clone.

  • Real Monsters!!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:27PM (#13095424)
    While there will be some CGI, the Doom monsters like the Baron, the Imp and the Pinky Demon will mostly be real monsters created by the Stan Winston Studios

    I had no idea that Stan Winston had gotten into genetic engineering and Frankensteinian experimentation.

  • It seems to me that the guys making this into a movie missed their mark by about ten years or so. I remember back in 94' there was talk about making this movie, which at the time made a lot more sense. Doom was all over the front of every video game mag, and a lot more hype surrounded the name. Most young kids today couldn't care less about doom because a lot of them weren't around when the game was actually cool. Doom 3 didn't exactly get anybodys attention, even with the nice graphics.
    • Most young kids today couldn't care less about doom because a lot of them weren't around when the game was actually cool

      Of course this movie isn't targeted to young kids. It's rated R. That means the majority of people who should watch it are old enough to remember the hype from the original, and maybe the nostalgia would be a big draw.

    • Most young kids today couldn't care less about doom because a lot of them weren't around when the game was actually cool.

      Based on that rational, every movie released would be Finding Nemo. Plenty of movies about adult things based on events that happened in the past sell plenty well. The movie Nixon, for example. It would of been alot more applicable almost any time between watergate and when it was released, but it still sold relatively well (read: wasn't a total flop.
      • I was merely trying to point out that the name Doom doesn't carry the weight it once did, and that rational would seem to be relevant for a movie, that with an R rating or not, will find most of its draw with teenage kids. And I'm sorry, but are you trying to relate the popularity of Doom when it came out the Watergate scandle and Nixon in terms of popular recognition? I get your point but the analogy is a bit much.

  • Use CGI (Score:5, Insightful)

    by centauri ( 217890 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @01:32PM (#13095505) Homepage
    Granted, I haven't actually seen Fantastic Four yet, but The Thing appears to be one glaring example of when it's better to suck it up and use CGI instead of a costume. Yes, I know, CGI has just been getting more and more out of control, but the answer to this is not to go back to the "good old days" of Terminator, or even Aliens and Predator. The gaps in the effects in those movies are horribly glaring at times, when a mouth is clearly pulled open by wires, or when a tail sways bonelessly, or when a face is clearly a model.

    Let's allow old "physical" effects pass on, and focus more effort on making the CGI better and using it with moderation.

    • Re:Use CGI (Score:4, Informative)

      by daeley ( 126313 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @02:02PM (#13095865) Homepage
      One modern example (The Thing) does not a conclusion make. I would point out the difference between the old-school Yoda muppet and the new shiny Yoda. The old one has the unmistakeable look of reality [formfunctionemotion.net] and life [www.sith.nl]. The new CGI Yoda [starwars.com], not so much [starwars.com].

      You do have a point when it comes to Terminator, where the transitions (particularly in the first one) are horribly jarring. But Aliens is a much different experience.

      It's funny about Predator -- I happened across the end of Predator 2 over the weekend. There was a scene where a bunch of Predators materialize in a foggy room. I swear, even for 1990 the transition was awful. A hard thing to animate, but something that would be undoubtedly handled by a fully CGI scene these days.
      • I'm not wrong about The Thing though, am I? I'm not asking him to look like the new Thing or the old Thing, just not like a guy in a suit. If I see one more three-fingered character who obviously has two fingers in the middle finger of the glove, it really will be clobberin' time. At least The Thing is _supposed_ to have thick fingers.

        I love Aliens, don't get me wrong, but most of what made the fight scenes acceptable was clever camera work and the _implication_ of scariness. I'm all for using your audienc

        • Re:Use CGI (Score:3, Interesting)

          by daeley ( 126313 )
          I'm not wrong about The Thing though, am I? I'm not asking him to look like the new Thing or the old Thing, just not like a guy in a suit. If I see one more three-fingered character who obviously has two fingers in the middle finger of the glove, it really will be clobberin' time. At least The Thing is _supposed_ to have thick fingers.

          Like you I haven't seen F4, and probably will skip it in the theaters (tangent: the more a movie is promoted, the less I want to see it, I guess; the commercial that somehow

        • Re:Use CGI (Score:2, Informative)

          by Brainboy ( 310252 )
          but it's a little sad when I know the film-makers HAVE to do that

          It's what Spielberg had to do with Jaws. The shark sucked, so he had to only hint, and imply and such. Turns out it made the movie better. It's lesson Spielberg still keeps to heart.

          • Re:Use CGI (Score:3, Interesting)

            by centauri ( 217890 )
            Well, it's hard to say "better" since you can't compare it to a version of the same movie in which Spielberg _didn't_ do that, but I agree that the hidden antagonist is a big part of the appeal of that movie. Same with ALIEN. However, it's almost always necessary to show the bad-guy at some point. I merely contend that good CGI will (or will someday soon) get you closer to believeability than the best physical effect.

        • Re:Use CGI (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dr. Manhattan ( 29720 )
          I'm not wrong about The Thing though, am I? I'm not asking him to look like the new Thing or the old Thing, just not like a guy in a suit. If I see one more three-fingered character who obviously has two fingers in the middle finger of the glove, it really will be clobberin' time. At least The Thing is _supposed_ to have thick fingers.

          The movie is apparently mostly dreck, but if you check out the reviews [rottentomatoes.com], many of them say that Michael Chiklis does a good job of acting and making the character work, and I'

      • Not to turn this into a movie debate, but I saw Fantastic 4 and The Thing was actually the best character in the movie. And he also looked more realistic (once you add rock sound effects) than any other of the 4 other than Invisible Girl, who obviously didn't have to look real.

        For the next 10 or so years CGI elements will look bad when used improperly alongside live action. To make the CGI/live action composite scenes look believable, the movie makers need 2 things attention to detail (where needed) and ar
        • Oh and Fantastic 4 is riddled with flaws, but the Thing costume was not a major one in comparison to the rest of the movie. A juvenile plot, simplistic characters, and not-so-intense action segments for an action movie did this movie in. Oh and Mr. Fantastic and the Human Torch CGI were sometimes reflecting mid-1990's quality.

      • Re:Use CGI (Score:2, Insightful)

        by MamiyaOtaru ( 517187 )
        None of the CGI Jabbas look as good as ROTJ Jabba. Unfortunately that really only extends to stills, the puppet's movements just aren't as good as those of the CGI, but at least it looks like a real object that actually exists on the physical plane. It's easier for me to swallow the idea that a giant slug can't move very fast or far than it is to accept the fake look of CGI Jabba. Same could be said of Yoda: the limited movement could be explained by his age. Of course that does present a problem for th

    • Re:Use CGI (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Winterblink ( 575267 )
      It's funny you mention The Thing. If you haven't seen the early 80's movie "The Thing" by John Carpenter, I highly recommend it for reasons which are fairly pertinent to this thread.

      I think if they were to do a remake of this movie today it would be a CGI-heavy movie which wouldn't carry even a fraction of the original movie's ability to scare the crap out of the viewers. Even to this day, the movie genuinely makes me uneasy while I watch it. The reason? Rob Bottin's incredibly detailed creatures. T
      • Carpenter's The Thing is indeed quite scary, but a lot of it is due to the surprise of things popping out of nowhere as well as the implication of things you can't see. The dog transformation scene to which you refer is well done, but it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to imagine that it's a real dog undergoing the change.

        I think I prefer that only CGI or only physical effects be used (at least for specific characters), because the change from one to the other is usually jarring. I noticed it in Hel
        • Regarding the dog scene and suspension of disbelief, a lot of the suspension is mitigated by the overall atmosphere of the movie. That's something a lot of modern films fail to do. The effects are there to serve themselves, not the story. One of the things I enjoyed about the new War of the Worlds movie was how the effects were truly there just to help tell the story, something Spielberg is very capable at.

          I agree with you though, that one or the other should be used. Transitions are far too jarring.
      • If you enjoyed John Carpenter's version you should keep an eye out for the original [imdb.com] which is also excellent :)
  • And in other news
    - Bill Gates might not be rich
    - Windows might be better that Linux
    - The war in Iraq might be successful (or not)
    • -People on slashdot might resist getting a free jab directed at Microsoft in

    • - The war in Iraq might be successful (or not)

      What is this one? With the first two, I assume you're suggesting that it is self-evident that Bill Gates is rich, and that Linux is better than Windows, but what's this last one? You state two opposite possibilities, and seem to be implying that both are clearly false.

      Is it your feeling that some sort of Zen truth is painfully obvious to everyone on this subject?

      "The war in Iraq shall not be successful, or unsuccessful. It is both, and neither."

  • "John Carmack is the best game programmer in the world, but I would not want him directing my movie because that's just not his skillset," he joked.

    I'd have liked to see Sandy Petersen [wikipedia.org] involved in this project. He was chief level designer for Doom, and his prior experience with Call of Cthulhu [wikipedia.org] is what made it so successful. He's also seen every schlock-horror film ever made.

  • How will the movie be THAT much different from seeing someone play the actual game on X play or other G4 shows? Other than the lack of Sassler/Webb doing their "MST3K" sarcastic remarks through it? And it will be much, much LONGER?
  • I think it'd be cool to have the Rock and Eomer turn a corner and suddenly be confronted by Gestapo. [gamers.org]

    Maybe they could access the area by typing the password "idclev31" into a computer on the base.
    • Unfortunatly, just like the game way back when, if they did that, they would have to censor the Wolfenstien 3D like bits in germany (some crap about "you cant kill germans even if they are nazis)
      • , they would have to censor the Wolfenstien 3D like bits in germany (some crap about "you cant kill germans even if they are nazis)
        Actually, Wolf3D was censored because nazi symbols are generally not allowed. For that reason, in the German Doom2 the secret levels were not available, and in RTCW textures and some of the texts in the cut-scenes were changed to avoid all references to nazis. In art, and hence in movies nazi symbols are often allowed if they are not used to glorify the nazis and if they are n
    • Didn't you get the memo - they tried to find genuine jackbooted Gestapo thugs but couldn't so they had to settle for something close:

      The Rock and Eomer turn a corner and are suddenly confronted by jackbooted RIAA thugs.

  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @02:05PM (#13095891) Homepage
    From the write-up:
    ...the Doom monsters like the Baron, the Imp and the Pinky Demon will mostly be real monsters...
    Oh no! Didn't these people learn anything from the first Doom?!?! If they create real monsters, it will be Hell on Earth! I know Hollywood is going for realism, but it's just not worth it. Oh the humanity! I just hope the portal's aren't real too...
    • Didn't these people learn anything from the first Doom?!?! If they create real monsters, it will be Hell on Earth!

      To be a picky asshole, it'll be hell on Mars, then hell on Earth.

  • Faithful? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Linus Torvaalds ( 876626 )

    Everyone on the panel said that every effort was being made to make the movie faithful to the game

    Except for the central plot devices, Mars and Hell, right? Compare and contrast:

    Now: Everyone on the panel said that every effort was being made to make the movie faithful to the game

    Not long ago [slashdot.org]: HomeLAN has a reprint of a letter written by Doom movie script writer Dave Callaham. In it he (wittily) attempts to explain why the Doom movie is going to be so unlike the game

    Somebody's lying, and I thi

    • Re:Faithful? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ShawnDoc ( 572959 )
      I was at the panel. They didn't mention anything about hell, but the movie is very clearly set on Mars despite what HomeLAN says. Also they showed people fighting zombines and demons. So I'd say either the movie got a serious rewrite after that, or HomeLAN was making stuff up.
      • I doubt HomeLAN was making stuff up when it comes to a letter with someone else's name on it; so I would expect they've "moved" the movie to Mars since the letter was written.

  • No Penny Arcade Reference? (Score:4, Funny)

    by MiceHead ( 723398 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @02:34PM (#13096225) Homepage
    32 comments, and not one reference to the Doom and Metroid movies [penny-arcade.com] at PA?
  • ...which we're all going to do, of course, whether it sucks or not. (Which is why most video game movies still suck.)
  • Nobody has the preview footage?
  • There were some spin-off novels published a year or two after the game came out. I strongly suspected they would suck, but curiousity about how much they would suck, induced me to buy one.

    I couldn't believe how much the author had bent over backwards to make the novel faithful to the game. And that made it suck far more than you could possibly imagine.

  • While there will be some CGI, the Doom monsters like the Baron, the Imp and the Pinky Demon will mostly be real monsters
    Hopefully none of those real monsters will be harmed in the making of this movie or they'll have PETA breathing down their neck. That might be more dangerous than the monsters.
  • Both The Rock and Karl Urban were fans of the original Doom game before signing on to play the roles of space marines Sarge and John, respectively.

    I take it that's the Sarge from Quake 3. Neat. I'm interested to see what the character's like in this movie.

  • Not what I heard... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rlbond86 ( 874974 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @10:37PM (#13100388)
    On the Daily Show, the Rock said that in the movie, BFG stood for Bio Force Gun. It's gonna suck.

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close