MovieChat Forums > Doom (2016) Discussion > How the Doom 2005 film should have been....

How the Doom 2005 film should have been.

posted 8 years ago by tranm98
11 replies | jump to latest

-Introduce monsters like Cacodemon, Z-Sec, Maggot and Cyberdemon, with the already established Imp, Hell Knight and Pinky demon. Don't have a big issue about they leaving out hell even though they hinted that the source of the whole chromose stuff could be from hell.

-More action and gore. A mix of Rambo and Hellraiser.

-Satanic symbols drawing in the walls and zombies or demons torturing survivors. A more evil\devilish atmosphere overall.

-The Rapid Response Tactical Squad is already stationed in Mars, but in a different base not far from Olduvai. That's how I would begin the story. And the UAC Olduvai facility will be much larger. Like a big city connecting with other different branch of UAC.(Military, science, civillian installation etc)

The movie will be almost a copy of Resident Evil 2002 and Resident Evil Apocalypse.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

The movie had all the "Doom" elements, but what it lacked was intensity; "Doom" was supposed to be this highly caffeinated bastard child of "Evil Dead" and "Aliens", but the movie lacked the intensity of either film.

[–] foebane72 8 years ago

The Christian powers behind Hollywood decreed that there would be NO Hell nor Satanic imagery in that movie. Period. Blame them for the movie being utter $hite.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"The Christian powers behind Hollywood decreed that there would be NO Hell nor Satanic imagery in that movie. Period. Blame them for the movie being utter $hite."

Nobody knows that for a fact. In all likelihood, Hell's omission along with the other demons is probably due to budget.

[–] foebane72 8 years ago

Oh come on, what has budget got to do with it? The execs were afraid that the movie would alienate their Christian viewers if it had demons and Hell in it, just as the original game once did.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"Oh come on, what has budget got to do with it? The execs were afraid that the movie would alienate their Christian viewers if it had demons and Hell in it, just as the original game once did."

Again, there's nothing to suggest that. No interviews, no articles on why Hell was omitted, only speculation. The reason why I brought up budget is because of the following facts about the movie: it had a $50 million dollar budget, was to be entirely practical and all done by Stan Winston Studios, which doesn't come cheap. With a movie like "Aliens", the filmmakers got away with convincing the audience of there being swarms of aliens through clever photography and editing despite only having six suits (I think that was the number(?)). They also have the advantage of using only one species. With "Doom", there's like over a dozen different types of creatures, a HUGE sprawling Hell dimension with its own architecture, along with the UAC facility and its various technologies (and that's not mentioning the various firearms and Marine combat armor) - translating all that to film and doing it all practically would more than likely be a challenge with the budget they have, especially with some of the larger characters such as the Mancubus, the Cyberdemon and the like. Add to that the cost of molding, technicians for operating animatronics, creating animatronics, creating extra costumes in case of damage as well as stunt work/to show the creature blowing up (I think there were like three or four Hell Knight costumes in total including a burnt version for when it got caught on fire), you are talking a lot of money.

[–] foebane72 8 years ago

It would all be done with CGI.

EDIT: Oh, just saw what you said. Well, if I recall, the entire FPS view scene was CGI, so what was the point?

Basically, if they couldn't portray full-on Hell and demons in a movie purportedly based on the game Doom, then they should never have made it at all. Damn all that "genetic engineering" bullcrap.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"Well, if I recall, the entire FPS view scene was CGI, so what was the point?"

No it wasn't. It was done through very careful planning, shooting cameras through corridors with actors in makeup and costume, rigging explosives to go off, green screen for some of the transitions with subsequent scenes smoothly integrated, etc. The only use of CG was the chainsaw battle with Pinky.
Kudos to Jon Farhat and his team for their work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afTDjIINTho

"Basically, if they couldn't portray full-on Hell and demons in a movie purportedly based on the game Doom, then they should never have made it at all. Damn all that "genetic engineering" bullcrap."

The movie has all of the elements from "Doom" - it has zombies, it has imps, it has a Hell Knight, it has Pinky, it has firearms of various sizes including the BFG, it has Marines, chainsaws, UAC, Mars, a teleporter/wormhole, gore, first person shots and the high-tech facility - that's all DOOM. Plus, the creatures weren't the result of bioengineering, they're basically amped up versions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. No reference had been made of C24 being genetically engineered by the scientists working with it or by the civilization that went extinct.
If they had hundreds of millions and a director like Guillermo Del Toro, maybe we would have seen full-on Hell and all of its denizens, but that's just conjecture. Instead we have to acknowledge the product already delivered. The problem isn't with the absence of Hell - the problem is the lack of intensity. There are moments of atmosphere, but Bartkowiak doesn't do anything with it. This might be due to the director in question; from his background, Bartkowiak is first and foremost a cinematographer, and it clearly shows in the movie. His directing seems very much mechanical, basically point and shoot.

[–] foebane72 8 years ago

Yes, the Doom movie was a wasted opportunity, although Karl Urban isn't a bad Doomguy, and the Rock is good as Sarge.

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"Yes, the Doom movie was a wasted opportunity, although Karl Urban isn't a bad Doomguy, and the Rock is good as Sarge."

Somewhat. I mean, it's okay for what it is, but it's nothing spectacular.

[–] ethanpatrick 8 years ago

The makers of the movie did the best that they could with what they were given. It was based more on the doom 3 science fiction mythos where the monsters were just aliens than the Doom/Doom II mythos where the monsters were demons from hell and such. If they were to make another movie now, it would definitely be more faithful to the originals and the new reboot

[–] evolution_500_2 8 years ago

"It was based more on the doom 3 science fiction mythos where the monsters were just aliens than the Doom/Doom II mythos where the monsters were demons from hell and such."

They were still demons in "Doom 3". Same here, just more the Jekyll/Hyde variety than fire and brimstone.