Slashdot Mirror
Doom Movie Update
WeAz writes "Dark Horizons has an update on the currently filming Doom Movie. The article sums up the history of the production thus far and also includes a cool tidbit that reveals 'a large number of sequences will be shot purely in "first-person" perspective of the leading character (Karl Urban).' Unfortunately, the article also reports that 'The monsters aren't from hell, but rather people mutated by some nasty super-virus although the monsters look very similar to those in the game.' Sounds like a version of 28 Days Later based on Mars to me."
The first person view sounds cool, could inspire a new film technique (much like the Matrix's bullet time), but the old fashoned film technique of messing with a well-loved plot seems to be going strong.
WASTE - The Secure P2P
The first lesson in scriptwriting school is that most movies follow a three-act structure. What will the three acts be in the Doom movie?
Act I: Shooting anything that moves
ACt II: Sweepin up the giblets
Act III: Shooting anything that moves
I'm a big doom fan from back in the day. Hell I played almost nothing *but* Doom and Doom 2 (and Heretic/Hexen) between 1994-1996. After that I kept doing the same thing except added Quake to my games list. ;) ;)
And I think you're right. I'm not angry about this, but it's a let-down. Doom movie should start on Phobos, then go through Hell. And then they can make a second movie that takes place on Earth, where Hell is at. =)
Hmm, and plz don't include Doom 3. It's not realy Doom. Only the original game is worthy of being called Doom. Oh and Quake3 isn't really Quake either. Basically everything after Q1 is suckass! Yeah, that's what I think. =)
BTW anybody read the Doom novels?
It's mainly for the same reason that books aren't written in first person more often. It is very very difficult to do well.
:)
There are a number of things an author can't write into a story without a narrator. It also limits all knowledge of the world to the interpretation of one character. Very difficult to write a good story in first person.
Now, the REAL accomplishment would be to produce the movie in second person.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
"The monsters aren't from hell, but rather people mutated by some nasty super-virus although the monsters look very similar to those in the game" Oh, and it's not on Mars anymore.
Ok, show of hands: who here is sick and tired of directors or producers who want to do a movie based on a game, but who can't get around their personal preferences and start making major changes to the story? Take this "they're not from Hell" and "it's not on mars" thing.
Whoever made the change is probably thinking "Oh, I don't like religion, and I don't believe in Hell, so let's come up with a pseudo-scientific premise instead... Viruses seem to be pretty popular lately, and 28 Days Later was a big hit... It'll be easier to convince the money people if we're copying a successful franchise... Let's do a virus. Hell is so passe..."
And he's probably thinking "Mars? There is nothing on mars but red dirt. And it isn't sexy enough. Let's make it a planet far, far away. And let's make the Pinky demon a loveable character so people will be conflicted when it attacks! Yes, that will be interesting."
And as far as the armor goes, well, they're probably just being cheap. It's easier to Ebay for used SWAT team armor than to build realistic DOOM armor, isn't it? Course it is. And all movie directors/producers "know" that we're all too stupid to know the difference, anyway. Bastards...
If I could get a few of these boors into a tiny, windowless room and apply a cluebat to them, I would simply say that if you're going to adapt a game, KEEP THE FUCKING STORY. Keep the characters and technology. KEEP THE LOOK OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Keep the main idea intact. You don't have to make the movie a shot-by-shot copy of the game, but for Christ's sake, don't change everything! Tone down the ego, boys, and up the humility.
Not like there's any chance of that. VIdeo-game movies are going to continue to suck forever more because of the immense egos of the people with enough power and money to produce/direct. There's no help for it.
We're better off just playing the games themselves, and letting the movies die out from disappointing box office returns.
NOTE, and COUNTEREXAMPLE: I thought Alien Vs. Predator wasn't bad, because they staged the movie in "the past" (still our future), predating all the games and other movies, and adding in some tasty backstory (how Weyland-Yutani got started, why they're so interested in aliens and predators, etc). So obviously SOME people can get it right.
That movie's only problem was insufficient Predator-Alien whoop-ass. Maybe they had a shortage (only a few cans got delivered?).
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
When they make something on par with Alien, Aliens, or Event Horizon. Aliens was part of what Doom was based on. In fact, Doom originally used an Aliens license.
The next time I go to a horror or horror action film, I want to be deeply disturbed. The new Texas Chainsaw Massacre did that for me. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection both missed it entirely (even though Resurrection did have some xenoeroticism, hehe). We need more original horror films.
Hell and body mutilation tend to be pretty good ways to disturb me. Event Horizon had both. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre had both. Aliens a Hellish evironment plus body mutilation. Alien had the latter.
If Doom the movie has people being cut open, internal organs spread out on the operating table, hung by hooks, and surrounded by Satanic symbols, I might watch it. If Doom has wall textures that look like spinal cords, sewn skin, pipes of blood, behemoth demon brains, and decorations based on tortured human bodies, I might watch it. But if it is just another zombie film with the good guys being chased by zombies for the rest of the film, I'll just make my own film to disturb.
In conclusion, H. R. Giger (the man who designed the artwork for Alien) should design the atmosphere for Doom the movie.
There's a difference between movement when you're in control, and movement when someone else is in control. If you're presented with a view that mimics first person movement, things can get wierd. The person controlling doesn't make the same unconcious decisions as you do concerning locomotion, and this makes the brain feel funny. Some people aren't bothered by it. Some are. I speak from experience.
That's right. All your base.
Why do script writers and movie studios feel the need to take well established idea and change it into something completely different?
Since this movie no longer revolves around neither Hell or Mars can you really still call it Doom?
Doom was and always has been (to my knowledge) a game about a marine who has to battle against the forces of hell on Mars. He does this in the first game and he does this in the third (Doom 2 was on Earth).
I've heard the reasons before that the film studios often feel they need to make the movie appeal to both those who know the story and those that don't... But in this case is it so hard?!
* Marines answer distress call from planet
* Planet was secret government base into new form of travel
* Gateway to Hell opened
* Marines attempt to close gate and escape from planet
* None of them make it except one
* Irony is that the survivor (and lead character) actually died when the dropship crash landed at the start of the film and is trapped in Hell forever.
* The other marines infact actually closed the gate and escaped, but since the lead is in Hell he didn't know that.
Easy.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
Lemme guess: It's revealed in the end that everything was actually set on Earth. Some gov't/military conspiracy teleported the heroes to a lab to test the affects of a top-secret bioweapon. The End.
I don't think its political at all. I think its just a cheap production. Look, now they say: well, they are not from hell but mutated by a virus. Before release it'll be: 'look, did we say monsters? We meant zombies that look like normal people with an attitute'. The Inq has an article about it, they say the movie isn't gonna take place on mars and the space marines will be swat guys. So, essentially it's going to be 'Resident evil vs. SWAT' - the Movie and cost 5 bucks for the 8mm film because the props are all donated.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Personally I think that video gaming as an industry needs to distance itself from the film industry. Over the years, through countless tie-ins and franchises (most of which have been risible), we have come to associate them as natural bedfellows. It is a massive cash cow for all involved, but ultimately they dilute the franchise and leave gaming/films fans feeling cheated and disappointed. Especially game fans: paying £40 for a substandard piece of advertising isn't very fun. Dropping the shameless cash-ins and concentrating on upping the thrills and emotions felt and desired by both game and film fans would be much appreciated :)
I would much rather watch a film which captures the claustrophobic and downright scary nature of Doom, than one which simply shares the name.
Actually, the first "Final Fantasy" got this name because, back in 97, Square was on the edge of bankrupcy, and if that game were not a big hit, it would be their last game.
Circumcision is child abuse.
wow, i thought fight club was a success... guess not.
from imdb:
Budget: $63,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend:
$11,035,485 (USA) (17 October 1999) (1,963 Screens)
£1,177,219 (UK) (14 November 1999) (322 Screens)
Gross: $37,023,395 (USA) (27 February 2000)