Badmovies.org Forum

Based on the one picture that's been released, I have to say it really looks quite cheesy, but from what I understand the creature effects, from none other than Stan Winston studios, are mostly old-school animatronic effects. At the very least, hopefully the film will be an enjoyable effects romp.

But what are your predictions?

It will suck:

A. Not set on Mars

B. No space marines

C. No gate to hell


I dread the release of this film.  I'm sure it'll be packed with CGI considering the creature FX that the film would require.

I'm inclined to agree. The games have a pretty well developed storyline, and they're not using it. That's a big mistake, as far as I'm concerned.

Judged on its own merits, it might be OK, but it won't be Doom.

To Skaboi--

Read what I said.
THERE WILL BE NO CGI.
This is coming directly from the star of the film, the rock.
Read this here:

http://canmag.com/news/4/3/737

In an interview with writer dave Callaham, he said that he added something needed to make a film work in most cases, something I'm asuming the game didn't have--character development.

Now I'm no video game fan (I bought a game cube last year for $100, played two games and haven't used it since--That's all my video game experience), but hopefully at least it will be a film for us fans of the good ol' animatronic effects we don't get enough of these days to enjoy.

'character development' is usually short-hand for 'soap opera'

The game had decent character development.   It sketched out a basic character and motivations and enough background and let that character loss in an evnvironment  It didn't need characted development because the atmosphere was so engaging.  A movie with good atmosphere can get away with minimal character development.

Interesting that a game franchise that keeps pushing the limits of computer hardwar would be down with no CG.

I can't see doing  really good cyberdemon or baron of hell or cacodemon without going CG,  I can't see doing 'DOOM' without those bad guys.

Hey, your entitled to your own opinion, but I'm just saying you shouldn't focus on what's bad and look forward to the good.
Just to let you know, Fearless Freep, after doing a brief google image search of the creatures you listed above, I doubt those ones will appear in the film--it's a viral mutation (cough* Resident Evil *cough), not demons, so we're not likely to be seeing those beasties.
I for one am looking forward to the monster effects, if nothing else.

So, the high expectations are because it is done without the hated CGI, in spite of the fact that we know they are thoroughly butchering the story.

So, the high expectations are because it is done without the hated CGI, in spite of the fact that we know they are thoroughly butchering the story.

To each their own, I guess.

I never understood why they change video game plots so much when they make a transition to the movies. I thought maybe they try to reach a wider audience but most of the games they made into movies already have simple plots. Like Resident Evil game had a simple and much better plot (thats not saying much either) than the movie. A bunch a special police officers stuck in a creepy mansion with zombies and other creatures. How could you go wrong?

As for Doom they took everything that made Doom and stripped it. So far it looks like a train wreck story and charater wise.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t give it, you can't buy it, and you just don't get it!-Aeon Flux

Your missing my point. I don't
have high expectations for the film, though I am interested in seeing it. A film that uses Stan Winston's creatures over CG sounds promising to me, though the plot does sound cheezy. But hey, some times cheeziness adds to the fun.

No CGI?  That's a worse move than changing the story of the game.

I'm not a big fan of CGI.  As a matter of fact, I've always been a supporter of latex creature fx rather than CGI.

But, lately I've begun to see the upside of CGI in film.  It's becoming more and more seamless and I'm actually starting to like it.  

This movie will not work without CGI.  If I'm not mistaken, the script will have The Rock being infected by the virus and turning into a "pinky" like creature from the games.  I can see no way this will work with latex without looking completely cheesy.  I have the utmost confidence in Stan Winston - The Guy Is A Genius.   I just feel that sometimes CGI is needed in some films.

Now Cheecky-Monkey, I know you loathe CGI.  So, do me a favor.  Go watch Sin City and Sky Captain back to back and then tell me that CGI if done correctly is a bad thing.

I've seen both those, sorry but I still hate CG in live action movies.
It should be used for cartoons--films like Shrek, Ice Age, Monsters inc., etc. all had fablous animation. But putting it in movies the way people like George Lucas, Steve Sommers, etc. do, it's putting good effects artists out of work.
CG should only be used if there is absolutely no way to achieve the desired effect practically. Using it for creatures...that's just gotta stop!

It's gonna be bad.

CG should only be used if there is absolutely no way to achieve the desired effect practically. Using it for creatures...that's just gotta stop!

Animatronics should only be used for all-animatronic movies like those Rankin/Bass Christmas specials.  Using if for creatures in live-action movies has got to stop; they just look so fake

Was that supposed to be a joke?

Cheecky-Monkey wrote:

> Was that supposed to be a joke?

Can't speak for Freep, but I'd say probably not; just a good point.  Essentially, it seems like you are saying that an effects technique YOU don't like should never be used.  Artists/directors should ONLY use effects in the genre(s) you approve.

My old arguement: CGI effects done RIGHT go unnoticeable, so you don't complain.  There's virtually no modern movie made without some degree of computer effects.  Even if that is just motion blurring 'stop motion' animation, etc.  Usually, it's more.

Personally, I think it is blasphemy to make a movie based on a COMPUTER GAME and NOT use CGI.  But, that's just me.  ;)



Post Edited (04-13-05 18:19)

Cheecky-Monkey wrote:

>  But putting it
> in movies the way people like George Lucas, Steve Sommers, etc.
> do, it's putting good effects artists out of work.

But, if Stan Winston is taking the fx lead in this flick, that's not  out of work; that's employed.

A good fx director can blend both classic and modern fx tools to achieve the most awesome visuals.

Can't speak for Freep, but I'd say probably not; just a good point.

It was saitire or parady or such.  Not funny per se; but making about as much sense as the original it was based on

Effects are just effects.  They all look decent enough when done well; the look bad when done poorly.  Just consider the blue screen flying effects in Superman vs MegaForce.  One done well, one done badly.  One done well within the context of a good movie so even the obviousness of the effect was easy to overlook. One done poorly within the context of a bad movie so it wasn't so easy to forgive as it was just one more silly thing to laugh at.

For me, the classic example of a comparison is "Anaconda"; it had CG and animatroinic effects, both done..not great.  The CG snakes moved like they were weightless and the animatronic snakes moved poorly and barely at all and looked like plastic.  Thins is, the CG effects did stuff that animatronics could never do, and the animatronics provided more detailed closeups then the CG could so..both did there job in the context of the needs of the production, but...both could've been much better.  But...you know what,...the CG snakes...or the Animatronic snakes, were not the worst part of that movie so...who cares?

All effects have a certain amount of the filmaker winking at the audience and saying "ok, just suspend disbelief a bit and go with this, please?".  Some accomplish it better than others but...realistically speaking, just about all effects betray themselves in some way and if you want to critique and find fault, you can and if your willing to go along with it, you can.  Usually, the willingness to go along is partially how well executed the effect is, but also partially if the movie has built up goodwill in the observer through good plot, story, characters, etc...