Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rogue Shadows 02-04-06, 03:38 PM	I hate that movie...come on! A Beholder is not going to be fooled by the old 'throw the rock' trick!! [mumble...grumble...] Anyway. Post here the ways you think D&D (the movie) could have been made better. To get the ball rolling... 1. Mystery Science Theatre 3000-style. We get comments in the movie and such, during the movie, from a bunch of random D&D fans pulled off the streets. "Looks like he failed his reflex save!"
The Grig Fiddler 02-04-06, 03:45 PM	:banghead: :tantrum: :rant: Dont do them at all.
Araciel 02-04-06, 06:00 PM	yah this thread is a waste of time...there is no way to improve on something like that, other than to make a completely different movie....even to someone who has never heard of D&D it was an awful movie...
Dreamstryder 02-04-06, 06:27 PM	Basically, the list will render it that way, yes, but for the purpose of specific critique, if nothing more than an education for other DMs or film/writers, or for pure humoring entertainment: 2. Don't make the movie about some "lowly" boy who mysteriously develops "the one" powers. 3. If he develops "the one" powers, please explain WHY and WHAT they are. 4. Get budget & time so you actually get to film the important scenes so the movie makes sense. 5. Don't have annoying characters who continually refer to others as "tasty morsels." 6. Be wary of sticking in love plots if they don't add anything but kissy scenes. 7. Possibly a fault from #4, but please explain character motivations. Why does the queen pursue the cause she does in defiance of tradition? Why does the dwarf follow them? Who is the dwarf anyway? What about what was good about it? lakes on fire, costumes, character names, (debatably) blue lipstick, & Snails (I said debatably).
cat_god 02-04-06, 06:41 PM	I just recently purchased the movie, mainly because I couldn't find the second one (I thought it had come out in November...) and because I could remeber it being better than I found it actually was. I realized that it sorta sucked. But, I think that it wasn't as bad as people are sying. True, it could have been better, and there was a certain lack of monsters... 8. The lack of monsters. 9. crappy special effects. 10. What is up with the blue lipstick? 11. Lack of use of spells.
SnakePlisken 02-05-06, 01:40 AM	ok 1 step that would have made it better is GETTING THE GOD DAMN WAYNES LOSER OUT OF THE F'ing MOVIE!!!!!!
Ralphius_Maximus 02-05-06, 06:01 AM	12- Snails dies a messy, prolonged and painful death during the opening credits. 13- The final scene is replaced with something that works. 14- A mysterious wild surge makes Marina allergic to clothing :D
Silverthumb128 02-05-06, 06:52 AM	15- Have Uwe Boll direct it 16- Cast Ben Affleck 17- Cast Ben Affleck again 18- Soundtrack exclusively by Dio
hicksy 02-05-06, 07:01 AM	yah this thread is a waste of time...there is no way to improve on something like that, other than to make a completely different movie....even to someone who has never heard of D&D it was an awful movie... Well actually, I think they learned from their mistakes and took them into consideration when they made the sequal, The Elemental Might. Damadar was slightly less painfull to endure and the heroes were much more three dimentional and likable. I want to see more movies like this and less like the first one.
Korone 02-05-06, 11:07 AM	19 - Making dragon to look like dragon, not huge scally cow. 20 - To have a real 'fantasy atmosphere', not a child-movie atmosphere.
Demon Lightfoot 02-05-06, 01:48 PM	21: Base it on the original D&D Cartoon.
captain_tracady_of_irons 02-05-06, 02:04 PM	22) involve lots of abberations! Mindflayers, more beholders, Aboleths *drool* :evillaugh
Acev 02-05-06, 03:06 PM	They should have made the movie lower in power level. The whole dragon controlling artifacts thing was lame. The acting was way over the top. The movie would have been better if the acting was toned down. Also, I would have prefered if the movie was based in a published campaign setting. I would have loved to see someones elses take on Krinn or Faerun.
Thurbane 02-05-06, 03:36 PM	24. Entire creative crew (writer and directeor especially) should have been fired and replaced by someone with talent...
Rory 02-05-06, 05:15 PM	25.) base it on a wizards novel, or adventure and not some plot a producer came up with while sitting on the toilet thinking of a way to milk the D&D name. 26.) Just to be different avoid typical European fantasy. There are Forgotten Realms setting that resembles the middleeast, ancient Egypt, and Greece. Use those or Planescape. 27) Must include an Owl Bear 28) If you are going to include a Wayans brother can we please see him get his butt kicked by an Oger. 29) Low level adventure
Nitan 02-05-06, 05:21 PM	This would be a much better thread if it was about making the D&D movie worse.
Angus Cotton 02-05-06, 05:34 PM	The DnD movie is really "Conan the Barbarian" or "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Honestly, the real trick to making a good DnD movie is to not associate it with Dungeons and Dragons at all.
Stardrake 02-05-06, 10:36 PM	25.) base it on a wizards novel, or adventure and not some plot a producer came up with while sitting on the toilet thinking of a way to milk the D&D name. The frightening thing is, the film WASN'T the result of some Hollywood type doing D&D--it was the work of a long-time D&D player (Courtney Solomon) and based on his own campaign world! (And he bought the rights from She Who Must Not Be Named at TSR in 1989--way before Wizards could stop him!) It might well have been better in the hands of someone who knew how to make movies, rather than a gaming Ed Wood with delusions of adequacy. So be careful what you wish for--because you got it.
Rory 02-05-06, 11:38 PM	This would be a much better thread if it was about making the D&D movie worse. Who would respond? Stardrake; wow you mean the throw a rock trick to distract a Beholder actually came from a gamer? Well maybe that gives us hope for D&D 2. D&D 2 will be out Tuesday on DVD. BTW has anyone seen Scourge of Worlds? That was a D&D movie in 2003.
The White Sorcerer 02-05-06, 11:58 PM	Man, the D&D movie ROCKED! Not because it was any good, mind, because it wasn't. But oh it was hilarious. And by the gods, it was just like a D&D campaign. A bad one, yes, but a D&D campaign nonetheless.
Gnome_Dragon_Disciple 02-06-06, 12:05 AM	30: More Wil Wheaton. Yum... 31: Once again, low level works best in cinema. Bruce Willis' character in Die Hard can't be higher than level 6, and the adventure is at about the right scope (save a couple hundred, maybe a thousand people... not the world). 32: Set it in Eberron, not a homebrew setting. As I pointed out in the D&D TV thread, the only difference between a homebrew setting in the d20 system and the same setting in GURPS is the game mechanics, and those don't transfer over to non-tabletop formats like video games and movies. Eberron is uniquely suited to provide the sort of fantasy people aren't accustomed to, while still being distinctly D&D. 33: Get people who don't run Monty Haul games to make the film. 34: Get people who don't run games for people who make characters like Snails make the film. 35: Get people who don't run games for people that play dwarves like extremely short and perpetually drunk scotsmen with a nonsensical attraction to axes to make the film. 36: Get Quentin Tarantino to guest-direct the combat scenes.
White_Wizard 02-06-06, 08:32 AM	They should have made the movie lower in power level. The whole dragon controlling artifacts thing was lame. The acting was way over the top. The movie would have been better if the acting was toned down. Also, I would have prefered if the movie was based in a published campaign setting. I would have loved to see someones elses take on Krinn or Faerun. The Player chacters.... ahem!.... the Main characters were 1st level rogue, 1st level rogue with lowe Dex, 1st level wizard with low Int, 2nd level dwarf fighter with Cha 3 and possibly a drow ranger (because -no racism intended- I've never heard of a black skin elf) of unclear level that she fakes as high level. It's a high level campaign played by really unsuitable characters.
White_Wizard 02-06-06, 08:50 AM	"The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Honestly, the real trick to making a good DnD movie is to not associate it with Dungeons and Dragons at all. In fact you could tell which level the characters are. Aragorn (Human Ranger 9 with a +3 long sword, until he gets Anduril in which case he is: Ranger 9, Fighter 4 with a +5 keen ghost touch bastard sword capable of casting command undead 1/day). Gimli (Dwarf Fighter 10 with a +2 great axe, a masterwork throwing axe and a +1 battle axe, a +2 dwarven chainmail and an annoying disrespect for dwarven dead kings). Legolas (Wood Elf Ranger 20 with two +1 keen short swords and a +1 short bow until he gets a +5 mighty composite longbow at Lorien. He wears no armor and roll only results of 20, even when rolling a d4) Gandalf (Human -that's a film mistake- Sorcerer 20 - until he reach level 21 when comes back as Gandalf the White - with a +3/+3 staff of telekinesys, a gem of light and a malfunctioning +5 keen elven longsword which does not glow when goblins are near; for some unknown reason he took the two weapon fighting feat). Frodo (Halfling Rogue 1 and he never obtains level two; he has a +5 keen Small elven shortsword - which glows when goblinoids or orcs are within 90' radius- a +5 elven chainshirt and a intelligent ring of invisibility that enables the wearer to become invisible as improved invisibility at will and to understand orc language, also he owns a flask of light). Sam (Halfling Rogue 1 - untile he gains at least 3 levels as a fighter in mordor - he has a non magical Small shortsword). Pippin and Merry (Halfling Fighter 1 -end up to be Fighter 4 each- they are equipped like Sam). All of them have cloack of elvenkind which Frodo use as a Cloack of disguise when nearly spotted by two 1st level haradrim (human) warriors. Sometimes I really think that Peter Jackson wanted a D&D movie, but thought it was better a LotR movie. Beside note the suspicious similarity between elven armors in lotr movie and the elf portrait in Monster Manual (which came first).
Sulaco 02-06-06, 09:27 AM	All it needed was better script, casting, directing, acting, sets, props, costume design, lighting, special effects and a script that made sense. What's the big deal?
babysamurai 02-06-06, 09:31 AM	In fact you could tell which level the characters are. Aragorn (Human Ranger 9 with a +3 long sword, until he gets Anduril in which case he is: Ranger 9, Fighter 4 with a +5 keen ghost touch bastard sword capable of casting command undead 1/day). Gimli (Dwarf Fighter 10 with a +2 great axe, a masterwork throwing axe and a +1 battle axe, a +2 dwarven chainmail and an annoying disrespect for dwarven dead kings). Legolas (Wood Elf Ranger 20 with two +1 keen short swords and a +1 short bow until he gets a +5 mighty composite longbow at Lorien. He wears no armor and roll only results of 20, even when rolling a d4) Gandalf (Human -that's a film mistake- Sorcerer 20 - until he reach level 21 when comes back as Gandalf the White - with a +3/+3 staff of telekinesys, a gem of light and a malfunctioning +5 keen elven longsword which does not glow when goblins are near; for some unknown reason he took the two weapon fighting feat). Frodo (Halfling Rogue 1 and he never obtains level two; he has a +5 keen Small elven shortsword - which glows when goblinoids or orcs are within 90' radius- a +5 elven chainshirt and a intelligent ring of invisibility that enables the wearer to become invisible as improved invisibility at will and to understand orc language, also he owns a flask of light). Sam (Halfling Rogue 1 - untile he gains at least 3 levels as a fighter in mordor - he has a non magical Small shortsword). Pippin and Merry (Halfling Fighter 1 -end up to be Fighter 4 each- they are equipped like Sam). All of them have cloack of elvenkind which Frodo use as a Cloack of disguise when nearly spotted by two 1st level haradrim (human) warriors. Really? I wouldn't put any of the characters (save Gandalf) past level 6 or 7 (at the most).
Rory 02-06-06, 10:02 AM	The Player chacters.... ahem!.... the Main characters were 1st level rogue, 1st level rogue with lowe Dex, 1st level wizard with low Int, 2nd level dwarf fighter with Cha 3 and possibly a drow ranger (because -no racism intended- I've never heard of a black skin elf) of unclear level that she fakes as high level. It's a high level campaign played by really unsuitable characters. The dark skin elf in the movie could pass for a Forgotten Realms golden elf if she had different hair color. You make a good point though it was a high level campaign with low level characters.
Loopy 02-06-06, 11:19 AM	37 The girl from American beauty had WAAAAY too many clothes on. That had to go. Today she's too gross/skinny to look at in a skimpy outfit with any biological reaction in my physiology. :) 36 Gasoline. All over the raw footage. Just all sorts of gasoline. Apply matches liberally.
Balor von Balorvitch 02-06-06, 11:45 AM	1: Beholders using humans, not humans using beholders 2: Why is a Wayen doing here? 3: Dark Skin elf hmmmm..... more research needed 4: No Paladin in the movie. Why? 5: Better combat fx. 6: I HATE YOU WESLEY!!!!!
babysamurai 02-06-06, 11:56 AM	If the entire film was one long close-up of Jessica alba's pudendum.
DevilJimmy 02-06-06, 12:13 PM	OK the thing that bugged me the most about the movie: A character, i think Wayans, actually says something to the effect of "I'm only first level!!!" in reference to his inability as a thief...well, isnt that a little out-of-character? what character actually mentions there level 'in game'? I was half expecting someone to say "C'mon, I need a natural twenty!" ridiculous. One more thing to change to "improve" movie: No fat elves!!! did anyone else notice that? terrible. Long Live Dogface!!!
Kresalak 02-06-06, 12:50 PM	Replace every actor with a drunken monkey. Would be much better then the movie itself. Plus, monkeys.
DarkSoldier 02-06-06, 05:27 PM	- Remove the Wayans brother. He's a horrible actor. - I actually liked Damodar, blue lips notwithstanding. The thing in his head, however, was annoying. - The subplot should not have ended with Queen Thora Birch up and saying "You're all equal!" There is no way anybody can enforce that edict, considering how her advisors, councillors, and Jeremy Irons disliked that idea. - Courtney Solomon should never have been allowed anywhere near a camera or set. He cut most of the character-building scenes, and replaced an ending that made sense with the one where everybody turns into light at Snails's grave. - Beholders are far more intelligent than portrayed in the movie. I'm sure that one feels degraded by the way Solomon treated it like a guard dog. - The characterization should have been more than stereotypes: a drunken, axe-loving dwarf, a stuck-up elf, and a kleptomaniac thief.
Thurbane 02-06-06, 05:52 PM	I haven't seen the second movie yet - from what I hear, it was better than the first trainwreck, but still pretty poor. So my comments are directed at the first movie. Direction: 2/10 - very sloppy direction Story: 4/10 - the story wasn't great, but wasn't totally without merit. But extremely poorly realised Acting: 3/10 - some actors did alright with what they were handed (Irons, Birch), others never deserve to be in a motion picture in the first place (Wayans) SFX: 3/10 - standard B-grade fare "Trueness" to D&D: 1/10 - sorry, this was a movie that should have been pitched at D&Ders. You shouldn't have to dumb stuff down to give it "broader appeal". What the hell was up with the races at the thieves guild that didn't even look like any existing D&D race? Looked more like a scene from a Star Trek mixer than anything to do with D&D Here's my shortlist of fantasy/sword n sorcery movies that crapped all over D&D in basically every aspect (as well as the obvious LoTR, Narnia etc): (1980) Hawk the Slayer (1981) Dragonslayer (1981) Excalibur (1982) Conan the Barbarian (1982) The Beastmaster (1982) The Dark Crystal (1982) The Sword and the Sorcerer (1983) Krull (1984) Conan the Destroyer (1985) Ladyhawke (1985) Legend (1986) Labyrinth (1987) The Princess Bride (1988) Willow
Angus Cotton 02-06-06, 05:54 PM	--Fire the lead guy. Hire Hayden Christenson. --Make the Wayan character, Snailz, a CG goblin. Keep Mr Wayans for the voice overs though. --Rendor only ONE dragon. I understand that once you rendor one dragon it is no more than a click away to rendor the same dragon 1000 times over. But really, ONE dragon, please. --Jeremy Irons should have won in the end. Have him take over, kill the dwarf and such, take the male lead and Snails and put them to work in his slave pits mining salt. Queen Thora Birch should be dethroned and made one of Jeremy Iron's haram girls. She should be ordered NEVER to talk again, except to say, "Yes, master" to anything Jeremy Iron says. --Instead of rendering 1000 dragons, or even one dragon, render 1000 orcs or 1000 skeletons. That is WAY more DnD villian. The party seemed short on priest and paladins anyway, so maybe skeletons are the way to go. --Use more spells --For the love of god, get a cleric --Have the movie end with the party taking draws from a Deck of Many Things. Two of the party disappear while drawing and have to roll new characters. DnD2 anyone?
Ensjak 02-06-06, 06:02 PM	D&D 2 was way better than the first one (assuming I'm talking about the same one everyone else is). Granted the special effects were even worse, but all of the characters were way cooler. That one cleric was badass. Shoot me now, but if you all just take the first film as a joke it's actually pretty entertaining to watch. It's so over the top that it's hilarious. Marlon Wayans even got a couple of laughs out of me.
Rory 02-06-06, 11:02 PM	OK the thing that bugged me the most about the movie: A character, i think Wayans, actually says something to the effect of "I'm only first level!!!" in reference to his inability as a thief...well, isnt that a little out-of-character? what character actually mentions there level 'in game'? I was half expecting someone to say "C'mon, I need a natural twenty!" ridiculous. One more thing to change to "improve" movie: No fat elves!!! did anyone else notice that? terrible. Long Live Dogface!!! Agreed. The problem was not the acting as much as it was the roles given. Marlon Wayans would have made a great cowardly thief like the thief in Conan 2. If they were going for comedy they should have went all the way. This was a movie that pretended to be serious 75% of the time. A D&D action comedy in the same vain as Rush Hour could have worked but the writing was no where near Rush Hour or Bad Boys.
Rocketboy13 02-07-06, 12:45 AM	There is some unfair hate of Waynes coming through on this board. He was the only guy who acted like a rouge. That is my contribution, have the characters act like their characters should. No rouges sword fighting the fighter in fullplate. They should have had him run out of sight and when he was pursued he drops down on the fighter and sticks him through the throat, rouge heroic fighting. :P
Balor von Balorvitch 02-07-06, 09:08 AM	........... No fat elves!!! ................ I have a T-Shirt to that effect :D But on the movie, why are there orcs in the bar? lol
Scolin 02-27-06, 07:09 PM	I add this to annoy peole. Dungeons and Dragons the movie...Movie setting Theres a couple of dungeons and millions of dragons, end of story. That was great, lets watch it again. Theres a couple of Dungeons and millions of Dragons, end of story. The second movie was cheaply made but way better. Damadar is definately a Black guard, hands down. In the words of Snails: I'm....Damadar. Snails almost ruined the Rogue class for me. Seriously rogies don't get caut in traps expecially obvious ones. Why is this rug in front of the scroll? Its not at the side of the bed its in front of the stand. Lets just step on it and find out. Awww man, I did not see this one coming at all. Oh and you know a true rogue always has a back up plan. Oh we just came to a cliff...Thats okay because I got rope. Rope!!! It has so many uses I don't know what to do with it next. I can bound and gag some one, I can use it to tie of things, I can even climb with it.
Alac Luin 02-27-06, 07:33 PM	I may loose any respect people have for me on these boards, not that I had any to begin with :D I loved that movie, really I did. The overly played stereotypes? Perfect!! Clepto thieves , standoffish elves, drunken dwarves Great!!! Maniacal BBEG with questionable fashion sense? Great!!! He is so evil none of his underlings would dare question his blue lipstick. In no way misinterpret me saying it that it was a good movie, it was horrible. But thats why I liked it, I'd rather watch “D&D the movie” then have to suffer through any of the “Beastmaster” series. (Beastmaster 3 :gah: )
Kenneth.T.Cole 02-27-06, 11:12 PM	Oh come on! The movie was more than 101 minutes long!!
Kenneth.T.Cole 02-27-06, 11:18 PM	Thurbane, You were joking about most of those movies right? I hope you were, but if you weren't please read: Let's first consider that many of those stories were written before the concept of Dungeons and Dragons even existed. Let's also consider that most of those people who wrote those stories never played D&D and couldn't give a crap what the "D&D Cosmos" is like. I'd also like to point out that there would be no D&D without Lord of the Rings. Finally, I will simply put it straight; D&D honestly is more cheesy than a saturday morning cartoon in its basic design. However, it is the best of its system and it is made great by those people who play it. Many of those movies had dramatic story lines that players of D&D only dream of reaching. Of course, half of the players out there think a great night of gaming is hacking up monsters in a dungeon. Anywho, there are certainly some great movies on there (and many crappy ones). I mean, Hawk the Slayer, that movie really sucked :P Hehe Ken
WhiteRaven810 02-28-06, 01:41 AM	It might well have been better in the hands of someone who knew how to make movies, rather than a gaming Ed Wood with delusions of adequacy. Hey, let's not tact Ed Wood's name next to D&D, the Movie. So what if he ended his career making 'monster-man-porno-flicks'? He's still an American hero in my heart.
morganm 02-28-06, 10:58 AM	All it needed was better script, casting, directing, acting, sets, props, costume design, lighting, special effects and a script that made sense. What's the big deal? My sentiments exactly. Lets not forget the most important factor in all great films; a huge budget!
High Octane 02-28-06, 11:58 AM	The term "doomed from the start" is a good way to describe the first movie. The movie came at a very awkward time for D&D. TSR was basically dying and I think the liscencing was sold just before Wizards bought it. First off, Courtney Soloman wrote and directed it. This is a man who not only had never made a movie before, he didnt even have film school background. None at all. It shows. If he had only WRITTEN it, that may have been somewhat better because a writer doesnt have to bring it to life, thats the directors job. You get the sense throughout the movie that the writer had different ideas in mind when making the movie but had no idea how to create them. Don't get me wrong, Soloman couldn't write either. The characters were pretty much cliche. Overtly cliche. Although a cliche character can still be a good one if played properly, they werent. The problem wasnt even that they were cliche, but thats all they were. The characters had no depth. The only character with any back story was Ripley, and his back story was **** poor and short. To further the whole "doomed from the start" concept, the original budget was supposed to be a lot bigger. Unfortunately, the director, inexperienced as he was, couldnt adapt. I'm also pretty sure none of the actors had ever played the game before. Few of them showed any enthusiasm. The bigger their star power, the less they showed. Wayans...... tried and failed. I get the feeling that he didnt understand the game or character at all, but still tried to have fun with it. He ended up acting way too much like a real world jokester, putting too much slang and real world terminology into it. Irons.... did NOT want to be there. Every second I could feel his frustration and hatred for his character. I got the DVD from netflix for a while and saw a deleted scene where he does his big overacted scream holding the scepter and as soon as he hears "cut" he silently drops his arms in frustration and starts walking off in an obvious daze of frustration with his situation. Birch... see above. She didnt care about her character, didnt try, didnt even spend the time to wash her damn face. She didnt understand her character, which was probably the directors fault. After all, I didnt understand her character! The movie lacked a few things, but one of the worst things it lacked was subtlty. Hell the movie had to OPEN explaining the situation isn utter dum dum terms. If the narrator has to EXPLAIN who is good and who is evil, in the immortal words of a great man, "YOU DUN F***ED UP!" And it was obvious anyway. The entire movie I felt like I was being babied. "This guy is evil." "Okay." "No really he's evil." "I get it." "He's EVIL! Why don't you believe me?" "I DO!" "You don't believe me let me prove it again." Melodrama. How would I have done it differently? Well if I was put in charge of directing, I would have done one thing. Passed it off to someone who knows how to direct and has experience. I don't have directing experience. I never went to film school. I've never handled a camera. I should not be directing. Soloman did not have this sort of logic. As a WRITER, I can tell you what I would have done differently. I'm going to sblock my suggestions. Lets start with what every adventure needs. A villain. The villain Profian. Lets add some depth to the character and make him have a motive. "You can control dragons." "Yes, just as my ancestors did and just as I am destined to do. With this, the queen will have to fall. Her policy of equal citizenship goes against everything my ancestors taught me. There are those who are born to rule, and those who are born to subjugate. Those that forget that cause empires to crumble. I will make them remember who their masters are. I know YOU haven't forgotten." "No. I have not." Here we have established what Profian is. He is both self-righteous and blinded by his supposed destiny. It explains why he hates the queen and is attempting to usurp her. It also explains why he is so enamored with the dragons. Not to mention that last little comment sort of establishes what Damodar is. And the lake is on fire. "Well, the mages sure have outdone themselves this time. Just when I think they've run out of tricks to make our lives a little harder, they surprise me." "Well what makes you so sure it was the mages?" "The lake is on fire." "Well...." "And I'll bet they don't even send anyone to clean it up. Just like when the summoned monsters got loose." "Well you know what, this time its not our problem. And once again you are getting distracted. We're broke again and we need to find a new mark. After our latest failures, I can barely show my face at the guild anymore. We need to hit something big if we want respect." "Something big..... I have an idea." "What?" *Ridley looks at the mage tower* "I bet THEY have some nice loot." "...Ohhhh no. No way. You know the mage tower has..." "...has NEVER been robbed! Think about it, we would be the first! And it's not like they dont deserve it!" "I don't..." "Come on. You said big! It doesn't GET any bigger." Notice what happened? Ridley's hate is never stated, just implied. He says what the mages have done, which is true, but he hangs on it a little too long for normal frustration. Snails on the other hand, is more interested in his own life. He wants money and respect. But you also notice he is reluctant to go to extremem measures. Ridley is more ambitious and willing. He talks Snails into doing it on his terms, but is really doing it for his own reasons. Now we cut to the queen. "I can't believe Profian is suggesting such a thing. How is it that he can command the mage council like that?" "He doesn't. He just seems like it. They are commanded by their own interests. Unfortunately, your policy of equal citizenship and the elimination of slavery goes against their interests." "I know, but every person deserves equal treatment under law, and no person should have to serve just because they were born a slave. Yet still the laws remain. As queen, it is my job to protect my people, and my people are being opressed unfairly by the few that are gifted with magic and wealth. People should not have to live in fear of them. With equal citizenship, the mages will be held under the same laws as the people, so the people will be protected." "Yes but the mages are not concerned for the people, and they are less than willing to give up such privelage. You must learn to work slowly for the greater good." "And as we are working for 'the greater good' the people suffer more." "And if you are usurped by Profian, any hope you had will fail." "If he thinks I will go down easy..." "Perhaps you should, but perhaps you can also use a bit of leverage." "What do you mean" "I have discovered news of another rod, like the one you carry, but instead of commanding the gold dragons as yours does, it commands RED dragons." "Red dragons? What is this rod?" "It is called the Rod of Sevrille. If we can aquire it, you can give up your gold rod, but still use the red one as leverage, so Profian won't be able to overthrow you so easily." "And I can still work for the people, without being a supposed tyrant. Can you find this rod soon?" "I already have one of my best students working on it. If she is anything like her father, she'll be able to figure it out." Wow, that was a bit of work. What have we established? The queen is ohorrified by the treatment of her people by the rich magical aristocracy. It's never said but obviously implied that the mages abuse the people, and it IS stated they don't get equal treatment under law. Its obvious she just wants equal right under law for the people so the mages can't get away with things. This as opposed to just saying "Everyone should be free and equal" which is to vague and abstract. Wait, whats that at the end? An explanation of the mage character's history without having to explain it? I just had to slip something like that in. Lets see, so far I have established what Ridley and Snails are (thieves), that Ridley is a bolder guy than Snails and he has a bone to pick with the mages (but we don't know what yet), why Profian is a villain, a bit of his history, what the queen is trying to do and why, what kind of person she is, what the present world situation is, and both how the mage character is involved and her back history. And look, no narration or flat out explanations.
Sulaco 02-28-06, 01:24 PM	But on the movie, why are there orcs in the bar? lol Why not? Just cos many DMs treat orcs as nothing more than mobile XP and treasure delivery platforms does not mean that everyone does. Heck, some folks even treat them like a race.
Alac Luin 02-28-06, 02:17 PM	They wern't orcs. They were female dwarves, thats why you've never seen a female dwarf before. See, this movie was ground breaking, the first motion picture featuring female dwarves. :P
Prosperohawk 02-28-06, 06:43 PM	High Octane... Bravo. That was some impressive work for just board chatter. I've written a couple of film scripts (none have been picked up yet but I'm keeping my fingers crossed) and I'm really impressed with the subtlesness of that dialogue. They should have gotten you to write the damn thing. Hell, I need you to write the dialogue for me! I've got lots of great ideas, but when it comes to dialogue I suffer from "George Lucas syndrome."
Stardrake 02-28-06, 11:12 PM	... I've got lots of great ideas, but when it comes to dialogue I suffer from "George Lucas syndrome." At least you realize it, which is more than you can say for Mr. Lucas. :devil:
Dradjeel 03-01-06, 03:51 AM	D&D 2 was way better than the first one (assuming I'm talking about the same one everyone else is). Granted the special effects were even worse, but all of the characters were way cooler. That one cleric was badass. I concur. The production standards were TV-quality and the effects work was accordingly cheap (but served its purpose in the story without looking hokey), but there was a certain enthusiasm about the source material showing in the finished product. The actors played their parts adequately, there were a lot of D&D references in the script and above all, the characters were more likeable (compare Snails with Nim, for example). There were even some non-stereotypes, such as the female elf barbarian. To my surprise Damodar's character had gone in a less dreadful direction, and his new armor was nowhere near as gimpy as the horrible ensemble he had on in the first film. Though the first film had more expensive CGI, the second one actually used it better, with the characters actually fighting a CG dragon instead of seeing them demolish CG buildings. Not to mention the horrible Beholder debacle in the first one. All in all, the first film was an F, the second a C+.
High Octane 03-01-06, 10:23 AM	...such as the female elf barbarian.... All in all, the first film was an F, the second a C+. She wasnt an elf. The mage was. I would give the second one a C- myself. It was just ABOVE bad, but was still not bad. The first one was embarassment wrapped in stupidity wrapped in cheesey with any and all talent removed.