Doom Movie?

Shagz

Shagz

New Member
Anybody checking Doom this weekend? I'm not going to be able to get to it on opening night unfortunately, but I'm definitely going eventually. I'm really interested in seeing how this "first person camera" works on screen. :D
 
Last edited:
I'll bet it makes a lot of money but it will probably not be that good. I mean, I feel like I've already seen it. It's sad that Doom will make tons of money because of it's reputation and really good movies like Serenity don't do that well.

I'm just frustrated because I wanted Serenity to do better than it has. If you haven't seen it (I have twice), please do. It's an awesome ride and one of the best Sci-Fi movies to come out in a looooooonnnnnnggggg time.

As for Doom, if I have an opportunity arise to go see it, I will. But I'm not planning on it right now. I'm interested in how good (or bad) it is. The trailer reminds me of Resident Evil 2 for some reason, which isn't a good thing.
 
I'll see it when it comes out on DVD. They ruined the story and refuse to give them my money!

BOYCOT!​
 
The Rock can't act. He didn't act in Walking Tall, and he didn't in that other action movie he was in-- you know, the one so forgettable nobody remembers the name.

Besides, I know what happens. There's Mars, and there's all manner of demon-shooting, and the guy is the only survivor. Doom never was about the storyline.
 
@Phantom..."story"? The Doom video game series is hardly War and Peace. If it wasn't for the "hell" angle it would just be a rip of James Cameron's Aliens. The movie is a rip because the video game's story is a rip. It's pretty hard to pretend otherwise and try and eck out some kind of dramatic tension. Action movies are about action, if you get a good story, that's just a bonus, and the Doom series and it's movie are, IMO, about the same thing.

As for changing the story, I assume you're referring to the "hell" elements. while the "hell" aspects of the video game are not something that video gamers necessarily concern themselves about - although we should note that many ToJers didn't pick the game up for that very reason - for movie goers, it's a different thing. If they made this movie with the same "hell" elements as the video game, the movie would quickly be lumped the horror genre and makes it less appealing to the masses as a whole. The movie makers don't want their movie to be picketed by protestors. Aliens are more palatable than fire slinging hell spawn.

I'll leave Serenity comparisons and comments alone, there's obviously some fans here. :) But to suggest that Doom has more mass appeal than Firefly is pushing it. The Rock, however, is a different story. It's a sci-fi-action film with The Rock in it, that's why people (the masses, non-gamers) are going to see the movie, not because it's Doom.

Ditto Tomb Raider. If that film didn't have Angelina Jolie in it and just some no-name or B-movie actress, would it have made any money? And it's not like they marketed Tomb Raider or Doom by accentuating the source material as a selling point. I'd be suprised if the majority of people out there who have heard of the film know that it's actually based on a video game.

If Doom makes any money it will be because of The Rock (regardless of his acting ability), Karl Urban and because it has great action/special effects, etc., not because it was based on a popular video game.
 
Last edited:
The Rock is one of my favorite actors. And no, it's not because he's a good actor. It's because I really like the guy. I think the movie you couldn't remember the name of was The Rundown. Entertaining flick. Did you see him in Be Cool? It was a stupid movie but it did have several laugh out loud moments. The Rock played a gay bodyguard (who wants to be an actor) for Vince Vaughn's character who was a music producer (who acts like a black pimp). They were both hilarious and actually made the movie not a total waste of time.

The Rock is not required to be a good actor because he is an action hero much like Arnold Schwarzeneggar used to be. As a matter of fact near the beginning of the movie, The Rundown, you see Arnold kind of pass his torch on to The Rock in that scene in the club. I haven't seen him in a role that he hasn't made me like yet.
 
Not only is irregardless not a word, it's a double negative. You want "regardless."

It's OK though, my university president used it in a speech once. :rolleyes:
 
Interesting game analysis article that makes an interesting point:

Banal narratives and one-dimensional characters sounds like a critique, but only if you are starting with the criteria we use for novels or films. But if you think about games as closer to architecture or environmental art, then it doesn't seem like such a failing. ... They are - first and foremost - environments and systems, not stories. The art of making a great game lies in making spaces that are interesting to explore, and systems that are interesting to tinker with - like those teeming villagers in Black & White, with their multiple, interconnected needs.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we may never really get a really good game movie because games aren't about stories but about exploring enviroments and systems?
 
It's true that most games aren't about stories, but that doesn't mean that has to be the case. It's just that most developers put more emphasis on fun gameplay, than they do on realizing their artistic vision (if they have one) or on storyline. The Metal Gear series is about as close as I think any game has come to having story-first design, but even then the gameplay took precedence.

It's going to take a serious shift in consumer expectations before games will be written story-first. Most people, when they drop fifty bucks on a game, expect much more replay value than they would get out of a movie. If you want something more on the level of a playable movie, which is to say, story-first, gameplay-second design, most people won't be interested in replaying it.

In other words, if I were to make games (and I don't plan on it), I would focus on the story first. I would make them only about 3 hours in length from start to finish, and focus primarily on storyline, glitch-free gameplay (even the smallest glitch completely destroys any sense of immersion), and making sure that the graphics were as realistic as possible.

But most people aren't interested in playing a game for three hours and then being done with it.

I think the reason games aren't translating well into movies, besides the fact that games usually lack interesting stories, is that games and movies are not entirely overlapping art forms, just the way that books and movies aren't the same either. You can make a book into a movie, but if it's a good book, then the book is always better. And you can make a movie into a book, and if it's a good movie, the movie is almost* always better.

Also, I saw the Doom movie. The twist involving Sarge was mildly interesting but generally it came off as an "everybody dies" horror movie with some interesting action sequences. The first person camera was so cheesy I laughed out loud.

And was it just me, or did all the swearing in that movie seem terribly unnatural? I don't mind profanity if it would be true to the character, but all the f-bombs and whatnot seemed to be put in at points in the dialogue where real military men probably wouldn't waste words for emphasis. And the delivery of the lines was a bit unnatural also, especially the guy who was supposed to be portraying the snarky, unctious stereotype.


_________________________
*I say almost here, because the one exception that comes to mind is Arthur C. Clarke's MINDBLOWING translation of Stanley Kubrick's classic 2001: A Space Odyssey. But the difference there is, that Kubrick and Clarke collaborated to make the film, and then collaborated to make the book. It's the equivalent of Mel Gibson making a novel based on Braveheart: the original artistic vision is the same on both pieces so the translation of the same vision from one media to another is nearly perfect.
 
Last edited:
[toj.cc]phantom said:
I'm going to my moms next weekend, so instead of DooM I'll go see Saw 2.
Click to expand...


I want to see that really bad now...but I've yet to see the first one. How was the first one? Someone told me it was badddd and I didn't need to see it to see the 2nd...O_o
 
It was supposed to be cool and have a mindblowing plot twist at the end.

It was really gory, not scary, and the plot twist at the end was just not logical. It was a pretty dumb movie, really. I'm not going to see the second one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top