I don't really have an opinion on Doom's origin but if you look in the reviews thread you'll see that just about every poster on the IMDb site who claims to have seen the film, comments favourably on the interpretation. This is a direct link to the IMDb comments page:
Ah, I was mistaken. My eyes is failin' me. I think the presence of overly hyper youths actually makes me age exponentially faster.
What was we talking about? Ah, yes... back in ought-three, a big ol' mess o' gators done raided my house and I had to buy all new carpeting and zzzzzzzzzzzz....
I don't really have an opinion on Doom's origin but if you look in the reviews thread you'll see that just about every poster on the IMDb site who claims to have seen the film, comments favourably on the interpretation. This is a direct link to the IMDb comments page:
IMO not many people know Doom's origin. Therefore, I predict a Batman '89 affect will take place. The 'Comically' uneducated FF crowd will come out of the theater thinking "so that's how Doom was created," just like how the 'Comically' uneducated Batman crowd came out of the theater in '89 thinking "so the Joker killed Batman's parents."
Dear lord, this thread is a travesty. It is like witnessing a battle of wits between unarmed opponents.
It seems most of the detractors of the comic book version of Doom are these aforementioned striplings who are have no sense of context. Yeah, I would agree with those of you that Doom's origin probably doesn't play that well to someone who wasn't even a gleam in their grandparent's eyes in the 1960's. Understandably, we don't see any reference these days of Ben and Reed being WWII vets anymore either. But just because times have changed, it doesn't mean we have to jettison comic book Doom's origin entirely.
In the movie, the script tries to have it both ways. Initially Victor does get transformed by the same accident as the rest of the FF. (* I am adding spoiler tags just in case *)
He later chooses to get that extra dose of cosmic radiation using Reed's transformation chamber.
Victor Von Doom in the movie is an industrialist/billionaire whose main activities seem to be attending board room meetings and keeping tabs on Reed's progress in finding a cure. He has a few underlings at his command, much like the subjects in his kingdom of Latveria in the comics. So, as Saph pointed out here months ago, Von Doom Victor Von Doom of the movies holds dominion over an alllegorical kingdom represented by Von Doom Industries.
I can accept that except for a couple of things. One aspect that weakens Movie Doom's origin for me is that I have always thought that the arc of Doom's development in the FF movie is too much like that of Norman Osborn in the first Spider-Man movie. If you recall, Osborn is cut out of his own company by the board of directors. Later as the Green Goblin, he attacks and kills them all. Victor is faced with the same dilemma with his investment bankers and we later see him lethally light one of them up in the parking garage scene.
As I mentioned earlier, he does modify the transformation chamber but it is Reed's design. In the book and film script he badgers Reed to come up with the cure for them all because it is losing him money and his investors are threatening to pull out. I can see how this is another way Reed is responsible for Victor "losing face", just as in the comics Victor blames Reed for the accident that scarred him. Another thing - - I emphasize the fact that it is Reed's device for this reason - - after going through the novelization and the copy of the shooting script that is included in the "Making of" book, I get no sense of Doom being a genius on par with Richards. Comic book Doom's ego would never allow him to consider that Reed was capable of accomplishing something that he himself could not. The movie simply substitutes a romantic rivalry for the intellecutal one that fuels Reed and Victor's confrontations in the comics. Yes, he is the head of the company that has all these "toys" at his disposal but it is never made clear exactly how the company was built up or whether or not Victor had a direct hand in any of the advances Von Doom Industries had achieved.
IMO, I think Movie Doom's sketchy origins lacks some of the depth of the comic book version that younger fans mock. The underlying psychology of it all (even though Stan and Jack were clearly writing for an audience whose average age was around 12) has far more interesting implications, some of which Shadowboxer covered earlier and I need not repeat here.
Oh, and someone mentioned earlier that Doom was trying to bring his mother back from the dead.. not true. The original device was to only make contact with the Netherworld. Later, Doom battles the demon Mephisto in order to redeem his enchantress mother's soul. She was damned to Hell for unwittingly causing the deaths of some innocents while fighting against her people's oppressors. The pity of it all is that I wish the script writers of today did as good a job as dialoguing as Roger Stern does in the graphic novel that tells that tale. A greater pity is that they have an actor who is capable of doing the role justice but I fear the script will hold him back from achieving a more perfect characterization.
You probably would say from reading all this that I will hate the movie but never fear - - I plan to be there to see it as close to opening day as I can. I have said before that I have resolved to look upon it as an Elseworlds tale and plan to enjoy myself just the same. I am just weighing in to say I prefer the classic origin because, well I consider myself a classic too! ( * ducks from the flying objects being hurled *)
I point I was trying to make was that, leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of his origin in the film, everyone who has so far professed to have seen it, whether fans of the comics or not, liked how he was portrayed. That's a good sign, don't you think?
I point I was trying to make was that, leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of his origin in the film, everyone who has so far professed to have seen it, whether fans of the comics or not, liked how he was portrayed. That's a good sign, don't you think?
For one thing, when people posted reviews that were not even negative, but scrutinizing, they were looked upon as fake and placed under a nuclear powered microscope.
A week or two ago, in an attempt to trash AICN, someone posts the theory that studio plants were posting reviews. Considering that the reviews you link to portray the film as being pretty much flawless, (all 8 to 9.5 stars out of 10), why would you automatically trust them? I even got a laugh because one of the reviews in particular addresses something I had said about a week ago, in that everything shown has been seen before.
Movie Doom's origin is an unnecessary watering & dumbing down and rehashing of former successes. The one that started this thread clearly doesn't have the intellectual grasp to understand story structure. To say that a completely unrealistic origin trumps one that at least has some place in reality "just because" is beyond ridiculous and is merely "my dad can beat-up your dad" mentality.
To say that Doom's origin has been "updated" is equally ridiculous. The origin still has its basis in 1961, so where is the updating?
The manner by which this script has been written merely proposes that the audience for this film couldn't handle the complex aspects of presenting Doom's origin against that of the FF. That having remote story concepts of characters whose paths cross, veer away from each other and then cross again leading to a collision is too much. That an intellectual and egotistical rivalry would be too difficult to grasp, "so let's dumb it down to be about love and money".
The manner by which this script has been written merely proposes that the audience for this film couldn't handle the complex aspects of presenting Doom's origin against that of the FF. That having remote story concepts of characters whose paths cross, veer away from each other and then cross again leading to a collision is too much. That an intellectual and egotistical rivalry would be too difficult to grasp, "so let's dumb it down to be about love and money".
A classic case of "I get it, you get it, but will Middle America get it?" The answer is almost always supposed to be "yes," but don't tell Hollywood that. They think general audiences aren't all that bright, so they reject intelligent scripts and original films, and give us a summer blockbuster season full of barely inspired remakes, sequels, and book adaptations. Even Mr. & Mrs. Smith is based off of a TV show.
However, I honestly think the decision to give Doom the same origin in this movie was based on two things:
1) Time. You can't squeeze Doom and the Four's origins all in one movie without seriously screwing one up... that is, unless you expand the movie by another hour or so. And FOX wouldn't even let Kingdom of Heaven run for another hour.
2) It was a pre-existing idea. I think Ultimate Fan4 pretty much did it for the sake of making a clever twist-- if Doom had been given powers along with the Fantastic Four, he still would've been evil and self-absorbed. It worked there, so why not use it in the movie, right?
But them believing audiences couldn't grasp a movie about crossing/separating/crossing paths? Charles Xavier and Magneto are proof that it can work. However, Magneto's origin (victim of Nazi rule, finds out he's superior to all humans, ironically does the exact same thing) doesn't need nearly as much exposition as Dr. Doom.
Dr. Doom's origin, to me, seems impossible to portray in a feature film alongside the Fan4's origin without audiences thinking Dr. Doom is an idiot. The accident that gave Doom his scar clearly isn't Reed's fault, yet Doom goes soul-searching for about a decade, and still holds a grudge against him. If I saw that on the big screen, and I wasn't aware of the comic book, I'd wonder what the hell Doom's problem is, and think he was a little bit "special." Rainman "special"-- intelligent, but not in complete possession of his faculties. There isn't enough time to give that origin justice.
If they had decided to use Dr. Doom for the sequel, after the Fantastic Four have established themselves as superhero celebrities, I could see his origin working easily.
boyscouT said:
IMO not many people know Doom's origin. Therefore, I predict a Batman '89 affect will take place. The 'Comically' uneducated FF crowd will come out of the theater thinking "so that's how Doom was created," just like how the 'Comically' uneducated Batman crowd came out of the theater in '89 thinking "so the Joker killed Batman's parents."
Sadly, I can see this happening. I can tell I'll have to do a lot of "actually, when he was introduced to the comic book in the 1960s, he..." in the near future.
WOW i expected a higher body count
I have to disagree with the thread,Dooms origin is classic and couldv'e been adapted more faithfully to the movie.The "realsim" argument really doesnt work here,if for instance they were putting Doom in the new Batman movie then yes it would be a valid point but Doom is in a movie that consists of a type space flight that doesn't exist,a man who can fly and whose body is covered in flames,a woman who can turn invisible,a man who can stretch his body like rubber and a man made of Rock.so the good ship realism has already sailed.I have some ideas on how they couldve done Doom but it is irrelevant now,my way of looking at this Doom is as an elseworlds doom and to still hope that he can be a great villain in his own right even though i can't see him matching the classic that is the original Doom
I love the classic Doom origin. I would love to see a movie like Magneto is getting all about Doom, grant you, we couldn't tell certain aspects of the origin (on account of the changes in the movie) but anything else that could be told (i.e. parents past, gypsies, the overthrowing of the Latverian government, Boris, the creation of Doombots, etc.). This could also be told in the sequel.
You know, I thought it was a matter of time before a thread like this was created. I think it is kind of cool to see those who prefer movie Doom's origin vs. comic Doom's origin. I am a the biggest preacher when it comes to Doom's history as he probably has the most complicated and deep origin of any character in comicdom. Yes, the watered down version that Fox and the writers came up with for the movie was didn't exactly catch my fancy (in fact, I screamed at the initial idea of it). However, I really like Julian McMahon (he is just so cool on Nip/Tuck) and when I heard that he was going to be Doom, I thought "this is very awesome!!!"
As time went on and footage was seen, I thought "What a great What If Doom!!" This would work if you just think that there are some elements of classic Doom merged with Ultimate Doom merged with What If type ideas and you get Movie Doom!!!
I am waiting impatiently to see this movie and at last see Victor Von Doom come to life. I am very much waiting for the ending to see what the future holds for Victor and his claim to the Latverian throne.
WOW i expected a higher body count
I have to disagree with the thread,Dooms origin is classic and couldv'e been adapted more faithfully to the movie.The "realsim" argument really doesnt work here,if for instance they were putting Doom in the new Batman movie then yes it would be a valid point but Doom is in a movie that consists of a type space flight that doesn't exist,a man who can fly and whose body is covered in flames,a woman who can turn invisible,a man who can stretch his body like rubber and a man made of Rock.so the good ship realism has already sailed.I have some ideas on how they couldve done Doom but it is irrelevant now,my way of looking at this Doom is as an elseworlds doom and to still hope that he can be a great villain in his own right even though i can't see him matching the classic that is the original Doom
You missed the whole realism thing I was trying to get across. I said they are taking the characters and putting them in a realistic enviroment. And I feel Doom's origin wouldn't have just cut it it on screen being 100% faithful. Ah I give up...I hate retyping posts.
And let me get this straight because I think some might still be a little confused. I am not bashing or saying Doom's comic origin is garbage but just not for the screen when it comes to what they are doing. And I also feel that in the sequel will have a much more faithful Doom because now we are getting his introduction done and now we have the time and the reasoning why Doom becomes ruler of Latveria, etc, etc.
You missed the whole realism thing I was trying to get across. I said they are taking the characters and putting them in a realistic enviroment. And I feel Doom's origin wouldn't have just cut it it on screen being 100% faithful. Ah I give up...I hate retyping posts.
no theyve put the F4 in the exact same enviroment as the comics,If they had left Dooms origin in tact apart from the magic element i could see it working.What they have done is tie there origins together,not for realism sake but to streamline the narrative and make it simpler to keep the story compact,as i said it could still be good only time will tell however i disagree that he couldn't have been done more faithful
It couldn't have worked time-wise and couldn't have been accepted IMO. I love how they tied in his origin with the F4. Like I said...the sequel can give us a more faithful Doom. Such as him gaining some magic powers, becoming the ruler of Latveria, all of that without the things I feel would not go so well on screen cut out.
Thats great Red that you are happy w/ the storyline....thing is there are some that are of the opinion that a more true to the origin story for doom could have happened...thats just their opinion and they believe it as strongly as you do yours....we can repeat our sides 20,000x and neither side is going to cave....this is about the 3rd or 4th discussion thread about this since July 2004 and ya know what....NO ONE has changed their opinion either way.....and they aren't going to...the Doom thread has probably gone through 2 or more discussions like this in that thread alone...and ya know what NO ONE has changed their opinion....some have semi-accepted...but none have completely changed....and i don't see that happening in the near future.....so agree to disagree....because thats the only thing you are going to get on this subject....
Dear lord, this thread is a travesty. It is like witnessing a battle of wits between unarmed opponents.
It seems most of the detractors of the comic book version of Doom are these aforementioned striplings who are have no sense of context. Yeah, I would agree with those of you that Doom's origin probably doesn't play that well to someone who wasn't even a gleam in their grandparent's eyes in the 1960's. Understandably, we don't see any reference these days of Ben and Reed being WWII vets anymore either. But just because times have changed, it doesn't mean we have to jettison comic book Doom's origin entirely.
In the movie, the script tries to have it both ways. Initially Victor does get transformed by the same accident as the rest of the FF. (* I am adding spoiler tags just in case *)
He later chooses to get that extra dose of cosmic radiation using Reed's transformation chamber.
Victor Von Doom in the movie is an industrialist/billionaire whose main activities seem to be attending board room meetings and keeping tabs on Reed's progress in finding a cure. He has a few underlings at his command, much like the subjects in his kingdom of Latveria in the comics. So, as Saph pointed out here months ago, Von Doom Victor Von Doom of the movies holds dominion over an alllegorical kingdom represented by Von Doom Industries.
I can accept that except for a couple of things. One aspect that weakens Movie Doom's origin for me is that I have always thought that the arc of Doom's development in the FF movie is too much like that of Norman Osborn in the first Spider-Man movie. If you recall, Osborn is cut out of his own company by the board of directors. Later as the Green Goblin, he attacks and kills them all. Victor is faced with the same dilemma with his investment bankers and we later see him lethally light one of them up in the parking garage scene.
As I mentioned earlier, he does modify the transformation chamber but it is Reed's design. In the book and film script he badgers Reed to come up with the cure for them all because it is losing him money and his investors are threatening to pull out. I can see how this is another way Reed is responsible for Victor "losing face", just as in the comics Victor blames Reed for the accident that scarred him. Another thing - - I emphasize the fact that it is Reed's device for this reason - - after going through the novelization and the copy of the shooting script that is included in the "Making of" book, I get no sense of Doom being a genius on par with Richards. Comic book Doom's ego would never allow him to consider that Reed was capable of accomplishing something that he himself could not. The movie simply substitutes a romantic rivalry for the intellecutal one that fuels Reed and Victor's confrontations in the comics. Yes, he is the head of the company that has all these "toys" at his disposal but it is never made clear exactly how the company was built up or whether or not Victor had a direct hand in any of the advances Von Doom Industries had achieved.
IMO, I think Movie Doom's sketchy origins lacks some of the depth of the comic book version that younger fans mock. The underlying psychology of it all (even though Stan and Jack were clearly writing for an audience whose average age was around 12) has far more interesting implications, some of which Shadowboxer covered earlier and I need not repeat here.
Oh, and someone mentioned earlier that Doom was trying to bring his mother back from the dead.. not true. The original device was to only make contact with the Netherworld. Later, Doom battles the demon Mephisto in order to redeem his enchantress mother's soul. She was damned to Hell for unwittingly causing the deaths of some innocents while fighting against her people's oppressors. The pity of it all is that I wish the script writers of today did as good a job as dialoguing as Roger Stern does in the graphic novel that tells that tale. A greater pity is that they have an actor who is capable of doing the role justice but I fear the script will hold him back from achieving a more perfect characterization.
You probably would say from reading all this that I will hate the movie but never fear - - I plan to be there to see it as close to opening day as I can. I have said before that I have resolved to look upon it as an Elseworlds tale and plan to enjoy myself just the same. I am just weighing in to say I prefer the classic origin because, well I consider myself a classic too! ( * ducks from the flying objects being hurled *)
Your words cleanse my soul, fair Maiden. Your knowledge of the material in this debate and even temperament put above reproach in this hideous thread. Anyone who would dare hurl objects at you for speaking the truth is an unworthy, ignorant, brain-washed, sycophantic intellectual peasant that isn't fit to clean your iron boots with their devil's tongues.
Now would be the time to stand behind me and or get as far away from me as possible, fair Maiden, because those objects will be hurled now.
Addressing the "couldn't have been accepted" argument, Doom's origin, in alot of ways reflects that of Batamn as presented in Batman Begins (With some very key differences). And that film was not only "accepted" but is regarded by many as the best Batman film ever made.
Addressing the "couldn't have been accepted" argument, Doom's origin, in alot of ways reflects that of Batamn as presented in Batman Begins (With some very key differences). And that film was not only "accepted" but is regarded by many as the best Batman film ever made.
Yeah but your forgetting one thing. That was a BATMAN movie. This is a FAANTASTIC FOUR movie. Maybe if Doom had his own movie it would be possible but with the Fantastic Four...never.
Yeah but your forgetting one thing. That was a BATMAN movie. This is a FAANTASTIC FOUR movie. Maybe if Doom had his own movie it would be possible but with the Fantastic Four...never.
how exactly ? i mean the whole time constraint thing could be an issue but i don't see the audience not accepting a origin in which Doom goes to college with Reed,there is an intellectual rivalry,Doom's face gets a scar in an accidnet,he returns to Latveria and reclaims his throne by building a battle suit,and then after the F4 come into the lime light due to the cosmic incident doom makes his play due to the fact Reed is in the spotlight as a genius
Somebody ought to put up a sign for the next while that reads "Adult Swim."
Then again, looking back to the opening post... that wouldn't make a damn bit of sense.
ShadowBoxing: It's great to see when someone not only knows the historical content of the topic at hand, but understands the psychological implications.
how exactly ? i mean the whole time constraint thing could be an issue but i don't see the audience not accepting a origin in which Doom goes to college with Reed,there is an intellectual rivalry,Doom's face gets a scar in an accidnet,he returns to Latveria and reclaims his throne by building a battle suit,and then after the F4 come into the lime light due to the cosmic incident doom makes his play due to the fact Reed is in the spotlight as a genius
I have no problem with you liking the movie origin better,thats all good,i was just disagreeing with the initial statement that the classic origin couldn't be done
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
