Slashdot Mirror
Open Letter to Doom Fans from Script Writer
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, and what his role in the creation of the film has been. From his letter: "The screenplay I wrote DOES differ in a number of ways from the games. I want to be very honest and forthcoming in saying that, and I know that I won't make any friends amongst the fans of the game in doing so. But it should be mentioned that it was never the goal of anyone involved in this film, from myself and the producers to the studio to the guys at id, to make a direct film adaptation of the game(s)."
What is there to deviate from, indeed. Let's see.
marine guy
Changed to "SWAT team."
on planet
Changed to "facility on Earth."
that is taken over by demons
Changed to "overrun by zombies."
fights those demons
Again, changed to "fights zombies."
wins.
Well, this being Hollywood, at least the good guy will probably win. So overall, they've got about 1 out of 4 or 5, depending on how you count. Yes sir, only Hollywood could start with the simplest of plots for Doom and wind up with Resident Evil.
I agree with most of your arguments.
But nobody would really expect a one person movie.
Maybe a group of scientists who need rescuing? Or how about some H. P. Lovecraftian myth. Maybe the eternal fight between good and evil? Many old concepts and cliches you could incorporate and maybe also some new things.
Take a look at Soldier, Pitchblack, Predator, Rambo, Octalus, Braindead, Screamers, Tremors, Ghosts Of Mars, The Thing, Bodysnatchers and so on.
They share common ground in which Doom would fit in.
Most of them (if not all) are trashy, but this is really only because of the profit calculation made by studios and the resulting stress on budget, plot, cast, set and crew.
I am thoroughly surprised as how people still seem to react against violence, sex and religion in movies (Exorcist).
May I ask if the majority thinks that movies need to be controlled/censored?
I would have paid to see Doom as an interpretation of Dante's Inferno or even a social- and/or political critical movie (Mars Base, Megacorps, Two or more fractions on Mars, maybe even artifacts and an alien civilization a la 2001 and so on). Maybe even a movie completely about religion (Dogma).
Or an interpretative dialogue (A Boy and His Dog) that (in between the slaughter) "explores the depths" of Mr. Grunt's personality (really). A talented writer could pull that of, maybe.
Avantgarde? Experimental?
But yes something like that will never happen (maybe for the best).
So what remains is to make a movie that will serve as some sort of propaganda? A gadget of political and social manipulation in which Romeros zombies get resurrected to personify the "satanic" nonconformists and nonbelievers, the one, big, evil enemy of society?
Or will it have an aspect of reflection and be open enough?
Because Doom is world wide and not everybody thinks or sees things the same.
The worst case? If it would understand itself as serious work.
Have a nice day
Ya but if Stephen Spielberg directed, he'd probably keep replacing the guns with a flashlight and distort id's original vision. Oh wait...
Really though, if I remember correctly, a significant part of Doom 2 took place on Earth. Considering that the budget might not allow for a Mars base without looking rediculously cheesy, a movie set on Earth would still be true to the original source even if it's not as cool. I haven't been following this movie though and it's not clear where it's being set, so whatever, I'm probably wrong.
Anyways, I think it's obvious what happened here. Resident Evil: Apocalypse just made a decent amount of money on a tiny budget and now some studio execs are trying to me-too themselves into the same situation. Consequentially, they're trying to reduce their investment risk by making it as close to RE as possible since that property has already shown success. You see it all the time in movies, like when they release a bunch of natural disaster movies within months of eachother. To these people, the Doom property isn't a story or a setting, it's a brand. They're hoping to make a quick buck on name recognition as Doom is a pretty famous gaming franchise. I'm guessing that any interest in actually keeping the Doom universe intact is peripheral at best and only exists to keep from alienating casual gamers.
Similarly, biological weapons and desease are in the news right now whereas demons erupting from Hell are not. If you're funding a movie that seems pretty shitty to begin with, it would probably be in your best interest to choose an antagonist that most represents your audience's fears even if that manifestation is pretty rediculous.
Without all that Doom 2 makes almost no sense. A movie goer with no Doom 1 info would end up asking himself this :
1. Who is this guy? (Hes a marine who got shipped to Mars for striking his superior officer.)
2. Where/how did demons get to Earth? (see Doom 1.)
3. Why is he so badass and everyone else fell to the demons? (Because he's been through hell and back, hes prepared, he has the element of surprise, hes skilled and hes nothing less of a 'veteran' against demons at this point.)
4. If hes so good, why aren't the other Marines so good (see Doom 1, originally he got left behind so he was more 'shoot now, figure out when they're all dead' and not 'lets figure this thing out peacefully before filling it full of holes.'