Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
[McD] James

Doom: Annihilation update

Recommended Posts

If nothing else I'm glad that Mr. Giglio got to do this. It's far from ideal (and I'm sure he had bigger ideas in mind), and Universal clearly held back way too much on the budget, but it's finished and it works, more or less. I'm still kind of saddened by how little the studio cared about allowing this to be a more ambitious project.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, EtherBot said:

My replies in this thread are responses to statements directed at me.... Idk if you have beef with me for some reason, I thought our exchange was fine and ended well.

 

Yes, I'm just really surprised by your answers. You made some very controversial statements and then dismissed any rebuttals as mere opinions, and yet keep continuing to be active in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GoatLord said:

Universal clearly held back way too much on the budget, but it's finished and it works, more or less. I'm still kind of saddened by how little the studio cared about allowing this to be a more ambitious project. 

AFAIK usually the movie making process starts with a script. Now, let's look at it from studio's perspective: you are provided with a clearly weak script to make a movie in a franchise that already has bad reputation in a genre that already has bad reputation. This is three red flags in one. I am surprised they allowed to film it at all. I wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Giglio has a working relationship with Universal, specifically their subsidiary Universal 1440. If Rotten Tomatoes is any indication, his movies haven't been received especially well...so I'm not sure what his reputation is with them, but according to interviews, he was asked around 2015 what he wanted to do next and he immediately said, "Doom." Once the 2016 reboot came out, Universal felt more inclined to give the franchise a second run, but I think Giglio was unable to write a great script that worked for the tiny budget allotted. If the cast had been cut down, I think more money could have been fueled into pushing a better narrative, as opposed to having them just run back and forth between sets, which was obviously done out of necessity.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, when I was watching that new trailer for The Mandalorian, all I can think of is Gina Carano could have made a more believable Joan Dark or a live action version of Ion Maiden.

Share this post


Link to post

There has definitely been a wave of people commenting on movies without understanding the context in which the movie was made and who it was made for.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Szuran said:

 

Yes, I'm just really surprised by your answers. You made some very controversial statements and then dismissed any rebuttals as mere opinions, and yet keep continuing to be active in this thread.

I don't consider anything i said to be controversial? My opinion on the movie was that it was a good time and felt like doom.

 

Assuming i did say something controversial...why does controversy over such a topic matter, such that im obligated to explain myself further? What is at stake, i really don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Man of Doom said:

sophistication of movie audiences

Sophistication? While Marvel/Disney shlack dominate the market?

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/29/2019 at 7:06 PM, GoatLord said:

If the cast had been cut down, I think more money could have been fueled into pushing a better narrative, as opposed to having them just run back and forth between sets, which was obviously done out of necessity.

 

This seems to be a popular preconception, but I don't think it's true. We're not talking about big name actors, these are fourth league at best, you have a lead who's mostly known for supporting roles in little known tv shows. I think even if they had half this cast, this would let them make like one more set or one more VFX shot at best, so it's better to fill the running time with more interactions and conversations than this.

 

Of course I'd go another way, hire some pro but unknown stuntman or parkour guy, cover his face a la Dredd with Doomguy helmet, then have him jump around monster like how do you it in Doom 2016. The only other two characters would be Bertruger and some operator we only hear via radio or see on monitors or something, who pretty much does exposition dumps. Then hire some pro skater or extreme sports cameramen and have them film Doomguy doing crazy stuff. Plus lots of fake blood. Running time: 75 minutes. Perfect.

Share this post


Link to post

I have finished watching the movie just now and think it's rock-solid. It's closer to the "story" of the game than the first movie and has some nice game references, too. 

 

You have to see it as what it is, though - a B movie. On the borderline to C. There are TV series out there with better special effects than here, and also better acting. Don't expect sophisticated dialogue or deep character development. It's straight forward and simple.

 

It could have had more Doom monsters besides Former Humans and Imps, but apparently there wasn't money for Cacos, Barons or even Lost Souls, which is a pity. The ending is also VERY anticlimactic and leaves you puzzled: On one hand you want to see how it continues, on the other hand you wish there won't be a sequel if it's the same quality. Personally I guess it would have been better to add another 10-15mins runtime and wrap things up properly, not risking a cliffhanger that may never get resolved if no sequel is made.

 

If you can grab the movie on Amazon for 10 bucks or so, I guess it's not wasted. Whether you will want to watch it more than once is a different topic. I liked parts of it, but everything looks really cheap which costs the movie a lot of atmosphere and authenticity. This needs to look gritty, weapons and armor should feel heavy (not like plastic), and at least some of the characters must be more "fleshed out" regarding their background for you to feel something for them. Think "Aliens" or "Event Horizon". If they dare to make a sequel, they should get inspired more by these classics.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Sgt Nate V said:

Apparently it'll be on Netflix tomorrow.

 

Christmas Day?? Still better than the Queens speech.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I finally watched it. All in all, it wasn't terrible but wasn't exactly amazing either. Decent acting from most of the cast, decent pacing. I will touch on a few points that stuck out to me below.

 

Spoiler

The Plot

The plot and progression felt very similar to the first film, but with the threat actually being Hell instead of C24 which was good. However, the plot didn't really explain UAC at all unlike the first film. You just have to already know about it from playing the games. The ending didn't really help either, lots of loose ends. I guess it was done to leave the possibility of a sequel.

 

The Pacing

Starts off slow, to be expected. The beginning felt very Aliens-esque to me with the ship portion. Lots of zombie killing for the first half. It starts getting good right at the 1 hour mark.

 

The Demons

The Imps are badass man. Didn't know they were so bullet spongey though. Ferocious bastards! What was up with that soul sucking shit by the way? There weren't many others though which was a shame. Guess it wasn't in the budget to have Pinkies, Lost Souls or others.

 

The Sound and Visual Effects

Not bad. Good and beefy sound effects. Believable CGI most of the time. The fireball hitting the wall at the reactor part was kinda bad.

 

Nods to the Games and Easter Eggs

I liked all the subtle things that were right from the games. Here's a list of the ones I noticed. There may be some I missed or forgot while typing this.

  • Dr. Betruger
  • Dr. John Carmack
  • Daisy as ship AI name
  • Sgt. William Blazkowicz (not Doom but whatever)
  • Red, blue and yellow keycards
  • Captain has a SSG
  • The guy yelling "I'm too young to die!"
  • The guy yelling "ultra nightmare" (I hate that this guy died, he was awesome. Definitely a nod to the heavy weapons guy from the first film.)
  • The woman saying "former humans"

The Problems

  • How exactly did they become "infected" or posessed? The guy at the beginning? The doctor guy? Wasn't explained unless I missed it.
  • Plot hole: How did they get out of the level 3 reactor? Weren't they locked in?
  • That's seriously the lightest BFG ever. I know they said the 9000 model was lighter in Doom 3 but damn.
  • BFG was more like a green Plasma Rifle than a BFG. Didn't even gib zombies! Bit of a let down. Guess it wasn't in the budget.
  • The ending sucked, sorry. It felt very sudden, and the way Joan ended up in Earth confused me.
  • How do the portals know to go to Phobos, Hell or Earth?
  • What was that thing at the end? Was it a demonic Betruger like Doom 3? Was it Satan? I don't think it was killed by the BFG.
  • How was Betruger dead but not dead? Did he make a deal with Hell?
  • I was sort of expecting the priest guy to be a twist on Doomguy. He kinda looked like him and said he used to be a marine. Oh well.

 

Final Verdict

Not as bad as expected. However, I think the first film still wins by a landslide. It may not have proper Hell, but it's just all around better across the board. It's hard to beat considering the FPS scene alone, and having more established actors. The worst part was the ending.

 

I give it a 6/10.

Share this post


Link to post

So I watched it again with my family on Christmas night, and it turns out alcohol will most definitely improve the experience. 
 

Overall, we were pretty invested in the movie, and my mom even said that she really loved the idea of having a Doomgirl this time around instead of a more traditional Doomguy. 
 

That, and I noticed that the set design is surprisingly evocative of Doom 64 more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post

I watched it the other day, twice. And my second viewing confirms my initial opinion. I thought it was a little boring because of the first third of the movie featuring no action at all. I think most of the crew generally enjoyed working on the movie, and did their best, but I just was not sold on it. It was an okay straight-to-video B movie, and by no means terrible. I didn't really like the main character either. I don't care if Doomguy/gal even had to exist in this movie. I thought her acting seemed more lifeless than the other 2 female leads. If we needed a female lead, I'd much prefer Nina Bergman instead of Amy Manson. I was also disappointed with the appearance of the "zombies", and how they (in my opinion) resembled blue orcs if you were to combine LotR and Bright. I didn't care much for the imps in either Doom movie because they look more alien than beast. To me, I thought the imps looked closer to something like Rawhead Rex from the 80s than the "alien" appearance they have in this movie. Though the last scene of creatures did look very familiar to the game of 2016. Aside from all the game references (whether you liked them or not) I just really don't care for the nods to Doom 3. I'd prefer the "clean up" crew from the original 1993 game, where all the damage was already done, and Deimos had already got sucked through the portal into Hell. There was some similarity with Joan and Doomguy disobeying orders and were sent to Mars as a punitive response. But in the original game story line, you were sent to Mars to act as a guard. The trouble with teleportation occurred between Phobos and Deimos. Only then was a crew (with Doom guy being a part of) sent to Phobos. When you start adding in stuff with Dr. Betruger and all the science mumbo jumbo you just get in the way in my opinion. Leave that to a mystery, let the viewers guess what they were trying to do themselves. There are several movies that were pretty good with pretty much 1 actor. Look at flicks like 127 Hours, Moon, Castaway, Buried. I'm not saying that's possible or wise on a low budget, but I've seen some reviews talk about how you couldn't have a movie about 1 guy fighting demons, but 1 actor movies do exist. I'm also curious if they could have added more monsters other than zombies and imps. We have some pretty awesome practical affects from some low budget movies that uses shaky cams, quick cuts or low lighting to sell a living monster, I wonder if that could have been done here. Even the imps which were obviously practical, I believe would have worked better if everything wasn't so bright and lit. I don't want to see every wrinkle and crease of a suit if it can be hid by the dark. Also VFX is far easier and more realistic if you don't have to render multiple light sources. I didn't even light the version of Hell that was used, if that is what it was suppose to be. I guess overall it was decent, but I feel like so much of what made Doom...Doom (to me), wasn't in this movie at all.

Edited by JamesBone

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×