Wirehead Studios

It comes out tomorrow! Who is going to see it? I won't get to until evening...or sometime later this weekend. Homework and the usual will keep me quite busy until then.

Taco out...

I'm too ill to see it immediately, but as soon as I'm able to fly again and don't feel like someone parked an M-1 tank on top of me I intend to get out to see it as well.

Already have money put aside to see it, I don't have high hopes for it though.
It BETTER have a CyberDemon.

Doom the movie isn't a bad movie, it's just not doom.

And there's at least one typo in the credits, and there's Z-fighting on the rifle in the fps credits.

I have a similar opinion, but I liked the direction that they took it in.  It wasn't what I wanted, but it wasn't what I didn't want either.  It was a somewhat pleasant surprise.

I'm going to reserve my judgement about the movie until I've actually seen it, but did anyone else see The Rock being interviewed about this movie on the Daily Show?

I can't stand that channel or that show, so no.  I did see the interview snippets while watching The Mummy Returns Thursday night on the Sci-Fi channel.  From what I saw it looks like he really enjoyed the part.

It got some really bad reviews. rottentomatoes.com ripped it apart and gave it only a 20%. Some of the comments from critics are funny tho. Here's the link: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/doom/ (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/doom/)

I take that back, it just dropped to 19%. *snickers* I'll see the movie regardless just to see it. If I enjoy it or not is another story.

When it comes to movies, especially action movies, I often find when critics say "It sucks" I end up liking the film to a large degree.  I also see critics give 4 star ratings to the most boring and uninteresting fare you can find.  Why?  It's "drama", or in other words, some sop of an actress boohooing and basically behaving like a real person in front of the camera, in a real-world scenario, doing nothing interesting, and certainly nothing you couldn't see without needing a film to view it.  Screw that.  I want tank battles, explosions, or 10 foot tall knights swinging axes at each other.  You know, stuff you normally DON'T get to see.

Movie critics are a bunch of stuck up, snobbish, egotistical elitist know-it-alls, whose opinions stink far worse than anything I've ever left on the ground behind me.  If the movie critics hate it, great.  Odds are I'll love it.  I'm certainly going to see it.  :rules:

I disagree. (but keep in mind that I don't generally read American movie reviews/reviewers)

There's not a homogenous market and audience for movies. Blockbusters are 'good for everyone' and quite often made for the money, experimental / technical research movies are made by and for experimenters, Films Noir are made for Film Noir-lovers, Bollywood movies are made for an Indian audience, et cetera.
The same problem arises that exists with all art criticism. Some people simply enjoy seeing a nicely hand-crafted picture of a ship sitting on a dock. They don't want nor care for the underlying intentions of the artist, historical context, the philosophy of art or even mathematical beauty. They don't want it to be thought-provoking or confrontational. This, just as with those who prefer Aliens vs. Predator over, say, La Haine, is ofcourse fine. Serious movie/art critics, however, are generally more interested in what lies beyond the realm of entertainment (or kitsch), since this has more depth. The director is trying to do something more than throw explosions and car chases at the viewer (and use violence as a means to create suspense - but this is a different topic altogether), and good movie critics are the ones who know enough to see through and enjoy these aspects - ones that remain hidden to most of the average movie's viewers. Let's say an intricate plot is presented in a way that can only be detected and appreciated by those who know what's going on, that it is more abstract and maybe requires a few views before it all falls into place.
-- Whether this be by having studied movies thoroughly or having read the right kind of culture produce, and even whether this is more valuable than single-layer presentation or not, is a discussion I'm not about to lose myself into - it is my opinion that more depth makes for a better movie (or song, or any work of art) and that we should all seek to understand and discover the underlying qualities. I am fully aware that a lot of people disagree with me on this and that, certainly from a philosophical standpoint, it is by no means decided what art is, what its value is and whether complication or simplification are the highest ways of abstraction and aesthetic. --

If you don't care for this (whatever you may want to call it), you'll not care for the opinions of experts and wanna-be experts alike (and you won't know or want to know the difference between those two). However, I think it is wrong to judge them as you do - just as I think it is wrong to judge Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment to be a 'boring piece of shit' when compared to Dan Brown's Digital Fortress, simply because you personally don't enjoy what the former has to offer (regardless of whether this has to do with a lack of knowledge about Russian history or not), or because the latter is a more accessible page-turner. Either product aims at a (more or less specific) audience and it is within that audience that you are best off seeking advice or reviews - anything outside of that is not 'snobbish' or 'know-it-all', but rather a regarding of the matter in a different light. Whether this gives those critics the right to look down upon others is not a point I'm willing to argue - what I do know is that there's more to movie/art criticism than most people know, and that studying it has enriched my life as much as any effort I have made.
Although it comes at a price (since there comes a time when it becomes harder to enjoy blockbuster movies, for instance), this is a price well worth paying, just like it is well worth losing an appetite for sitcoms by learning to appreciate ancient Greek comedy.

Yes, ofcourse there are action movies that have more to show for them than some 'drama movies' - every rule has its exceptions. Fight Club, Bourne Identity are two damn good action movies that pop to mind. I can't really think of a 'boohoohoo' type drama that sucked at this time, but I'm sure I've seen a few.

And having said all that, I can safely say I'll probably enjoy watching the Doom movie. Hell, I even loved watching The Man with the Screaming Brain (imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365478/)). And I'm willing to go so far as to say that there are probably people out there who consider themselves art critics, pretend not to like these kinds of action movies at all and who are snobbish, stuck-up and even egotistical (although I fail to see how that's related :)). These are the same people that look down upon others simply because they were born as rich aristocrats and they best crawl back to the whole whence they came.

What's this?  A definitive statement by Tab?  By jove, I nailed him good!  :D

Seriously though, my point is that movie critics often times are so dull and stuffy they don't know how to have fun, and they wouldn't know entertainment if it bit them on the nose.  I'm talking about the "film academy" level of movie critics, not the local paper's "go and see a flick and write something about it" people.  I don't care how they want to rate "serious drama".  I never said they shouldn't critique that.  The problem I have is that they always put drama and "human condition" stuff levels above anything else.  Sci-fi, fantasy, action, etc, always take a back seat.  Look at the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Regardless of whether or not someone liked the films, the cinematography, effects work, acting, costuming - all of it worked seamlessly to create a very believable world.  The artistry behind creating the film was amazing, and on top of that, it did exactly what the director set out to do.  Yet, it took until Return of the King for the Film Academy to even recognize the work, and even then it was only because there were so many ticket sales and so much public opinion behind the movies that they HAD to recognize it.  Sure it got a ton of awards, but it was completely unfair to the other two films, and it was also unfair to the other films that were up for judging that year that probably should have gotten some of the awards that ROTK received had it not been for this.  Why?  Why did it take so long?  Because of the elitist attitudes of the film academy, and the fact that they flat out don't want to take sci-fi and fantasy films seriously.

What do films like Doom get ripped apart for?  Often it's because someone goes in with an expectation, a prejudice, of what a film should be, and what they think the particular film they're going to see will be.  That taints the experience and biases the opinion.  A film like Doom, can easily be measured and critiqued for technical reasons, but the subjective part is often what gets attacked.  You go into it knowing it's a monster movie where everyone is going to die.  If that right there already turns you off then you have no business writing a critique.  If you've been getting in your head "Doom movie?  Based on a video game... it's going to suck", and you go see it... well odds are you'll think it sucks regardless.  So Mr. Critic goes in, gets exactly what he expects because you know he won't change his attitude (after all, HE'S the critic) comes out and writes what he would have if he hadn't even seen the movie.  This goes from "I don't like monster films and/or video game movies" to "this movie is bad".  It is nothing more than a personal opinion.  I'm not saying they all do this, but a great many do.  Now I'm not talking at all about whether someone blasts Doom in particular over the comparison to the game.  That's different, that implies someone at least knows the game, and that involves "purism" so I can and do understand rants of that nature.  I'm willing to set that aside and judge the film on its own merits.  I'm just ticked about the whole film critic attitude toward action/sci-fi/fantasy in general.

Also, I can appreciate heavy drama.  There are some movies I have not watched precisely because they are too emotional, and I don't want to get worked up over it.  I just think it's sad and pathetic that some people think they are above watching fun and exciting things, or that action, sci-fi, and fantasy are somehow "beneath" them.  It's like the guy who wears the $400 suit and goes to operas and wouldn't be caught dead playing in the dirt, versus the guy with the $10 t-shirt throwing a football with his son.  I just don't see why one always has to exclude the other.  Then again, I see movies because I want to be entertained, not because I am looking for social commentary.  Perhaps that's why I tend to like films the critics often bash?

I'm gonna black and shrink the text so is not to spoil it for someone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOOM the movie isn't bad but I am a bit disappointed on the way they changed the storyline from the original. The demons not being demons, but rather being a mutation. I do love the "icing on the cake" per se when they brought in that BFG, and holy shit on a shingle, what a big fvcking gun!!! Blue ray instead of green though. The Rock was the perfect "Doom Guy" and good acting from his end.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd give the move a B+ overall.

I guess you missed a few hundred then.

Anyway, my point was that this is not, in most cases, about a personal, undefensible bias. It is hard to explain the difference between Art and Kitsch, and it is even harder to convince people that there is nothing wrong with kitsch for the sake of what it is. I make it. I enjoy making it. I'm proud of making it to my best efforts. But it is not, by academic standards, art. Whether you agree with the latter or not, there is more to it than personal bias.

Don't get me wrong here, I don't believe there's any good in a serious movie critic that goes and sees the Doom movie just to pound it into the ground. If she goes to see the movie in the hopes of seeing a work of art (by her job's standards), she has not done her homework. If she is not able to appreciate the skill in setting up scenes of action, special effects and good one-liners, she is in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and shouldn't try to write a serious article about it. If she did, and write a crushing 'it sucks' review, she would make a mistake quite comparable to an early disagreeable teen calling Amadeus a boring piece of crap.

I'm probably reading very different movie reviews by very different critics than you have encountered. The last sci-fi reviews I've read concerned the new BSG series and Firefly, and nothing but love is what they expressed. Rightfully so, say I. The Dutch movie-goers community is a bit more down-to-earth than most of our neighbouring communities, so perhaps, as I hinted at earlier, there's a lot more bullshit being spouted by so-called critics in the States, I don't know.
Point me in the direction of reviews that you think are typically of the wrong sort, if you like, perhaps that'll clear things up for me.

The Doom movie was never made to be a 'work of art', it was made for a wholly different purpose - people ripping it apart because they were expecting that, are themselves at fault - and keeping that in mind, I go and see, and doubtlessly enjoy, the movie.

The movie was alright, I will be buying it when it comes out on DVD.
I wasn't disappointed in it, but I didn't come out saying it was the best movie I ever saw either.

Yar... I don't mean to be a bastard, but you might want to add some spoiler tags to your post Ooppee.  I've already seen the movie, but if I hadn't I wouldn't want to know the monster roster and the final battle and such.

Nah, just having a bit of fun is all.  Yes, I'd say it's almost certainly a difference in which critics are being read.  I'm not railing about specific reviews of Doom, it's just a peeve I've had for a long time regarding US critics and their attitudes towards genres I happen to like.

I would have to say this is the case.

I spoiler-tagged OoPpEe's post, and did my best to make sure I didn't catch anything that might spoil the film for me in the process.  For those who don't know how to use them, here's how you spoiler tag something:[/color]
[s]Text containing spoiler stuff.[/s]
This will end up looking like this:   Mouse over it and you can read it.[/color]

Ok, I've seen it.  Impressions spoiler tagged below.

I look forward to seeing this.

Phoenix, if they ever DO make a Quake movie, my first choice as the lead role would HAVE to be Gary Senise as Slipgater :). His jaw is very defined and seems to have quite a mean look when he is angry, hehe.

What do you guys think?

~ Super Macho Tacoman :P

If they started making quake movies they'd have to start with the Q3 "storyline" just to mess with movie patrons  :D

Well, I see Quake 2's universe as being perfect for a movie setting.  Since it's a war, you could make up any story you wanted to about the objectives, whatever.  Give a little backstory from the Marine's perspective (flashback, anyone?) about the Strogg having invaded Earth, and now how they're taking the fight to Stroggos itself.  I'd love to see live action Q2-ish firefights, especially if the baddies looked authentic to Q2.  I can just see a bunch of marines fighting through some weaker guards, then going real quiet inside this industrial-ish facility, then the next thing you know *GRRK!* someone gets a tentacle into their throat and gets pulled around the corner by a God-knows-what, which turns out to be a Strogg parasite.  The fellow Marines open up with their guns and chew the thing to pieces.  While they're trying to save their now gurgling, dying comrade, the next thing you know some big meaty, drooling ugly guy pops up on a ledge overhead and starts dishing out chaingun-speed firepower at the marines (Strogg enforcer).  Just one example of something that would be cool to see.  Jump to a later scene where a marine who's separated from his squad has doors close behind him, then you hear this metal on metal scraping noise.  This Strogg Berserker eyes the marine, and takes a few steps towards him.  He raises his shotgun to fire, and *click*, out of ammo.  The berserker, half-sneering, half-grinning, steps up fast to the marine and knockes him sideways with his hammer arm before the guy can think.  You can see a melee fight between the marine and the berserker ensuing, with the marine clubbing the berserker with his gun (to no effect) and the berserker eventually spiking the marine and pinning him up to the wall, then getting nose to nose with him to gloat as the marine dies.

Seriously, imagine the Q2 Strogg done in a mean real-life mode?  I'm not talking horror-ish like the Doom movie, but done full on action-style the way the Q2 game was done, only make the Strogg more visceral, more intelligent, more of how you'd expect an advanced, hostile cybernetic alien species to behave.  Sometimes I wish I could be a writer/director just so I could bring something like that to life.  It would certainly be fun. :)

Tabby:  Found a bunch of US movie critic reviews of Doom here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808640950/critic)  Absolutely horrible stuff to read.

I see what you mean. The first review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051020/REVIEWS/51012003) that I click open is about the movie's science, focuses on the (apparent) fact that the planet cannot be seen after the first shot. Mind you, the questions are justified. For a scientist. Perhaps this is one of those expectancy-problems we were typing about: this reviewer clearly was hoping to see a fancy piece of cerebral Clarke/Card/Asimov-like Sci-Fi. What he got was an action movie, and he didn't really review it as such (apart from a bit about the homage to the original video game perspective).
I don't think it's 'horrible', but it surely doesn't address the right audience for the movie and it clearly ignores the fact that this isn't one of those 'working-science' stories. I don't feel like reading the lot of them, but if this kind of thing is what ticks you off, I'm quite able to understand it.

I saw it today, and it was far better than I expected. Granted, my expectations were very low, but I can confidently say that it rose above the level of a total shit B horror movie; it came out atleast one whole notch above Ghosts of Mars, Starship Troopers, and others of that caliber. I would even venture to say that it was better than the Matrix sequels, and possibly even Aliens 3 and 4. Given the relative lack of quality activity in the genre lately, I think it was one of the more enjoyable sci-fi experiences I've had in the last few years. I don't know if I'd compair it to War of the Worlds, Signs, or the Lord of the Rings movies (which aren't exactly in the genre anyway), but, it was a solid Aliens imitation.

I have to say I respect the job that the writer did tieing elements from the game together and turning it into a competant action movie, considering the shit he had to work with; in between game-isms that don't translate to film and contraints set by the producers and film industry to turn out something "marketable" that can apeal to the lowest common denominator, etc. Besides the interchanging of viral outbreak for hell, almost all of the elements from the game were included from the movie; the action, horror, mystery, etc... even the element of deathmatch combat makes an apearance. The obligatory cheese and stupidity which seems to be required for a horror/action flick was kept to a minimum.

The characters were actually handled pretty well; the cast of disposable characters were prevented from being offensively annoying or stupid and served their purpose of filling out dead time in the plot, and once their purpose was served, they promptly died in some entertaining fashion. The rookie kid of the squad wasn't nearly as annoying as the kid in the Matrix sequels. The old 'reformed criminal turned evengelical marine' character almost worked as a tragic and sympathetic character. The central characters; Sarge, "Reaper" and.....uh...Samantha, were also handled well. I really like how:

Spoiler:

A lot of people actually thought that the Rock would be the hero of the movie, and then he becomes a badguy in the end. He played the vilain role pretty well, and this twist totally flashes a finger to everyone's expectations.

Also, I have to say it was quite smart of David Calaham (the writer) to cast Rosumund Pike as "Reaper's" sister, eliminating any possibility of a cheesy love story spoiling the movie. The back story and relationship between Reaper and Samantha, while somewhat developed, was at most, merely hinted at, so IMO it struck the perfect balance between adding some amount of basic dimension to the characters and making them interesting, without getting in the way of the action with poorly executed 'drama' turned into cheese.

Lastly, while outside pressures prevented him from including the 'hell' element to the plot, Callaham smartly filled out the backstory to the virus in a way which one could interpret Hell to be a possible origin of the virus, even though there is no direct implication within the movie. This means that theoretically, a sequel which re-introduces the hell element from the games could be made without actually contradicting the virus story from the first movie. With a bigger budget, a better director, and the same writer (this guy seems to know what he's doing) there would be some hope for this aproach, though I will certainly not hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Other random points I'd like the make:

- the transition to the first-person sequence was done very well. By bringing Reaper into it from a state of unconsciousness, it came off much less akward and disparate than it would have otherwise.

- the first person sequence itself was pretty cheesy and laughable, but had some fleeting instants of brilliance which were somewhat exciting. A better director could have executed it in a manner (probably with lots of 'shacky cam' effect) allowing it to be taken far more seriously, from a comic releif segment to an intense action squence. Had it not been filmed in such an over-ly clear, smooth "camera mounted on a cart" manner, it could have been pretty cool

- the rookie kid in the squad wasn't nearly as lame or annoying as the kid from the Matrix sequels (repeated for emphasis). He also made a good martyr for "insurection" later on.

- even though they only showed a few monsters from the game, they were all done pretty well and were pretty cool. Short of throwing fireballs, they did everything they did in the game. Even the mass zombie rush, while having been done in so many other movies allready, was decent.

- the deathmatch part could have been really cool had it been an intense, stealthy, 1 on 1 shootout, and not a martial arts fist fight.

- the BFG was pretty cool, particularly the melting effect, but it should have been used for a direct kill shot atleast once. Also, the plasma would have been cooler in green, and it would have been more dramatic if a maked 'charge-up' period preceded the blast.

- the inclusion of the BFG and chaingun were nice, and the fact that the assault rifles were all M4 and G36 hack jobs was forgiveable, but the Rocket Launcher was sorely missed. It's not Doom, or even Id, without the good old "RL". A plasma rifle would have been nice too.

That's all I have to say for now. Not too bad. Certainly far from perfect, but given how absolutely dirt poor shitty it could have been, it's pretty good.

I saw it tonight and enjoyed it.

Not enough shotguns or rockets though.

I saw it tonight, and I thought it sucked. Bad.

I wasn't expecting it to rock, game-movies seldomly do (see Alone in the Dark, Streetfighter, Mortal Kombat), although there are some exceptions, like Resident Evil (which was quite acceptable). Anyway, I won't deal with the spoilers, but it's safe to say that there's very little resemblance to classic or renewed DooM's, nor anything interesting to make up for that. Nostalgia^2 would have saved any movie for me, regardless of sloppy dialogue, bad effects, nonsensical melee fights and the like- but that wasn't happening here. There are a few game references (as well as movie references within the genre), some annoyingly obvious, others good for a grin.
Overall, I thought it was about as worthless as Resident Evil Apocalypse. Ironically, it reminded me of that movie a lot, too. You can't not have seen it, if you're into DooM, but my advice is to just download a DivX: it's not worth a trip to the theatre.

I merged this topic with the older one.

It's out on DVD.  There's an unrated version that has a (slightly) longer FPS sequence, in both Widescreen and Full Screen, in addition to the theatrical version.  I have the unrated widescreen version.  If you liked the movie, I'd recommend this one, it can be had for around $17.00.  If you don't like it, well, follow Tab's advice. ;)

The extras on the DVD are nice.  It's got a fairly long segment called "Doom Nation" that covers, well, the history of all things Doom, as well as documentaries on the creature effects, the FPS sequence, etc.  There's even a "newbie" guide to Doom 3, which to me was kind of nice because I got to see a bit of how the game's supposed to look on decent hardware without heavily spoiling anything.  *sigh*  My hardware sucks. :(  The part I really liked was they went into the weapons and squad tactics training for the actors.  There's a few fun moments in there too, especially when some of the actors have a little trouble handling their weapons.  One thing I still love about the movie is the attention to detail regarding the weapons handling.  They may appear to cock their guns a bit too often, though clearing the chamber (making sure the gun is either loaded or unloaded by pulling the bolt part way back with the safety on) can look just like chambering a round, but otherwise it was a refreshing break from the usual "fire continuously without ever reloading", etc, that spoils a lot of action movies.  I absolutely can't stand some of the things I've seen in films like Delta Force, where Chuck Norris can kill people 50 yards away with a machinepistol, without reloading, without even aiming from a moving vehicle in a high-speed chase, whereas the guys pursuing him with the Ak-47 assault rifles don't know what the semi-automatic mode nor rifle sights are for, and the sheet metal body of a Volkswagon "hippie" van can magically stop rifle bullets from penetrating through into Chuck's legs and groin.  A .380 caliber pistol round will go straight through a car door at 25 feet for crying out loud!

The DVD also contains an X-Box demo of DOOM 3.  The nice aspect of the demo is that allows you to check out the single player and online multiplayer a little, including co-op.  The bad part is that you have to initially wait for the demo to be copied to your X-Box's hard drive and for the game to load before you can actually choose the option to watch the DVD.

Pho:  There's a very simple reason why Chuck Norris doesn't need to aim or have a heavily armored vehicle, he's Chuck Norris.  He need only frown at the bullets to bend them to his will.  :ninja:

yea pho , everyone knows texas rangers are bulletproof.

I'm sorry, I had to come back to say "I told you so."

Plus, I'm really bored during my office hours.

Ha!

Welcome back, though I'm not sure what the "I told you so" is about exactly.  Maybe some elaboration would help.  :)

Having seen the movie myself I've got a picture in my mind of the writers discussing the plot:


Honestly though, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I had a severe feeling of deja vu.

Oh yea, sorry.

I said a while back that the DooM movie would suck. I was driven off because of my overwhelming cynicism. I just came to claim you stand corrected.

It's good to be back.

Well the problem with that is you're assuming that you're right.  You see I do not think it sucks, therefore you are wrong. :)

I believe I warned you about constant negativity and veiled insults at board members reaching a point of excess.  You sort of left voluntarily if I recall.  It's been a while, so we'll see how you do. :ninja:

[patronize]No, we'll see how YOU'LL do.[/patronize]

[gloat]Good, bad, I'm the bird with the admin powers.[/gloat]  ^_^

Actually:

The "Why I Told You So" Linky (http://forums.wireheadstudios.org/index.php?act=ST&f=13&t=2683)

EDIT : Concerning the last post of that topic, beware McDeth, as pollution melts ice, and a cracked ice can create an even bigger cracked ice, which is bad during the winter, since it only gets colder, but in the summer.. it's CooL! Also when people fall in a crack, they tend to die!

No idea what this last sentence means.

Can I buy pot from you?

Not to mention if the transaction occured using Wirehead Studios property, such as this board, we would be required to report the details to the FBI.  :)

No, no. Not busted.

Phowned.

No, Mak is right, it's "Phowned", and welcome back Mak!  Long time no squawk! :)

PS.  We are now way, way  :offtopic:

PLEASE ...

This topic is doomed, so I'm going to seal the gateway to hell before any more demons get through and corrupt it further.   :doomed: