Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Doom Movie Update 454

WeAz writes "Dark Horizons has an update on the currently filming Doom Movie. The article sums up the history of the production thus far and also includes a cool tidbit that reveals 'a large number of sequences will be shot purely in "first-person" perspective of the leading character (Karl Urban).' Unfortunately, the article also reports that 'The monsters aren't from hell, but rather people mutated by some nasty super-virus although the monsters look very similar to those in the game.' Sounds like a version of 28 Days Later based on Mars to me."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Doom Movie Update

Comments Filter:
  • by lordsilence ( 682367 ) * on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:17PM (#11003116) Homepage
    Look at the possibilities. They can save lots of money without having actors on screen. But... we can take it further! If they just put this in a really dark setting or envoirment.. We'll simply pretend there's lots of pretty monsters and scenery everywhere.
  • On Mars (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vokbain ( 657712 ) * on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:18PM (#11003123) Homepage
    I read yesterday somewhere that the movie doesn't take place on Mars anymore either. It supposedly happens on some planet or base somewhere else in the galaxy or something. =[
    • Re:On Mars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps.epscylonb@com> on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:25PM (#11003167) Homepage
      Yeah, according to bluesnews its just a regular old military scientific complex somewhere on earth.

      It's fairly obvious that whoever put up the money wants the film to have the widest possible appeal in america, and that means they don't want to risk offending middle america with the kind of religous imagery used in the games.

      It might still turn out to be a decent film, it won't be Doom though.
    • Re:On Mars (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spectre_240sx ( 720999 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:38PM (#11003254) Homepage
      Personally, I have very little interest in this as a "doom" movie. If it doesn't have to do with devils and other creatures from hell then it's NOT DOOM!
      • Re:On Mars (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Skrybe ( 818148 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @10:34PM (#11004831)

        Exactly! Why bother paying for the license when they're not really making use of it? It could be any one of a dozen cookie cutter sci-fi/action movies. If they don't keep the core (demons from hell invading Mars) then it just ain't Doom.

        I'd assume the marketing suits figure all the "geeks" will want to go and see it because of the name alone. Be interesting to see if they change it too much whether it'll have the opposite effect and all the Doom fans will boycott the movie...

    • Re:On Mars (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @07:04PM (#11003743) Homepage
      Lets see:

      a) not set on mars
      b) aliens infected with super virus, not demons
      c) not about "space marines" but more SWAT team members.
      d) character named "Pinky" in cybernetic wheelchair.
      e) BFG is "Bio Force Gun".

      so, this movie has what to do with DOOM exactly? 1st person perspective? Wow, because there aren't other games with that perspective.
  • super v irus? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by zalas ( 682627 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:18PM (#11003125) Homepage
    What... did the producers look at R.E. and went wow, let's incorporate some ideas from that as well so that we have a bigger fanbase!
  • by IO ERROR ( 128968 ) <error@ioerr[ ]us ['or.' in gap]> on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:18PM (#11003126) Homepage Journal
    ...not because the movie will be bad, but because the first-person perspective is likely to upset your inner ear balance and cause you to feel queasy. Think Blair Witch Project.
  • by sH4RD ( 749216 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:19PM (#11003128) Homepage
    The first person view sounds cool, could inspire a new film technique (much like the Matrix's bullet time), but the old fashoned film technique of messing with a well-loved plot seems to be going strong.
    • What plot? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Goonie ( 8651 ) <robert.merkelNO@SPAMbenambra.org> on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:24PM (#11003164) Homepage
      but the old fashoned film technique of messing with a well-loved plot seems to be going strong.

      Um, we're talking about Doom, right? What plot? From what I can recall the plot went something like "Demons. Bad. Kill them all."...

      • Re:What plot? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps.epscylonb@com> on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:30PM (#11003198) Homepage
        The first Doom was great, unlike its third incarnation there was a lot of variation in the levels. One level might be totally enclosed whilst the next offers you views of the martian landscape.

        Admittedly after the basic set up of being on mars in a base after a gateway to hell has opened, the plot is fairly thin from there on. Which makes it even more amazing that the makers of this film have done away with pretty much the only plot elements Doom has.
      • Re:What plot? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Osty ( 16825 )

        What plot? From what I can recall the plot went something like "Demons. Bad. Kill them all."...

        As simplistic as the plot is, they've still managed to fuck it up. Also, your plot is a little thin. It's more like, "You, Space Marine. Them, Demons from Hell. On Mars. Kill them all." And yet, the movie does not have space marines, demons, hellspawn, or Mars. It may not be the strongest of plots, but it's what makes Doom recognizable. Without at least space marines and hellspawn, you don't have a Doo

      • Re:What plot? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:50PM (#11003326) Homepage Journal
        Um, we're talking about Doom, right? What plot? From what I can recall the plot went something like "Demons. Bad. Kill them all."...

        That's where the original game started, but if you read the intro text, and the text and the various ends of stages you would have realised there was plot. That plot was further expanded upon in Doom3.

        Let's be realistic here, you could easily take the plot that you discover on PDAs and from talking to people in Doom3 and create a film where only the final third of the film has anyone running around killing demons. Think about it:

        We can start with the marine arriving on base and hearing the rumpours about weird things and the "dig site", spend plenty of time slowly revealing the teleporters, and the fact that there seems to be something/someplace in between leaving one teleporter and arriving at another. Add to that lots of creepy moments wandering around the base hearing voices occasionally, and incidents with marines and workers (ie teleporter test subjects) going insane, and attacking people etc. and you could easily fill and hour with nary a hell gate opened. That leaves you a nice 30 minutes of of hectic "demons everywhere" conclusion.

        Doom could be made into a very good film. It won't be made into a very good film, but that's hardly the game's fault.

        Jedidiah.
      • More specifically, the plot was "Demons on Mars." They are leaving out the demons and the Mars... So, yeah, given that the only actual remaining tie to the game is "On," I think it's fair to say they abandoned the game's plot pretty effectively. :( Jeezus, how the heck do you manage to be so inept as to be unable to make a movie with as much plot as Doom!?!
    • Just a side note, the movie Rules of Engagement had a few shots that were sort of first person (you were looking down he barrel of the gun). I thought it looked really cool and it reminded me of a realistic Counter-Strike or something. So, it has been done before.
    • Dark Passage from 1947 with Humphrey Bogart was shot mostly in first person, so it's not very new.
    • Gus Van Sant's Elephant [elephantmovie.com] hand a great deal of first person perspectives in it, including a lot of long tracks down corridors (check out the trailer on the site). Essentially a Columbine-esque story, one of the key reasons for doing this was to link the viewer's point of view with that of a Doom-like computer game reputed to have influenced the Columbine killings. It's quite chilling when you watch it.

      Before that, Kubrick's The Shining [imdb.com] was a pioneering film in using the newly invented steadicam to do some ne
    • The first-person technique was used by Aleksei Balabanov in Brat 2 [imdb.com]. The sequence, where Danila kills a bunch of mafiosi in the basement corridors of some night-club, is filmed in a Doom-like first-person perspective, with the gun in the bottom-middle of the screen.

    • ...is that there will be fewer opportunities for Karl Urban to do an insane mad growl scream berzerker rush at the enemies, like he did as Eomer at the battle of the Pelennor. (Think reversing grip on spear while on horseback, if you forget the scene.) I had to admit, it's a pretty impressive charge.

      OTOH, he's probably grateful for the same fact.

  • No hell? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eric(b0mb)Dennis ( 629047 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:20PM (#11003134)
    Why the choice not to have the monsters we know and love from HELL, not another MSV (Mutated Super Virus).

    Are people afraid to mention the word HELL anymore? Jesus christ, Jesusland is taking over!
    • Re:No hell? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by b0tman ( 667349 )
      Actually, I think it's the Christians who have no problem with talking about Hell. I'm one of them, and I love Doom. It's the PC people we gotta' worry about. They are the ones sanitizing our society so that we can't say anything that might remotely offend somebody.


      • Definitely it's not the 'PC people' that oppose demonic violence. In fact, many forms of violence in entertainment are committed against supernatural beings because it's defendable in the face of political correctness to harm demons but not humans.

        Instead, the sensitivity of making hell-related films is a reaction to the conservative members of American society who use the bible to criticize anything that's not like them. I tend to agree more with the Christians who thought the Exorcist was a terrific fil
    • Re:No hell? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      Can you point out one time that a major Christian org has gotten upset about the use of Hell as a location in the past 25 years?
    • Re:No hell? (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by RickHunter ( 103108 )

      I've got news for you. Jesusland already did - on November 2nd.

  • by sonicattack ( 554038 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:20PM (#11003136) Homepage
    Sounds like a version of 28 Days Later based on Mars to me."

    It's already done, and called "Ghosts of Mars".

    And it came the year before "28 days later".
    • I think that if there is any existing movie that it should be based off of, is Event Horizon.

      Now if Doom the Movie as a sequel to Event Horizon would actually make sense. And would set the stage for plenty of gore.
  • by desau ( 539417 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:21PM (#11003144)
    I always thought 'BFG'[9000] was an acronym for something else ......
    • Yeah you are right.... "Bloodyhellthatsa Fuckinginsanlyhumongous Gun".

      At least, thats what my friend said oh so many years back when I first showed him Doom in all its pixelated glory.... he was on the receiving end of it :)

  • Not another virus! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:23PM (#11003155) Homepage
    The virus plotline is so played out these days. I don't understand why Hollywood feels the need to change an element like monsters coming from Hell to monsters being mutated by a virus. Has Hell somehow become taboo? For the Dawn of the Dead remake, I was worried that they would change the whole zombies from hell concept because the original tagline was "When there's no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth." Fortunately, they left it intact. It's disappointing that a game so based off of demons from Hell is being changed over into the old virus mutation thing. It's already so overused.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Um, with Dawn of the Dead, the zombies were never from hell. They were (in the original release) dead people brought back to life by strange radiation which emanated from a returned space probe. Anybody who died during the time of the radiation became a zombie (even if not bitten by one).

      In the recent remake, they indeed changed the zombie contagion to some form of biological disease - unexplained, but assumed to be viral.

      The reason for using a virus as the MacGuffin of most modern movies, is because this
      • I don't know, I think it's just scriptwriters sanitizing their scripts to satisfy the risk-averse studio execs, who'd rather have 10 movies flop moderately because they are all the same, than have one film totally flop because it was two ambitious and 9 succeed because they're original. :(

        I am a militant atheist, rational, sceptical and what not, but I don't think I would mind gods/demons/angels (from any religion) in an action film. The truth is that pseudo-science is no better than myth/fantasy (and ther
    • Mutated super viruses are safe. We know viruses exist. We all fear them. They're a universal. Put it through a focus group and see what people are more afraid of, hell or smallpox, and you'll probably get the latter. Movies are made by corporations, and corporations are risk-averse by nature.

      And you bet your ass Hell is taboo. Hell would alienate many Christians, crazy parent special interest groups, and, for that matter, athiests. Hollywood is an unholy amalgaman of hedonists, Scientologists, orthodox t

    • Actually, the Dawn of the Dead remake didn't specify *why* the dead were walking the Earth, other than the ad tag lines. However, the original Dead series by George Romero strongly hinted that the zombies were caused by a virus that came from space.

      Guess which movie the remake was based on? :)
    • Dawn of the Dead zombies weren't really from hell, that's just one character's thoughts (based on his religious beliefs). In the remake, it's never stated, but it wouldn't make sense if they were occult rather than pseudo-scientifically animated. I'm pretty sure a virus was to blame in the remake as well as the original. Occult zombies are the kind that usually just rise from their graves and don't need to mess with biting to spread the zombism. And yes, I am a zombie nut.

      Now, about the Doom movie, som
  • Wow, maybe there really are deadly microbes on mars [slashdot.org].
  • a large number of sequences will be shot purely in "first-person" perspective of the leading character

    In other news, sales of vomit bags jumped markedly as theater owners began placing large advance orders in preparation for an upcoming movie based on the Doom computer game franchise.

    • Do you vomit when playing FPS on a large monitor?
      • No, but Doom/Quake/QuakeII/QuakeIII make me nauseuous when I play them on my 24" screen.

        Mostly because I lose my reference point and running around like that fucks with my head.

      • There's a difference between movement when you're in control, and movement when someone else is in control. If you're presented with a view that mimics first person movement, things can get wierd. The person controlling doesn't make the same unconcious decisions as you do concerning locomotion, and this makes the brain feel funny. Some people aren't bothered by it. Some are. I speak from experience.
  • 'The monsters aren't from hell, but rather people mutated by some nasty super-virus although the monsters look very similar to those in the game.'

    The whole idea behind doom was that it was a rift between our world, and Hell...
  • by mfh ( 56 )
    Not sure why they would say the monsters aren't from hell anymore. Using a virus seems like a stupid idea because then you're stealing from Resident Evil, and that would be bad. The monsters are from Hell. Again, it's not such a bad thing when the Religious Right takes over the world -- is it?

    I'm disappointed with the level of creative degredation in the Doom film. This one is going down as R.E. #3, IMHO.
  • Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FiReaNGeL ( 312636 ) <fireang3l.hotmail@com> on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:34PM (#11003228) Homepage
    It isn't on Mars.
    Monsters aren't from Hell.
    SWAT instead of space marines.
    Super-virus?

    Can you REALLY call this DOOM? Why do they bother? Doom fans are gonna be angry, and for the rest, the movie could have been called Resident Evil IIV : It gets crappier anyway.
  • Screenwriter Dave Callahan claims "everyone was keen to keep the game's atmosphere", though there are some "minor" changes done to the film's concept: The monsters have nothing to do with hell, the plot is not taking place on Mars and "space marines" are not well "space marines" as their outfits are more like SWAT team members.


    Sorry, but these are not minor changes to the Doom story line. Looks like we're in for some cross-media craptacular.
    • by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @08:13PM (#11004092)
      Screenwriter Dave Callahan claims "everyone was keen to keep the game's atmosphere", though there are some "minor" changes done to the film's concept: The monsters have nothing to do with hell, the plot is not taking place on Mars and "space marines" are not well "space marines" as their outfits are more like SWAT team members.

      In related news, the producers of the movie "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" said they wanted to keep the books' atmosphere, though there are some minor changes to the film's concept. The character Arthur Dent is an American drag queen, Ford Prefect's name will change to Dodge Vpier, Zaphod will not be a two-headed alien, but a purple dinosaur, and Marvin will become the comic relief. And instead of space, the story will take place on a luxury ocean cruiser. Other than that, they said, the movie will stay true to the books.
  • Things to do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:34PM (#11003231)
    For any Hollywood executive:

    1) Acquire creative control
    2) Change everything except the name
    3) Profit!

    Hollywood, like all business, is only interested in brands, not products. Therefore it is only the title that matters, not the plot.
    Happens with nearly every adaptation of any existing book/comic book/game into a movie.

    Creative people should have creative control. Irrefutable example of success: The Incredibles

    Business people should not have creative control. Irrefutable example of total failure: Lion King 1 1/2
    • Re:Things to do (Score:5, Informative)

      by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:55PM (#11003365) Homepage Journal
      Creative people should have creative control. Irrefutable example of success: The Incredibles

      Business people should not have creative control. Irrefutable example of total failure: Lion King 1 1/2


      Except you get odd cases like Fight Club. The fact is that, relatively speaking, Fight Club bombed at the US box office. That meant that Brad Pitt got told he was only to take safe roles from here on in, and David Fincher was told no one was going to bank roll him for any creative projects anymore - that's why we got Panic Room.

      Of course, in the end, Fight Club has become a huge cult success and is probably raking in money n DVD sales. It took a while to find its market.

      It is for that reason, however, that the business people get to make their demands: even great creative projects don't make the initial cash that the business people bank rolling the project desire.

      Jedidiah.
  • Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the Raymond Chandler adaptation Lady in the Lake [imdb.com] from 1947 and I think Thomas in Love [imdb.com] from 2000 are the only major films to be shot entirely in first-person.

    Neat technique, surprised it hasn't been done more often.

    • by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:44PM (#11003284)
      It's mainly for the same reason that books aren't written in first person more often. It is very very difficult to do well.

      There are a number of things an author can't write into a story without a narrator. It also limits all knowledge of the world to the interpretation of one character. Very difficult to write a good story in first person.

      Now, the REAL accomplishment would be to produce the movie in second person. :)
      • Now, the REAL accomplishment would be to produce the movie in second person. :)

        I've read a book that was written in both first and second person - somewhat unsurprisingly, it was written by a certain Iain [M.] Banks [iainbanks.net]... :-)

      • "Now, the REAL accomplishment would be to produce the movie in second person. :)"

        Interactive fiction is arguably the literary form of second-person storytelling.

        So the film equivalent might use the "DVD scene" features to write an interactive story, if the DVD is advanced enough to do that. Press 'red' to follow the voice, or 'blue' to open the door.

        (Of course, if you take that concept to the limit, you'd end-up with a computer game. For the sake of argument, we could call it Doom3)

        I quite like the id
      • There are a number of things an author can't write into a story without a narrator.

        Who said first-person narrative precludes the use of a narrator? Consider a case like Wuthering Heights, where the story is not only related in the first person, but through multiple layers of first-person narrators. It demonstrates that most of the benefits an omniscient narrator could provide - insights into motivations and consequences, and a broader perspective on events - are still available simply by having the main
  • Three acts? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mr_majestyk ( 671595 )
    The first lesson in scriptwriting school is that most movies follow a three-act structure [writerswrite.com]. What will the three acts be in the Doom movie?
    Act I: Shooting anything that moves
    ACt II: Sweepin up the giblets
    Act III: Shooting anything that moves
  • by Katravax ( 21568 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:41PM (#11003268)
    To the other posts blaming this on the "Religious Right:" If they talk about Hell, you complain. If someone else REMOVES the word "Hell", you complain. Which is it? They're talking about Hell too much, or not enough?

    Besides, the "Religous Right" is a myth. They're religious alright, but they're not Christian, and they're not conservative. They would do good to read what the Bible has to say about religion.
  • The monsters have nothing to do with hell, the plot is not taking place on Mars and "space marines" are not well "space marines" as their outfits are more like SWAT team members.
    What's next, no straffing? No color-coded doors with matching keys? Barrels that don't explode when you shoot them?

    Bah. Might as well just call it "Barbie in Space" and have done with.
  • Carmack needs to pull the plug on this movie before it ruins the Doom brand. No hell, no mars, no space marines, but they're including a character "Pinky" ?!?

    This movie has the chance to be something. Let's not turn it into another Army of Darkness...
  • I mean, that seems like the driving force behind movies these days.

    Hence, movies get butchered into an appropriate state for (an American) 13 year old to be allowed to go and see... or something like that (if I understand the meaning of PG13 right).

    Look what they did to Aliens vs. Predator.

    And then theres the tragedy of Riddick.

    This will happen to the Doom movie as well.
  • From here [sensibleerection.com]:

    As you can see from the signature at the ende of Novinky.cz article (http://www.novinky.cz/04/44/23.html), I am the author of the original Doom set report (and the picture used as thumb). Unfortunately, the Dark Horizons article took some selective bits and pieces from my article (not translated really well) and basically rearranged them into different article. Although the basic facts are correct (no Mars, no Hell, no spacesuits), the tone of my article was not entirely dismissive and I think th

  • A cool tidbit is the most we should expect from this franchise-exploitation effort.

    Mixing videogames and movies is like mixing milk and orange juice: they are both good on their own, but put 'em together and you end up with a foul brew.
  • The true villian will be an evil corporation led by evil, conservative, businessmen.

    I'm right, aren't I?

  • Someone pointed out to me that this film already lifted most of the elements from DOOM. I realized he was right.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119081/ [imdb.com]
  • by Magickcat ( 768797 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:55PM (#11003368)
    Sounds like a version of 28 Days Later based on Mars to me."

    Funny, it sounds like a market share placed, demographically targeted pile of cliched froth from where I'm siting.

    To think that Phillip K Dick never made a cent on his books and died poor before recieving a cent on Bladerunner - and this thin "plot" from a video game makes it to the movies.

    The boys at ID will be glad for the money, but it doesn't sound like great sci-fi, let alone art.
  • by crazyphilman ( 609923 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:57PM (#11003381) Journal
    "The monsters aren't from hell, but rather people mutated by some nasty super-virus although the monsters look very similar to those in the game" Oh, and it's not on Mars anymore.

    Ok, show of hands: who here is sick and tired of directors or producers who want to do a movie based on a game, but who can't get around their personal preferences and start making major changes to the story? Take this "they're not from Hell" and "it's not on mars" thing.

    Whoever made the change is probably thinking "Oh, I don't like religion, and I don't believe in Hell, so let's come up with a pseudo-scientific premise instead... Viruses seem to be pretty popular lately, and 28 Days Later was a big hit... It'll be easier to convince the money people if we're copying a successful franchise... Let's do a virus. Hell is so passe..."

    And he's probably thinking "Mars? There is nothing on mars but red dirt. And it isn't sexy enough. Let's make it a planet far, far away. And let's make the Pinky demon a loveable character so people will be conflicted when it attacks! Yes, that will be interesting."

    And as far as the armor goes, well, they're probably just being cheap. It's easier to Ebay for used SWAT team armor than to build realistic DOOM armor, isn't it? Course it is. And all movie directors/producers "know" that we're all too stupid to know the difference, anyway. Bastards...

    If I could get a few of these boors into a tiny, windowless room and apply a cluebat to them, I would simply say that if you're going to adapt a game, KEEP THE FUCKING STORY. Keep the characters and technology. KEEP THE LOOK OF THE ENVIRONMENT. Keep the main idea intact. You don't have to make the movie a shot-by-shot copy of the game, but for Christ's sake, don't change everything! Tone down the ego, boys, and up the humility.

    Not like there's any chance of that. VIdeo-game movies are going to continue to suck forever more because of the immense egos of the people with enough power and money to produce/direct. There's no help for it.

    We're better off just playing the games themselves, and letting the movies die out from disappointing box office returns.

    NOTE, and COUNTEREXAMPLE: I thought Alien Vs. Predator wasn't bad, because they staged the movie in "the past" (still our future), predating all the games and other movies, and adding in some tasty backstory (how Weyland-Yutani got started, why they're so interested in aliens and predators, etc). So obviously SOME people can get it right.

    That movie's only problem was insufficient Predator-Alien whoop-ass. Maybe they had a shortage (only a few cans got delivered?).

  • Wake me up (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ann Coulter ( 614889 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @05:59PM (#11003387) Journal

    When they make something on par with Alien, Aliens, or Event Horizon. Aliens was part of what Doom was based on. In fact, Doom originally used an Aliens license.

    The next time I go to a horror or horror action film, I want to be deeply disturbed. The new Texas Chainsaw Massacre did that for me. Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection both missed it entirely (even though Resurrection did have some xenoeroticism, hehe). We need more original horror films.

    Hell and body mutilation tend to be pretty good ways to disturb me. Event Horizon had both. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre had both. Aliens a Hellish evironment plus body mutilation. Alien had the latter.

    If Doom the movie has people being cut open, internal organs spread out on the operating table, hung by hooks, and surrounded by Satanic symbols, I might watch it. If Doom has wall textures that look like spinal cords, sewn skin, pipes of blood, behemoth demon brains, and decorations based on tortured human bodies, I might watch it. But if it is just another zombie film with the good guys being chased by zombies for the rest of the film, I'll just make my own film to disturb.

    In conclusion, H. R. Giger (the man who designed the artwork for Alien) should design the atmosphere for Doom the movie.

  • by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @06:03PM (#11003424) Journal
    THEN DON'T GO SEE IT!

    Don't rent it, either. Wait until it's can be seen someplace where your viewing of it does no contribute any extra to it's coffers. Encourage others to give it a miss.

    I lost track long ago of the number of times I have heard people say, "It's going to suck! I *have* to see it!" And then the same people wonder wny most movies blow white hot chunks.

    If you must have the needs and character of a three year old, at least have some patience (is it *that* emotionally difficult to avoid seeing a suckfest?) and view it in a way that does not encourage Hollywood to make any more.

  • Everyone keeps blaming the *insert religious group here* for making the plot changes so the monsters aren't from Hell. The problem with that though is that religious people are the only ones who believe in Hell. It's not their fault. I blame the non-religious people that don't believe in Hell. The studio is trying to make the movie more believable to these people. Super virus is believable to everybody. Hell demons are only for the religious. Screw all you non-religious people. Here's my finger.
  • Why?! (Score:2, Interesting)

    Why do script writers and movie studios feel the need to take well established idea and change it into something completely different?

    Since this movie no longer revolves around neither Hell or Mars can you really still call it Doom?

    Doom was and always has been (to my knowledge) a game about a marine who has to battle against the forces of hell on Mars. He does this in the first game and he does this in the third (Doom 2 was on Earth).

    I've heard the reasons before that the film studios often feel they nee
  • The twist end... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by angryflute ( 206793 )
    Lemme guess: It's revealed in the end that everything was actually set on Earth. Some gov't/military conspiracy teleported the heroes to a lab to test the affects of a top-secret bioweapon. The End.
  • http://general.gamerfeed.com/gf/news/7478/ [gamerfeed.com]

    Todd Hollenshead: We didn't tie the script to the specific story in the game. There are lots of similarities, but there are many things that are different in a way that's not inconsistent with what we've done in the games. I believe that fans will find the story in the movie fresh and exciting, but still very much DOOM.

    Might these be the differences he mentioned?
  • by Mitleid ( 734193 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @06:42PM (#11003648)
    People, people! There is a reason that they've changed so much about the new DOOM movie, and that reason is the fact that DOOM was already made into a movie [imdb.com]. They gotta look orignal now, don't they?

    All sarcasm aside, this movie is going to totally blow. DOOM is the type of intellectual property that I think can only be made into a movie ONE WAY, and this way sure as hell ain't it. The best us die-hard DOOM fans can do now is sit back and watch it crash and burn horribly, never to be spoken of again. As far as I'm concerned, they might as well have given it to someone who could at least butcher it in style like Uwe Boll [imdb.com], but he was probably busily turning another videogame liscence into pure tripe.
  • by Nine Tenths of The W ( 829559 ) on Sunday December 05, 2004 @06:43PM (#11003653)
    Which of these forthcoming game adaptations is going to be the worst:
    Doom
    Duke Nukem
    Dungeons and Dragons 2
    Vampire:The Masquerade

Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.

Working...