Cinema Paradise - the Movie Thread Transformed

[Gfted1]

On the contrary, both you and chilloutman have spoken out against a female lesd for Doom, while Malc and I have argued it really doesn't matter.

 

I suppose it can be interpreted that way.

 

DOOM just so happens to be the topic that was brought up. I'm not bothered by the specifics (sex/race/color/etc.) but more the fact that, imo, you don't have to tear one thing down to build another thing up. What, are we out of superpowers or something? Why wouldn't they develop a whole new character instead?

[Hiro Protagonist]

....while Malc and I have argued it really doesn't matter.

 

So you guys don't care about who portrays who in a movie. Regardless of gender, race and its source material?

[Hurlshort]

 

....while Malc and I have argued it really doesn't matter.

So you guys don't care about who portrays who in a movie. Regardless of gender, race and its source material?

We are specifically talking about Doom. Can't speak for Malc, but I would say every situation is going to be different.

 

Also, just realized Karl Urban was the doon guy in the original. Now if that guy paired with The Rock couldn't pull off a decent version of Doom, I am going to go out on a limb and say casting is not the issue.

[Zoraptor]

Doomguy being Doomgal is obvious designed primarily to get attention. Can't say that I have any other problem with it other than that and that being an indicator that it wouldn't attract positive attention any other way, but that's only an indicator much like game movies generally being crap is. I think anyone getting flustered about Doom's canon being disrespected is taking things a tad too seriously.

 

While not a great movie by any stretch Gods of Egypt (probably) wasn't whitewashing, historically speaking.

 

Best evidence is that ancient egyptians mostly looked like Copts do today, which is darker than typical european but also very far from the typical west african skin colour most people think of as 'black'. Even the 'black' Egyptians (nubians) would likely have looked like modern Ethiopians or Sudanese who are far lighter skin tone than west africans, and the Nubians only ruled Egypt briefly and lived 1000km upriver*.

 

*one interesting side effect of that is that Sudan has way more pyramids than Egypt does.

[Amentep]

It should be pointed out that in GOD'S OF EGYPT the world is flat and the sun is a barge, so it's relation to the real world is minimal regardless of who was cast in it.

 

That said someone probably could have kept the casting frim being an issue with some easy forethought...

[Hurlshort]

 

On the contrary, both you and chilloutman have spoken out against a female lesd for Doom, while Malc and I have argued it really doesn't matter.

I suppose it can be interpreted that way.

 

DOOM just so happens to be the topic that was brought up. I'm not bothered by the specifics (sex/race/color/etc.) but more the fact that, imo, you don't have to tear one thing down to build another thing up. What, are we out of superpowers or something? Why wouldn't they develop a whole new character instead?

I completely agree with you on original content. A badass woman dealing with crap on a space station would probably do well. Maybe some sort of hive creature where she has to kill a queen in an exosuit at the end.

 

I still don't see how this tears down anything. The games and other movie will still exist. They actually scrub Doom canon regularly, I believe Doom 3 was a total reboot.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Volourn]

"3. Putting white guys into historically ethnic roles has been going on for much longer, so people have a lot more ammunition to fire off when complaining about that versus people complaining about women and ethnicities taking all the jobs in Hollywood."

 

Dude.  That could be  because even now the US 65% white. What was the % of nonwhites in the old days, right? What was the % of Arabs way back then in the US? Hell, what is the % of Arabs in the US now? Very small %. So, of course, most films in the old days were starring whites. You kind of not seeing the whole picture. It is the same issue people have when they talk about 'minorities' when they really mean black people when blacks aren't even the biggest minority in the US. That is latino.

 

Whining that movies made in 1950s US was largely white is weaksauce much as anyone whining that a movie made in Japan stars mostly Japanese. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

"A badass woman dealing with crap on a space station would probably do well. Maybe some sort of hive creature where she has to kill a queen in an exosuit at the end."

 

Sounds like Alien. So, why the need to culturally appropriate Doom (which I perosnally don't care about). heck if they choose a H0TTIE or a great actress, I might even watch it.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Volourn

[Hurlshort]

Yeah, I never claimed to care that they have a bunch of white guys playing ethnic roles. Just like I don't care that a woman is playing the Doom marine.

 

Edit: it sounded like Alien? How completely unintentional.

 

Edit 2: There is a surprising amount of talented Arabic actors from the 40's and 50's, actually. Mostly fron Egypt.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Malcador]

 

....while Malc and I have argued it really doesn't matter.

 

So you guys don't care about who portrays who in a movie. Regardless of gender, race and its source material?

 

Where did you pull that from ? Doom is really suited for a lazy switch like that as there's no character to be tied to. Mars, demons and the BFG are things more "sacred" than the PC who is just a silent mobile gun mount.

[Hiro Protagonist]

Can't speak for Malc, but I would say every situation is going to be different.

 Just wanted to see what your position was. Every situation is different.

 

 

Where did you pull that from ? Doom is really suited for a lazy switch like that as there's no character to be tied to. Mars, demons and the BFG are things more "sacred" than the PC who is just a silent mobile gun mount.

Nice bait and switch. Edited June 19, 2018 by Hiro Protagonist

[Malcador]

What bait and switch ? Pretty much have only been talking about Doom.

[Blarghagh]

Doom guy is only a guy because they thought it was funny to have a bloody face for an HP-meter. I couldn't care less.

 

Plus, Hollywood has to cut out random whites & males as penance for the goddamn Last Airbender. Deal with it, nancies.

[Chilloutman]

I have really hard time understand that opposing point of view. I really wan't to at least grasp why its better for Doom movie to have female protagonist while cannon is male and that cannon is 20 years old. Put in at least some points why it would be beneficial? I can understand that you 'Don't care' but clearly some of us care so dispute it at least a little bit instead of pointing out that my preference does not matter to you.

[kirottu]

Plus, Hollywood has to cut out random whites & males as penance for the goddamn Last Airbender. Deal with it, nancies.

 

That's just hitting under the belt. There is no need to ever bring up the Last Airbender movie in any context.

[Blarghagh]

I have really hard time understand that opposing point of view. I really wan't to at least grasp why its better for Doom movie to have female protagonist while cannon is male and that cannon is 20 years old. Put in at least some points why it would be beneficial? I can understand that you 'Don't care' but clearly some of us care so dispute it at least a little bit instead of pointing out that my preference does not matter to you.

 

Since you asked, I'm going to devote some mental energy to this even though I think the entire discussion is a waste of both mine and yours.

 

You got me wrong, first of all; I don't think Doom having a female protagonist is better by default. I also don't think it's worse. I have no other information about the film other than this change. Even in that vacuum, I find this change to be meaningless because Doom guy's gender is absolutely inconsequential to the narrative and spirit of the game. The only reason he even had a gender or face was for an interface gag.

 

Outside of that vacuum, clearly this is not going to be a straight adaptation since a straight adaption will mean one dude, alone, no dialogue whatsoever, just killing demons over and over. In reality, doom guy's gender isn't being changed. By the very nature of film "Doom Guy" is straight up going to be removed and replaced with a group of people, the narrative lead of which in this case has been announced to be female. The argument that "doom guy is being changed into a woman" is, in its very core, an absolute lie. And here's the kicker, the same thing happened last time: Karl Urban in the previous attempt wasn't Doom Guy, he was "soldier dude who got superhuman serum after his team fell apart due to some virulent mutation". None of that is Doom Guy, despite him being male.

 

If you want me to point out in which way this would be beneficial, I can't do that because once again, we've got no other information to go on and regardless beneficial is very subjective. Perhaps it's integral to whatever themes or message the current creative team has planned, or perhaps (and more likely) it's just meant to generate publicity at what I consider to be no meaningful cost. In which case it'll be transparant and manipulative, but nothing of value was lost. Arguments could be made for female representation or female exploitation - maybe the director just likes making films with hot women, which is beneficial as eye candy, or maybe the studio feels female leads are tracking well right now and it'll make more money, which'll be beneficial. But right now, I can't in any honest way make those arguments because I simply don't know what they're doing with the film.

 

In response, I could ask what other reason do you have other than "canon" for Doom to have a male protagonist? Did it help the other Doom movie? Looking at it, if this movie has a female protagonist, but does actually deal with demonic invasion, it'll be by default a more loyal adaptation than the last one by a massive margin.

 

Also, canon doesn't matter to adaptation by very definition. Adapation is by default a different version and different medium to the original product. It will, simply by virtue of its existence, generate it's own canon in the same way the books and the show of Game of Thrones follow their own seperate canon, and did so even back when it was as loyal as it could be by ommiting certain scenes and characters for time constraints. Watchmen is my go-to example for why you shouldn't be too loyal - that movie doesn't work at all despite using much of the source material as a literal storyboard. Film has different methods and needs for pacing, framing, storytelling, characterisation, atmosphere and time-management than a comic book or a video game.

 

Even if it did, I still have no use for canon. I have no use for what is Doom canon specifically, since I don't care for Doom's canon little bit in the first place, but even in general "canon" is a word for nerds to beat other nerds over the heads with for being wrong about things that don't even exist. Most creator's rightfully ignore it, and mostly so do people. When the movie of Jurassic Park came out, nobody really cared that Ian Malcolm survived when he doesn't survive the book. Even the writer didn't, since he brought him back with a retcon in the second novel as the main character with a joke to how the same thing happened to Sherlock Holmes. Jurassic Park canon didn't even matter to the actual Jurassic Park canon written by the dude who created Jurassic Park canon. Canon is make believe.

 

That's an extreme example, but even outside of adaptating something to a different medium stuff is retconned all the time. It missed this scene of characterisation, oh well. Those two character were combined, eh, I get it. Tony Stark acting as a mentor or father figure to Peter Parker in Spider-man: Homecoming isn't from original comic books, but it's generally seen as an interesting dynamic. That's fine. You know what people did lose their minds over in Spider-man: Homecoming? "MJ" isn't a white girl. That's sooo unfaithful. Why is it that it suddenly becomes a much bigger deal every time a character gender or race is changed?

 

That may sound hypocritical after I made that comparison to Last Airbender as a joke, but in Last Airbender cartoon the different characters and their cultures represented or were thematic analogues to different historic ancient cultures and came during a time when systematic recasting of POC to white was still ongoing. It both changed the spirit and meaning of the film and was a poster boy for consistently racist studio behavior. For me, this very limited craze of swapping in some more women in movies where gender doesn't really matter, does not come close to being a problem. Changing Doom guy's gender? It's at most an aesthetic choice, at worst a bland publicity stunt. Either way, it's not a meaningful change to me.

 

That's not even going into the fact that I don't even want a Doom movie. Doom is impossible to make a loyal adaptation of but it's also an extremely derivative product in any way that isn't gameplay - it would never really work simply because of the "John Carter of Mars" conundrum - it was new once, but we've really seen all of it before now and it no longer has anything to bring to the table. It doesn't need a movie, and as far as I care they can do anything they want with it and I wouldn't be bothered. The fact they are making it at all is more mind-boggling to me than that it will have a female protagonist. Add in the fact that video game movies have traditionally been terrible, I cannot even seriously consider the possiblity that another "Doom" movie will worth worrying about regardless of protagonist gender.

 

EDIT: If you DO want a somewhat loyal adapation of Doom, the comic book is still available. Can you imagine an entire film of this, though? It'll wear thin. A short film, maybe. RIP & TEAR!

 

https://www.doomworld.com/10years/doomcomic/

Edited June 19, 2018 by TrueNeutral

[Malcador]

All of this makes me want to see a Deus Ex movie, so I can enjoy the raging over it.

[Chilloutman]

Thanks for input, I would make detailed response but this forum quote system making me nuts so just few points:

 

''You got me wrong, first of all; I don't think Doom having a female protagonist is better by default. I also don't think it's worse. I have no other information about the film other than this change. Even in that vacuum, I find this change to be meaningless because Doom guy's gender is absolutely inconsequential to the narrative and spirit of the game. The only reason he even had a gender or face was for an interface gag.''

 

That is again only your opinion, I think doom guy is integral part of Doom, he was in all Doom games and there is quite a lot of them

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BF_a-ZwDRQ

 

''Outside of that vacuum, clearly this is not going to be a straight adaptation since a straight adaption will mean one dude, alone, no dialogue whatsoever, just killing demons over and over. In reality, doom guy's gender isn't being changed. By the very nature of film "Doom Guy" is straight up going to be removed and replaced with a group of people, the narrative lead of which in this case has been announced to be female. The argument that "doom guy is being changed into a woman" is, in its very core, an absolute lie. And here's the kicker, the same thing happened last time: Karl Urban in the previous attempt wasn't Doom Guy, he was "soldier dude who got superhuman serum after his team fell apart due to some virulent mutation". None of that is Doom Guy, despite him being male.''

 

I also consider previous 'adaptation' attrocious, I don't think it related to current discussion, I don't consider any of previous cast to be Doom guy and I can't say that apart from Mars setting there was anything related between games and movie (which again is horrible movie)

 

''If you want me to point out in which way this would be beneficial, I can't do that because once again, we've got no other information to go on and regardless beneficial is very subjective. Perhaps it's integral to whatever themes or message the current creative team has planned, or perhaps (and more likely) it's just meant to generate publicity at what I consider to be no meaningful cost. In which case it'll be transparant and manipulative, but nothing of value was lost. Arguments could be made for female representation or female exploitation - maybe the director just likes making films with hot women, which is beneficial as eye candy, or maybe the studio feels female leads are tracking well right now and it'll make more money, which'll be beneficial. But right now, I can't in any honest way make those arguments because I simply don't know what they're doing with the film.''

 

yes as latest 'adaptations' as new Ghostbusters or Star Wars are really killing it in movies... And are you now agreeing with sexualisation and exploitation of wamen?

 

''In response, I could ask what other reason do you have other than "canon" for Doom to have a male protagonist? Did it help the other Doom movie? Looking at it, if this movie has a female protagonist, but does actually deal with demonic invasion, it'll be by default a more loyal adaptation than the last one by a massive margin.''

 

again that previous 'adaptation' was horendous does not mean this one have to be just less horendous, sounds like sof bigotry through low expectation

 

''Also, canon doesn't matter to adaptation by very definition. Adapation is by default a different version and different medium to the original product. It will, simply by virtue of its existence, generate it's own canon in the same way the books and the show of Game of Thrones follow their own seperate canon, and did so even back when it was as loyal as it could be by ommiting certain scenes and characters for time constraints. Watchmen is my go-to example for why you shouldn't be too loyal - that movie doesn't work at all despite using much of the source material as a literal storyboard. Film has different methods and needs for pacing, framing, storytelling, characterisation, atmosphere and time-management than a comic book or a video game.''

 

Hey come on, yes different medium means some compromises, but Deaneris is not now guy in that series, Tyrion is not 2 meters tall portorican, you get my drift right?
 

''Even if it did, I still have no use for canon. I have no use for what is Doom canon specifically, since I don't care for Doom's canon little bit in the first place, but even in general "canon" is a word for nerds to beat other nerds over the heads with for being wrong about things that don't even exist. Most creator's rightfully ignore it, and mostly so do people. When the movie of Jurassic Park came out, nobody really cared that Ian Malcolm survived when he doesn't survive the book. Even the writer didn't, since he brought him back with a retcon in the second novel as the main character with a joke to how the same thing happened to Sherlock Holmes. Jurassic Park canon didn't even matter to the actual Jurassic Park canon written by the dude who created Jurassic Park canon. Canon is make believe.''

 

Same old 'I don't care so why should you?'

 

Don't care about spiderman and never seen anything around Last Airbender so I can't comment on the rest

 

Now lets move on if noone else is interested in this banter (and sorry for some bad english, does not have time to make proper check )

[Malcador]

I guess people will identify with any game protagonist.

[Blarghagh]

yes as latest 'adaptations' as new Ghostbusters or Star Wars are really killing it in movies... And are you now agreeing with sexualisation and exploitation of wamen?

 

That is not what I said and you know it.

 

I'll watch that video when I can, but having played all of the Doom games except for that Bethesda one I'll be surprised if I come away changing my mind about Doom Guy's masculinity being a major part of his character or the game.

 

For the rest of it, agree to disagree? I'm annoyed by the length of my post and the time it took me to write it, I really don't care enough to discuss it any further.

[Chilloutman]

 

yes as latest 'adaptations' as new Ghostbusters or Star Wars are really killing it in movies... And are you now agreeing with sexualisation and exploitation of wamen?

 

That is not what I said and you know it.

 

I'll watch that video when I can, but having played all of the Doom games except for that Bethesda one I'll be surprised if I come away changing my mind about Doom Guy's masculinity being a major part of his character or the game.

 

For the rest of it, agree to disagree? I'm annoyed by the length of my post and the time it took me to write it, I really don't care enough to discuss it any further.

 

 

''Doom Guy's masculinity being a major part of his character''

 

dude, he litteraly saw demons with MF chainsaw, how more masculine you can be?

[Malcador]

Sisters of Battle prove that isn't a solely a masculine trait though. Chainsaw weapons are for everyone

[Blarghagh]

Violence is masculinity? Jeeze, I'm doing it wrong.

[Chilloutman]

Violence is masculinity? Jeeze, I'm doing it wrong.

 

you clearly do:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/homo-aggressivus/201409/male-aggression

 

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/20/style/aggression-still-a-stronger-trait-for-males.html

Edited June 19, 2018 by Chilloutman

[Blarghagh]

So masculinity is toxic?

 

[Chilloutman]

So masculinity is toxic?

 

 

define toxic? Were people fighting in war for abolishment of slavery toxic? Agression is just a term, it depends when and how is used. I think its quite clear