Talk:Doom (film)

Unsigned Comments

There seems to be a lot of comments which have been left unsigned by the authors in this page. It's considered polite to sign your comments. Just a reminder. Crimson Shadow 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes guys, start signing your comments.

Listen to the guy above this comment people, start signing already, thats the right thing to do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.76 (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

• 16th April. I have tidied up this page somewhat, but it needs more information on plot etc. - Robert Knight

I've written a llttle bit about the plot based on the information released(and removed that information from the details section). It's difficult to write much more without knowing just how faithful the adaptation will be, early reports suggested it would stray greatly from the source material while more recent interviews have been keen to suggest that it will be more or less the same plot as Doom 3. Also I've removed the controversy section, I reworked the point about the in the reports about the plot changing into the details section and scrapped the section about videogame adaptations since it a little bit POV and didn't seem that relevant anyway. --FlooK 00:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The trailer hasn't been released yet. DrJones 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

It was released this week at the link on the bottom of the article --FlooK 22:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

---

• The website for the film will most likely be http://www.doommovie.com/ . Whois tells me this domain is registered to Universal Pictures and the address is currently forwarded to UP website. 2005/07/19 - Santeri Ukonaho

>>Website should be http://www.crapmovie.com. "But" I said facetiously when leaving the theater, "at least they got the science right!"

Film. It is really older.

I remember reading a long long time ago (between DOOM II and Final DOOM times) in a magazine that id Software wanted to make the film, but finally producers declined to make a such so gore film.

I think they were the same producers (UP), but I currently I don't remember where I put that magazine.

Can anyone please check and improve the article with that information, thanks.

—Claunia 05:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading about plans for a DOOM film sometime in the late 90's. At one point, the California governor whose name I'm too lazy to research in order to spell correctly was attached to star. The plans fell through in pre-production, which happens more often in Hollywood than people realize.

"Pinky demon" is just "Demon"

For people's info: http://classicdoom.com/doominfo.htm About a third of the way down the page is the official list of Doom enemies straight from the game's original readme file.

Awww you had to kill teh fun xD Oh well... I actually knew it, but since i had no proof...

John Wells interview

I just removed a line from the Trivia section about an interview with one of the movie's producers, John Wells. I also commented out the prose beneath the bullet points as lacking in both substance and source information. If someone can find a link or a reference to this supposed interview, I'll gladly reinstate the material. This kind of stuff shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article without a valid source. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, found it myself. I've put a link to the interview early in the article and again in the Trivia section, just to be clear on where our information is coming from. — EagleOne\^Talk 20:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

names on the wall

Towards the end when Sarge bursts though some glasswork, there are a bunch of names on that glass (Ying Lee, John Coates, Alan Crow, Alfredo Alvarez and more). Does anyone know who these people are? I'm assuming probably part of the fx team.

Those people must be a fool!

>x<ino 09:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many images?

Are all these images necessary? The BFG image I can understand -- however, we have an entire article for the BFG9000 in which the BFGv3.14 is noted, as well as an entire article for the BFG10k of the Quake series; both of which should be merged -- but all of the images for the Doom (film) article looks more like clutter than anything else.

I agree. For the character section, I've removed all of the marines apart from Sarge and Reaper. Crimson Shadow 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Doom 2???

Question: Is the Doom 2 movie actually confirmed to be greenlighted? I haven't seen any information on a sequel being greenlighted yet for the Doom movie. KSweeley 05:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

This first film lost enough money to feed a chunk of the third-world. I seriously doubt anyone is interested in making a sequel, unless it's budgeted for a straight-to-video Blockbuster release staring Brian Bosworth as the "Snake Grimm", a long-lost cousin.

--Ronnie42 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Actually the sequel has been greenlighted. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-03-10-doom-film-reboot-green-lit-report

Not game related at ALL!

This movie does have NO detail from the games and fans of the game would have hated the movie. The only people who liked it did not play the games at all. The director should have played the games so he could know.

Your point?

I think the pont he is trying to make is that the movie just plain sucked! Everyone involed must be shot on-site. THE DOOM MOVIE IS HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER! (exept the cyper demon, ouch!) Dfrg.msc 07:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No, seriously. Your point? What's this got to do with a wiki article? (Also, I liked the movie. Whoo, I guess)TerminusEst13 04:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

the point:you can simply wacht film and videogame:enemies have different origin(real demon or genetical altered men), a single character(videogame) or a group of soldiers(film), the superpower is granted by the 25th gene only in the film(in the videogame you simply are super!).

and a lesser important different: the technology that transport/create the enemies is a teleport device in the videogame and a genetical improvement discovered and copied by a now-estingued alien race in the film

Riiiiight, so you CANT make a movie that has nothing to do with the videogame at all? Okay then, now if you excuse me i am gonna go watch SF2 the american movie, because THAT ONE SUUURE has lots to do with the game =P

Comment not signed by _your face_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.123.76 (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Switched

Character descriptions for Portman and Destroyer have been swapped. Vandalizm?

sequel

I believe that the sequel should be a try-again of the original movie rather than a by-product based on the success of DVD-sales. --Nintendude 18:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that they are going to risk the production costs on a Doom-related movie. User:Lord Hawk 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully some day, some one will make another try, but right now, Doom as a movie... is dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.38 (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First Person View

I know this movie did not make histroy by showing the first person view of one of the characters in the movie. The first person view mode was seen by my brother and I in the movie "Belly" starring DMX and Nas.

Belly!?...and what do you mean, your bro saw it!?

>x<ino 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Article comments

Cleaned up the plot overview a bit, it was marked as needing it. But I think the Karl Urban quote needs to go in a different section. --GeneralDuke 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up a few things about the plots and weapons, and removed the tag. Hope that's ok? ----Gov 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My little thoughts

It appears the Discussion pages for any article relating to either Paul W. S. Anderson, his movies, Uwe Boll, his "movies" and other video game to movie adaptions have become places where people just fume out their anger with nothing but bitter comments and complaints. Well, here's my little thought, I think Doom was a fair effort. True, its not the best video game movie but far more entertaining than either the original game or the Tomb Raider film. Also removed section of criticism that complained about the FPS section being only 5 minutes when 75% of the film was expected to be in First Person. There's no source because it was obviously dreamed up by some idiot. That's another problem, people keep vandalizing and adding theire hateful bias to VG-film articles. Look, they are movies, just like any other films, I've seen many films that were worse than Doom and even worse than House of the Dead. (user:HannuMakinen)

why do you tell"dreamed up by some idiot"?fans of a videogame are not idiot, please correct your affermation in something of less offensive.

Reaper engaged to Sarge's daughter??

Where the heck did this info come from?

You didn't know that??? That's why he went after him 'cause he was 'hitting it'

Corporal Dean Portman

'Psychopathic, disgusting, sexually deviant member of the team.'..? Tad on the judgemental side don't you think? As far as I can remember he mentions liking ladyboys, which hardly makes him a devient in today's world, and certainly not in the future when presumably people will have come up with wierd and wonderful 'perversions' that we mere 21st century citizens can't even imagine. If this behavior is supposed to be some kind of indication of a psychotic character, it reflects very badly on the filmakers, who presumably believe that many of the thousands of male tourists that visit Bangcock each year are 'psychopaths' too. The word devient in this context is completly subjective anyway, since it presumes, that like the writer of the profile, everyone regards non-heterosexuals as devients. Needless to say it dosn't take a sociologist to tell you that's a highly innacurate presumption, so I think this needs a little editing... Lauriet 01:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol disgusting... very neutral opinion huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.97.38 (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Section 2: Violence predisposition controversy, can it be verified?

I have a question, can section 2 of the article be verified through any reliable source? I've never heard of id Software even being involved with Columbine. KSweeley 06:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember id being used as a scapegoat after one of the kids said "it's gonna be like fucking Doom" or something like that. Does that help? Crimson Shadow 11:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that quote and id being used as a public scapegoat, but I don't recall reading in any reliable source that id sent legal representation to the Columbine trial and reading that these parts of section 2 ever occurring during the Columbine case:

This assumption is similar to the position taken by id Software lawyers on the famous Columbine High School massacre case.

...representatives of id Software claimed that it was only a “last drop” that triggered the events, but violence was initially in both kids' psyches because they were predisposed to it.

KSweeley 08:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Reaper a former scientist?

The article lists Reaper as a former scientist, I don't think that's correct. His sister says something to the effect that he could have been one. His parents died when he was very young and I think he went straight into the Marines when he became eligible. Mcr29 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

does it still do so? I seem to remember that he decided to be a marine instead of a scientist, his sister said something to that effect, didn't she? B10Reaper (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove portion of Violence Predisposition Controversy

I suggest that the following portion of the section entitled "Violence Predisposition Controversy" be removed:

"Even in the movie, this point is actually contradicted. Reaper says that he has had a very violent life, but the fact that C-24 doesn't turn him into a demon shows that he does not possess the genes which predispose violent behavior. Further, several characters who are seemingly benigh as normal people (e.g. Pinky) but are turned into demons and thus possess the genes for violent behavior but they don't determine how they actually act."

I don't see how this is a contradiction. Regarding Pinky, the person who wrote this seems to have forgotten the fact that as Portman was being killed, Pinky sat and watched with a smile on his face, and as he was being questioned (I believe by Sarge) if he had a visual on Portman, he replied that he did not. I believe that this was the film's clue to Pinky's predisposition to violence, despite his outward behavior to the contrary. Regarding Reaper, leading a violent life does not make a person instinctively violent. Note Reaper's concern towards the people Sarge was going to kill and his concern for his sister. All he said as he was "dying" was "I've done some bad things," not "I'm a violent person by nature." Almost everybody has done "bad things," which does not inherently make them bad people. Conversely, as with Pinky, not everybody who does good things is a good person. If that was too poorly explained, forgive me - I can give it another shot if need be. I won't remove the section just yet, as my analysis may not be universally agreed on. If I haven't received any compelling arguments to the contrary in a couple days I'm going to go ahead and remove it. Intooblv 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pinky also damned Mac when he left him. He acted unwillingly from the beginning to the end. But if he is good or evil that does not really matter to me. IMO, he is just simply an indication to the appearance of a wheelchair demon.--165.228.131.12 06:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

One Big Mistake

When Sarge and Reaper found the dead bodies of Dr. Clay and Dr. Thurman, the place is the entrance to the archeological dig where is outside of Carmack's lab. And here they encountered the Hell Knight of Curtis Stahl, (the others showed before are proved to be the scientists) which means this one was not sealed inside Carmack's lab at the first place. It could start killing the civilians already but not. How unlikely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.131.12 (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Hell Knight/Curtis Stahl - was he an Imp before?

By any chance, did Curtis skip the Imp stage? If not, then can we assume (not saying put this in the article) that all the other Imps, given time, would have become Hell Knights? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Similarity between this movie and Predator

Many feel the similarity between this movie and Alien movies because of the similar environment. But I aslo found it and the first Predator movie have something in common.

• In both movie, an elite team was sent but only the protagonist survived with a female character.
• Each team member is designed with clear personality and special skill, though all died at last.
• The major roles in each movie are both played by former sports stars, Arnold Schwarzenegger and The Rock.
• The final combat in both is hand to hand combat and ends up with an explosion.

--Mato Rei 07:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that's pretty much DOZENS of action movies. Lots42 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion

So, the criticism section is eaten up with weasel words and is seemingly biased. What if we changed that section to a "difference between the game and film" section instead, as to better showcase the differences, which is basically what that section is already about. Thoughts? Levid37 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like it could work. I noticed that the Doom 3 article has a "rebuttals" section. The Doom movie article might also benefit from this, but I don't know if there are any widespread rebuttals to the common critcisms of the film. 24.255.168.225 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I've changed the criticism section to a difference from the games section, but I'm still not sure that it works out all that well. Maybe if a little more work was put on it. It's still better, to me, than a section full of weasel words and little to no sources. If you feel it just doesn't work then feel free to revert, but at least give it a chance. Levid37 13:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed about half of the article, because most of it didn't really fit the definition of differences between the film and game. I removed references to things used sparsely, because they're going to be sparse by default because the games are naturally much longer than the film. I removed the reference to no homage to Romero, because that was in film, not a difference between the film and game. And finally, I took out the note about it being based on Doom 3, because Doom 3 is still a Doom game.

It no longer illistrates very well why people didn't like it compared to the game, but it didn't fit the new heading.

Out of curiosity, why was the note about the possibility of Grimm's first name being a homage to Romero removed? I know it was speculation, but it doesn't seem right to state something like that factually when a distinct possibility like that is present. 24.255.168.225 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The article looks a lot more clean and I like the fact that those Following part does not cite its sources boxes aren't all over the place anymore. It's still not the kind of article I would want for the movie, but definitely an improvement. -TheHande 09:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1st Person.jpg

Image:1st Person.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sarge VS. Reaper.jpg

Image:Sarge VS. Reaper.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Doom4.jpg

Image:Doom4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My Recent Edits

I removed the info about Pinky from the cast section, as it is redundant, it is covered elsehwere in the article. I also removed the Carmack information for safety; as I recall, the fictional Carmack was a very bad person; comparing this to a real person...well, Wikipedia prefers, in this type of situation to err very heavily on the side of caution. Lots42 (talk) 01:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And again it was reverted. Lots42 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New Doom movie possibility

Added information regarding id Software's CEO Todd Hollenshead's recent statements on a new Doom movie that he would like to do with Universal again, this time possibly based on the upcoming Doom 4 game found on Kotaku. KSweeley (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

there is obvious contradiction between revenue and budget size in the template and in the text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.244.248 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, if there was in fact a contradiction between infobox and text, it appears to have been addressed already. umrguy42 21:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Really a flop?

The article ends by saying that the movie is "considered a huge flop", yet if you add up the revenue it generated it seems to have made a profit of more than 20 million dollars. As was mentioned above, the article is inconsistent in it's figure for the movie's budget, with it stating as being both $60 million and $70 million, but if you add up the gross revenues including US and Worldwide it comes to $84 million, that sounds like $24 to $14 million of profit, can that really be considered a flop? --Hibernian (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even assuming a budget of only $60 million, it couldn't have made very much. Best case, if the correct method is to add domestic and worldwide totals, total gross would be ~$72 million... nice, but not really great. (If the budget was $70 million, then it just barely broke even in this case.) If the domestic gross is already included in the worldwide gross, then it lost at least $16 million. umrguy42 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to use

• A report from Comic-Con with information from a panel of the cast and crew
• An Interview with Karl Urban about the film
• An Interview with Doom Executive Producer John Wells
• The Doug Jones Experience - behind the scenes
• The Doug Jones Experience - DOOM Journal

Above are links that can be used to improve the article. They were in the "External links" section, but I moved them here to avoid making that section into a link farm. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the talk page

Seems to me that half these sections violate the talk page guidelines.

"The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." -[talk page guidelines]

I am not going to touch this, I've been cleaning up blatant vandalism, and took off what seemed to be obvious trolling, but if a senior editor would take it into consideration to clean up this page a little of posts that violate the guidelines, That would be great. B10Reaper (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Doctor's name (Carmack) an obvious tribute

I'm surprised this isn't mentioned in the article: the doctor's name, Carmack, is an obvious tribute to John Carmack, the lead programmer of Doom. --82.171.70.54 (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any links or references to back it up? Since the fictional character Carmack is a very evil person, we are simply not allowed to go comparing him to real, living people without any references. Lots42 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have any links/references. It's just that Carmack isn't a very common name: eight people listed on that Wikipedia page and two of those Carmacks are co-founders of id Software. The scriptwriters must have done research into Doom and it's unlikely that "Carmack" was a random pick. The Recognition section of the John Carmack article already mentions the character's name was chosen in recognition of Carmack, but without a source. Maybe we could add the same sentence to this article, but change it on both, and start it with "It's likely that..." or "The doctor's name, Carmack, may..." or something similar? --82.171.70.54 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still talking about original research though, which is inappropriate for inclusion. As is supposition. If this information appears elsewhere and is also unsourced there, the problem is with its inclusion there without proper sourcing, not its lack of inclusion here. Doniago (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Carmack would not be the only one in question here (As far as I know), as Dr. Willits would also be named for Tim Willits, right? NOw of course surcing would be needed, yaddah yaddah yaddah.... --Clonehunter1 (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

2 of the Marine teams' last names are Fantom & Gannon. Oooh, Zelda: Ocarina of Time referance... /eyeroll

Wrong Information

Now, I know its nothing absolutley HUGE, but the death f several characters are inaccurate. Mac, Destroyer, and Portman were not killed by Imps, but by the Hell Knight monster which apears throughout the movie. I also think it could be mentioned that Carmack, after being transformed, is killed by Sarge. I would edit this myself, but I suppose I would like others thoughts or ideas. --Clonehunter1 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Doom (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051108085012/http://www.slasherama.biz:80/features/doom.HTML to http://www.slasherama.biz/features/doom.HTML
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041010074822/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000633884 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000633884

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040815230830/http://www.boxofficeprophets.com:80/tickermaster/listing.cfm?TMID=1649 to http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/tickermaster/listing.cfm?TMID=1649

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Producer John Wells interview

Below information was tagged for needing sources in 2010. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

John Wells interview with Slasherama.biz -- 109.76.153.229 (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This could potentially be used to add more details to the production section. (I only now noticed that it was already (badly mis)used in the Reboot section, where it really is not relevant.) -- 109.76.153.229 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Production

The film's producer, John Wells, admitted in an interview that "many" video game movie adaptations had "sucked". He revealed that the crew was able to get "a lot of financial support from Universal" and that it was not "done on the cheap." Wells also revealed that the Doom movie would have a sequence shot in a first-person perspective because "Doom without that would be a miscarriage of justice!" Wells also revealed, "we were all very concerned that we make sure that it was exactly the kind of experience that we [the crew] remembered so fondly from the game: turning the lights off at midnight, cranking it up, and scaring the hell out of yourself!" Wells further stated that a balance exists between computer-generated imagery and prosthetics in the Doom movie, and he, for the first time as a producer, admitted, "we didn't wanna rely on the CGI. Those effects still haven't quite got[ten] to the level where you fully believe it — certainly not for long periods of time," and that the crew used Stan Winston's Creature Shop and that his work is only "enhanced with CGI." He also stated, "if you rely too much on CGI, it can look cheesy: it doesn't quite work. It'll get there, but it's not there yet." Wells has stated that the crew insisted that the Doom movie be made into an R-rated movie and that he did not "think it was possible to do a PG-13 version—and that's been the mistake made by a couple of other computer game movies," and that "a lot of studios didn't want to do it. But we made a conscious decision that we'd prefer not to make it any other way." Wells also revealed that if this first Doom film is successful, a second one could be made, and, "we certainly have some ideas for the next one, if there is gonna be one. We'll have to wait and see: the audience will have to tell us ..."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913165035/http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movies/doom.php to http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movies/doom.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Doom (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050206035013/http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=%2Fap%2F20040516%2Fap_on_hi_te%2Fgames_and_hollywood&e=1 to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=%2Fap%2F20040516%2Fap_on_hi_te%2Fgames_and_hollywood&e=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Ark vs. Arc

Approximately 17 minutes into the movie, a map of the Olduvai facility is shown in which the circular room leading to the Atrium is labeled "Arc Chamber". Unless anyone has any information which contradicts this spelling, it's the one that the article should use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

NVM. On-screen text displays "UAC Ark Facility" at 1 hour 18 minutes into the movie. 73.70.13.107 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"BFGv3.14" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect BFGv3.14 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 13 § BFGv3.14 until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)