Went and saw Doom last night. As expected, it was pretty much entirely awful, but it did have a thematically-consistent film studio title-card at the beginning, which is something I always enjoy. In this instance it was the standard Universal animation, with their name revolving from right to left around the Earth, except this time the Earth was Mars. Once the ‘Universal’ stopped, the point-of-view zoomed down to the planet’s surface, and the film proper began.
I love it when big companies, who are usually so protective of their identity, allow their logo to be played around with. The first example I can think of (although it’s not actually the same, but close enough) was from Raiders of the Lost Ark. The graphic, blue and white Paramount logo (from the Olde Days, before animated studio logos), cross-fades into an actual mountain, and as the camera pans down we see Indy hiking through the jungle towards it. Nice little way to work your symbol into the movie.
Other ones like Doom that I can think of off the top of my head are Waterworld, where the oceans of the Universal globe rise up to flood the land; The Matrix, where the Warner Bros logo is rendered in the green of a monochrome computer terminal; and Batman Returns, where the Warner Bros logo is covered in snow and ice.
I also seem to recall Independence Day having a shadow crossing over the 20th Century Fox logo, Ocean’s 11 having the Warner Bros logo rendered in flat colours, and The Day After Tomorrow having a storm or something going on. But I’d need to check to be sure.
I wonder what the connection between these films is? Why do some get this treatment and not others? Do studios try for it every time, or only with certain sorts of films. Ocean’s 11 was highly stylised, so I guess it makes sense to follow through where possible. Most of the others I can recall are sci-fi, so maybe that’s clue, although I’m not sure to what.
Anyway, except for the FPS sequence (complete with exploding barrels), and the Universal opening title card, the film was a great disappointment. Even as a must-have-low-expectations, mindless, disposable nothingness it was disappointing. Oh well, maybe things will improve in the inevitable sequel…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Two other examples spring to mind:
ReplyDeleteThe first was Serenity, I know steve how opposed you are to this jem, but it features the universal logo, becoming a planet (no surprises), but it turns out to be a ripper plot-twist for the end of the film. Clever.
(that won’t ruin anything though, its quite subtle)
The second shocks me that I remember it, but its was during Fran Dreschers spot of fame, in The Beautician and the Beast. The paramount logo skilfully becomes a cartoon mountain; we travel to the bottom where a day-dream is taking place for our Frans character.
There's got to be more
Actually, if I remember correctly - doesn't the Universal logo become an ever more polluted and barren Earth as the narration talks about how the Earth was "used up" and abandoned, then pans across to shots of the colony ships leaving Earth, never to return?
ReplyDeleteSo, nothing to do with < spoiler>... (I could be wrong - might nip off and see Serenity again, just to make sure. Yeah, that'll do for an excuse...)
Oh, and the woman who played Bobbi Fleckman (the hostest with the mostest) will always have more than a spot of fame. (Although, imagine how much more of a star she would have been if she'd been around in the 1920s...)
I love it when big companies, who are usually so protective of their identity, allow their logo to be played around with.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be implying that the "big companies" are virginal shrinking violets, terrified that their pristine corporate logos might be sullied by association with something as mundane as a mere movie.
I would have thought that the opposite is the case - that in fact they would be eager to tie their logo directly into the film, rather than just playing the same boring title card that we've all tuned out.
The very fact that this conversation is taking place demonstrates that we know that Doom - and Waterworld and Serenity for that matter - is a Universal picture; whereas it might be harder to recall that, for example, Mallrats is.
The contrast is similar to that between putting a Pepsi ad in front of Terminator 2 at the cinema; and what we actually got - that long multi-minute tracking shot where whatever else was in frame moved around that Pepsi can in Joe Morton's hand, locked in position in one of the four points in the frame to which any film student will tell you the viewer's eyes are naturally drawn.
No, I think the real reason we don't see this on every film is that it's an additional expense. The money to create the default animated logo has already been spent; why spend the extra money unless we're sure we'll get lots of eyeballs?
That's why most of these examples are either entries in popular franchises, or films by famous filmmakers with a built-in audience. Yes, that does include Kevin Costner (pre-Waterworld.)
What's changed in the last decade or so is that CGI has become cheaper. Thus a low-budget film like Doom can justify the added expense for an appropriately customised Universal logo.
Oh, and one last thing - The Matrix was one of the first films made by the Warner Bros / Village Roadshow partnership and several of their films have had thematically animated logos - presumably to create awareness for the Village Roadshow brand. (This obviously worked really well, since you only remember the altered Warners logo.)
That Serenity one sounds great. Not good enough to make me watch the film any time soon, but we'll see. You two and CK should go bowling.
ReplyDeleteIf Fran Drescher has "more than a spot of fame" then it's more than she deserves. Five minutes of goodness in Spinal Tap is not enough to outweigh THAT VOICE. PLEASE SAVE ME FROM THAT VOICE.
And, my, please explain WHY you were watching The Beautician and the Beast!
On further thought you are right, go you.
ReplyDeleteHowever
SPOILER IN:
During the opening montage of worlds, we do fly over the deserted planer of Miranda, its not quite as special, but I likes it.
SPOILER OUT
Apologies to Fran fans, she was in Weird Al’s film, so id say she deserves some cred
I was watching B&B because I’m sad, alone and have Foxtel, or had Foxtel, wen I was in Aussie land.
The thing about the Universal intro, and with every major film intro now, is that whenever I see it, I automatically expect the sound to dull down, hear the ruffling of microphones, and directors/actors to offer awkward commentary intros.
“hi welcome to the commentary for Lord of the Rings the two towers my names Sean Aston and I play Sam” Followed by Elijah Wood discussing with Golem just how brilliant a cinematic achievement it is.
Sorry. I just hate Sam and Frodo’s commentary, Christopher Lees is great.
You seem to be implying that the "big companies" are virginal shrinking violets, terrified that their pristine corporate logos might be sullied by association with something as mundane as a mere movie.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who works with the brands of large and small organisations every day, believe me when I say that all of them are highly protective of their identity. Not "virginal shrinking violets"; anal fascist violets would be closer to it, I think. All have Corporate Style Guides to rigidly control the look and application of their identities, complete with many examples of dos and don'ts. I don't think film studios would be any exception. Yes, there can be great benefits to a successful execution, but I think that playing with your brand is still seen by many as risky. Risky, and contrary to the school of branding-thought that has been in play for decades.
The very fact that this conversation is taking place demonstrates that we know that Doom - and Waterworld and Serenity for that matter - is a Universal picture; whereas it might be harder to recall that, for example, Mallrats is.
This conversation is taking place between three similar and very particular people. I don't think your average punter would recall the studios for any of the films I listed. Maybe not even any studios at all! I don't think it matters to most people. Who goes to see a movie because it's the latest one from Universal, etc?
All I'm saying is that if these companies are relaxing the limitations, for whatever reason, then I'm pleased because I'm enjoying the results.
You know, Christopher Lee's commentary bits (he didn't have his own exclusive commentary track; the horror, the horror) actually were entertaining. A big, old, self-important, egomaniacal, bag of wind can be entertaining as he stacks up one after another boast about how incredibly important he is to life, the universe and everything. Just when you think he can't top his last, there he goes to prove you wrong! Toss pot, I think is the term.
ReplyDeleteThat said, he was perfect as Saruman.
Aanndd... queue Glamma... ;-)
Every time I see the Universal logo I hear the opening bars of 'It's Your Thing' from Out of Sight. Every time I see the New Line logo I hear the opening bars of 'Que Sera Sera' from Heathers.
ReplyDeleteOh, and, of course, there can be only one association with 20th Century Fox... :-)
Any others for you?
i apreciate how much of a (you said it best) christopher Lee is, but hasnt he earnd that right? Hes Dracula and Lord Summerisle!
ReplyDeleteBernard Hills contribution was classic, and who can pass on merry and Pipin?
Far less interesting, is that most films now include their opening soundtrack in the studio intro.
forgive me, but i dont know of this Fox association...?
I guess you can earn the right to be a tosser, eg, Liam Gallagher, but there's something that rubs me the wrong way with Christopher Lee. Maybe I haven't seen enough of his fims? I certainly haven't seen The Wicker Man. Would you recommend it? I have read his autobiography however and there wasn't much in that to make me esteem him.
ReplyDeleteI also think he was rubbish as Darth Whatever, although I know you can only work with what you're given, so the blame lies mostly elsewhere with that one.
forgive me, but i dont know of this Fox association...?
Oh my gosh, I can't forgive that. Go and listen to the drums and horns of the 20th Century Fox fanfare and tell me what film you think you're about to watch! So connected is the fanfare to the film that it even appears on its soundtrack; something I am unaware of happening with any other film soundtrack.
I just thought of another, funnily enough for 20th Century Fox (for which there can be only one), and it's actually one of my favourites. At the start of Moulin Rouge you see a large stage with ornate detailing and heavy red curtains, dwarfing a silhouetted conductor at the bottom of the screen. The conductor raises his hands, the curtains rise, and the orchestra performs the 20th Century Fox fanfare while the title slide runs on-stage in the background.
ReplyDeleteThe little conductor's manic gestures in time with the music are gold.
I actually applauded this one in the cinema because, hey, that's the type of guy I am. :-)
Another example of the genre is Collateral, which I watched on Saturday night.
ReplyDeleteThe Paramount and Dreamworks SKG title cards play - in monochrome - over the sound effects of an aeroplane landing, followed by the ambient noise of the LA airport. There are no opening credits, and the opening shot of the movie is Tom Cruise walking across the terminal, which (from memory) is mainly out-of-focus blacks, whites and greys. Cruise's hair and suit are also grey, and the eye is immediately drawn to the only colour in the frame (and indeed, thanks to the monochrome title cards - the only colour so far seen in the film) - Cruise's face.
As someone who works with the brands of large and small organisations every day, believe me when I say that all of them are highly protective of their identity. As someone who works with the brands of large and small organisations every day, believe me when I say that all of them are highly protective of their identity.
As someone who has worked for such organisations of various sizes, I know of what you speak. Now excuse me while I go and alter the .signature file on my work email so that it conforms to (this week's) corporate guidelines.
I don't think film studios would be any exception. Yes, there can be great benefits to a successful execution, but I think that playing with your brand is still seen by many as risky. Risky, and contrary to the school of branding-thought that has been in play for decades.
I don't disagree with that - in fact I think it's obvious that there's a risk involved. My point was more that, even in a case where a studio has decided to take the risk, there will also be the issue of cost - and the cost is what is no longer an issue to the same extent.
This creates the situation where a gimmick that wouold previously only be employed in the Steven Spielberg, Michael Mann or Steven Soderbergh end of the market gets employed on lower-budget cult-audience movies such as Serenity or Doom.
It also creates the situation that occurred when Matt Groening's proposed "30th Century Fox" end-title logo for Futurama is vetoed by the "20th Century Fox" producer.
Groening commissioned the animation, paid for it out of his own budget and then submitted the finished product based on the rejected idea for approval. Naturally, it was approved; no surprise to anyone who's ever worked for a large organisation.
The very fact that this conversation is taking place demonstrates that we know that Doom - and Waterworld and Serenity for that matter - is a Universal picture; whereas it might be harder to recall that, for example, Mallrats is.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation is taking place between three similar and very particular people.
Yes, we're very special. The average cinema-goer can't be expected to read or understand long words like "Universal", "Miramax" or "Paramount" with all those syllables... All hail us.
Or, maybe, my point was that the sort of people who already notice or care about title cards at all are more likely to do so if they are tweaked in some way.
Taking it as read that we are that kind of person, can you honestly say that you remembered which studio released Mallrats?
I don't think your average punter would recall the studios for any of the films I listed. Maybe not even any studios at all! I don't think it matters to most people. Who goes to see a movie because it's the latest one from Universal, etc?
So would you say that, to the "average punter", the labels "A Miramax Film", "A New Line Film", and "A Paramount Film" are interchangeable?
I'm not entirely convinced that that is the case. More to the point: neither are Disney, Time Warner or any of the other corporations that own or have interest in multiple studios.)
Re: Christopher Lee
ReplyDeleteThe great 19th-century philosopher's opinion:
With people of only moderate ability modesty is mere honesty; but with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy.
-- Author: Arthur Schopenhauer
My opinion:
Being a windbag or a toss-pot implies being self-important in the absence of justification for said self-importance.
On the other hand, self-importance in the presence of such justification is merely self-importance.
And while humility is commonly and correctly regarded as a virtue, it is important to remember that absence of virtue is not the same thing as presence of vice.
Now, does Christopher Lee have sufficient talent to justify his self-importance? You would say, "No". Fair enough. I would say, "Yes", as presumably would Ian Fleming, Guy Hamilton, Richard Lester, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and George Lucas.
Oh, and he also played Death in the animated versions of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books.
Re: That Northern tosser that keeps making records with his equally annoying brother.
I'll generously concede that Liam Gallagher's talent is on the same level as Mr Lee's; which means that if he maintains that level of talent consistently until 2045, he'll have earned the same status.
forgive me, but i dont know of this Fox association...?
ReplyDeleteOh my gosh, I can't forgive that. Go and listen to the drums and horns of the 20th Century Fox fanfare and tell me what film you think you're about to watch!
Erm, Planet of the Apes, perhaps? Alien? Any other of the thousands of films 20th Century Fox have made since they introduced the fanfare in 1933, and the current version in 1956?
You mean Star Wars of course, but I think that you might find that the association is not as universal as you seem to think it is; certainly not among people older than us, or people who aren't SF geeks.
So connected is the fanfare to the film that it even appears on its soundtrack;
ITYM "the film to the fanfare".
something I am unaware of happening with any other film soundtrack.
Translation: "John Williams' score follows on so seamlessly from the existing 40-year-old fanfare, that it was decided to include the fanfare on the soundtrack albums to provide the appropriate context."
Re: Christopher Frank Carandini Lee, CBE
ReplyDeleteI have read his autobiography however and there wasn't much in that to make me esteem him.
What about this: (from Wikipedia, so probably completely wrong.)
He volunteered to fight for the Finnish forces during the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939
I also think he was rubbish as Darth Whatever, although I know you can only work with what you're given, so the blame lies mostly elsewhere with that one.
With Tolkein, you mean? :-)
This conversation is taking place between three similar and very particular people.
ReplyDeleteYes, we're very special. The average cinema-goer can't be expected to read or understand long words like "Universal", "Miramax" or "Paramount" with all those syllables... All hail us.
Wow! Sarcasm can can be constructive! Of course they can read and understand them, but that’s not the same thing as remembering them later on, is it? I think most people would notice that the studio card had been changed, but if asked later on would not necessarily be able to recall who the studio was. You can’t remember everything, and I think names of film studios would be pretty low on most people’s list of priorities.
Or, maybe, my point was that the sort of people who already notice or care about title cards at all are more likely to do so if they are tweaked in some way. Taking it as read that we are that kind of person, can you honestly say that you remembered which studio released Mallrats?
What’s that got to do with anything? No, I had no idea who released Mallrats. I wouldn’t be able to tell you who released most films, and I never said I did. All I was saying was that we three would be able to recall more off-hand than most people.
I don't think your average punter would recall the studios for any of the films I listed. Maybe not even any studios at all! I don't think it matters to most people. Who goes to see a movie because it's the latest one from Universal, etc?
So would you say that, to the "average punter", the labels "A Miramax Film", "A New Line Film", and "A Paramount Film" are interchangeable?
I would totally say that! I think Disney, and possibly Pixar, would be the only two big studio names that would motivate people into seeing a film. Again, I’ve never heard anyone say, “Do you want to go and see the new Paramount film?”
With people of only moderate ability modesty is mere honesty; but with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy.
ReplyDelete-- Author: Arthur Schopenhauer
Christopher Lee can certainly act –- I recall saying he was perfect as Saruman -– but off-screen I prefer the way that, for example, Viggo Mortensen conducts himself.
I'll generously concede that Liam Gallagher's talent is on the same level as Mr Lee's; which means that if he maintains that level of talent consistently until 2045, he'll have earned the same status.
Generous indeed, kind sir. I’ll get back to you then. My, Ender’s Game, Star Wars Expanded Universe, now the Gallaghers! We’ve got a lot to remember to check up on.
Oh my gosh, I can't forgive that. Go and listen to the drums and horns of the 20th Century Fox fanfare and tell me what film you think you're about to watch!
ReplyDeleteErm, Planet of the Apes, perhaps? Alien? Any other of the thousands of films 20th Century Fox have made since they introduced the fanfare in 1933, and the current version in 1956?
So are you telling me, and this time I’m talking specifically to you, JJ, (unlike the last time when I was talking specifically to Will), that when you see and hear the Fox fanfare you can think of thousands of films that you might potentially be about to see? I think not. And if we’ve established that you can associate the fanfare with particular films, can you say that you associate it with those films you mention more than with Star Wars? Or would it all be equal? Every time’s like shaking a magic 8 ball?
You mean Star Wars of course, but I think that you might find that the association is not as universal as you seem to think it is; certainly not among people older than us, or people who aren't SF geeks.
Again, I wasn’t addressing myself to “people older than us, or people who aren't SF geeks”, and no, I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t have the same associations as me.
So connected is the fanfare to the film that it even appears on its soundtrack;
ITYM "the film to the fanfare".
Either works for me.
something I am unaware of happening with any other film soundtrack.
Translation: "John Williams' score follows on so seamlessly from the existing 40-year-old fanfare, that it was decided to include the fanfare on the soundtrack albums to provide the appropriate context."
Indeed, and, significantly, this is the only time that this has happened.
He volunteered to fight for the Finnish forces during the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939
ReplyDeleteThat fits into the “much” of which there wasn’t much. :-)
I also think he was rubbish as Darth Whatever, although I know you can only work with what you're given, so the blame lies mostly elsewhere with that one.
With Tolkein, you mean? :-)
Ha, ha. Is ‘Psycho-syndrome’ an expression? To make an ‘identical’ copy that’s inferior. Darth Me Grimlock could have been so good.
...the sort of people who already notice or care about title cards at all are more likely to do so if they are tweaked in some way. Taking it as read that we are that kind of person, can you honestly say that you remembered which studio released Mallrats?
ReplyDeleteWhat’s that got to do with anything?
The assumption I'm making is that studio title cards are there to advertise the studio, not least by linking it to the (hopefully) entertaining film that you're about to see.
Now you could argue that the title card sails blissfully past most people, and I probably wouldn't disagree with you.
However, for whatever reason - maybe it's because we're wrong and the average viewer does notice and remember the title card; or maybe it's targeted at selected types of viewers (like critics, industry professionals and film geeks like us) and not at the entire audience; or maybe it's supposed to work on a semi-subliminal level ("ooh, the pretty mountain: that means quality.") - but for some reason or combination of reasons, the studios do put some effort into branding their films.
Presumably, making the brand association stronger is something they would want to do. (at least for "good" movies.)
The reason I mention Mallrats was just that it had the standard Universal rotating Earth title card (at least on the DVD - in some cinema markets it had a Gramercy title card - much to KS' chagrin, as he wanted a Universal title card everywhere. It's his comments on the DVD that made me remember this was a Universal film, because I had successfully tuned out the standard card. But I digress.)
So would you say that, to the "average punter", the labels "A Miramax Film", "A New Line Film", and "A Paramount Film" are interchangeable?
I would totally say that! I think Disney, and possibly Pixar, would be the only two big studio names that would motivate people into seeing a film. Again, I’ve never heard anyone say, “Do you want to go and see the new Paramount film?”
That's a little extreme, Shirley. If you said that the big studios - Paramount, Universal, Twentieth Century Fox &c - were all interchangeable, then fair enough. They are.
But I would note at this point that films branded "Disney", "Pixar", "Miramax" and "Dimension" have all been released by studios owned at the time by the same company. Obviously, Disney thinks that the branding is doing something for them.
Christopher Lee can certainly act –- I recall saying he was perfect as Saruman -– but off-screen I prefer the way that, for example, Viggo Mortensen conducts himself.
ReplyDeleteWould that be Viggo "George W.Bush will go down in history as the Sauron of American Presidents" Mortensen?
I respectfully disagree.
So are you telling me, and this time I’m talking specifically to you, JJ, (unlike the last time when I was talking specifically to Will), that when you see and hear the Fox fanfare you can think of thousands of films that you might potentially be about to see?
ReplyDeleteThat's an odd way of phrasing the question. When I see and hear the Fox fanfare I expect to see a Twentieth Century Fox film. (Or I expect to have just seen an episode of The X-Files or The Simpsons.)
Once upon a time I might have thought Star Wars, but I was young and foolish then, and hadn't seen as many movies as I have now.
It probably dates back to having seen that film 37 times before I stopped counting (at age 12).
I think not.
I know I have a habit of playing Devil's Advocate, but - honestly - I don't associate the 2CF fanfare with Star Wars any more or less than I do, for example, Harrison Ford.
In fact (sacrilege alert ahead) I find that I associate the Paramount Mountain much more closely with Star Trek than I do the 2CF fanfare with any single film or franchise.
So connected is the fanfare to the film that it even appears on its soundtrack;
ITYM "the film to the fanfare".
Either works for me.
"The remora is connected to the shark." and "The shark is connected to the remora." would both be technically and gramatically correct, but somehow the first seems more correct than the second...
Translation: "John Williams' score follows on so seamlessly from the existing 40-year-old fanfare, that it was decided to include the fanfare on the soundtrack albums to provide the appropriate context."
Indeed, and, significantly, this is the only time that this has happened.
You might want to google the soundtrack album for the film At Long Last Love from 1975, and check out the track listing.
(Although I hope that this is an internet fake, since I'd rather not believe that there was ever a film which featured Burt Reynolds singing Cole Porter songs. Even in the '70s.)
To return to the topic of the original post, albeit briefly.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely annoyed by the FPS sequence in Doom. To me, it seemed a tacit admission by the filmmakers that they were incapable of producing a proper adaptation of the material.
What they did was equivalent to the lengthy slabs of prose from the novel Dune inserted into David Lynch's film as inner monologues for the various characters, or Ang Lee's distracting comic-book style wipes in The Hulk.
Good film adaptations succeed because they are first and foremost films.
Would that be Viggo "George W.Bush will go down in history as the Sauron of American Presidents" Mortensen?
ReplyDeleteJJ! That's very unlike you to aid me in my argument. Thanks! No, seriously, you're right though. That is a ridiculous thing to say. I mean, Dubya's more like Saruman, isn't he?
I think it's shallow and not really very helpful to try and shoehorn allegories into The Lord of the Rings, whether those allegories be to World War II or to more recent events.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Dubya is Treebeard.
I was extremely annoyed by the FPS sequence in Doom. To me, it seemed a tacit admission by the filmmakers that they were incapable of producing a proper adaptation of the material.
ReplyDeleteWell I enjoyed the FPS sequence as it was the only part of the movie that recalled the excitement of playing the original Doom, and tapped into my nostalgia for the game. That it was the only part, shows how lame the rest of the film was.
Actually, to me the FPS did not evoke memories of playing the game at all - it evoked memories of watching demos.
ReplyDeleteExcept that I don't recall ever paying $10 to watch a demo.
Oh, and while I'm piling on, Dexter Fletcher needs to get a new agent.
ReplyDeleteActually, to me the FPS did not evoke memories of playing the game at all - it evoked memories of watching demos.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't recall you really playing the game at all, but what do I know? ;-)
Shame for you, JJ, that you weren't able to squeeze even the tiniest bit of enjoyment out of the sequence. I thought it was good. So what did you like about the movie?
[Here be spoilers, sort of]
And what did you think of a Doom movie having no demons and no portal to Hell, just zombies and experiments gone wrong.
I guess that's why it's an 'adaptation', but, to me, those things always seemed pretty central to what characterised Doom. That, and big guns. :-)
Someone else who needs a new agent is Karl Urban. Lord of the Rings to Doom? Maybe he's been having chats with Michael Caine about Jaws 4?
ReplyDelete"When Michael Caine was asked about this movie in an interview, he answered, "I have never seen it, but by all accounts it is terrible. However, I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."
Actually, I don't recall you really playing the game at all, but what do I know? ;-)
ReplyDeleteMeh. I suck at FPS games. (So why do I play them? They're fun.) One of these days I want to do some turn-based strategy PBEM'ming with you and wipe that smile off your face.
So what did you like about the movie?
The bits where it reminded me of Aliens. Man, that was a good movie.
No, that's not entirely fair. There were some bits that reminded me of Predator too.
Seriously, there were bits in the script that were good; especially the misdirection as to a) the identity of the hero; and b) the relationship between two of the leads.
Another thing I found interesting was that even though the Christian character was a stock Hollywood anti-Christianity type, his character arc would seem to be a remnant of an earlier draft of the screenplay with a storyline closer to that of the game.
In fact, there are several things in the story that would suggest to me that an initially good script was rewritten by committee several times until it achieved the right level of blandness.
I guess that's why it's an 'adaptation', but, to me, those things always seemed pretty central to what characterised Doom. That, and big guns. :-)
Well, exactly. I'm glad someone liked the FPS scene, but including stuff like that while at the same time rewriting the premise was a bit odd.
An analogy would be the makers of The Hunt For Red October changing the Russian submarine to a Belgian rowboat, but at the same time making sure that the credits were printed in the same font as the novel had been.
Hey, waittaminnit! Who's been rifling through my file of Michael Caine quotes for every situation?
ReplyDelete