Doom Movie Might Not Be Terrible

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)."

Comments

Backhanded compliment

[TripMaster Monkey]

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

Computers not good enough for them now?

[Webmonger]

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.

Real Monsters!!?

[Quarters]

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.

Re:Wait...

[DJ Haruko]

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

Use CGI

[centauri]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[daeley]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[daeley]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[Brainboy]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[centauri]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[MamiyaOtaru]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[Dr. Manhattan]

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.

Re:Use CGI

[Winterblink]

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.

Re:Wait...

[Meagermanx]

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.

Simulated Sprites

[Meagermanx]

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

Other news

[RasendeRutje]

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)

Re:close as possible?

[vertinox]

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.

Oh no!

[MobyDisk]

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...

Re:Wait...

[falcon5768]

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.

Faithful?

[Linus Torvaalds]

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.

Re:Faithful?

[ShawnDoc]

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.

No Penny Arcade Reference?

[MiceHead]

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

Re:Wait...

[chromaphobic]

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.

Real Monsters and PETA

[LoverOfJoy]

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.

Not what I heard...

[rlbond86]

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

Re:Not Carmack, but Petersen

[oldwolf13]

>> I thought he killed himself after Daikatana?

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