Doom: Annihilation update

[Koko Ricky]

The barrel in the original teaser has a Doom 3 style UAC logo on it which also resembles the Doom 64 barrel. 

[FreakZoneGames]

Fun teaser. Better than the previous one which showed nothing. Practical Imp throwing CG fireball like a hadouken is both awesome and hilariously cheesy.

 

Doom wouldn’t work for anything other than a corny B-movie, frankly (I doubt anybody putting a high budget into a Doom film and trying to take it super seriously would end up with anything much different to the 2005 film), I just hope it’s the gritty, grindhousey kind of B-movie and not the throwaway SyFy kind. I hope they go completely nuts with the gore and fucked up shit. That would explain why so little has been shown in the trailers, maybe the good stuff is all too graphic (or maybe there is no good stuff... but I can dream, Harold!)

[DoomSpud]

18 hours ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

Didn't see this posted anywhere yet (if it has been, sorry!). This seems to have dropped day before. 

 

 

Get a better look at the imps in this one, plus what appears to be a scene in hell, possibly inspired by The Titans Realm , going by the lighting? 

 

Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! This is so fucking bad I don't even know where to start!!

[Quasar]

3 minutes ago, DoomSpud said:

 

Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! This is so fucking bad I don't even know where to start!!

Why not try to come up with something specific to criticize? Because otherwise, nobody really cares. You have your opinion on it, congratulations.

[DoomSpud]

10 minutes ago, Quasar said:

Why not try to come up with something specific to criticize? Because otherwise, nobody really cares. You have your opinion on it, congratulations.

Just as I couldn't give a rat's arse about yours... oh look, we're even. Feel like you achieved something?

[Marcaek]

already looks better than the other doom movie

[Taurus Daggerknight]

6 hours ago, DoomSpud said:

 

Baahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!! This is so fucking bad I don't even know where to start!!

 

I'm more of the thought that it looks....tragic. 

 

The low budget, the obvious "direct to TV/ DVD" pitfalls, all the signs of a bad Sco-Fi (oh, I'm sorry, ScyFi, god I hate that...) channel original... it's all true. 

 

And yet, there are so many little details in both trailers that only someone intimately familiar with Doom would pick up on, or think to put in the movie. It's not like the other adaptations where they merely look to be reaching for the easiest thing to put in. The fact that we're seeing nods to everything from Ultimate Doom, through Doom 64, to Doom 3 and 2016, says that at least someone in the team has been paying attention, and is trying. Just that they're hobbled by having jack shit to work with. No budget, probably some interference from on high, not to even mention being disavowed by the license holders (which frankly, should have happened to the original Doom movie, because that looked just as awful in many ways). 

 

(And yes, I am standing here saying that the original Doom movie looked as bad. I re-watched it on TV recently. It is terrible. I don't care what anyone here insists, it had no redeeming quality for, much less anything "Doom" about it. And I may be the only person to say this, but I thought the FPS segment was tacky and lame.)

 

At this point, I have little doubt that this will be a better "Doom movie" than the last one, but that it will be a worse "Movie" in most regards. I still intend to give it a look, if for no other reason than curiosity. Again, it's just sad that it looks like it will be terrible despite it being obvious that someone was trying in their own way. 

[DoomSpud]

Ha...

Received a warning from the mods for "rudeness" even though I was the one set upon by Quasar for having a differing opinion.

Does Quasar get a warning for his rudeness and inability to accept another person's opinion, or his inability to just scroll past something he didn't agree with quietly without starting shit? Where the hell does HE get off acting like that but I'm the one to cop the moderator warning? Pffffft. What's the point of a forum if you can't post your opinions and thoughts on a subject? I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO sorry I think this movie looks fucking bad. I'm SOOOOOOOOO sorry to everyone I offended by that.

This isn't the first time I've been singled out and attacked on this forum by someone who couldn't accept an opinion that differed from theirs. But I guess that's just how this place works isn't it?
 

[zen4040]

honestly the new trailer doesn't look that bad, the only problem I have is that it seems to be going for a pg rating, if they don't have hellish and gory props all over the place they're just doing it wrong. There's also the lack of doomguy of course. I hope people know that this has nothing to do with the newer games storywise, it's a cashgrab using a license that they shouldn't have at this point at all.

[DoomSpud]

1 minute ago, ([zen3001]) said:

it's a cashgrab using a license that they shouldn't have at this point at all.

100%.

I'm surprised that after the Doom HD Remake debacle earlier this year that Bethesda and/or iD Software haven't issued a cease & desist order on whoever's producing this. If I was copyright holder on the trademark I would NOT be letting this see daylight. All too many franchises (not just games) have been destroyed by someone taking "creative freedom" with a trademark that's dearly beloved by millions and completely ruining it and tarnishing the name by not staying true to the core principles of the brand... which is why Doom 16' was so universally lauded and loved... it stayed true, it was done with finesse and presented as something the developers and fans could be proud to say "I'm a Doom fan!". The fact this isn't even getting a theatrical release is immediate cause for concern.

[Quasar]

7 minutes ago, ([zen3001]) said:

honestly the new trailer doesn't look that bad, the only problem I have is that it seems to be going for a pg rating, if they don't have hellish and gory props all over the place they're just doing it wrong. There's also the lack of doomguy of course. I hope people know that this has nothing to do with the newer games storywise, it's a cashgrab using a license that they shouldn't have at this point at all.

Probably a result of the trailer necessarily being all-audiences material as they generally are throughout the movie industry. The movie itself is already confirmed as having been rated R.

[Capellan]

 

2 minutes ago, DoomSpud said:

I'm surprised that after the Doom HD Remake debacle earlier this year that Bethesda and/or iD Software haven't issued a cease & desist order on whoever's producing this. If I was copyright holder on the trademark I would NOT be letting this see daylight. 

 

That's simply not how movie licensing works, as should be pretty obvious from the many times people have loudly complained about how their work has been adapted, but done nothing else about it, because they can't.

 

 

 

[Quasar]

2 hours ago, DoomSpud said:

Ha...

Received a warning from the mods for "rudeness" even though I was the one set upon by Quasar for having a differing opinion.

Does Quasar get a warning for his rudeness and inability to accept another person's opinion, or his inability to just scroll past something he didn't agree with quietly without starting shit? Where the hell does HE get off acting like that but I'm the one to cop the moderator warning? Pffffft. What's the point of a forum if you can't post your opinions and thoughts on a subject? I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO sorry I think this movie looks fucking bad. I'm SOOOOOOOOO sorry to everyone I offended by that.

This isn't the first time I've been singled out and attacked on this forum by someone who couldn't accept an opinion that differed from theirs. But I guess that's just how this place works isn't it?
 

I literally asked you to enumerate some specific things you feel make the movie bad, rather than barging into the conversation under the apparent assumption that everyone was going to agree and applaud you. Your response is disproportionate to that. You're fine with not liking it. But how is "bahahah it's so awful" contributing to discussion on either end? I still don't see anything substantive in your newer post.

 

id / Bethesda don't have the ability or the right to cancel this film. The film rights for Doom belong to Universal by contractual agreement. The way they have treated the movie is also unnecessarily rude to its creators if you ask me. The 2005 film never got such treatment from id and I think it was a far worse outing in terms of having anything at all to do with the source material.

[DoomSpud]

3 minutes ago, Capellan said:

 

 

That's simply not how movie licensing works, as should be pretty obvious from the many times people have loudly complained about how their work has been adapted, but done nothing else about it, because they can't.

 

 

 

Thankfully music copyright doesn't work the same way...

[DoomSpud]

21 minutes ago, Quasar said:

rather than barging into the conversation under the apparent assumption that everyone was going to agree and applaud you.

 

Not once did I make ANY assumption of anyone applauding me. That in itself is an assumption on your part. Kettle calling the pot black right there.
 

21 minutes ago, Quasar said:

The way they have treated the movie is also unnecessarily rude to its creators if you ask me. The 2005 film never got such treatment from id and I think it was a far worse outing in terms of having anything at all to do with the source material.

Consider the fact this movie releases to the public on October 1 while Doom: Eternal releases on November 22. Two pieces of Doom franchise with such close release dates. One is a quality game made by the actual creators and owners of the trademark, and one is a B-grade (at best) movie being released by a bunch of unknowns trying to cash in on the same trademark within a month of the other. I support iD Software's response.

Seriously, the main character's name is Joan Dark... like really? Is this a Doom movie or a Perfect Dark movie? They practically stole the main protagonist's name from another FPS game!!!... wow... just... wow...

[Taurus Daggerknight]

Point to note; while iD did distance themselves from the project, they never really attacked it either. I think it was fine of them to say that they have nothing to do with it, which they don't. Don't think that's the same as them treating the film makers badly per say...

[Quasar]

15 minutes ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

Point to note; while iD did distance themselves from the project, they never really attacked it either. I think it was fine of them to say that they have nothing to do with it, which they don't. Don't think that's the same as them treating the film makers badly per say...

It was the timing and tone of the twitter post that made me feel that way, but you may be correct.

[FreakZoneGames]

I'd say people looked WAY too far into that id Software tweet.

 

Still, I have a couple of thoughts on this. Why straight-to-video? I do have a bit of a theory on that. Well, a couple actually. I mean mainly I think it's that Universal have the license but can't see it being a big hitter, so they want to use it but not try to sell it mainstream...which I'm not sure why more people aren't happy about? When you try to make Doom appeal to a massive audience you get the 2005 film. The thing I find interesting about all this is the response to the fact that it's going direct to home video/digital purchase and not direct to a streaming service. Direct-to-Netflix, for example, is really common these days and usually isn't seen as a bad thing, but "direct-to-video" still has its bad rep. Direct-to-Netflix would have avoided those connotations.

 

BUT my other theory is that Universal's DOOM license may have a time limit on it. It's not uncommon for a license to have a clause where it expires if the holder doesn't make use of it for a certain amount of time. An example is Fox's use of the Fantastic 4 license in the past. In the mid 90s they made a super low-budget straight-to-video Fantastic 4 movie (which actually never got released properly if I read correctly), purely to stop their license from expiring before they had the chance to do something more with it. Then they did those two theatrical ones, but again in 2014 or so they put out another movie, with a pretty terrible production history, but it was just handed to a director with a "do whatever you want with it" attitude so that they'd get something out before they lost the license again (I know that's not the full story but there's only so much detail I wanna go into with this). Point is with a valuable license like this, if it happens to have that kind of clause in it, it's not uncommon for the studio to put out something cheap as a means of holding onto the license in case they want to use it for something bigger later.

 

34 minutes ago, DoomSpud said:

Seriously, the main character's name is Joan Dark... like really? Is this a Doom movie or a Perfect Dark movie? They practically stole the main protagonist's name from another FPS game!!!... wow... just... wow...

 

That's a Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc) reference, as was Joanna Dark's name in PD. It's a pretty common thing to do when you have a strong woman character.

[Quasar]

30 minutes ago, DoomSpud said:

Seriously, the main character's name is Joan Dark... like really? Is this a Doom movie or a Perfect Dark movie? They practically stole the main protagonist's name from another FPS game!!!... wow... just... wow...

Well let's see. In the previous "Doom" movie we had Asher "Sarge" Mahonin, John "Reaper" Grimm, Mark "The Kid" Dantalian, Eric "Goat" Fantom, Dean Portman, Sergeant Gannon "Destroyer" Roark, Gregory "Duke" Schofield, and Katsuhiko "Mac" Kumanosuke Takahashi. Was this a Doom movie or just a bunch of random made up names? None of these other than Sarge have any pedigree in Doom canon. I guess maybe "Goat" if it were a reference to the Satanic goat in a pentagram, but it doesn't seem to be in context.

[Cruduxy Pegg]

1 hour ago, DoomSpud said:

100%.

I'm surprised that after the Doom HD Remake debacle earlier this year that Bethesda and/or iD Software haven't issued a cease & desist order on whoever's producing this. If I was copyright holder on the trademark I would NOT be letting this see daylight. All too many franchises (not just games) have been destroyed by someone taking "creative freedom" with a trademark that's dearly beloved by millions and completely ruining it and tarnishing the name by not staying true to the core principles of the brand... which is why Doom 16' was so universally lauded and loved... it stayed true, it was done with finesse and presented as something the developers and fans could be proud to say "I'm a Doom fan!". The fact this isn't even getting a theatrical release is immediate cause for concern.

 

Bethesda doesn't give a crap about terrible PR. Just look at Fallout 76 and all the nonsense they did. A cheesy low-budget movie is nothing in comparison. At worst this movie does nothing, At best it becomes a cult classic.

[DoomSpud]

3 minutes ago, FreakZoneGames said:

Still, I have a couple of thoughts on this. Why straight-to-video? I do have a bit of a theory on that. Well, a couple actually. I mean mainly I think it's that Universal have the license but can't see it being a big hitter, so they want to use it but not try to sell it mainstream...which I'm not sure why more people aren't happy about? When you try to make Doom appeal to a massive audience you get the 2005 film. The thing I find interesting about all this is the response to the fact that it's going direct to home video/digital purchase and not direct to a streaming service. Direct-to-Netflix, for example, is really common these days and usually isn't seen as a bad thing, but "direct-to-video" still has its bad rep. Direct-to-Netflix would have avoided those connotations.

A few possible reasons...
1) No one wants association with it...
2) Not being made by a major studio (it's a Universal subsidiary) means it doesn't have megabucks being thrown into it (clearly from what we can see...) so they probably don't have the financial backing to do fullscale advertising for a worldwide theatrical release.

3) Doom being such an esoteric thing (yes, everyone who plays videogames knows about it but the Doom community is relatively small and very tight-knit) it's unlikely to ever be a major drawcard for ANY studio or publishing/distribution service and without massive financial backing, the producers would want to maximize returns so slipping a cheque to Netflix or any other service is going to cut into the already small potential returns a film like this could make. With direct-to-DVD/BD they can maximize full 100% returns after manufacturing costs.
 

11 minutes ago, FreakZoneGames said:

That's a Jeanne d'Arc (Joan of Arc) reference, as was Joanna Dark's name in PD. It's a pretty common thing to do when you have a strong woman character.

It's also common when you're out of ideas... lol

[Taurus Daggerknight]

....or it could just be a cute reference. I'm leaning towards that. The name is too on point for it to have been a random, unintentional pick. 

[DoomSpud]

6 minutes ago, Pegg said:

 

Bethesda doesn't give a crap about terrible PR. Just look at Fallout 76 and all the nonsense they did.

Well, when you put it like that... lol yeahhh...
 

6 minutes ago, Pegg said:

At worst this movie does nothing.

Or it could do what the first movie did and make me ashamed to mention to anyone I was a Doom fanatic because I'd cop questions like "that's the shit you play is it?" or "saw that movie they made about that game you never shut up about... it was fucking retarded".

[DoomSpud]

2 minutes ago, Taurus Daggerknight said:

....or it could just be a cute reference. I'm leaning towards that. The name is too on point for it to have been a random, unintentional pick. 

The fact it's 3 letters off the name of the female lead of another classic 90's FPS to me is just ridiculous. Like, how fucking lazy can you be?

[Cruduxy Pegg]

Yea that's more the fault of obnoxious people than the movie. Tell them it is a shitty movie that has nothing to do with the games and be done with it next time?

[Koko Ricky]

I don't understand people saying a movie with practical effects, sets, props, costumes, decent CG, solid lighting and competent looking camera work "looks like shit."

[Dexiaz]

5 minutes ago, GoatLord said:

I don't understand people saying a movie with practical effects, sets, props, costumes, decent CG, solid lighting and competent looking camera work "looks like shit."

 

I don't understand people saying a movie with practical effects, sets, props, costumes, decent CG, solid lighting and competent looking camera work "looks like shit." BEFORE WATCHING THE MOVIE ITSELF.

[DooM_RO]

48 minutes ago, Đeⓧiaz said:

 

I don't understand people saying a movie with practical effects, sets, props, costumes, decent CG, solid lighting and competent looking camera work "looks like shit." BEFORE WATCHING THE MOVIE ITSELF.

 

Because the trailer is representative of the quality of the final product.

 

The new trailer is better though.

[The Nate]

2 hours ago, ([zen3001]) said:

honestly the new trailer doesn't look that bad, the only problem I have is that it seems to be going for a pg rating, if they don't have hellish and gory props all over the place they're just doing it wrong. There's also the lack of doomguy of course. I hope people know that this has nothing to do with the newer games storywise, it's a cashgrab using a license that they shouldn't have at this point at all.

Huh, I remember the director saying it would be rated R back in 2018, and here's a gory set photo:

[Dexiaz]

24 minutes ago, DooM_RO said:

Because the trailer is representative of the quality of the final product.

 

 

My friend said that Doom 2016 is shit only judging by it's trailer. Well yeah, it's great idea to judge the whole movie only by a trailer. Uh, no. That's wrong. Why? Because you can only judge by trailer "I want/I won't watch the whole movie", BUT you CAN'T really judge the whole product. Feel the difference of understanding of "What can I say about this by watching the trailer"