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)."

7 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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!
    3. 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
  3. 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.