Doctor Doom Movie: Yea or Nay?

[Doctor of Doom]

Well I've been thinking- seeing as we now have a Magneto movie in the works, would a movie about the origins of Doctor Doom work? Note I mean the REAL Doom not movie Doom.

Obviously the first instinct is "NO!" but then I thought about it- partially inspired by the fact that www.ign.com did a list a while back of villains who should have movies, and Doom came number 1. Obviously, unlike Magneto, Doom is not a sympathetic character. Obviously there is a very, very small chance of it happening. (Though some might have said the same about Magneto) but that is not what I ask.

What I ask is, if done properly, should there be one? Would it work?

Personally I think that if based on the recent Books of Doom series, there should and it COULD work. It would be possible to make him a sympathetic character, and though the sorcerous aspect could be very difficult to realistically introduce, I still think it is very possible.

To summarise, Doctor Doom movie: Yea or Nay?

 

[GoblinScrier]

Uh....Hell yeah!!! If I ever got to see a trailer for a Dr. Doom movie, I think the world could end once I saw that movie and I would be happy. To have the Latverian/Gypsy/Tibetan Monks/Gypsy healer father/Sorceress mother thrown on to the screen, I would freak out....to put it kindly.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I think if they can put out a Magneto solo movie, one for Victor Von Doom could be at least as compelling if not more so. I think it would be great to show his origin within the context of a larger story, as Roger Stern does in the brief summaries of both Doctor Strange and Doctor Doom's origins in "Triumph and Torment".

 

[Gevaisa]

" Obviously, unlike Magneto, Doom is not a sympathetic character. "

He's not? I have to disagree.

 

[November Rain]

a doom movie is great but unfortunately, they will go down the wrong route with it and we won't get to capture what's so great about the character.

 

[Doctor of Doom]

" Obviously, unlike Magneto, Doom is not a sympathetic character. "

He's not? I have to disagree.

Well obviously he is sympathetic to a degree but nowhere near as much as Magneto. You have to look at the final product- Magneto thinks he is doing the right thing for his race. Doom is simply evil

I can understand Doom to a degree but I don't think if I had been put through the same I would have ended up as an evil megalomaniacal dictaitor bent on world domination, whereas if I were put through what Magneto was I would feel the same as him.

 

[Silvermoth]

Yea. I actually think having him in fantastic four would just slow things down. For a villain that epic, give him his own movie based on the books of doom. Then the FF are free to establish their own dynamics

 

[Albright]

It won't happen before he's introduced in the MCU as a main villain. Right now, many people (even none comic book lovers like me) know him, but he's not that popular to carry a movie. This movie will not make over 500.000.000$ like the other MCU-movies and it sure will have a huge budget.

It will only be possible, after he's introduced and the audience like him as much as Loki. Then a movie set in the past, that leads to him as vilain of the F4/Avengers might work (with cameos of already established characters)

 

[Silvermoth]

Marvel's got the golden touch, trust me. If they can get money out of ant man doom is easy

 

[rebellion]

It won't happen before he's introduced in the MCU as a main villain. Right now, many people (even none comic book lovers like me) know him, but he's not that popular to carry a movie. This movie will not make over 500.000.000$ like the other MCU-movies and it sure will have a huge budget.

It will only be possible, after he's introduced and the audience like him as much as Loki. Then a movie set in the past, that leads to him as vilain of the F4/Avengers might work (with cameos of already established characters)

because guardians were super popular and thats why they carried a movie?

 

[Albright]

It looked freaky and had a cool soundtrack from the 80ies. Also the main characters were a talking racoon and tree as well as two green characters.

Doom will be about the rise of a genius super vilain no one has seen before (in the MCU)...respectivley has had appearences in 3 terrible movies.
People will think: uuuh so the bad guy from those terrible Fantastic 4 movies has his own movie now?

I said it in the F4-Cast-Thread: F4 need a lot of compensation after what happened to them at Fox. That's why they need really big names to carry that burden and to give this franchise a fresh start.

 

[rebellion]

It looked freaky and had a cool soundtrack from the 80ies. Also the main characters were a talking racoon and tree as well as two green characters.

Doom will be about the rise of a genius super vilain no one has seen before (in the MCU)...respectivley has had appearences in 3 terrible movies.
People will think: uuuh so the bad guy from those terrible Fantastic 4 movies has his own movie now?

I said it in the F4-Cast-Thread: F4 need a lot of compensation after what happened to them at Fox. That's why they need really big names to carry that burden and to give this franchise a fresh start.

''main characters were a talking racoon and tree as well as two green characters.'' yeah. exactly.

 

[Stark Bauer]

Marvel Studios don't milk their characters for a quick cash out. They will introduce Doom properly. They don't need a solo movie for every darn character. Im not saying Doom doesnt deserve one. Its just not Feige's style. It reeks of desperation. Marvel's Fantastic Four is the best way to introduce Doom.

 

[Albright]

''main characters were a talking racoon and tree as well as two green characters.'' yeah. exactly.

Please...convince me of the opposite. Not just trying to be cool and sarcastic.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

Marvel Studios don't milk their characters for a quick cash out. They will introduce Doom properly. They don't need a solo movie for every darn character. Im not saying Doom doesnt deserve one. Its just not Feige's style. It reeks of desperation. Marvel's Fantastic Four is the best way to introduce Doom.

But of course it would not be a quick cash out like say Ant-Man was when they took over a movie in development by an outsider. But rather MCU episode 20 something. In which case it is not a waste but the origin story of an antagonist instead of the hero protagonist.

We would have to get why and how he became a national leader beyond a shade of dictator X from the real world. In the end someone to supplement Loki as a thorn in the side of the hero class going forward.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think a really great villain has a certain air of mystery and the less they are used or explained, the better.

Look at Star Wars 1, 2, or 3. While we could argue details, I think most of us would agree that the broad story was at least interesting... but the key question is: "Did those films improve Vader as a villain?"

Was he more intimidating before we saw him as a little kid or after? I'd go with the former.

People fear the unknown. Everybody reading this knows quite a bit about who Doom is, but if the film-makers hold back on some of that, I think his film incarnation can feel more intimidating and more powerful and more frightening and less human if we know less rather than more. And that intimidating presence should be the highest priority.

We should, and probably will, see some elements of his back-story as films progress, but I'd make a conscious effort to avoid showing too much.

They could do it, and it could make for a great film, but at what cost?

 

[DrCosmic]

Please...convince me of the opposite. Not just trying to be cool and sarcastic.

Peter Quill is the main character in Guardians of the Galaxy. The movie starts with him, other characters are introduced to him on his journey and the climax of the film is him using his personality and unique biology to defeat the villain.

They could do it, and it could make for a great film, but at what cost?

This is a very good point. Dr. Doom's ethos comes in part from being this masked force of nature. Joker, another all time best villain also would be less interesting if his background were nailed down.

I would enjoy a Doom film, and I think there's ways to do it as a tragedy that would make him even more interesting as a villain going forward. Instead of doing a superhero movie with a supervillain, look to a different genre. American Psycho or the Usual Suspects might be better templates, or maybe even a Godzilla or The Last King of Scotland, where Dr. Doom isn't actually the protagonist, simply the central character.

But at the end of the day, Marvel Studios makes superhero movies, and Dr. Doom does not make for a good superhero movie, and that, among other things, is why they won't be making this film.

 

[Village_Idiot]

Oh heck yea

Other then Spider-man 2 and GOTG 3 , none of us really know whats going to happen after Avengers 4

A lot of the main actors contracts are up after that movie , and they haven't announce any movies after Avengers 4

There might not even be any Avengers left and the MCU might need a good rebooting

 

[Stark Bauer]

I think a really great villain has a certain air of mystery and the less they are used or explained, the better.

Look at Star Wars 1, 2, or 3. While we could argue details, I think most of us would agree that the broad story was at least interesting... but the key question is: "Did those films improve Vader as a villain?"

Was he more intimidating before we saw him as a little kid or after? I'd go with the former.

People fear the unknown. Everybody reading this knows quite a bit about who Doom is, but if the film-makers hold back on some of that, I think his film incarnation can feel more intimidating and more powerful and more frightening and less human if we know less rather than more. And that intimidating presence should be the highest priority.

We should, and probably will, see some elements of his back-story as films progress, but I'd make a conscious effort to avoid showing too much.

They could do it, and it could make for a great film, but at what cost?

Marvel Studios, HIRE THIS MAN! He gets it!

 

[Roose Bolton]

I don't know about a Books of Doom adaptation, but I'd watch a Doom 2099 film in a heartbeat.

 

[Xeno]

Why?

 

[Lilbaz]

Love a doctor doom movie.

 

[Albright]

Peter Quill is the main character in Guardians of the Galaxy. The movie starts with him, other characters are introduced to him on his journey and the climax of the film is him using his personality and unique biology to defeat the villain.

So the movie is called "Guardian of the Galaxy" and this only Guardian is Peter Quilll? No, Peter Quill is the leader of the team but it's clearly an ensemble film, where everyone of the 5 Guardians is a main character.

 

[Random490]

I think a really great villain has a certain air of mystery and the less they are used or explained, the better.

Look at Star Wars 1, 2, or 3. While we could argue details, I think most of us would agree that the broad story was at least interesting... but the key question is: "Did those films improve Vader as a villain?"

Was he more intimidating before we saw him as a little kid or after? I'd go with the former.

People fear the unknown. Everybody reading this knows quite a bit about who Doom is, but if the film-makers hold back on some of that, I think his film incarnation can feel more intimidating and more powerful and more frightening and less human if we know less rather than more. And that intimidating presence should be the highest priority.

We should, and probably will, see some elements of his back-story as films progress, but I'd make a conscious effort to avoid showing too much.

They could do it, and it could make for a great film, but at what cost?

That's a good point. Personally I'd like a miniseries, a shoe that would appear on something like Netflix. There's an interesting story to tell but I don't think we need to dedicate a film to it. I'd like to build up Doom over a few films. First have him appear as an antagonist in a F4 sequel, then eventually have him be a Infinity War level event (not a phase finale, but arc finale villain) and before that movie release the miniseries.

 

[Village_Idiot]

I think a really great villain has a certain air of mystery and the less they are used or explained, the better.

Look at Star Wars 1, 2, or 3. While we could argue details, I think most of us would agree that the broad story was at least interesting... but the key question is: "Did those films improve Vader as a villain?"

Was he more intimidating before we saw him as a little kid or after? I'd go with the former.

People fear the unknown. Everybody reading this knows quite a bit about who Doom is, but if the film-makers hold back on some of that, I think his film incarnation can feel more intimidating and more powerful and more frightening and less human if we know less rather than more. And that intimidating presence should be the highest priority.

We should, and probably will, see some elements of his back-story as films progress, but I'd make a conscious effort to avoid showing too much.

They could do it, and it could make for a great film, but at what cost?

Another Star Wars example

Boba Fett

He shows up for like 5 minutes in Empire Strikes Back

no clue who he was or where he came from , but became more popular then Luke

and then the prequels came out , and the thrill was gone