Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-09-05, 05:31 PM	They expect to get new players with that turd? It makes me wanna stop playing. What the hell was that thief supposed to be a halfling with giantism or a gully dwarf maybe? He only carried one knife? what the hell. That lich make-up was the worst ever, looks like they took a quark mask from deep space nine and spray painted it white.If I met a lich like that I would laugh at him into submission. What was the main character supposed to be an accountant with a sword? The only good god that exsisted was obad-hai? Why the hell did that whitish dragon show-up, and why was he so ashey? he'd needed some lotion. what kind of ending was that with the dude just walking through the town. "uh yeah, thanks partymembers for saving our town now f-off ". And what were those commercials for dnd?They cost a whole 50$ to produce. I could do better marketing than that with a team of crack-smoking monkeys. As for the movie I could have done better with a single camera and 1/10 their budget. Why did they waste money on all those extra's in costume. Skrew the realistic village and give us better combats and better lich make-up.
Realmsrat 10-09-05, 07:18 PM	I'm not usually one to judge but due to your rather juvenile forum name and disregard of several already established movie threads I have to assume you're trolling. I'll try and address your issues with the movie to the best of my ability anyway. They expect to get new players with that turd? It makes me wanna stop playing I liked the movie. What the hell was that thief supposed to be a halfling with giantism or a gully dwarf maybe? He only carried one knife? what the hell. He was human. A less than average hight human. They exist. Myabe he should have invested in some more weapons. That lich make-up was the worst ever, looks like they took a quark mask from deep space nine and spray painted it white.If I met a lich like that I would laugh at him into submission. It's a low budget film. They were ambitious enough to include a lich in the first place and he was at least intelligent and traitorous. What was the main character supposed to be an accountant with a sword? He was a retired fighter. He was actually quite capable and he had depth. The only good god that exsisted was obad-hai? Ismir is different from ofther settings and this might be true. Why the hell did that whitish dragon show-up, and why was he so ashey? he'd needed some lotion. LOW BUDGET FILM. The creature was still threatening and is an example of some of the better CGI in the film. what kind of ending was that with the dude just walking through the town. "uh yeah, thanks partymembers for saving our town now f-off ". They'd just saved an entire nation from anhilation. Maybe they wanted a rest? And what were those commercials for dnd?They cost a whole 50$ to produce. I could do better marketing than that with a team of crack-smoking monkeys. I felt they were lively and eloquent. As for the movie I could have done better with a single camera and 1/10 their budget. Why did they waste money on all those extra's in costume. Skrew the realistic village and give us better combats and better lich make-up. This movie probably had a budget of less than ten million. They did more with this film than the origional. I'm sorry you expected more from a direct to dvd movie.
Majorafire77 10-09-05, 07:25 PM	I agree with everything that Realmsrat has already stated. It surprises me that OneEyedTrouserSnake here expects to get support with that 'turd' of a post.
Lord Ian Stark 10-09-05, 07:25 PM	I actually enjoyed the movie and hope they make a T.V. series for D&D. Besides the fact that specters were running around in the daylight :P It was pretty good. The dracolich was cool to. The graghics weren't the best but the acting wasn't as bad as the first either. I say it was a lot better than the first and my wife and I enjoyed it. Oh and the White dragon was supposed to be crystalized like ice. I thought for a low budget movie that was a cool encounter. Oh and the Barbarian chick. Mmmmmm ;)
Seeker95 10-09-05, 08:04 PM	They expect to get new players with that turd? It makes me wanna stop playing.Feel free. Please.
Jhalad 10-09-05, 08:05 PM	That movie ROCKED! It was everything I expected it to be. It was SOOOOO much more plot oriented than the last one, and made SOOOO much more sense. 1. Lich - I thought the makeup was good. Guess what? When an evil wizard goes all lich, it's not like *POOF* and all his flesh falls off. Maybe this guy was a new lich. I thought he looked pretty damn good. 2. White Dragon - I agree about him looking ashy, BUT.. I knew it was a white dragon as soon as I saw the ice form. It was outstanding! Very entertaining. I just wish there was a way to do a power combo in the game like they did in the movie. 3. Thief - He was a thief. He knew what to do and when to do it. He traveled light, but had the right stuff for the right time. Not every thief is a halfling, and not every thief is a walking junk shelf. The man was a consumate professional, trying to mystify and hide the skills of his trade. Thieves are NOT front line fighters. 4. The Accountant Fighter - i thought this was explained quite well in the movie. 5. Dark Mantles - THEY ROCKED!!!! They looked and acted just like the book. I just would have loved to see one of them wrap around someones head. 6. Spells - The spells were acurate to the game, including components (Vision Spell). 7. Magic Items - Ring of the Ram. Need I say more? 8. Harpies - I think they were harpies... Anybody think they were something else? 9. 1st Ed. - I really enjoyed the references to all of the first edition modules throughout the movie. It gave me a real sense that this world was real in respect to the D&D game. I just wonder where Ishmere is in relation to the Greyhawk world. 10. End - The end was fairly accurate. A lot of big city people don't want the help (and that's what adventurers are) staying around after they save the city. My complaints are few. I felt that the draco-lich kept changing size when he was flying around. You could easily tell (according to the diagrams in MM1) that he was a black dragon, but he was breathing fire. I would have liked to see more magic spells cast, and I would like to know exactly what that elf wizard was casting with her staff. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie. I think it was MUCH better than the first one, and I would like to see another one.
Malachi_III 10-09-05, 08:55 PM	Why the hell did that whitish dragon show-up, and why was he so ashey? he'd needed some lotion. Well, at first i thought it was supposed to be a zombie white dragon then i saw the ice breath, so i realized what they were trying to do. And anyways they needed a cool way for the cleric to die :)
draco2005 10-09-05, 09:33 PM	Well, for a low budget film, I thought it was a well made movie, much better than the first one. You can't expect it to be like LOTR movies. Perhaps the next one will be better. As far as I know, the script for Temple of Elemental Evil is complete. I don't know any more than that. Maybe it will be a higher budget film and might show up in the big screens. I guess we will just have to wait. Draco...
RDQ 10-09-05, 10:16 PM	For a low budget film, it was awsome. Ifin ya wanna get tecnical, there are some high budget movies that frankly SUCKED. Yes there were a few things that I feel they could have gone more in depth with, an made look better, an a couple things that they could have cut back on (did we need quite that many villagers?) but over all it rocked. :ayyyy!:
Tiberius0000 10-09-05, 10:41 PM	I watched the movie with my players and we all agreed that this was what a DnD movie should be. The heros acted like heros and were portrayed as you would expect the various classes to act (not like the moronic heros from the first movie) Spells, and Magic Items were well done and easily identified. And the monsters were used in the way they would be in a game (no Beholders working for humans a watchguard...what were they thinking!) The only weak link I found in the movies was Demadar, I thought he needed to beef up his thone room defenses a bit, maybe add a few more minions to back up his halforc butler :) and I think he got captured a bit too easy, but the Lich I found quite entertaining and deliciously eeevil and look foward to his return in a future movie. All said I think Sci Fi Channel and the moviemakers did a good job and I hope they continue to make Dungeon and Dragons 3. I give the Movie a big :thumbsup:
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-09-05, 11:24 PM	That fact you have to defend this movie in a point by point basis show 's how bad it was. You want to believe it was good because it's the only thing out there, but it was aweful.You'r like a wino pretending his bottle of Thunderbird tastes like Krystall. I don't watch anything on the sci-fi channel cuz its all cheezy crap. Maybe your all so desensitised to sub-standard productions you' can't see how bad it was. With these type of responces to such a horrible movie it makes me realize how meaningless any of the opinions on these boards are. If people on these boards have such bad taste and critical judgement why should anybody value any of their opinions. Maybe I have a better imagination that all of you, but that movie never came near to the vision I have in my head of what the D&d universe is like. That movie makes me think they shot it on a porn set on its off hours. And don't make any excuses for the movie. If something is good you don't have to make excuses for it. Me and my friends have played for more than 15 years, and I'm the only person that could bare the pain of watching the entire thing in its entirety.And don't blame the movies shortcomings on budget.That has nothing to do with quality, independant directors prove that all the time by making a thousandfold better picture with 1/10 there budget.
Lord Ian Stark 10-09-05, 11:34 PM	Hmm, to feed the troll or not to feed him? Nah. ;)
Realmsrat 10-09-05, 11:40 PM	I defended this movie on a point by point basis because you assaulted it on a point by point basis. Did you not actually want anyone to respond to your badgering? It was a low budget movie and it was great for a low budget movie! for a low budget movie. You act like there was some huge repository of wealth and talent behind the movie that was somehow squandered. And don't blame the movies shortcomings on budget.That has nothing to do with quality, independant directors prove that all the time by making a thousandfold better picture with 1/10 there budget. You still need money to put actors in costume and make monsters. Money does matter, regardless of how good the director is. I don't think you realise that this film was origionally intended to go straight to dvd. Scifi only picked it up because it turned out to be a decent film.
High Octane 10-09-05, 11:43 PM	That fact you have to defend this movie in a point by point basis show 's how bad it was. This statement makes no sense. if it is denounced on a point by point basis, how are you supposed to answer that? I answer that the fact that you had to DENOUNCE it in a point by point basis says that you are reaching. You want to believe it was good because it's the only thing out there, but it was aweful.You'r like a wino pretending his bottle of Thunderbird tastes like Krystall. Are you TRYING to sound pretentious? I don't watch anything on the sci-fi channel cuz its all cheezy crap. Maybe your all so desensitised to sub-standard productions you' can't see how bad it was. You MUST be. What part of "This movie did not have a very high budget" is hard to understand? With these type of responces to such a horrible movie it makes me realize how meaningless any of the opinions on these boards are. If people on these boards have such bad taste and critical judgement why should anybody value any of their opinions. Then LEAVE! Don't come back! You won't be missed! Maybe I have a better imagination that all of you, Now you are just being a troll. Done with you, you are no longer worthy of response. Oh and for the rest of your post, try making a LICH with a low budget and do better than that. Oh and your indy movie pretentiousness falls down when you realize this is a FANTASY film, and fantasy, unlike Clerks which is just guys talking at a convenience store, has to be visually stimulating to at least an extent. Visuals cost money.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-09-05, 11:59 PM	Scifi only picked it up because it turned out to be a decent film. good one.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 12:20 AM	This statement makes no sense. if it is denounced on a point by point basis, how are you supposed to answer that? I answer that the fact that you had to DENOUNCE it in a point by point basis says that you are reaching. Uh. No, I was making a legit analysis of the movie as gamer of 20 years and movie fan. That's what a critisim should entail. The point by points people were making for the movie were excuses like its budget. Are you TRYING to sound pretentious? No, I'm apparently just better than you. You MUST be. that makes no sense. What part of "This movie did not have a very high budget" is hard to understand? I do understand, but there's plenty of great action/fantasy movies done on low budgets: Evil Dead, Fistful of Dollars,Resevoir Dogs, Versus (which was done a few years ago for 20,000 and a thousand times better movie) and list goes on and on. I understand CGI costs mullah, and could accept its moderate quality, but there is all this other crap they could have left out to money in better needed places. we didn't have to see the village and such. The script should have considered the budget, that's part of producing. Then LEAVE! Don't come back! You won't be missed! I'm heavily considering it. Now you are just being a troll. Done with you, you are no longer worthy of response. AWWWWWWWWW your so insulted, GET OVER IT! The fact people are getting insulted proves my point .They're so insecure in their belief that the movie is good, anybody stating otherwise frightens them because they know in their hearts how much it sucked.. Its like Creationists afraid of carbon dating as it will prove the world is more than 5000 years old and prove there pitiful creation myth wrong. Oh and for the rest of your post, try making a LICH with a low budget and do better than that. Oh and your indy movie pretentiousness falls down when you realize this is a FANTASY film, and fantasy, unlike Clerks which is just guys talking at a convenience store, has to be visually stimulating to at least an extent. Visuals cost money. I could make a better lich mask with 10$ of paper mache. It was pathetic and there's no excuse for how bad that looked.
Tiberius0000 10-10-05, 12:28 AM	I could make a better lich mask with 10$ of paper mache. It was pathetic and there's no excuse for how bad that looked. I doubt it.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 12:31 AM	I doubt it. Well you evidently have no creative talent or ability
Echoes of Deception 10-10-05, 12:32 AM	What an interesting person you are... You've made many cracks about the personalities and intellects of the other people on this board as soon they present an opinion. Sadly, it would seem to me that the mental budget of your sense of humor is no greater than analogous to the film in question's own funding. Please forgive me if I seem too harsh in response. This statement makes no sense. if it is denounced on a point by point basis, how are you supposed to answer that? I answer that the fact that you had to DENOUNCE it in a point by point basis says that you are reaching. I agree with High Octane's statement and his inferred statement. If you presented your complaints on a point by point basis, how did you expect people to react? No person interested in the debate would present a counter-argument based on the film's entirety, such as in "I thought the movie was good." and go no further, as it fails to address your ideas. Please, enlighten me. Me and my friends have played for more than 15 years, and I'm the only person that could bare the pain of watching the entire thing in its entirety.And You say that you've been playing this game for upwards of 15 years. Could you please explain to me, then, why it seems you've never developed any greater knowledge of the English language, since it is obviously your first? I have been playing for only 9 years, as of tomorrow, and have expanded my prowess in language by leaps and bounds compared to my student peers. Why didn't you? Further, you state that between you and your friends, you are the only person who could "bear the pain" of watching the entire film. If you are so much more developed than we, then why cannot you and your first-rate chums develop a taste and understanding for all levels of film and theatre? It could not be that your ego is so swollen that there is no room left for an open mind, could it? Maybe I have a better imagination that all of you, but that movie never came near to the vision I have in my head of what the D&d universe is like. Maybe you don't. Maybe your imagination is so limited to what it has already created that it cannot comprehend other perpectives. What's more, if you really had such an impressive imagination, you wouldn't be complaining of movie shortcomings at all. Your brain could just fill in the gaps for you. I'm sorry I couldn't go on, I couldn't bring myself to be interested in what you've brought to the table much longer, OneEyedTrouserSnake. That's ADD for you, I suppose. Perhaps if you respond, you might pique my interest again. Echoes of Deception
rkr1970 10-10-05, 12:40 AM	How many people who responded were even over the age of 18? I'm guessing the more literate ones... The fact that you have to defend this movie on a point-by-point basis shows how bad it was. You want to believe that it was good because it's the only thing out there, but it was awful. You're like a wino pretending his bottle of Thunderbird tastes like Krystall. I don't watch anything on the Sci-Fi Channel 'cuz it's all cheezy crap. Maybe you're all so desensitized to sub-standard productions that you can't see how bad it was. With these types of responses to such a horrible movie it makes me realize how meaningless any of the opinions on these boards are. If people on these boards have such bad taste and critical judgment why should anybody value any of their opinions. Maybe I have a better imagination than all of you, but that movie never came near to the vision I have in my head of what the D&D universe is like. That movie makes me think they shot it on a porn set on its off hours. And don't make any excuses for the movie. If something is good you don't have to make excuses for it. My friends and I have played for more than 15 years, and I'm the only person that could bear the pain of watching the entire thing. And don't blame the movie's shortcomings on budget. That has nothing to do with quality. Independent directors prove that all the time by making a picture one-thousand-fold better with 1/10 their budget. For some one who claims to have spent the last 15 years playing a game based on language, your command of English puts one in mind of an eighth-grader. As for myself, I have been playing since 1978 and found the movie quite fun. At least it wasn't a repeat of the first movie, proof that something can both suck and blow at the same time. This one was more story driven than character driven, a wise choice, IMHO. The actors were chosen solely for ability rather than box office appeal. And the people who wrote it thought of the players first, not the executives back at the studio to whom they are beholden. In the future, if you wish to be taken seriously, Mr. One Inch Trouser Snake, try to write something salient about your topic and be sure to make some effort to proofread it before posting it.
Tiberius0000 10-10-05, 12:51 AM	Well you evidently have no creative talent or ability Actually, I am a graphic artist by profession, and payed a great deal for my creative talent and ability. I doubt that you have any creative talent or ability...just a lot of talk...but that just my opinion and since you have no way of proving to me that you are anything different that shall remain my opinion of you :)
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 10-10-05, 12:57 AM	He's obviously trying to Troll. Why are you responding?
SOKAR 10-10-05, 01:00 AM	My personal opinion: It looked promising, but it seemed a little M.I.A. If they had spent that 2 hours an 30 minutes on action rather than commercials, it would have been much better. My only real complaint was this. What was the deal with that black dragon breathing fire at the end? Black dragons breathe acid.
Dragonklaw82 10-10-05, 01:03 AM	I don't watch anything on the sci-fi channel cuz its all cheezy crap. . Wah, Wah, Wah, STFU already. If you hate the Sci-Fi channel that much, change the channel. And why the hell would you have a name like "one eyed trouser snake"? Do you enjoy being referred to as a reproductive organ?
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 10-10-05, 01:06 AM	Excellent idea. Troll the trolls - that'll teach him.
rkr1970 10-10-05, 01:07 AM	And why the hell would you have a name like "one eyed trouser snake"? Do you enjoy being referred to as a reproductive organ? Because his real name is Dick.
Dragonklaw82 10-10-05, 01:11 AM	Excellent idea. Troll the trolls - that'll teach him. Thanks. I call it "Troll Tag". :P
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 10-10-05, 01:14 AM	Well said.
maharaj zordon 10-10-05, 01:16 AM	WOW! You know, I don't post very often, and threads like this exemplify my reasoning. A discussion about a damn movie turns into personal insults and CLEARLY antagonizing remarks, even by those who are complaining about personal insults. I really think that a few of the individuals on this board need to evaluate the level at which they take things as personal attacks, and learn not to respond to those people that are not worth their time. By the way you guys talk you sound like you're all adults. I'm 16 and I sound like I'm one of the few people on this thread with a level head. Now, feel free to disect my every statement and defend it with whatever petty personal attacks you deem necessary to be comfortable with yourseves, but take some advice from this kid and GET THE HELL OVER IT!!!!
Echoes of Deception 10-10-05, 01:19 AM	And why the hell would you have a name like "one eyed trouser snake"? Do you enjoy being referred to as a reproductive organ? This query makes me wonder how long its been since he's been near a member of the opposite sex, aside from his mommy. Honestly, he reminds me of one of those characters from the Dead Alewives' production ... whatever it was called. You know, with the nerds and the guy that kept screaming about Cheetos and Mountain Dew?
Dragonklaw82 10-10-05, 01:24 AM	WOW! You know, I don't post very often, and threads like this exemplify my reasoning. A discussion about a damn movie turns into personal insults and CLEARLY antagonizing remarks, even by those who are complaining about personal insults. I really think that a few of the individuals on this board need to evaluate the level at which they take things as personal attacks, and learn not to respond to those people that are not worth their time. By the way you guys talk you sound like you're all adults. I'm 16 and I sound like I'm one of the few people on this thread with a level head. Now, feel free to disect my every statement and defend it with whatever petty personal attacks you deem necessary to be comfortable with yourseves, but take some advice from this kid and GET THE HELL OVER IT!!!! Ah, but you misunderstand. Arguing is just plain fun. :P
arbanafal 10-10-05, 01:45 AM	Aaaaahhhh...did the satirical movie hater offend your feelings :weep: ;) If you're going to play the higher morals card, at least try to not degrade to his supposed level. I disagree with some of his critism, but agree with his rebuttal that some of the defence this movie got had no basis in reality whatsoever. Budget can't and never should be an excuse. With the same money, whithout spending a dollar more, he could have hired decent actors (except for Nim, he was awesome) and wrote a decent script. The graphics were mostly good. But if you liked the movie...oh well...that's you. Don't feel insecure and argue as if you can change his feelings about this movie. I won't. Chill peeps. Trolling trolls never helps. It grants them additional HD. :D EDIT: OneyedTS...why did you make another thread, while you could have added your 2 coppers in some of the others? Ah who am I kiddin', there are at least 4 of them allready.
guru7892 10-10-05, 02:26 AM	And what were those commercials for dnd?They cost a whole 50$ to produce. I could do better marketing than that with a team of crack-smoking monkeys. umm acually, crack smoking monkeys make some damn good movies so stop ******* them off... they know king kong...
Tyler Do'Urden 10-10-05, 02:28 AM	Ah, but you misunderstand. Arguing is just plain fun. :P I already think of my sig as being too big. Wherefore dost thou tempt me so?
AcidAngel 10-10-05, 02:43 AM	Now, now everyone calm down, lets all get together to build a bridge and get over it... :rimshot: Acid splash, shocking, flaming weapon enhancements on the other side just :twocents:... Man reading this was a funny way to start a Monday morning. :whatsthis No, I have not watched the movie, seeing as the satellite channel provider dropped the Sci-Fi channel a year and a half ago :censored:, but that is for another rant. I suppose I will have to wait for the DVD. :D IMHO cheesy low budget movies have a coolness :cool: of their own. But that's just me.
RDQ 10-10-05, 10:00 AM	OneEyedTrouserSnake~~I'm 15 an been playing just about a year. My parents who've been playin since their teens (both of them are in their mid-to late 30's) were both reading this thread over my shoulder. They agree that it was awsome for a LOW-BUDGET film. Both of them enjoyed it quite a bit compared to the first one. I will probally have more comments on it after school.
weaponsmith 10-10-05, 10:11 AM	My only complaint is…. Where are the Dwarfs? It’s always about the humans… Baaaah
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 10:11 AM	I'm guessing the more literate ones... For some one who claims to have spent the last 15 years playing a game based on language, your command of English puts one in mind of an eighth-grader. As for myself, I have been playing since 1978 and found the movie quite fun. At least it wasn't a repeat of the first movie, proof that something can both suck and blow at the same time. This one was more story driven than character driven, a wise choice, IMHO. The actors were chosen solely for ability rather than box office appeal. And the people who wrote it thought of the players first, not the executives back at the studio to whom they are beholden. In the future, if you wish to be taken seriously, Mr. One Inch Trouser Snake, try to write something salient about your topic and be sure to make some effort to proofread it before posting it. Good defense, attack the messenger rather than the message. That is the best you can come up with.. I admit I am poor speller ( thank god for spell check or i'd never make it through english), but for this forum its not worth my time to correct it. You've made an another excuse by comparing this movie to the first movie. Sure, a used Pinto seems like a Rolls Royce when compared to Model T. But without the comparison the Pinto is still a piece of crap. If writers wanted to be faithful to the players, why didn't they write within the rules and current mythos? It wouldn't have been hard.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 10:13 AM	umm acually, crack smoking monkeys make some damn good movies so stop ******* them off... they know king kong... The most intelligent response I've seen.
kaeso 10-10-05, 10:24 AM	I say we start placing bets on how long its going to take the Wiz O's to get here. I say by 3:30 tomorrow afternoon (sometimes they can be really slow.)
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 10:32 AM	I was not trying to 'troll' when creating this thread. I read some of the preexisting threads and was sickened by the over exuberance over the movie. Frankly it stunk of denial, a denial where people have to overcompensate for something stinking by praising it to a an incomprehensible level. Like a mother with an ugly child telling her child how beautiful he or she is all the time. None of the reviews were balanced or neutral or looked at the movie objectively. The reviews I read were written through rose colored glasses of people excited to see any-sort D&d related show on TV. We'll you should hold Wizards (Hasbro) to a higher standard, or all they will release is films of this sort. Hasbro is a large-cap billion dollar company with massive resources. They probably should do what Marvel comics has been doing and license out there material to studios that want to take on there projects with appropriate crew and resources. They give up control of the final product when they do this, but Marvel has had good success with this business model (Spider-man and such) so far.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 10:35 AM	Aaaaahhhh...did the satirical movie hater offend your feelings :weep: ;) If you're going to play the higher morals card, at least try to not degrade to his supposed level. I disagree with some of his critism, but agree with his rebuttal that some of the defence this movie got had no basis in reality whatsoever. Budget can't and never should be an excuse. With the same money, whithout spending a dollar more, he could have hired decent actors (except for Nim, he was awesome) and wrote a decent script. The graphics were mostly good. But if you liked the movie...oh well...that's you. Don't feel insecure and argue as if you can change his feelings about this movie. word
Darkuwa 10-10-05, 10:39 AM	Good defense, attack the messenger rather than the message. That is the best you can come up with.. I admit I am poor speller ( thank god for spell check or i'd never make it through english), but for this forum its not worth my time to correct it. You've made an another excuse by comparing this movie to the first movie. Sure, a used Pinto seems like a Rolls Royce when compared to Model T. But without the comparison the Pinto is still a piece of crap. If writers wanted to be faithful to the players, why didn't they write within the rules and current mythos? It wouldn't have been hard. WTF? You were attacking people on your very first reply when they had only focused on your arguments. The fact that it took so long to descend into a flame war is because your opposition chose not to sink to your level until you showed yourself to be a retard. The move was good even for some high budget films, and all your arguements are dismissed by the fact that it was low budget. So, good for you, you have an opinion, now shut the **** up and go away.
jakefm2377 10-10-05, 10:43 AM	Ok first hi all this is my first post ever on this site Second i saw the first move and thought it was horrible Beside the beholder in the first move i did not think it was anything like dnd This move i could tell i was dnd. They made a big improvement in follow "dnd rule" i could pick up spell classes feat abilities and what not. I find that to be a huge improvement over the first Yes i could tell it was a low budget film but it being a scifi moving i was expecting that and did not jack up my hopes My two biggest complaints were no dwarfs and i think they could have made the lich better even for a low budge movie. I do not think he looked dead enough I liked the movie and would see in again in a hart beat I think i even want to use it to introduce people to dnd
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 10:49 AM	WTF? You were attacking people on your very first reply when they had only focused on your arguments. The fact that it took so long to descend into a flame war is because your opposition chose not to sink to your level until you showed yourself to be a retard. The move was good even for some high budget films, and all your arguements are dismissed by the fact that it was low budget. So, good for you, you have an opinion, now shut the **** up and go away. You are the type I was talking about, who feels threatened by the idea that the movie stinks. If the movie was actually good would you be so emotional? No, you would feel no need to because you knew the movie was good and anyone who objected to it was wrong . But no, the movie stunk, and that truth threatens the lie you’ve been telling yourself. No need to be vulgar, go sit and chill for a while. The budget had very little to do with my dislike for the movie. I have an appreciation for a lot of low budget movies. I was more insulted by the lack of consistency with the D&d mythos and the lack of creativity displayed in its production.
Aladdar 10-10-05, 11:04 AM	Was the movie spectacular? Of course not, but compared to the first one it was art. It was a sci fi channel made for tv movie, that's what I expected. It was a very good made for tv movie. It would not have held up in a theatre but it worked for tv and would make a good tv show. If you can make a better movie with one tenth the budget then go do it. I'm sure you could get a loan for that amount of money and if your movie really is better it'll get airplay. Let's see your movie and we'll see who's is better. Your response that it wasn't what your imagination of a DnD universe was is the problem. There is no real DND universe. What everyone invisions is completely different. Your universe is probably completely different than my universe, and mine is different from my DM's. I'm not going to sit here and call this an oscar nominee movie. It was no Lord of the Rings, but I didn't expect a Lord of the Rings. IMO, it was better than most of the sci fi channel movies and for that I was pleasantly surprised.
anarco_rata 10-10-05, 11:17 AM	Originally Posted by Jarlaxle_The_Rogue Excellent idea. Troll the trolls - that'll teach him. Thanks. I call it "Troll Tag". :rofl: this is the longest "feed the troll" thread ever! not only that, the troll-ness of oneeyed infected others too! its like a troll disease, everyone that touch the thread becomes one! -not me, i rolled a 31 on my fortitude check I say we start placing bets on how long its going to take the Wiz O's to get here. I say by 3:30 tomorrow afternoon (sometimes they can be really slow.) tonigth at...9..
Seeker95 10-10-05, 11:24 AM	I was more insulted by the lack of consistency with the D&d mythos and the lack of creativity displayed in its production.I am wondering if we saw the same movie? :confused: D&D II had overt references to Jubilex and Obad Hai, the Barrier Peaks, the Ghost Tower of Inverness, the Gem of True Seeing. It also had unspoken references to the ring of the ram, the staff of thunderbolts, barbarian rage (commented upon, but not explicitly described), and dispel magic. How much more D&D did you need in it to consider it consistent with the D&D mythos? And exactly what "D&D mythos" do you mean?
trollbill 10-10-05, 11:30 AM	I was not trying to 'troll' when creating this thread. I read some of the preexisting threads and was sickened by the over exuberance over the movie. If you didn’t want to troll than you should have used a less insulting and condescending tone in your initial post. You initial post was essentially an attack on everyone who thought the movie was descent. Why then are you surprised when they attacked back? If you wanted a reasoned, unbiased response, then you should have started by posting one. Frankly it stunk of denial, a denial where people have to overcompensate for something stinking by praising it to a an incomprehensible level. Like a mother with an ugly child telling her child how beautiful he or she is all the time. None of the reviews were balanced or neutral or looked at the movie objectively. Quality is relative. If we are comparing Wrath of the Dragon God to Peter Jackson’s LoTR, then this movie is fairly awful. If we are comparing it to the original Dungeons & Dragons movie, then it should be academy award material. Special effects were not astounding but on par with anything else I have seen that was not a theater release. But the acting, dialog and overall D&D style surpass the original D&D movie by leaps and bounds. So how good the movie was depends a lot on what you are comparing it to. I think most were comparing it to the original D&D movie, which would explain the glowing reviews. The reviews I read were written through rose colored glasses of people excited to see any-sort D&d related show on TV. Given that most people were afraid that the original D&D movie may have sunk any attempts at bringing more D&D to either the small or large screen, it is no surprise that anything that may indicate that this fear is not real is something to get excited about. We'll you should hold Wizards (Hasbro) to a higher standard, or all they will release is low-budget films of this sort. Hasbro is a large-cap billion dollar company with massive resources. They probably should do what Marvel comics has been doing and license out there material to studios that want to take on there projects with appropriate crew and resources. They give up control of the final product when they do this, but Marvel has had good success with this business model (Spider-man and such) so far. The previous D&D film did have a higher budget. It failed. No company is going to give anyone more money than the last time when the first time failed. Holding Wizards to a higher standard would mean no more movies or TV shows period. After the original D&D movie, D&D has to prove its worth as a media marketable product before anyone is going to throw big bucks into it. D7D movies will get big bucks when they prove they can earn it. Now, as to your original comments. Now I know you stated that replying to a point by point review of a movie with a counterpoint by counterpoint response is somehow proof of the low quality of the move. But since such an contention is both highly illogical and has no factual precedent to support it, I will respond point by point anyway. They expect to get new players with that turd? It makes me wanna stop playing. If was on SciFi channel. Anyone watching SciFi channel movies knows they are low quality. If you compare this movie to such SciFi channel ‘classics’ as Boa and Dragon Fighter, it starts looking like a halfway decent movie. What the hell was that thief supposed to be a halfling with giantism or a gully dwarf maybe? While it was obvious the directors were using classic techniques to make the rogue appear a little shorter than normal, the movie never made a claim to his race. Since ‘short people’ who were far shorter than the rogue appeared in both the bar and cemetery scenes, it would not appear he was supposed to be anything other than a short human. He only carried one knife? what the hell. That, I and everyone else who watched it with me, agree upon. No self-respecting rogue would only carry 1 weapon. That lich make-up was the worst ever, looks like they took a quark mask from deep space nine and spray painted it white. If I met a lich like that I would laugh at him into submission. Personally, I didn’t like the makeup job either, but others I watched it with did. I did, however, feel it sufficed. What was the main character supposed to be an accountant with a sword? No, they very clearly told you that he was an ex-captain of the guard who was now a lord saddled with common aristocratic duties. It was quite clear so I don’t understand the complaint. The only good god that exsisted was obad-hai? A bit odd, but still within the realm of possibility. A city with only one major temple is not that much of an oddity in D&D. The fact that they didn’t mention more doesn’t mean they didn’t exist anymore than their evil god references meant that only Jubilex and Thalazure were the only evil ones (though if you pay attention closely to the opening credits there is an indirect reference to Yeenoghu also). Why the hell did that whitish dragon show-up, and why was he so ashey? he'd needed some lotion. It was a trap set by Damodor. The previous scene had him proclaiming the heroes where walking into one. As far as color goes, it was a White Dragon, what color was it supposed to be? Considering who sent it, it may also have been a Zombie White Dragon which would explain the grayishness. what kind of ending was that with the dude just walking through the town. "uh yeah, thanks partymembers for saving our town now f-off ". I suppose that depends on what sort of DM you are used to playing with. Not every adventure I play in ends like a Star Wars movie. And what were those commercials for dnd?They cost a whole 50$ to produce. I could do better marketing than that with a team of crack-smoking monkeys. You seem to equate expense with effectiveness. They are not the same. The commercial did want to make me play more, but I did think it odd they seemed more geared towards drawing old gamers back to the table rather than getting new ones. I also wonder how intentionally ironic it was that the commercial before the Cleric got eaten stated the number 2 rule of adventuring was “Protect the Cleric.” As for the movie I could have done better with a single camera and 1/10 their budget. When you prove this boast, I will believe it. But considering the number of times I have seen people make such claims and fail to prove them, I find it to be a statement that disproves any claim of objectivity.
anarco_rata 10-10-05, 11:37 AM	When you prove this boast, I will believe it. But considering the number of times I have seen people make such claims and fail to prove them, I find it to be a statement that disproves any claim of objectivity. come on, you know we all said the same thing about the first one :D
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 11:37 AM	Was the movie spectacular? Of course not, but compared to the first one it was art. It was a sci fi channel made for tv movie, that's what I expected. It was a very good made for tv movie. It would not have held up in a theatre but it worked for tv and would make a good tv show. If you can make a better movie with one tenth the budget then go do it. I'm sure you could get a loan for that amount of money and if your movie really is better it'll get airplay. Let's see your movie and we'll see who's is better. Your response that it wasn't what your imagination of a DnD universe was is the problem. There is no real DND universe. What everyone invisions is completely different. Your universe is probably completely different than my universe, and mine is different from my DM's. I'm not going to sit here and call this an oscar nominee movie. It was no Lord of the Rings, but I didn't expect a Lord of the Rings. IMO, it was better than most of the sci fi channel movies and for that I was pleasantly surprised. I respect your good-by-comparison arguement for the movie, but is this the best you could have expected from wizards(Hasbro)? I hope not . It's true that the movie did not come close to my vision of the D&D fake-universe, and I understand that is a relative thing to the player, but come on. If this movie came close to how somebody imagines the D&d world to look like, I never want to play with a gamer like that with such lackluster imagination. Every campaign I've DM'd or played in had better sets, costumes, visuals, characters and storylines than that movie. I don't expect them to come close to my vision, but atleast in the right direction. Though I don't run archetypal D&d campaigns, thats what I expected from this movie.Where were the dwarves,gnomes,halflings and half-orcs? The core races were not even represented. Why didn't the Barbarian foam-at-the mouth rage? Could more of the core classes been utilized? Turning undead and trap finding were 2 class skills represented but thats about it. Just because you were moneyless doesn't mean that when someone gives you a copper piece, you should pretend it's platinum. edit: You should'nt rate things by comparison, you should rate them on there own merit. I never saw the first movie and never watch the scifi channel. I did watch the cartoon in the 80's ,and if I'm going to play yalls good-by-comparison game, the old 80's cartoon blew this movie out of the water. Really this movie stunk because of poor writing and production, period. FOR THE LAST TIME BUDGET IS NEVER AN EXCUSE FOR THE QUALITY OF ENTERTAINMENT.
jakefm2377 10-10-05, 11:42 AM	also wonder how intentionally ironic it was that the commercial before the Cleric got eaten stated the number 2 rule of adventuring was “Protect the Cleric.” i saw that and thought it was a roit
trollbill 10-10-05, 11:42 AM	come on, you know we all said the same thing about the first one :D Yes, but the only people I have seen who actually proved they could were Dead Gentlemen Productions. ;)
jakefm2377 10-10-05, 11:54 AM	I respect your good-by-comparison arguement for the movie, but is this the best you could have expected from wizards(Hasbro)? I hope not . It's true that the movie did not come close to my vision of the D&D fake-universe, and I understand that is a relative thing to the player, but come on. If this movie came close to how somebody imagines the D&d world to look like, I never want to play with a gamer like that with such lackluster imagination. Every campaign I've DM'd or played in had better sets, costumes, visuals, characters and storylines than that movie. I don't expect them to come close to my vision, but atleast in the right direction. Though i don't run archetypal D&d campaigns, that what i expected from this movie.Where were the dwarves,gnomes,halflings and half-orcs? The core races were not even represented. Why didn't the Barbarian foam-at-the mouth rage? Could more of the core classes been utilized? Turning undead and trap finding were 2 class skills represented but thats about it. Just because you were moneyless doesn't mean that when someone gives you a copper piece, you should pretend it's platinum. my only answer to this is even core dnd is huge for a movie. if you take away all of the commcials i bet the movie as still an 1hr 45 min long. and event though the main audiance is going to be dnd it not the whole audanice and most of the the suff you are looking for is going to go over peoples head i still think there was a ton more in this movie that i could call dnd than the first move and to exect everthing is propably asking for too much
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 11:56 AM	If you didn’t want to troll than you should have used a less insulting and condescending tone in your initial post. You initial post was essentially an attack on everyone who thought the movie was descent. Why then are you surprised when they attacked back? If you wanted a reasoned, unbiased response, then you should have started by posting one. Quality is relative. If we are comparing Wrath of the Dragon God to Peter Jackson’s LoTR, then this movie is fairly awful. If we are comparing it to the original Dungeons & Dragons movie, then it should be academy award material. Special effects were not astounding but on par with anything else I have seen that was not a theater release. But the acting, dialog and overall D&D style surpass the original D&D movie by leaps and bounds. So how good the movie was depends a lot on what you are comparing it to. I think most were comparing it to the original D&D movie, which would explain the glowing reviews. Given that most people were afraid that the original D&D movie may have sunk any attempts at bringing more D&D to either the small or large screen, it is no surprise that anything that may indicate that this fear is not real is something to get excited about. The previous D&D film did have a higher budget. It failed. No company is going to give anyone more money than the last time when the first time failed. Holding Wizards to a higher standard would mean no more movies or TV shows period. After the original D&D movie, D&D has to prove its worth as a media marketable product before anyone is going to throw big bucks into it. D7D movies will get big bucks when they prove they can earn it. Now, as to your original comments. Now I know you stated that replying to a point by point review of a movie with a counterpoint by counterpoint response is somehow proof of the low quality of the move. But since such an contention is both highly illogical and has no factual precedent to support it, I will respond point by point anyway. If was on SciFi channel. Anyone watching SciFi channel movies knows they are low quality. If you compare this movie to such SciFi channel ‘classics’ as Boa and Dragon Fighter, it starts looking like a halfway decent movie. While it was obvious the directors were using classic techniques to make the rogue appear a little shorter than normal, the movie never made a claim to his race. Since ‘short people’ who were far shorter than the rogue appeared in both the bar and cemetery scenes, it would not appear he was supposed to be anything other than a short human. That, I and everyone else who watched it with me, agree upon. No self-respecting rogue would only carry 1 weapon. Personally, I didn’t like the makeup job either, but others I watched it with did. I did, however, feel it sufficed. No, they very clearly told you that he was an ex-captain of the guard who was now a lord saddled with common aristocratic duties. It was quite clear so I don’t understand the complaint. A bit odd, but still within the realm of possibility. A city with only one major temple is not that much of an oddity in D&D. The fact that they didn’t mention more doesn’t mean they didn’t exist anymore than their evil god references meant that only Jubilex and Thalazure were the only evil ones (though if you pay attention closely to the opening credits there is an indirect reference to Yeenoghu also). It was a trap set by Damodor. The previous scene had him proclaiming the heroes where walking into one. As far as color goes, it was a White Dragon, what color was it supposed to be? Considering who sent it, it may also have been a Zombie White Dragon which would explain the grayishness. I suppose that depends on what sort of DM you are used to playing with. Not every adventure I play in ends like a Star Wars movie. You seem to equate expense with effectiveness. They are not the same. The commercial did want to make me play more, but I did think it odd they seemed more geared towards drawing old gamers back to the table rather than getting new ones. I also wonder how intentionally ironic it was that the commercial before the Cleric got eaten stated the number 2 rule of adventuring was “Protect the Cleric.” When you prove this boast, I will believe it. But considering the number of times I have seen people make such claims and fail to prove them, I find it to be a statement that disproves any claim of objectivity. My goal was to incite conversation through friendly goading. Most of my insults were passive, in that you had to associate yourself with a group to be insulted. Quality is NEVER relative. QUALITY IS QUALITY. Money has nothing to do with it. I wasn't saying this movie sucks compared to another movie, it sucks on its own merit. Though the ending did lack the pomp and circumstance I'd expect from this type of movie, atleast it didn't have 5 endings like LotR, and for that I'm appreciative.
Aladdar 10-10-05, 11:58 AM	First off, I don't believe Hasbro or Wotc financed the movie, the rights to produce the movie were licensed by them. In fact, they were probably paid to allow the DnD name, classes, etc... to be used. You can't fault Wizards for the quality of the movie, maybe they should license it to a better studio, but they probably took whomever gave it. The first movie had a huge budget and was completely aweful. No studio is going to throw tons of money at a movie that bombed so bad the first time. The fact that they made a sequel at all shows that they're interested in making more DnD stuff and possibly this was a pilot for something with more money again or maybe a tv show. I personally was expecting it to be god aweful, I was surprised that it didn't smell like manure. Maybe that's why I'm happier with it. I thought the acting was lame at times (but so is most sci fi channel acting), the script also wasn't great (come on, suspended animation talks in fantasy setting and a little too deliberate on telling us what class and feats they're using.) As I said, had I paid 7 bucks to watch it in a theatre I would have been unhappy. That I saw it for free on sci fi, it was about as good as anyone could realistically expect. Since it got a decent review, I hope someone puts some more money, some better actors, a better script, and a better director and makes something better. Like I said, I really just feel like this was a pilot for something bigger.
trollbill 10-10-05, 12:06 PM	My goal was to incite conversation through friendly goading. Most of my insults were passive, in that you had to associate yourself with a group to be insulted. Quality is NEVER relative. QUALITY IS QUALITY. Money has nothing to do with it. I wasn't saying this movie sucks compared to another movie, it sucks on its own merit. Though the ending did lack the pomp and circumstance I'd expect from this type of movie, atleast it didn't have 5 endings like LotR, and for that I'm appreciative. You are still comparing it to something. Movies in general, perhaps. Quality is always relative. If it isn't, please demostrate to me how one can objectively rate quality without comparing it to anything else. Regardless of the illogic in your statement, mine was meant to explain the glowing responses you were protesting against. It was not a dismissal of your own comments.
Yak of Darkness 10-10-05, 12:07 PM	Yes, but the only people I have seen who actually proved they could were Dead Gentlemen Productions. ;)Please, the Numa Numa Dance was a much better D&D movie than the first one, too, and on a ridiculously low budget. :D
q'afuu 10-10-05, 12:22 PM	If writers wanted to be faithful to the players, why didn't they write within the rules and current mythos? It wouldn't have been hard.We'll you should hold Wizards (Hasbro) to a higher standard, or all they will release is films of this sort. Hasbro is a large-cap billion dollar company with massive resources. They probably should do what Marvel comics has been doing and license out there material to studios that want to take on there projects with appropriate crew and resources. They give up control of the final product when they do this, but Marvel has had good success with this business model (Spider-man and such) so far. WotC at this point gets an advisory role at best when it comes to the D&D movies (they had next to no involvement at all in the first D&D movie and some in the second - likely that's part of the reason the second one is better than the first). The rights for making a D&D movie have never even been in the hands of WotC, TSR bartered those away already iirc. IOW, WotC (let alone Hasbro) had no control over the budget, how it was spent, actors, story or any other part of the production whatsoever other than what those that do own the rights granted them. I suggest you lay your criticisms at the feet of those responsible.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 12:52 PM	You are still comparing it to something. Movies in general, perhaps. Quality is always relative. If it isn't, please demostrate to me how one can objectively rate quality without comparing it to anything else. Regardless of the illogic in your statement, mine was meant to explain the glowing responses you were protesting against. It was not a dismissal of your own comments. Nope, the quality of a work is never determined by comparing it to something else. When you go to a wine tasting you don't compare one wine to another wine, you judge each wine on its own characteristics (flavor,aftertaste,body). When doing an analysis of a movie you judge it on its own characteristics as well. You judge its plot, editing, cinematography, costumes, lighting,music,acting and so forth. I can do this with every movie i've seen without having to comparing it to another. I'd rather not because judging by comparison is an analytical technique of first graders and sports fans.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 12:56 PM	WotC at this point gets an advisory role at best when it comes to the D&D movies (they had next to no involvement at all in the first D&D movie and some in the second - likely that's part of the reason the second one is better than the first). The rights for making a D&D movie have never even been in the hands of WotC, TSR bartered those away already iirc. IOW, WotC (let alone Hasbro) had no control over the budget, how it was spent, actors, story or any other part of the production whatsoever other than what those that do own the rights granted them. I suggest you lay your criticisms at the feet of those responsible. you are saying the people who owned tsr still own the movie rights to the Dnd brand? If so I apoligize to WoTC for a comments i made about there involvement in this disaster of a movie. Its makes sense that the people who ran TSR into the ground would also foul up the movie potential for D&d.
Manyfist 10-10-05, 12:59 PM	I would like to point out a few things. - A.) Budget DOES, here me, DOES count on quality. It's on Sci-Fi what you expect? - B.) There WAS representation of other than humans. The Wizard was an Elf, the Buttler was a Half-Orc, and at the begining two or more Drow were beening drained of their blood. Also at least the Elf looked like a freaking elf! Not a damn Half-Elf, and at least they didn't put some crappy tall Dwarf. - C.) It doesn't say that everytime a Barbarian goes into rage they foam at the mouth, that would mean they have rabies, and should have 21 shots in the stomach. I think the Barbarian did a great job at rageing, she just couldn't stop killing. Also I would like to add the Barbarian chick was scrumpous looking. ;) - D.) My only complaint was that even their was Three (maybe 2?) Dragons, they messed up on the damn breath of the Black Dracolich. Honestly, spewing out fireballs is not part of their stats, a line of acid is! Was the 1st Dragon a Green Dragon? Or did they just call it a Black Dragon for the hell of it? - E.) The Lich was excellent. He's what I would imagine a 'Fresh' lich would be. He's about I would say around lvl 17, and only about 200 years old max. His voice was so cool, and man was he arrogent, every thing a lich should be. His makeup was Excellent for the budget, it's no LOTR makeup yet it gets the job done. - F.) Rogues are not the packrats Lidda is. He's an Old Rogue, maybe even a Middle Aged one at that. He was poor too, not that great of a Rogue but he got the job done. Even if he rarely saw combat. On that Stupid Cleric, They should of had a freaking Druid, he would of Wildshaped into a Bear or something and beat the living tar out of that White Dragon (Zombie?). I did find it hilarious that he died after the three important rule of D&D were, 2.) Keep the Cleric Alive!, that was hilarious. Lastly I would totally Bone the Barbarian and the Mage, Yummy! :D
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 01:20 PM	I would like to point out a few things. - A.) Budget DOES, here me, DOES count on quality. It's on Sci-Fi what you expect? with better choices of how they used the budget they had the movie could have been alot better. - B.) There WAS representation of other than humans. The Wizard was an Elf, the Buttler was a Half-Orc, and at the begining two or more Drow were beening drained of their blood. Also at least the Elf looked like a freaking elf! Not a damn Half-Elf, and at least they didn't put some crappy tall Dwarf. there's a hell of alot of midget actors of various sizes. Dwarfs, halflings and gnomes would have been easy to produce with little make up. - C.) It doesn't say that everytime a Barbarian goes into rage they foam at the mouth, that would mean they have rabies, and should have 21 shots in the stomach. I think the Barbarian did a great job at rageing, she just couldn't stop killing. Also I would like to add the Barbarian chick was scrumpous looking. ;) true, she didn't have to foam at hte mouth, but there should be some outward appearance that she's raging, not being able to stop killing is a weak way of showing a rage - D.) My only complaint was that even their was Three (maybe 2?) Dragons, they messed up on the damn breath of the Black Dracolich. Honestly, spewing out fireballs is not part of their stats, a line of acid is! Was the 1st Dragon a Green Dragon? Or did they just call it a Black Dragon for the hell of it? - E.) The Lich was excellent. He's what I would imagine a 'Fresh' lich would be. He's about I would say around lvl 17, and only about 200 years old max. His voice was so cool, and man was he arrogent, every thing a lich should be. His makeup was Excellent for the budget, it's no LOTR makeup yet it gets the job done. - F.) Rogues are not the packrats Lidda is. He's an Old Rogue, maybe even a Middle Aged one at that. He was poor too, not that great of a Rogue but he got the job done. Even if he rarely saw combat. On that Stupid Cleric, They should of had a freaking Druid, he would of Wildshaped into a Bear or something and beat the living tar out of that White Dragon (Zombie?). I did find it hilarious that he died after the three important rule of D&D were, 2.) Keep the Cleric Alive!, that was hilarious. Lastly I would totally Bone the Barbarian and the Mage, Yummy! :D I'd bang most the chicks in that movie (but not for their acting skills).I don'g care how poor the rogue is, he could have stole a second knife, HE"S A ROGUE! Note: The one scene I did like was the cleric getting eaten whole then getting blown up, that was awesome.
q'afuu 10-10-05, 01:25 PM	When you go to a wine tasting you don't compare one wine to another wine, you judge each wine on its own characteristics (flavor,aftertaste,body). And that still comes down to a comparison (or rather, a number of them). Every judgement is the result of comparing something to a benchmark, even if that benchmark isn't necessarily an existing object or precisely defined value. Good or bad are meaningless terms without a normative scale to put them on. you are saying the people who owned tsr still own the movie rights to the Dnd brand?No, the people who owned TSR sold the movie rights to D&D to someone else back when TSR was still an existing company, before WotC acquired TSR's intellectual properties. That someone has nothing to do with either TSR or WotC, to the best of my knowledge. IOW, the D&D movies are produced by people who have nothing to do with any other aspect of D&D (aside from some of them, presumably, playing or at least having played it).
trollbill 10-10-05, 01:25 PM	there's a hell of alot of midget actors of various sizes. Dwarfs, halflings and gnomes would have been easy to produce with little make up. There were at least 3 'vertically challenge' actors in the movie. One in the barroom scene that introduces the Barbarian. Two more in the cemetary scene when the adventuring party is heading out of town. They aren't formost in the story, but they where there.
Manyfist 10-10-05, 01:29 PM	with better choices of how they used the budget they had the movie could have been alot better. If they put actors that knew how to fight, it would of been alot better. there's a hell of alot of midget actors of various sizes. Dwarfs, halflings and gnomes would have been easy to produce with little make up. A Dwarf is a Stocky 4' Humanoid, how many 4' people you know of that's a Body builder? A Gnome is hard to do with out special effects, they're really skinny and really small. Halflings, LOTR magic made Frodo look 3' tall, that was expensive thou. true, she didn't have to foam at hte mouth, but there should be some outward appearance that she's raging, not being able to stop killing is a weak way of showing a rage They're B film actors, not Hollywood elites here. It would of cost money to hire an good actor, she did an OK job. Her true role was to memerize the Male Audience. I'd bang most the chicks in that movie (but not for their acting skills).I don'g care how poor the rogue is, he could have stole a second knife, HE"S A ROGUE! I would bang most the chicks as well in the movie. I don't know how he would of stolen a Second Knife, since Lux gave him Her knife. He was a poor Rogue, he didn't even Sneakattack any thing! Note: The one scene I did like was the cleric getting eaten whole then getting blown up, that was awesome. That was cool.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 01:30 PM	There were at least 3 'vertically challenge' actors in the movie. One in the barroom scene that introduces the Barbarian. Two more in the cemetary scene when the adventuring party is heading out of town. They aren't formost in the story, but they where there. Well then why the hell didn't they make a dwarf, hafling or gnome in the party? Nice PC lingo by the way, I'd rather be called a midget than vertically challenged.
trollbill 10-10-05, 01:37 PM	Nope, the quality of a work is never determined by comparing it to something else. When you go to a wine tasting you don't compare one wine to another wine, you judge each wine on its own characteristics (flavor,aftertaste,body). When doing an analysis of a movie you judge it on its own characteristics as well. You judge its plot, editing, cinematography, costumes, lighting,music,acting and so forth. I can do this with every movie i've seen without having to comparing it to another. I'd rather not because judging by comparison is an analytical technique of first graders and sports fans. It is impossible to make any judgment without comparison. Arguing otherwise is to argue against reality. You do not know what a bad actor is unless you know what a good one is and you cannot know what a good wine tastes like without knowing the taste of other wines with which to compare it. While there are often formalized standards for quality, you are still comparing things to them in order to rank quality. Good, bad, better and worse are all subjective terms.
arbanafal 10-10-05, 01:39 PM	Meh, if everyone keeps trolling along I want in too. :D Budget does matter, but should never matter to the story. The good-by-comparison argument is nonsense. Never was it said by the critics/haters of this movie that it should have been LotR. It was extensively compared to the first movie in my own review for example. I live on low-budget TV. I've seen movies even my socks think that they stink. I've seen classics such as Plan 9 from outer Space, Monster Mountain and Santa Claus conquers the Martians. Those movies stunk like an otyug left behind the central heating for 10 days. This movie ranks among those. Truly (although this absolute only applies to me I will still force my beliefs upon others in an arrogant manner, just out of CE spite. Arbanafal, self-proclaimed Ogre-Mage Demigod needs no friends). Low-budget movies that were awesome: Evil Dead series, All Bruce Lee movies, Blair Witch Project, invasion of the body-snatchers, Reservoir Dogs (only set was the garage, man, top that!) and the list goes on. A higher budget wouldn't have saved the movie, because the same people that botched the first movie worked on this one. The graphics, the most budget dependant thing in a movie next to actors, were good. So the problems didn't lie in the budget. Cheap, new actors shouldn't be a prob. Star Wars' heroes were mainly fresh meat and they performed rather well too. On a side-note: Isn't it degrading to women actors that fans are so shallow as to ignore all acting performances and plot-canyons just because she has a pretty face (9/10 barbarian commentaries are about her bod). Raging doesn't need foam at the mouth, but it needs more than nothing and then some bad-wolf huffs whenever someone tries to shout some control into her. Ironically, D&D video games are really, really good. They don't have just cheap references to the tabletop-worlds. They ARE the table-top worlds. They have great budgets. Excellent writers and fantastic storytellers. Each game more memorable than the last. Why couldn't they have used similar resources for a movie? Aren't we worth it? Why? I need my pills; I've been insulting people too long for liking something I don't like. I feel so dirty ;) :tissue:
Seeker95 10-10-05, 01:39 PM	So we can all agree on one thing: OETS (whose screen name should be changed about the same time this thread gets locked) did not like the movie. That pretty much ends the debate. :P
q'afuu 10-10-05, 01:44 PM	Well then why the hell didn't they make a dwarf, hafling or gnome in the party? Why should they have? I DM for three different parties at the moment: 14 characters total, no halflings, one gnome, no dwarves. I do have 3 half-orcs. Why no clamoring for them to get more time in the spotlight? I have characters from every core class (and a few non-core ones as well), but not all of those were represented in the movie either. Why? Because there's no need for it, that's why (and in the case of gnomes and halflings, because they'd require an explanation of why there were white pygmies running around for those viewers without the benefit of a D&D background. Other races are more commonly known).
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 01:45 PM	And that still comes down to a comparison (or rather, a number of them). Every judgement is the result of comparing something to a benchmark, even if that benchmark isn't necessarily an existing object or precisely defined value. Good or bad are meaningless terms without a normative scale to put them on. Agreed, but when analyzing a work, you break it down into components and compare them to some standard of quality for a benchmark. If i'm looking at the cinematography and choreography of a kung fu movie, I don't do so by comparing it to another kung fu movie. My benchmark are certain standards not other films : can I see all the action clearly, does the chorography tell a story, do the performers show a tight and realistic rhythm while fighting, and so on... I was wrong when I said quality is not measured by comparison, but quality should judged by comparing a works components to the benchmarks of those components, not other works of the same genre. No, the people who owned TSR sold the movie rights to D&D to someone else back when TSR was still an existing company, before WotC acquired TSR's intellectual properties. That someone has nothing to do with either TSR or WotC, to the best of my knowledge. IOW, the D&D movies are produced by people who have nothing to do with any other aspect of D&D (aside from some of them, presumably, playing or at least having played it). ahh so WoTC better rebuy those rights or be screwed in this matter. The fact they showed comercials during the movie proves they were atleast happy with it. Then again ,the little amount of effort they put into the commercials might prove they were ashamed of it.
Ogmug 10-10-05, 01:48 PM	Well then why the hell didn't they make a dwarf, hafling or gnome in the party? Nice PC lingo by the way, I'd rather be called a midget than vertically challenged. Not every party has to have a dwarf, or are you TRYING To make it into a frelling LOTR clone? Basically, this movie is heads and tails over the hollywood original, and it did so on a very low budget, stuck to most of the D&D rules (fubar'ed the dragon if you ask me). /shrug.
Yak of Darkness 10-10-05, 01:49 PM	Reservoir Dogs (only set was the garage, man, top that!)Yeah, the garage. And the restaurant at the beginning, and the outdoors for the chase scenes, and the nightclub where Orange tells his fake!story, and the bathroom where that fake!story is set, and the diner where Orange is talking about the setup for the caper, and the rooftop where Orange is being told how to go undercover, and Joe's office . . . ;) Ironically, D&D video games are really, really good. They don't have just cheap references to the tabletop-worlds. They ARE the table-top worlds. They have great budgets. Excellent writers and fantastic storytellers. Each game more memorable than the last.Different companies making the games and the movie. Now, if someone can explain to me how Square could make amazing plots/characters/narratives for video games, but the same company couldn't squeeze something a third as good out for their movie, that'd be great.
jukar 10-10-05, 02:20 PM	And what were those commercials for dnd?They cost a whole 50$ to produce. I could do better marketing than that with a team of crack-smoking monkeys. They were done in the same vein as the MTG Ravnica commercials, which were done in the bump style of Adult Swim, which has proven to be very popular. I didn't think they were that great, but they weren't bad. At least they steered clear of some geekish stereotypes.
elven warriorXX 10-10-05, 02:41 PM	Okay we get that you hate the movie and think it sucked. But it does not give you the right to try and FORCE every one that liked the movie to hating it like you. What is your problem with people that like the movie? I think is could have been a bit better but it is fine on its self. If you want a better movie go write a script and go make it :rolleyes: Your review was helpful and we see what you did not like about the movie. I liked it and I am not comparing it to ANY movie. And what is with the "you can feel that in their hearts they hated it" bullcrap? Yes some people that ARE VERY GOOD AT ENGLISH can tell if people are denying them selves. I am not insulting you I am just showing you the facts. I am sorry if any of this seems as a personal attack.
Ogmug 10-10-05, 02:46 PM	Why do i get teh feeling that OETS is the comic book guy from the simpsons? He has the same geekalitist attitude :P
arbanafal 10-10-05, 02:46 PM	Yeah, the garage. And the restaurant at the beginning, and the outdoors for the chase scenes, and the nightclub where Orange tells his fake!story, and the bathroom where that fake!story is set, and the diner where Orange is talking about the setup for the caper, and the rooftop where Orange is being told how to go undercover, and Joe's office . . . ;) Hmmm...ok...Reservoir dogs had more than the garage...hhmmmm ...but I hate to be proven wrong so I'll just insult you instead of thinking about an intelligent and sporty reply as to detract attention from my past failings. [add pointless personal insult here] Arbanafal, you're a genius. :evillaugh Oh yeah...almost forgot about Final Blandasy. A movie that had nothing in common with all the games it should have been based on. A lot like the Fantastic Bore, which had almost nothing in common with the comic it should have been based on. And the first D&D movie… Now you got me crying. Filling my head with stupid movies that never should have been. I hope you're all happy with yourselfs! :yuck: One wonders how you people sleep at night.
trollbill 10-10-05, 03:04 PM	Oh yeah...almost forgot about Final Blandasy. A movie that had nothing in common with all the games it should have been based on. Well, we will just have to wait on US release of Advent Children to make the final judgement on that.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 03:15 PM	Okay we get that you hate the movie and think it sucked. But it does not give you the right to try and FORCE every one that liked the movie to hating it like you. What is your problem with people that like the movie? I think is could have been a bit better but it is fine on its self. If you want a better movie go write a script and go make it :rolleyes: Your review was helpful and we see what you did not like about the movie. I liked it and I am not comparing it to ANY movie. And what is with the "you can feel that in their hearts they hated it" bullcrap? Yes some people that ARE VERY GOOD AT ENGLISH can tell if people are denying them selves. I am not insulting you I am just showing you the facts. I am sorry if any of this seems as a personal attack. Philosophically I think most people should have higher standards than they seem to have these days. Most of TV, movies and music is crap compared to just a few years ago. Imagination has departed our once great American artistic traditions. Its the consumers vault for continuing to buy the mediocre product. I am a music producer/composer, because no one else makes the music I want to hear. One day i will direct movies so I will make the movies no one seems to be making. Some people are happy with mediocrity and I envy them because pleasure comes easier to them and I am only satisfied with well crafted things. I have been called a pot-snob, a beer-snob, a food-snob a music-snob, movie-snob and a people-snob. I don't think I'm better than anyone else. I just think EVERYONE deserves the best in life. I want everyone to have the best, but to have the best you have to have a standard where you're unwilling to put up with anything but the best. In this reality where our self is defined by our sensual experiences and mental interpretations of those experiences, why not make our sensual experiences the most ecstatic they can be? In my view the only way to give thanks to blessing of existence is to life the ecstatic life one can. ;)
arbanafal 10-10-05, 03:54 PM	Well, we will just have to wait on US release of Advent Children to make the final judgement on that. I've seen in in Japanese. Although the story progresses a little too fast, it rocksorz your Boxorz as noobs proficient in 7331-speak would say.
elven warriorXX 10-10-05, 04:39 PM	Philosophically I think most people should have higher standards than they seem to have these days. Most of TV, movies and music is crap compared to just a few years ago. Imagination has departed our once great American artistic traditions. Its the consumers vault for continuing to buy the mediocre product. I am a music producer/composer, because no one else makes the music I want to hear. One day i will direct movies so I will make the movies no one seems to be making. Some people are happy with mediocrity and I envy them because pleasure comes easier to them and I am only satisfied with well crafted things. I have been called a pot-snob, a beer-snob, a food-snob a music-snob, movie-snob and a people-snob. I don't think I'm better than anyone else. I just think EVERYONE deserves the best in life. I want everyone to have the best, but to have the best you have to have a standard where you're unwilling to put up with anything but the best. In this reality where our self is defined by our sensual experiences and mental interpretations of those experiences, why not make our sensual experiences the most ecstatic they can be? In my view the only way to give thanks to blessing of existence is to life the ecstatic life one can. ;) Okay i agree that movies and music these days have gotten bad and that most people now adays are very stupid (not you). But i am comparing the D&D movie to the game and it matchs up nicely :) Sure I would love to see a better one but this is all we got now and I like it. If a better one comes out and it is better then this one, then i will like it more. I see what you are saying :D thanks for clearing that up. I am sorry if i hurt your feelings.
q'afuu 10-10-05, 04:41 PM	Most of TV, movies and music is crap compared to just a few years ago. I'm guessing the '80s largely passed you by unnoticed, right? ;)
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 04:55 PM	I'm guessing the '80s largely passed you by unnoticed, right? ;) I've always said music died somewhere around 1981-82 ( atleast the golden age of recorded music of the 70's).I have about 10,000 LP's and only about 100 of them were made after 1980. The thing is there's usually a kind on reniassance during a Republican administraion that were not having this go round. Due to the repression of Republican administrations, art seems to thrive as rebellion to there oppressive power :( Baby bush's term of office isn't over yet so there's still hope for an artistic rebellion though.
Sir Elton 10-10-05, 05:00 PM	I would totally Bone the Barbarian and the Mage, Yummy! :D :bigeyes: I wonder if they are that beautiful in real life without the make-up.
Seeker95 10-10-05, 05:17 PM	I wonder if they are that beautiful in real life without the make-up.Nobody is.
Verelor 10-10-05, 05:22 PM	All the women in the movie were quite attractive, but I think it was a bit over-the-top with the barberian woman, who, quite honestly for a barberian, was a bit "well-groomed". And how come I still can't remember any of the character's names. That's a bad sign about how effectively they came off.
OneEyedTrouserSnake 10-10-05, 05:31 PM	Hope for what???? Spontaneous intelligence? For him & Cheney to be put in front of a war crimes court? For a president who won the election (popular AND electoral... Bush lost one then the other... LOL). I know!!! It's not too late to start a reality based comedy called "Bubba goes to Washington". We'll just tape it in the Oval office while Dubya tries pronouncing words on diplomatic documents! :heehee don't think you understood what I was saying. Even though Republican administrations can be nightmares, they usually inspire great art in defiance to their evil. That's what I'm saying there is hope for, an explosion of great creative works which the country has been lacking in lately.
draco2005 10-10-05, 05:46 PM	Are we still bickering about the movie? Enough already! Perhaps one eye should make the next movie and see how he does.
High Octane 10-10-05, 05:49 PM	Honestly, I think this guy (One Eyed) is joking. At least thats my hope. If not, oh well, everyone has a right to their own opinion. Of course, his remarks about the people on the boards as a whole are quite immature. I liked the movie, as Ive said before, but Im going to put my review in a different thread. One with maturity. Oh, and I dont think hes immature because he disagrees with me. arbanafal, though he doesnt agree with me, stated his opinion in a mature and pretty well thought out manner. I still dont agree with him, but I will at least read his comments in other threads from now on, and give them consideration.
GreyLord 10-10-05, 06:41 PM	Well, I for one agree that the movie was a tad boring. Then again, I don't share what a majority of posters seem to think about Barbarian lady. I thought she was pretty ugly myself (Gretchen Mol, she's pretty. Alicia Silverstone, she's pretty. Liv Tyler, she's pretty. Barbarian Lady in the D&D 2 movie...I don't think she's pretty. That's personal opinion however). I think she did a good job of being a Barbarian that would operate in a party however. With how terrible I thought the first one was I think the second one would have had to be miraculously good for me to even think that it was okay. I didn't think it was bad, which must say something. I think it was more geared towards the D&D player, and personally, the D&D references actually made me enjoy it more. I enjoyed the little spill on Divine vs. Arcane magic. I enjoyed all the little nuances and in fact it did get me a little more in the mood for a game of D&D. It didn't have action upon adventure upon thrills every other second, but with their budget concerns, that could be understood. I sat down thinking I was going to laugh my way through this movie at how stupid it was, and didn't do that. The corniest point which ALMOST got to that, was when the Dragon was attacking...that came close to being as corny as the first movie...BUT avoided it. The big differences are...I didn't buy the first movie...didn't even get it on DVD when it was offered to me free (and believe it or not the biggest temptation to accept it wasn't the movie but the free demo on the DVD of Baldurs Gate 2...but since I already have the full game...). I'm seriously thinking about getting the second D&D movie when it comes out on DVD. I think that says it all about the differences between the two movies.