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.
"[...| direct film adaptation of the game(s)." as in first person perspectitive?
No problems with this, but without all the elements that make up the narrative or are part of it like hell and demons and the subjective quality of what Doom used to release emotionally or otherwise, there really is nothing left of the original but the name.
In your quote he speaks about "game(S)". Doom x3 do not share lighting issue.
One could at least have tried to write an adequate representation of this game that defined so many other games.
so why make a movie with this name then? Why not some generic name.
Doom and Movie constitutes a specific expectation attitude.
It builds upon the knowledge of what the game is like.
No more words. My left shoe is similar to my right shoe, but its not the same, doesnt matter how many letters I write to my feet, it will not change.
Everything else is just a means of trying to "sell" it now the way it is or put on the perceived audience a manipulative view of the subject matter.
have a nice day
Slashdot Mirror
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
"[...| direct film adaptation of the game(s)." as in first person perspectitive?
No problems with this, but without all the elements that make up the narrative or are part of it like hell and demons and the subjective quality of what Doom used to release emotionally or otherwise, there really is nothing left of the original but the name.
In your quote he speaks about "game(S)". Doom x3 do not share lighting issue.
One could at least have tried to write an adequate representation of this game that defined so many other games.
so why make a movie with this name then? Why not some generic name. Doom and Movie constitutes a specific expectation attitude. It builds upon the knowledge of what the game is like. No more words. My left shoe is similar to my right shoe, but its not the same, doesnt matter how many letters I write to my feet, it will not change. Everything else is just a means of trying to "sell" it now the way it is or put on the perceived audience a manipulative view of the subject matter. have a nice day