Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible

Posted by Zonk on 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)."

89 comments

  1. Wait... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    1. Re:Wait... by DJ+Haruko · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, according to the article, it's back on Mars.

      --
      "If you were plowing a field, which would you rather use? Two strong oxen or 1024 chickens?" --Seymour Cray
    2. Re:Wait... by Meagermanx · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's going to be exactly like the Resident Evil movie, except he'll spend the entire movie switching between holding his gun and wielding the flashlight.

    3. Re:Wait... by falcon5768 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      From what i saw at Aintitcoonew about the panel, it never was ment to be on earth, nor was it to have a lot of the changes that they had been saying. ID was involved from the start and that they had planned it to be exactly like the game, to the point of even having some of the maps redone as actual sets, and a whole really cool first person scene where for a few minutes your seeing through the main characters eyes and it plays out exactly like the game.

      What shocked me was that unlike most rumors "The Rock" is NOT the main character.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    4. Re:Wait... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Their could be a Directors cut afterwards that imitates the original doom , the only weapon he will ever use in the directors cut will be the shotgun( the most enjoyable weapon) and the contrast will be turned up 4000%

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    5. Re:Wait... by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      It comes down to who's directing. Terminator and Aliens was good because James Cameron was picky beyond belief. He wanted every detail perfect or close to it. Who's sitting in this director chair now.

    6. Re:Wait... by chromaphobic · · Score: 2, Informative

      This guy is directing. He has nothing in his directorial history that gives me reason to be optimistic, though he was cinematographer on a few decent movies.

      To further remove reasons for optimism, the writer appears to have never written a single movie before this.

      One bright spot: the score is being done by Clint Mansell, who has done some excellent scores in the past, not to mention his years with the band Pop Will Eat Itself.

    7. Re:Wait... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1

      I loved Clint Mansell's work for Requiem for a Dream : One of the best soundtracks (if combined with the movie) ever.

    8. Re:Wait... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      ... and instead of kids kicking your seat they will have people who will jump up behind you and claw your back whenever the main character turns a corner.

  2. Backhanded compliment by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny


    It's pretty sad when the phrase 'might not suck' is actually a positive review.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Backhanded compliment by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      The key word here is 'might' which loosely trasnlated means 'probably will'.

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    2. Re:Backhanded compliment by linzeal · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
    3. Re:Backhanded compliment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "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 have an example with George W Bush. Except the immortal part (I hope)

    4. Re:Backhanded compliment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were unimpressed with the LOTR trilogy, you don't deserve to be posting on ./. Go watch your shitty "indie" movies then run to the coffee house and wax poetic.

    5. Re:Backhanded compliment by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that I actually read books instead of talk about movies.

      --
      An Education is the Font of All Liberty
  3. Computers not good enough for them now? by Webmonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Computers not good enough for them now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually you'd be surprised how good those guys in suits can look nowadays. Take for example the movie underworld. Some didn't like it; I thought it was pretty good, regardless the werewolves in the movie were (for the most part) done by guys in suits and not CGI.

      They would use CGI for the transition from human to werewolf scenes, but afterwords it was all costumes and wirework. Needless to say, when i first saw the movie i thought it was ALL cgi. the dvd's extra features prooved me wrong :/

    2. Re:Computers not good enough for them now? by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

      It just goes to show that everything is relative. In Doom, it seemed perfectly normal that no mater which direction I was looking at a dead monster his legs were spread open and facing my direction.

      --
      1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
  4. AHH! Real Monsters! by niskel · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:AHH! Real Monsters! by daeley · · Score: 1

      That one monster ruined the entire look, feel and mood of the entire film.

      Was there a monster in that movie? Sorry, I must have been distracted by Milla :)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:AHH! Real Monsters! by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      I found that movie terrifying , I walked out of the cinema shaking and in tears.
      I mean how could a plot be so bad.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  5. close as possible? by Morinaga · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:close as possible? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:close as possible? by vertinox · · Score: 3, Funny

      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 am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:close as possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess Event Horizon didn't go over as well as people had hoped.

      (Come on, that was practically like Doom)

  6. I hope... by Evro · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    rooooar
    1. Re:I hope... by jonwil · · Score: 1

      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.

  7. Real Monsters!!? by Quarters · · Score: 4, Funny
    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.

    1. Re:Real Monsters!!? by ZephyrXero · · Score: 1

      Except they'll use the genetic mutations for the Wolfenstien movie ;)

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:Real Monsters!!? by Rallion · · Score: 1

      I've never seen them called Pinky Demons before. That name is...uh...not very menacing.

    3. Re:Real Monsters!!? by Mingco · · Score: 1
      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.

      Where do you think Ben Affleck and Al Gore came from?
    4. Re:Real Monsters!!? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      No, but he discovered an occult tome of forbidden incantations for summoning eldritch creatures.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  8. It might not suck and.. by UziBeatle · · Score: 0


    Pigs could fly.

    Someone did this already. JOhn Carpenter made Ghosts of Mars. It flew about as well as pigs can. I see no need to see another stinker just go out and waste your money on a copy of 'Ghosts of Mars'.

    --
    Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
    1. Re:It might not suck and.. by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/1 8/185233&tid=160&tid=191&tid=14

      Pig sprem is flying, does that count?

  9. too late.... by beowulfy · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
    1. Re:too late.... by superstick58 · · Score: 1
      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.

    2. Re:too late.... by trixy_1086 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      College Humor at it's best
    3. Re:too late.... by beowulfy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -Hunter S. Thompson
  10. Use CGI by centauri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    1. Re:Use CGI by daeley · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 and life. The new CGI Yoda, not so much.

      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 watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:Use CGI by centauri · · Score: 1

      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 audience's imagination against itself and showing less instead of more, but it's a little sad when I know the film-makers HAVE to do that, because their creatures won't pass muster close up and in full daylight. "Queen Alien!" you say? Even a forgiving viewer can see flaws in her movement, good though she is.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    3. Re:Use CGI by daeley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 ties in the movie, Burger King, and Amazon.com is just ridiculous; and don't get me started on Darth Vader in an M&Ms commercial, gack!) so I can't comment how The Thing looks in all his projected glory, but from what I've seen in the ubiquitous ads and whatnot, I think you're right -- he doesn't look that great, especially as compared to the CGI-enhanced Johnny.

      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 audience's imagination against itself and showing less instead of more, but it's a little sad when I know the film-makers HAVE to do that, because their creatures won't pass muster close up and in full daylight. "Queen Alien!" you say? Even a forgiving viewer can see flaws in her movement, good though she is.

      Heh, yeah the Queen does pose a problem. Although I don't remember it being so bad in the theater. Maybe after seeing it repeatedly and losing some of that initial shock and rush, the awkwardness become glaring. And that probably goes for the rest as well. As modern audiences have become more sophisticated, after decades of increasingly more lifelike effects, it gets harder and harder to pass off crappy ones.

      Of course, probably the bigger difference for me between Aliens and Terminator on the one hand and, say, Predator 2 on the other hand, is that I truly care about the awesome characters of Ripley and Sarah Connor -- and not just because they're Sigourney Weaver and Linda Hamilton ;) With the other movie, I can't bring myself to give a crap about the one-dimensional Gary Busey and Danny Glover characters.

      I like to compare the viewing experiences of Spider Man and Toy Story -- I found myself more immersed in the "world" of Toy Story -- the characters seemed more real to me than did Spider Man in full flight through the urban canyons. Part of that is probably the uncanny valley at work, but a lot of it is the story and characterization.

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    4. Re:Use CGI by Brainboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    5. Re:Use CGI by centauri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    6. Re:Use CGI by iridium_ionizer · · Score: 1

      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 artistic talent. In LOTR many of the long shots for larger battle sequences simply imployed blurred hordes of orcs and men as they charged or were knock around, which is fine. But when they had to develop the pivotal character Gollum, they definitely spent some time in making it look right.

      A little art also goes a long way. A goofy-looking CGI character will probably always look fake. But by just putting the CGI element in a dark scene or making it shoot by real fast, you can get something to look real for half the effort/money. Also any odd looking human animations are dead giveaways.

    7. Re:Use CGI by iridium_ionizer · · Score: 1

      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.

    8. Re:Use CGI by MamiyaOtaru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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 the prequels, where he needed to be a little more spry.

    9. Re:Use CGI by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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, many of them say that Michael Chiklis does a good job of acting and making the character work, and I've even seen some people say that they changed their minds about a CGI Thing after seeing that.

      CGI for non-anthropomorphic characters can work well, but we have a lot of hardware in our brains for predicting the motion of humans. (Knowing which way the other guy was going to jump has quite often made a life-or-death difference.) CGI hasn't gotten far enough to fully model that, and it shows - look at Hulk. A very good try, but you could still see something was wrong.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    10. Re:Use CGI by Winterblink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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. The scene with the dog is particularly horrific, so much so you'll never look at a dog the same way again after seeing it.

      I still think physical effects have a place in hollywood, there's a certain flow an interaction they afford that a CGI equivalent simply cannot no matter how hard they try. In Hellboy, hand-to-hand fights with Samael were much more realistic and effective when Ron Perlman was tossing around the guy in the suit. The transition to full CGI characters fighting suddenly cheapened the whole scene, because you know the only thing of the actors in there was maybe some motion capture and a few days of recording studio sessions grunting into microphones.

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    11. Re:Use CGI by centauri · · Score: 1

      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 Hellboy and The Matrix Reloaded. On the other hand, maybe it's going on some places and I don't even notice it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
    12. Re:Use CGI by Winterblink · · Score: 1

      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.

      As a side note, I've showed The Thing to a friend who's the most nitpicky moviegoer I know with regards to special effects. The dog scene in The Thing messed him up bad. :)

      --
      "I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
      -Hoban Washburn
    13. Re:Use CGI by Pointdexter · · Score: 1

      If you enjoyed John Carpenter's version you should keep an eye out for the original which is also excellent :)

      --
      Party Time: Excellent
  11. Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it probably will be.

  12. Simulated Sprites by Meagermanx · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm petitioning them to use cardboard cutouts. It would be more faithful to the original.

  13. Other news by RasendeRutje · · Score: 2

    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)

    --

    If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
    1. Re:Other news by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

      -People on slashdot might resist getting a free jab directed at Microsoft in

      --
      I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    2. Re:Other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Sky might not be blue
      - Hell might be cold
      - DNF may be released tomorrow

    3. Re:Other news by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      - Hell might be cold

      Oh, come now. We all know that Hell is Exothermic.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    4. Re:Other news by Soybean47 · · Score: 1
      - 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."
    5. Re:Other news by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      But in order for people to believe that it would have to be plausible...

  14. Not Carmack, but Petersen by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1
    "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 involved in this project. He was chief level designer for Doom, and his prior experience with Call of Cthulhu is what made it so successful. He's also seen every schlock-horror film ever made.
    1. Re:Not Carmack, but Petersen by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      It would have been great if John Romero was involved in the project.

    2. Re:Not Carmack, but Petersen by Mikail · · Score: 1

      I thought he killed himself after Daikatana?

      --
      If life is a waste of time and time is a waste of life, let's all get wasted and have the time of our lives.
    3. Re:Not Carmack, but Petersen by oldwolf13 · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> I thought he killed himself after Daikatana?

      That project is currently behind schedule. Please check back later.

      --
      If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
  15. X Play by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    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?

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  16. Will it have the hidden level? by borkus · · Score: 1

    I think it'd be cool to have the Rock and Eomer turn a corner and suddenly be confronted by Gestapo.

    Maybe they could access the area by typing the password "idclev31" into a computer on the base.

    1. Re:Will it have the hidden level? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      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)

    2. Re:Will it have the hidden level? by dreamquick · · Score: 1
      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.
    3. Re:Will it have the hidden level? by gerddie · · Score: 1

      , 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 needed to reflect history (think e.g. "Schindlers list").

  17. Oh no! by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Funny
    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...
    1. Re:Oh no! by tapo · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
  18. Faithful? by Linus+Torvaalds · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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: 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 think it's the people on a panel in front of a bajillion unhappy fans.

    1. Re:Faithful? by ShawnDoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Faithful? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      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.

  19. No Penny Arcade Reference? by MiceHead · · Score: 3, Funny

    32 comments, and not one reference to the Doom and Metroid movies at PA?

    --
    We're indie. We're working on our 14th game.
  20. Ha! I'll believe it when I see the movie! by djSpinMonkey · · Score: 1

    ...which we're all going to do, of course, whether it sucks or not. (Which is why most video game movies still suck.)

  21. And what did you expect? by Moryath · · Score: 1

    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.

  22. Stan Winston != Stan Winston Studios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like saying Morgan Stanley is personally working on trading your shares.

  23. Dammned by Faint Praise Dept. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    Amazing! A movie base don a plotless, continual barrage of gunfire might not be an unwatchable trainwreck! "Alien" meets "Kelly's Heroes"!

    This just in, all shit doesn't stink so bad that you are forced to evacuate the vicinity for at least fourty second!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Dammned by Faint Praise Dept. by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      I always found that movies with bad plots are a lot worse than movies without plots.
      Mindlessness can be a lot of fun

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Dammned by Faint Praise Dept. by Anti_zeitgeist · · Score: 1

      movies without plots?......do you mean porn?

      --
      If it wasn't for C, we would be stuck using BASI, PASAL and OBOL.
  24. what no footage by plorqk · · Score: 1

    Nobody has the preview footage?

    --
    When travelling, it's ok if the airlines lose your emotional baggage.
  25. Staying faithful to the game == kiss of death by geoswan · · Score: 1, Interesting
    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.

  26. Real Monsters and PETA by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.
  27. Yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We were doing so well until you came along and ruined everything!

  28. Sarge by yRabbit · · Score: 1

    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.

  29. Not what I heard... by rlbond86 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the Daily Show, the Rock said that in the movie, BFG stood for Bio Force Gun. It's gonna suck.

  30. It was done at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe one of the Alien series of films was inspired by Doom/Doom2. Can't remember the name, but the one where the Space Marines return to the infested place. The monsters are different, but the film makers knew from the success of Doom that the target audience (the same cult group who would play the game) would warm to the scenario.