Thanks for comparing apples to oranges. For the record, I don't dislike Doom 2016, it's a good modern game, I just think it's not as good as the original Doom.
It's going to be a long text and apologize for that, but here is what people needs to understand: They had a low budget. They didn`t had Bethesda`s support. They did all they could with what was given to them. Yeah, the movie looks B-rated because it IS B-rated. And is not a bad B-rated movie. It takes place in Phobos, it has marines, it has demons, it has a portal to hell, it has action, it has a (underwhelming) BFG-9000 that this time actually kills something, it thankfully doesn't drags itself for more than 90 minutes. What else you need? "people saying the ideal movie should be a pure action slaughterfest like John Wick, or literally just Hardcore Henry in Hell"
I heard this a lot of times. First you need to understand how movies are made: First of all you need financing because movies are very expensive to make. How do you get it? You propose an idea to investors, a concept of a movie people would pay to watch. People goes to the movies to watch people interacting to situations around them. If you disagree with it, then movies are not for you, just play the game instead, it's much funnier.
If you replace Keanu Reeves by a dude with a Doomslayer cosplay, and the mobsters by CGI demons, and the electronic music that plays following the choreography like a beautiful dance of death by out-of-place deafening industrial metal, how many people you think are going to pay to watch it? 100,000 in an optimistic scenario? Dude, that probably pays for the opening credits and Doomslayer`s costume. "Oh but Hardcore Henry was a success."
No, it wasn't. It was produced under a budget of 2 million, and grossed 16 million. Yeah, that sounds good, but it was also recorded in Russia, where everything is cheap, the scenarios are somebody's backyard, abandoned buildings, and it already costed goddamn 2 million US dollars. Just to make the exact same movie in the US it would have costed ten times more, making it a box office flop. Now imagine making it in a sci-fi setting, with monsters instead of faceless goons. It would cost 200 million instead of 20 million, and a 16 million box office is definitely not good enough. "people wanting it to fail because of Amy Mason's tweet about Doomguy"
Okay, peep talk. If you feel personally insulted because of a joke about a fictional videogame character that doesn't even has an actual name, you seriously need to re-evaluate your entire life (and possibly your masculinity) right now. Doomguy is not real, ok? He doesn't has feelings. He doesn't need you to protect his "honor".
It's funny that I have seen a lot of people on facebook groups wanting the movie to fail because of a tweet, while being the exact same people that got mad a few weeks ago over ResetEra trying to cancel Ion Fury over the Ogay joke. That's a lot of hypocrisy, you either condemn ALL forms of cancel culture, or you are a part of it. You want people to lose their jobs over a joke about a fiction character, there is no excuse, this is despicable.
I don't see the lack of a Doomguy a problem at all. It must be made very clear that this is a movie about Classic Doom, not Doom 2016 or Doom Eternal. There is no Doomslayer yet, just Doomguy, and Doomguy can't even be considered an actual character, but rather an avatar, he is supposed to be THE PLAYER, whatever if you are a white guy, black guy, asian woman, whatever. So there is absolutely no problem on it being Doomgal. Just think of it, we already had Karl Urban as Doomguy in Doom 2005. He was pretty decent, anybody would be an inferior choice, but after Dredd he became way too expensive to hire. So why not try something entirely different and make a Doomgal instead? And for the record Amy did a decent job too. The marketing team should be blamed for the trailer, the actual action scenes looks quite better.
It`s perfectly fine to not enjoy the movie. B-rated movies are not for everyone. But hoping the movie will fail and they will go bankrupt, calling the movie "insulting", it's all quite infantile. The director, the actors, they all tried the best they could. I am thankful for them for having interest in making another Doom movie after 14 years. I am thankful for this not being made by Uwe Bowl purposely making a movie that sucks so he can get refunds from the government. I am thankful that Paul W. S. Anderson didn't make it and decided to cast his wife as Doomgal and give her superpowers and make the entire plot revolve about Martians or whatever. Go ask Resident Evil and Far Cry fans how they feel about their franchises and ask if they wouldn't want to switch places with us. I'd say Doom movies are on the same level of OG Mortal Kombat, Silent Hill, and Warcraft. It's not much, but it's better than 99% of videogame movies. I would argue that not even Doom 2005 is that bad (if you look at it as a prequel to Doom, how Doomguy got into a mission where he refused to kill civilians, killed his superior and then got sent to Phobos as a punishment, the lack of demons makes perfect sense). I mean, what other videogame fans can say their videogame got represented by The Rock, Karl Urban, and the guy that played the Night King on GoT?
You all need to accept that your "John Wick but with Doomslayer on a 200 million budget" will never, ever happen, so if you want the PERFECT Doom movie, then do yourself a favor and just watch James Cameron`s Aliens instead. Doom is essentially an Aliens rip-off, remember that id Software was originally approached by Fox to make an Aliens game and they decided to make their own game, borrowing a fuckton of ideas from Aliens (which you can see everywhere in OG Doom, from textures, weapon design, Doomguy's armor design, and so on). So any attempt at making a Doom movie will be inevitably an Aliens clone. There is no escape. So why not just watch the original thing instead? It's never a bad time to re-watch Aliens anyway.