I Am Doom....discuss me [merged-2]

[Uxmfan425]

Sorry, but I see a flaw here.
Why ? Because Doom works in the comics today! Which destroy your point. Doom has evolve from day one to today. But his origin is still the same, and it works in today's comics. And if it works in today's comics, (which means people like me and you can read the comic without finding it ridiculous whatsoever), then it could work in a new movie. Sure, if you adapt the character's attitude from the 60's completly, it wouldn't work (but then again, same thing with ANY character from the 60's, and especially the FF). But the way the characters have evolved ? Hell yes.

Doom works today because he's had 40 years to become one badasssonofa*****. And with a background like that, such things take TIME. As the public has evolved, so has the character. You can't just carry 40 years over into a 2 hour movie. A good writer has to pick certain parts of his history that will translate the most important parts of his personality on screen so that will make sense to a general audience.

YOUR point makes no sense because I've said in EVERY SINGLE POST since you've started talking, that bringing Doom's origin will be only a major joke to a general audience that has no knowledge of the past 40 years, while you and I have been enlightened by ALL of the history.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Doom works today because he's had 40 years to become one badasssonofa*****. And with a background like that, such things take TIME. As the public has evolved, so has the character. You can't just carry 40 years over into a 2 hour movie. A good writer has to pick certain parts of his history that will translate the most important parts of his personality on screen so that will make sense to a general audience.

YOUR point makes no sense because I've said in EVERY SINGLE POST since you've started talking, that bringing Doom's origin will be only a major joke to a general audience that has no knowledge of the past 40 years, while you and I have been enlightened by ALL of the history.

Read my last post, i've already explain why they wouldn't need to explain 40 years of Doom's history in such sort time.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

One of my main beef with Doom's situation is that many people say (to defend Fox's horrendous decision) that explaining Doom's origin would be too long for the first movie. I disgress. Why ? Because you simply do not need to explain it all in details.
If Fox had any respect for Doom, they could have opted to have a Victor which is already King and powerful, already scarred and in his unique armor. We could later on learn (through one of Reed's tales) the overall story of the good doctor. Why Fox see the needs to tell in details Doom's story AND mix it with the FF's origin is beyond me, especially since they could even more easily make his story shrouded in mystery.

When we first met Vader in A new hope, we didn't know his full background (actually, we knew nearly nothing). Later on, in the trilogy, we learned more. BUT, that technique only served to renforced how majestic he was on screen.
Same could be applied to Doom. He could ALREADY be the all powerful Doom we all know and love in the beginning of the movie, just like he had been scarred years before the FF were ever change by cosmic rays in the comics.

Imagine the audience being threated to a character such as Doom.

One thing's for sure, they sure as **** would want to learn more about him and how he came to be. Which might be explain later on in the first movie, and even more in the inevitable sequels. Doom's character is so great that people would salivate everytime they would learn one more tidbit about his origin and his many fantastic voyages.

Doom is THAT great of a character. Why mess with such potential ?

Here.

edit: If, for A new hope, Lucas had opted to merge Vader's story with Luke's, and we would only have had the Vader we all know and love by the end of the first movie (but with a far more different origin than the one we know), you can bet he wouldn't have been as popular.

Telling the FF's origin is already complicated, why lose time with Doom's one ? Skip it, and then come back to tell it vaguely. It's as simple as that.

Btw, Sardaukar, I love the new name of the thread.

 

[Cool_Jerk]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: you CAN have a faithful backstory to Dr. Doom in a movie and it can be done in 5 minutes... BEFORE the opening titles! All it takes is some talent and vision... which may well be lacking in this production.

Go watch "Bram Stoker's Dracula" for a perfect example of compressed backstory. They took the origins, history, motivations, passions and consequences of Vlad Dracul and led the movie with it. Everything that anyone needed to know about how he became a vampire and his obsession with Mina Murray was taken care of before the "actual" movie began.

They could EASILY do this with von Doom.

Show him as a gypsy boy, fleeing with his father and Boris from the Latverian Baron's soldiers. Werner von Doom succumbs to the cold and young Victor vows revenge on not only the Baron... but the world. Viginette a bunch of scenes where he uses his scientific skill and mother's gypsy magicks to undermine the Baron's rule... which leads him to be noticed by a recruiter for State U in America. Enter Reed Richards and Ben (who can remain unnamed at this point) who try to befreind von Doom. Show von Doom's accellerated studying and advancements in science... plus a little sorcery and secret experiment being built in his dorm. Show Richards again, pointing out a math error and von Doom's rage at the "arrogance" of this! He continues with the experiment and it blows up. He's expelled while checking out his ruined face in the university and leaves America for parts unknown... perhaps mentioning that someday the world shall know of von Doom... and the world will know him as their master.

Roll titles.

Can be done in 5-7 minutes.

Anything else regarding Doom would be handled in the second reel. For example, when -- simultaneous with the FF receiving notoriety for their exploits -- von Doom wrests control of his homeland in a bloody coup. Even there, it could be mentioned in the background, like on the news as a SPECIAL REPORT, pre-empting Johnny's appearance on Conan O'Brien, for example. Further explainations of von Doom's Tibetian-Monk armor & mask can happen when Richards and von Doom finally confront each other and compare notes that their destinies crossed years ago at State U... and that Doom realizes that Richards was the student that (he thinks) sabotaged his attempt to free his mother from the netherworld. This would amplify Doom's mission in life -- to not only free his mother from the netherworld, and to rule the planet... but to destroy Richards and his misbegotten friends.

Well, probably not for this movie, since it looks like everythings already written in stone. I guess we should feel fortunate that we're getting a remake 11 years after the Corman one. If they remake Tim Story version in 2016, they may certainly use my example.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Doom works today because he's had 40 years to become one badasssonofa*****. And with a background like that, such things take TIME. As the public has evolved, so has the character. You can't just carry 40 years over into a 2 hour movie. A good writer has to pick certain parts of his history that will translate the most important parts of his personality on screen so that will make sense to a general audience.

YOUR point makes no sense because I've said in EVERY SINGLE POST since you've started talking, that bringing Doom's origin will be only a major joke to a general audience that has no knowledge of the past 40 years, while you and I have been enlightened by ALL of the history.

Btw, I was (and I'm sure the same thing hapened to many of us Doom fans) intrigued and sure as heck impress by the first Doom comic I ever read. I KNEW Doom had one heck of a background the first time I discovered him years ago. Not knowing his background didn't stop me from finding him to ALREADY be one of the best villain. How would it ****ing be different for new viewers ? For them, it would be like reading for the first time a Doom comic. If the comic's great, even if they don't know his full background, they WILL like him.

It seems you are suggesting that for liking Doom you must know his full background, which I find absurd. Audience do NOT need to know everything, just like they didn't need to know Vader's whole background to enjoy him (shame on you Lucas for trying to tell it now... ).

 

[Ktulu]

Your ideas are all well and good, to be sure, but this is an adaptation, not a word-for-word recreation.


I've said it once and I'll say it again: STOP EXPECTING THE COMICS.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Great way to tell Doom's story, Cool_Jerk. Dracula is one of my favorite movie, and the intro is by far my favorite scene from the movie. The music theme "Dracula the beginning" gives me chill everytime I hear it, and I listen to it everytime I read a Doom comic (it fits so well).

Doing an intro this way, in a very fast and cutting way, WOULD work, and work well to establish Doom's character. Unfortunately, it seems Fox is run by stupid monkeys who only wish to rape Victor's character. It seems Doom has a far greater ennemy than Richard: evil stupid corporate monkeys.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Your ideas are all well and good, to be sure, but this is an adaptation, not a word-for-word recreation.


I've said it once and I'll say it again: STOP EXPECTING THE COMICS.

Why ? Aren't these ADAPTATIONS ? Which means they SHOULD respect the source material. Not piss on Doom's character. A great comic book adaptation is something that would respect and retain the original source material, and yet gives it something new and refreshing. Here, something new should mean a NEW adventure, not a complete revamp of their character and origin (especially in Doom's case).

The thing here is that Doom is SUCH a great character that he doesn't need many changes. That's why i'm furious. Sure, there's no need to incorporate EVERYTHING, but he sure as **** needs most of his character's main features and most of his original origin.

 

[Ktulu]

Do you enjoy *****ing all day?

Adaptation:

1.
1. The act or process of adapting.
2. The state of being adapted.
2.
1. Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
2. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
3. Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
4. Physiology. The responsive adjustment of a sense organ, such as the eye, to varying conditions, such as light intensity.
5. Change in behavior of a person or group in response to new or modified surroundings.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Do you enjoy *****ing all day?

Adaptation:

Oh, so, adaptation means changing the character's features, attitudes and origins ? Well, then, it seems Raimi didn't understand this very concept with his spider-man movies. Shame on him. He should have altered the source material far more. Oh well.

Btw, adapting something DOESN'T MEAN you have to change the original material, especially if it's as great as Doom's character. Or, are you saying Doom's character is not good enough to be brought on screen. My god, Blasphemy !

If the new creator has no respect and wants to make a complete revamp of the source material, then he should take "other" characters. Why call him Doom if he's Lex Luthor with Colossus' powers ?

Edit: Btw, yes, I do enjoy ****ing all the day.

Second edit: " Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation."
See, that's your flaw right there. It's already suitable for application. Comic book is a visual form. It seems to me you are simply saying that the Doom from the comic is not "worthy" enough to be well portrayed in the movies. Not much of a fan, are you ?
I mean, if you find Doom to not be a great enough villain to be faithfully adapted to the screen, then it seems you don't care much about the Doom from the comics. I do. Many of us do. And we want the Doom we all love to be portrayed on screen. Not a LARGELY altered one.

Third edit:

"Originally Posted by Ktulu
Your ideas are all well and good, to be sure, but this is an adaptation, not a word-for-word recreation.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: STOP EXPECTING THE COMICS."

Why should we ****ing stop to expect the comics ??? It's a movie adapted from a COMIC! We sure as hell should expect something AT LEAST close to the comics.

 

[Ktulu]

You're expecting a goddamn recreation. You'll never be satisfied.


So just stop.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

You're expecting a goddamn recreation. You'll never be satisfied.


So just stop.

No, i'm wishing for something close. Not something ENTIRELY NEW. Which, it seems, you would be satisfied with. I've never ask, not ONCE, to have a 100% faithful adaptation of Doom. But something largely faithful ? Hell yes!

Now, ask yourself this (I know you ain't much of a Doom fan, but whatever, just try to envision you were one for a second here): wouldn't you prefer to have a great AND faithful Doom on screen rather than a "maybe" great but not faithful Doom ?

I mean, by all that is Holy, if there's an ounce of Doom fan in you, you will answer the second one.

Edit: Why am I even bothering ?

 

[Ktulu]

You're *****ing about something you haven't even seen yet. While I, on the other hand, am taking the route of holding judgment until I see the final product.

PMSing on a forum all day won't get you anywhere. And just because I don't agree with your fanboyism, doesn't mean that I am not a fan.

 

[Captain Walrus]

Oh, so, adaptation means changing the character's features, attitudes and origins ? Well, then, it seems Raimi didn't understand this very concept with his spider-man movies. Shame on him. He should have altered the source material far more. Oh well.

Ah, but Spiderman worked well. Look at the X-Men movies, many characters were revamped. WOLVERINE QUOTE: "What the hell is a sabertooth?"

If the new creator has no respect and wants to make a complete revamp of the source material, then he should take "other" characters. Why call him Doom if he's Lex Luthor with Colossus' powers ?

Because he's NOT Lex Luthor with Colossus' powers.

See, that's your flaw right there. It's already suitable for application. Comic book is a visual form. It seems to me you are simply saying that the Doom from the comic is not "worthy" enough to be well portrayed in the movies. Not much of a fan, are you ?
I mean, if you find Doom to not be a great enough villain to be faithfully adapted to the screen, then it seems you don't care much about the Doom from the comics. I do. Many of us do. And we want the Doom we all love to be portrayed on screen. Not a LARGELY altered one.

Why should we ****ing stop to expect the comics ??? It's a movie adapted from a COMIC! We sure as hell should expect something AT LEAST close to the comics.

ARE YOU DAFT?! The printed page does not always translate well into movie action. Like in X-Men, they toned it down to make it MORE REALISTIC. Just because they change the orgins doesn't mean that you are not getting the same Doom we all know and love. The producers want a broad audience, not just die hard FF fans.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

You're *****ing about something you haven't even seen yet. While I, on the other hand, am taking the route of holding judgment until I see the final product.

PMSing on a forum all day won't get you anywhere. And just because I don't agree with your fanboyism, doesn't mean that I am not a fan.

And now it seems you are changing the subject which we were discussing.

I don't even know where to begin to comment on what you just said, especially since it has nothing to do with what we where discussing...

 

[Herr Logan]

Yeah, there's absolutely no reason why a more or less complete version of Doom's important history can't be told in a short amount of time.

 

[Captain Walrus]

Now, ask yourself this (I know you ain't much of a Doom fan, but whatever, just try to envision you were one for a second here): wouldn't you prefer to have a great AND faithful Doom on screen rather than a "maybe" great but not faithful Doom ?

How can you be so sure that a faithful Doom will be a great one?

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Ah, but Spiderman worked well. Look at the X-Men movies, many characters were revamped. WOLVERINE QUOTE: "What the hell is a sabertooth?"

Because he's NOT Lex Luthor with Colossus' powers.

ARE YOU DAFT?! The printed page does not always translate well into movie action. Like in X-Men, they toned it down to make it MORE REALISTIC. Just because they change the orgins doesn't mean that you are not getting the same Doom we all know and love. The producers want a broad audience, not just die hard FF fans.

Um, It seems to me you don't care much about Doom's original origins. Spider-man proved you could make a faithful AND good comic book adaptation. I thought it was common sense ?

Whatever, continue to think that Doom's character is not great enough to be faithfully adapted on screen. I do think he is that great. You don't.

 

[Ktulu]

And now it seems you are changing the subject which we were discussing.

I don't even know where to begin to comment on what you just said, especially since it has nothing to do with what we where discussing...

You attacked me, I gave the reasons for my thinking. Seems like it has a lot to do with what we're discussing....

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

How can you be so sure that a faithful Doom will be a great one?

Because he is ALREADY a great character ?

Read some comics. Try to read Secret wars, Warren Ellis' Doom 2099 run (Doom 2099 #26-39), Chuck Dixon's first Doom mini serie, and Mark Waid's Unthinkable and Authoritive Action.

And then, after having read all of those above, you might "get" why he's a great character.

 

[Ktulu]

ALSO- this movie is called FANTASTIC FOUR. Not DOCTOR DOOM guest staring the Fantastic Four.

The way I see it, you want this movie to be all about Doom.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

You attacked me, I gave the reasons for my thinking. Seems like it has a lot to do with what we're discussing....

A) you attacked me first.
B) The reasons for your thinking has nothing to do with our argument. We were arguing about how a faithful adaptation can be a great thing. And then you responded by saying you are holding judgements on Doom's character before you see the movie. What did it have to do with our previous argument ???

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

ALSO- this movie is called FANTASTIC FOUR. Not DOCTOR DOOM guest staring the Fantastic Four.

The way I see it, you want this movie to be all about Doom.

Um, yes. And Fantastic four comic books are still call Fantastic Four, not Doom. Doesn't stop them from featuring faithful versions of doom.

 

[Captain Walrus]

Because he is ALREADY a great character ?

Read some comics. Try to read Secret wars, Warren Ellis' Doom 2099 run (Doom 2099 #26-39), Chuck Dixon's first Doom mini serie, and Mark Waid's Unthinkable and Authoritive Action.

And then, after having read all of those above, you might "get" why he's a great character.

HE IS A GREAT CHARACTER, NO DOUBT! However, you must first translate comic to movie. And 39 years, 364 days, and 22 hours of his history will be lost. Therefore they simplify it into something a mainstream audience, NOT COMIC FANS LIKE US, can understand and enjoy.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

HE IS A GREAT CHARACTER, NO DOUBT! However, you must first translate comic to movie. And 39 years, 364 days, and 22 hours of his history will be lost. Therefore they simplify it into something a mainstream audience, NOT COMIC FANS LIKE US, can understand and enjoy.

Um, if you ONLY read ONE Doom comic (let's say, Unthinkable), Doom's history is "condensed" for a newer audience. People who discovered Doom in those comics sure didn't need much more to like him. Why would the regular viewers be any different ? Are they more stupid than comic book readers ???