Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sarcor 06-27-04, 05:44 AM	I'm sure most people have read the article… I'm just putting it here for quick reference. D&D II Movie Article (http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/526/526212p1.html) When I first heard that the first D&D movie was in the works, I was excited. Jeremy Irons is a good actor. And it was D&D... The preview didn't look horrible either... But the movie was crap. Bad acting, bad costumes, bad special effects… The dragons were especially horrible. The original Jurassic Park had better texture work than the dragons in the movie. And I firmly believe that Jeremy Irons intentionally overacted in his role, just to save face. Zoe McLellan's mage character only had one facial expression... a grumpy confused look. Thora Birch's empress was too whiney. And why did Damodar wear blue lipstick? When I think of evil, I always think blue lipstick. The Ridley/Snails interaction was annoying. The plot was weak. The movie's only saving grace is how bad it was. The Jeremy Irons overacting was particularly amusing. But we deserve better the second time around. What we don't deserve is Justin Whalin reprising the Ridley role. Or Paris Hilton as whatever she's supposed to play. So it looks like this new movie might just be a true sequel… Oh goody, we might get to see Ridley and Snails get back together again. Just in time to make the movie suck. When are movie producers and writers going to realize that D&D itself is not really a setting? Let’s see a Forgotten Realms movie or maybe they can poke around the leftovers of the setting contest that brought us Eberron for ideas. But we don’t need to be served the most vanilla fantasy setting half-imagined, with wafer thin characters and shoddy cinematography. Is there really anything we can do to stop it? After this next movie bombs, will D&D ever get another chance in hollywood? I think not.
bahamut_0 06-27-04, 07:35 AM	Originally posted by Sarcor Is there really anything we can do to stop it? After this next movie bombs, will D&D ever get another chance in hollywood? I think not. Nope. No. Never. Ever. Again. Frankly, I hope it never does, I mean they've practically porved twice (well from what I can tell of the second film so far) that D&D doesn't belong in Hollywood. I coulda bloody told em that........
Seeker95 06-27-04, 02:46 PM	After this next movie bombs, will D&D ever get another chance in hollywood?What is your definition of "bombs"? The first movie made back its money and then some. Far from a bomb. And that doesn't even count foreign markets and video, where it continued to add to the profits. D&D players are probably the smallest segment of the audience. That we hated it because it wasn't D&D did nothing to stop our cousins, neices, nephews, children, and neighbors from absolutely loving it because it was a funny-scary-make-believe story with magic, play-fighting, and laughs. The first movie made enough of a profit to justify making a second. As long as it makes a profit, there will likely be a third.
Edymnion 06-27-04, 03:11 PM	Yup, the first D&D movie made more money than it cost. If the second movie does at least that much, the door is still open for a third one, no matter HOW bad it is. Bottom line, if the movie makes any money at all, it'll likely get a sequal. Heck, there are producers out there that saw the box office take for Mel Gibson's The Passion and wanted to make a SEQUAL to it! Obviously they have no idea what the heck they're talking about, but it still illustrates the point.
Sarcor 06-27-04, 05:24 PM	Okay, it did make its money back. But it wasn't what I'd call quality. The original D&D was a pre-LOTR fantasy movie; expectations for the genre are higher now. I'd expect that the producers are seeing it as a franchise that could possibly fill the void left by the LOTR movies. They probably figure... they're both fantasy, they both have swords, dwarves, and elves. I bought the D&D movie, very much on sale, for the simple fact that it's funny how bad it is. Jeremy Irons getting his jollies of his staff of dragon control. The "Did you think you could steal my destiny" chest slap. It's amusing... but I'd rather have a quality movie. I like to share the pain with others. Maybe they don't have a script yet and it's not to late to start fresh, a feat it took batman 4 movies to try, the Star Trek producers still haven't figured it out. I won't pay to see D&D if it's even loosely related to the previous movie. No civil rights for non-wizards moments. Snails is dead, he should stay dead. Maybe train the new cast members to fight, athough I can't see Paris wielding any weapon effectively.
Xod, Archmage 06-27-04, 06:02 PM	When I think "bomb," I think not so much in figures of money and sales. Sure, they made their money back, it seems that 90% of all movies do that. However, the question is "did anyone really like it." No. The only things that I can bear to bring to mind again are the terrible, cookie-cutter plot (ooh! an ancient artifact of power; how 1970s!), the unfunny, stupid characters (a street urchin who rises to his destiny and saves humanity. Does this sound familiar?), and the most sucktactular of all endings (they magically disappear with a little stone? WTF!?!). No. I don't think a second one would do well. Yes, it may make some cash, but if it is anything remotely like its predicessor, and with the bar being raised to orbital levels by LotR, I don't think that anyone will find it remotely enjoyable. Xod:behold:
Sarcor 06-27-04, 06:54 PM	Oh and the stupid smile on Ridley's face when he holds up the Rod of Dragon Control at the end. He looks constipated with his teeth clenched so tightly. It's so bad.
Seeker95 06-27-04, 08:33 PM	Sarcor and Xod, Your gripes are personal preferences, and have relevence or relationship to whether anothe rmovie gets made. Movies are made for profit. The movie made a profit. A producer who made a profit does not care whetehr you liked the movie or not. Enough of you spent your money to get his money back and then some. And enough of you will spend your money on the sequel to do the same.
Xod, Archmage 06-27-04, 09:14 PM	Your gripes are personal preferences, and have relevence or relationship to whether anothe rmovie gets made. Movies are made for profit. The movie made a profit. A producer who made a profit does not care whetehr you liked the movie or not. Enough of you spent your money to get his money back and then some. And enough of you will spend your money on the sequel to do the same. Yes, I am aware of basic economics. Profit is a good thing. However, the point is that they DO care. If they want people to come back, if they want to keep making a profit, they have to provide something that I think is worth my time, effort, and money. They can fool me into the theatre once, but not twice, because I know what to expect. They do care. And those that go to the theatre again, well, I'm sure that they (A) Didn't see the first movie, (B) Are very optimistic, or (C) Uh..well, there is no C. :rolleyes: But, if they want to keep making a profit, they'll start caring. Xod:behold:
Bacon and Eggs 06-27-04, 11:07 PM	I've lived though a couple of bad Superman Sequals. I've lived though a couple of bad Highlander Sequals. I will live through the D&D Sequal, even if it is bad. Then again, I liked the first one, so meh.
ssvegeta555 06-27-04, 11:20 PM	I think the movie might have pontential to be good. Even though Prais Hilton is a bad actress, many people will see it just because she's the lead role. I bet the men are just wanting to see some nice cleavage( my self included :D ).
Sarcor 06-28-04, 05:24 AM	Seeker95, wouldn't you agree that a good movie is more likely to make a greater amount of money than a bad one? With that mantra in mind, they would never intentionally make a bad movie. So why did they make a bad movie? Maybe it's because they're out of touch with their audience or they're untalented. Or they can count on the masses to watch crap... after all it works for reality TV. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...you can't fool me again." Check out the page on imdb... D&D Movie Gross Data (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190374/business) D&D's budget was $35mil.. It only grossed $15mil in the US and a total of $50mil worldwide. Sure there's a few more million in rentals and DVD sales, but any better movie would have much higher DVD sales. $15 mil US Gross is pittiful, and almost half of it was made in the first weekend... most likely negative word of mouth hurt ticket sales. I must have warned at least 10 people not to go see it. The first D&D movie was far from a success. They just figure they can shove any fantasy down our throats in a feeble attempt to fill the void of LOTR. That's the only reason that another D&D movie is being made.
Seeker95 06-28-04, 07:37 AM	Originally posted by Sarcor They just figure they can shove any fantasy down our throats in a feeble attempt to fill the void of LOTR. That's the only reason that another D&D movie is being made. And if it works, they will make another one. They really don't care what you think. They don't care what the critics think. They don't care about awards. Some movies are made just because they will make enough money to profit the makers. If you don't go to the movie, big deal. Plenty of other people will. Just like Rolls Royce does not try to appeal to the poor, movie makers aren't out to get anti-sequel folks to the sequel. You are not their target audience, so they could not care less what you think.
Big Dawg 06-28-04, 09:39 AM	The first movie made back its money and then some. Far from a bomb. And that doesn't even count foreign markets and video, where it continued to add to the profits. 2 things, with the $5 dollar and hour actors and a team of monkeys working around the clock on the script, I would hope they would make their money back since it seemed to me no money was spent on making it good. just think about how much it would have made if it was actually good!
Seeker95 06-28-04, 09:45 AM	Originally posted by Big Dawg just think about how much it would have made if it was actually good! Just think how much more it would have cost to make it good. Better actors cost more money. A better script would cost more money too (since they have to pay for each script, whether they use it or not). The D&D gaming world just needs to take a breath and relax. The movie was not really made for us. And the sequel is also not made for us. It is made for the profit.
Big Dawg 06-28-04, 10:04 AM	I agree seeker. I just wish it wasn't that way. The movie could be so damn good, but the fools who are in charge are gonna screw it up again. Even Non D&D players that know nothing about D&D didn't like the 1st one. No one liked it, so why are they gonna try again with the same crap? I don't get it. I bet it makes money, not a ton, but it will be in the black.
DeathMagicWielder 06-28-04, 11:08 AM	Lighten up guys.... The movie isnt even made yet.
Duff-Man 06-28-04, 11:11 AM	Imagine this for a D&D movie: Gamers Except with a budget and special effects, I'd watch that for a couple hours a few dozen times.
klyre 06-28-04, 11:45 AM	Originally posted by Sarcor Maybe they don't have a script yet and it's not to late to start fresh, a feat it took batman 4 movies to try Are you actually trying to tell me the last Batman movie was the best?
Seeker95 06-28-04, 12:45 PM	Originally posted by klyre Are you actually trying to tell me the last Batman movie was the best? No. He's trying to tell you that the next Batman movie will be the best.
Sulaco 06-28-04, 12:58 PM	The D&D Movie sequel will be total crap: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=263101
Bacon and Eggs 06-28-04, 01:00 PM	Perhaps everyone can hold on to a movie stigma/curse much like the Star Trek folks do. You know, where every movie with an Even suffex is a good one. ... or something like that.
Kail_Atin 06-28-04, 01:11 PM	You know, Maybe this movie won't suck. It's been four years since the release of the godawful first film. People can do thigs in four years and with LotR out, the bar has been raised. Maybe the script will be good. Maybe effects and acting will rule. I'm willing to give this thing chance, and I will be seeing it when it comes out. And who gives a damn if Paris is in it? The animated LotR completely sucked! while there were no "actors" per se, The Voice acting was terrible and you know it. Then quite a few years later, the New Line movies redefine what we look at as fantasy. I'm sure there were many saying "This is gonna suck blah blah blah, but give it a chance. Quit being so pesimistic, damn, I'm tired of people complaining.
Ssussunriyh 06-28-04, 02:23 PM	Give us a reason to be optimistic, and maybe we'll change our tune. For instance, is there any news of who else (besides Paris Hilton) is slated to appear in or work on it? Because as it is, it looks like a train wreck already.
Seeker95 06-28-04, 02:33 PM	Originally posted by Ssussunriyh Give us a reason to be optimisticWhy?
Dreamstryder 06-28-04, 03:30 PM	Another clue? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728) Regardless of what we find now, there will almost undoubtedly be scouts returning to tell us about it when it's actually released. After tLotR, they may be able to gather together more money for such a film and do away with the plot holes that plagued its predecessor. Hopefully what they do with such an overly cloned premise this time will also be more impressive...regardless of its resemblence to a typical old D&D module.
Dorlomin 06-28-04, 04:11 PM	"Sounds like fun, I'll get dirty," Paris reportedly said about the proposed sequel. No other details about the film have been released yet. Something tells me she'll have to get much dirtier than this forum would even consider allowing for this not to be a completely abysmal failure. No matter how much you polish a turd...it'll always be brown.:( :(
Big Dawg 06-28-04, 04:15 PM	No matter how much you polish a turd...it'll always be brown Wow, That line is gold! I love it. :D
Sarcor 06-28-04, 05:34 PM	You're right, Seeker95... The movie wasn't made for us. It sucked too much to be made for us. But... by making bad movies now, they are ruining any chances of a good D&D movie being made for the fans. A good movie could get more people into the game and make WotC money too. So maybe Wizards should be more selective of who gets to use their franchise. I do admire your optimism, Kail_Atin. But I'm having hard time imagining that this next movie won't suck, mostly because they might bring original cast members back. That it might be a continuation of the previous story instead of a fresh start. That is a warranted fear, not pessimism. Pessimism and optimism... Anyone can blindly lean toward one or another. So if you're optimistic, you have to ask yourself why? Based on the information so far there's nothing to be optimistic about.
Mantel_DeMenglamaar 06-28-04, 05:48 PM	I know I hold the unfashionable minority opinion, but I liked the D&D movie. I went in with low expectations and it surpassed them. As I seem to keep parroting, the DVD really helped to awaken me to what the movie could've been. The earlier comments however are quite apropos, a movie is determined by profit. Its an issue of voting with your pocketbook. If a movie makes money, its a success, of course you can bomb horrendously and still be successful. HBO played D&D proudly for a good month if memory serves, and it still pops up on Starz and Wham! from time to time. It had moments of downright neatness. D&D, no offense to my fellow players, isn't renowned for its character depth. As much as I've joked about D&D2: The Search for Snails, I prolly will shell out the 8$ to go see it. Or if its of 'such high quality that it skips the theater all together' (Reckless Kelly line I love to this day), I'll likely buy it. Want higher quality D&D movies and products? Don't take a merry leak on the first attempts. Thats the equivalent of saying the Wright brothers suck because they didn't have stewardesses in cute outfits and warm meals on the Flyer. If you want quality, support quality. Pay for it. Uphold the good. Don't just impotently gripe, that doesn't accomplish anything but earning you the respect of those who also gripe. I'm not meaning you should buy tripe, but don't prejudge movies. Some sequels have surpassed the movies that came before them. And some of the bombs and straight to video weirdness are my favorite movies. Movies like Knights, Omega Doom, and the Trancers series.
Stuntman 06-28-04, 06:52 PM	In one way, I am dreading the new movie. In another way, I'm hopeful that it will be better than the first (but I'm not holding my breath). Let's look at the optimistic point of view. Prior to Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy, there were some rather low quality movies made about LotR in the past. LotR survived it and it may have taken many years, but a high quality movie trilogy was made and it was a hit to all audiences, not just Tolkein fans. D&D will survive the bad movies that have came or will come out. I am hopeful that one day in the future, someone will make a really good D&D movie. I would love to go to the theatre and watch one of the D&D books I've read come to life on the big screen.
Shadow Weaver 06-28-04, 06:58 PM	Hey, if D&D survived a lame cartoon series, it can survive a lame movie franchise. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh with the group on $4 Movie Night even if it is awful.
Ranger REG 06-28-04, 07:06 PM	Maybe the next D&D film would be direct-to-video. After the first film (which I have the legitimate right to grips for having paid the same matinee ticket price as LOTR:FOTR and M&C:TFSofW), I have no confidence that a D&D sequel will be better. Sorry, but I'm not a flower-sniffing optimist.
Ranger REG 06-28-04, 07:13 PM	Originally posted by Shadow Weaver Hey, if D&D survived a lame cartoon series, it can survive a lame movie franchise. Actually, I liked the D&D cartoon series. Although looking at it now, I realized I'm too much of an adult to view it with enjoyment. Of course, I don't mind showing it to my younger relatives. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh with the group on $4 Movie Night even if it is awful. Personally, the D&D: The Movie don't even rate a $5.50 matinee ticket price, the same price I paid for each of two of the three LOTR films (by the time ROTK is showing, movie theater I frequented jacked up the matinee price to $6.50).
Sarcor 06-28-04, 07:39 PM	Of course, in that era... Kids would watch about any cartoon just because it was on after naptime... Unless it was a girly one like Jem or She-ra. Originally posted by Mantel_DeMenglamaar Want higher quality D&D movies and products? Don't take a merry leak on the first attempts. Thats the equivalent of saying the Wright brothers suck because they didn't have stewardesses in cute outfits and warm meals on the Flyer. That's a bit of an exageration. The Wright Brothers did something worthy of history. It was groundbreaking in it's time and uncomparable to modern flight. Also, they're called flight attendants. I wouldn't call the D&D movie groundbreaking at all. It was mediocre when it was made. If they'd just get the idea that people didn't like the first movie, instead of looking at the small profit they made they might do something about it. Yes the new movie could be better. If measured improvement in percentages, the first movie was so bad, a 90% improvement would still be a bad movie.
Sarcor 06-28-04, 07:44 PM	Oh and thanks guys for keeping the thread on topic. They just shut down the other D&D movie thread for going off topic.
Incenjucar 06-28-04, 07:44 PM	A movie's ability to generate profit has little to do with the quality, and much to do with the populace's mindset. Would you call the Passion of the Christ, a 'holy snuff film', a -good- movie? I certainly wouldn't, but people flocked to it because they identified with it, they were curious, or they just liked to watch people being tortured. If it was "Passion of the Retired Milkman Next Door", it would have just had the curious and sadistic types.
Mantel_DeMenglamaar 06-28-04, 08:32 PM	Originally posted by Incenjucar A movie's ability to generate profit has little to do with the quality, and much to do with the populace's mindset. Would you call the Passion of the Christ, a 'holy snuff film', a -good- movie? I certainly wouldn't, but people flocked to it because they identified with it, they were curious, or they just liked to watch people being tortured. If it was "Passion of the Retired Milkman Next Door", it would have just had the curious and sadistic types. A portion of that is undeserving of a response. So I'll respond to the other portion. Art is fundementally a consumer product, anyone who believes in art for the sake of 'art' has forgotten what art -is-. One needs to look at such things teleologically, else you end up in the Emperor's New Clothes situation that most 'art' of today ends up in. What is the final goal of a movie like D&D? To please a small niche of its audience, who being nerds (:D) are incapable to please? No. To entertain? Yes. Has it succeeded in entertaining? Apparently. I enjoy it, I know several other people who watch it for the kitsch value. To deride something because people like it, is to become plain and simple a prig. Its placing oneself into the mindset of "Oh, well, I'm cleverer then that bunch over there." And that is most assuredly not a good postion to be in. The final judgement of a movie is, did it entertain people? Movie making isn't some high art. All arts are equal, from garbage man to movie maker. Everyone needs to do his part and portion to accomplish his final aim and goal. To step away from the dangers of a deeply philosophical argument (I must apologize that for the sake of the thread I will not respond to any posts along that topic, take it as you will) and back to the main topic at hand... What precisely do you all think -will- happen in the movie? Seriously. Aside from snide comments like "It'll blow" (with the antecedant Paris Hilton comments) or "something stupid" what do you think will be the meat and bread of this particular film?
Sarcor 06-29-04, 01:51 AM	I wouldn't mind seeing something along the lines of Cube.. the whole movie taking place in one super trapped dungeon. Make it action/horror, instead of whatever genre the first one was. Indiana Jones meets Beastmaster (but not beastmaster 2.. no time travel please) And I disagree that quality isn't an important factor in profit. People will pay to see a really good movie more than once. Did anyone here go see D&D more than once in theaters? Did the D&D movie make a profit? Yes. Was it a box office success? No. There is a difference. And studios are more interested in making sequels to successes. I'm not here to make fun of anyone that liked the movie. I didn't like it. It just so happens that a whole lot of other people have the same opinion. So when I say the movie sucks, it's not to **** off anyone.
Bulabase 06-29-04, 02:28 AM	Here's food for thought. The director listed on imdb.com has actually directed movies before. Many of them. That is more than can be said for the ill-fated director of the first one. The D&D Movie is his only credit as a director.
bahamut_0 06-29-04, 07:09 AM	Originally posted by Bulabase Here's food for thought. The director listed on imdb.com has actually directed movies before. Many of them. That is more than can be said for the ill-fated director of the first one. The D&D Movie is his only credit as a director. Yeah, but what films? They could just be some soft porn epics. Or some other crap.
Bulabase 06-29-04, 11:38 AM	Originally posted by bahamut_0 Yeah, but what films? They could just be some soft porn epics. Or some other crap. His name is Gerry Lively. I don't know if these are any good (the're probably not), but he has extensive experience as a cinematogtapher. Shattered Lies (2002) Windfall (2001) Guardian, The (1999) Darkness Falls (1999) Hot steps - passi caldi (1990) Courtney Solomon had literally no film experience before making the original. This guy has a carreer in the movie industry. I think most gamers would have prefered a soft porn epic to the original movie. :)
bahamut_0 06-29-04, 12:08 PM	I think I've heard of one or two of them. Originally posted by Bulabase I think most gamers would have prefered a soft porn epic to the original movie. :) LOL :D
Sulaco 06-29-04, 01:22 PM	Originally posted by Bulabase I think most gamers would have prefered a soft porn epic to the original movie. :) The way some people were coozing over Zoe McKlennan (is that her name?) and the elf-ranger chick in the film you'd think it was a soft porn epic. :nonono:
Mantel_DeMenglamaar 06-29-04, 01:37 PM	Originally posted by Sulaco The way some people were coozing over Zoe McKlennan (is that her name?) and the elf-ranger chick in the film you'd think it was a soft porn epic. :nonono: I have the impression the nipple armor +4 might a be a hold over from that....
Amaron Blackthorn 06-29-04, 02:23 PM	I hope that the sequel is never made. I laugh everytime I pass by the DVDs in Wal-Mart and see the D&D movie in the $5 bin.
bahamut_0 06-29-04, 03:40 PM	Originally posted by Mantel_DeMenglamaar I have the impression the nipple armor +4 might a be a hold over from that.... Ok, ok, let's get back on topic. D&D movie = doomed. That should do :)
Mantel_DeMenglamaar 06-29-04, 05:33 PM	Originally posted by bahamut_0 Ok, ok, let's get back on topic. D&D movie = doomed. That should do :) I don't contest the doomed portion, I just contest the low quality part of it :D My marketing degree cries out to defend things like this. ;D I still wonder how it could "Un-Doom" itself. How could the director cast a Bless spell on the whole movie to prevent the DOOM that threatens to strike it down?
Shemeska the Marauder 06-29-04, 06:01 PM	Oh it's doomed from my perspective. I went into the 1st D&D movie expecting something like my own campaign or those I've been in: huge in scope and scale, deep and twisting plots, well developed main and supporting characters, etc. Nope. What I instead saw (and nearly walked out on) was something more akin to a Dead Ale Wives sketch of how 'not' to play a deep and serious D&D game, but how it more often than not ends up getting played. *sigh* However, that said watching the movie a 2nd time, and going into it with lower/different expectations, I laughed most of the movie and did in fact enjoy it. Jeremy Irons was having far too much fun in his role. If the 2nd movie does the same thing I'll probably see it, though if the empress from the 1st movie is in the 2nd one, or in any other role in a movie ever, I pity the other actors. She stinks. Actually no, I can see her getting cosmic justice for her role in the D&D movie by only being able to find acting roles from now till the end of her days in Ernest movies and porno flicks.
Darth K'Trava 06-29-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by Bulabase His name is Gerry Lively. I don't know if these are any good (the're probably not), but he has extensive experience as a cinematogtapher. Shattered Lies (2002) Windfall (2001) Guardian, The (1999) Darkness Falls (1999) Hot steps - passi caldi (1990) Courtney Solomon had literally no film experience before making the original. This guy has a carreer in the movie industry. I think most gamers would have prefered a soft porn epic to the original movie. :) None of which I'd ever heard of.
Bulabase 06-29-04, 07:58 PM	None of which I'd ever heard of. Agreed, but that still beats Courtney Solomon's junior English class video project. went into the 1st D&D movie expecting something like my own campaign or those I've been in: huge in scope and scale, deep and twisting plots, well developed main and supporting characters, etc. I think you set your sights a bit high on that one. I went in expecting a bad movie and got a truly terrible one. I do hope they can rise to the dizzying hights of mediocrity this time 'round.
Seeker95 06-29-04, 08:02 PM	I saw the movie with my at-that-time 8, 10 and 12 year old nephews. I loved it because I saw them enjoying it. I was personally disappointed that the directors / script-writers did not choose whether they were going to make a movie that catered to longtime players of the game, or to their kids, instead making one that was somewhere in between, with the worst elements of each, but my nephews enjoyed it. So it was a good movie for them, and good enough for me because they enjoyed it. But the movie was not good enough for me to enjoy on its own.
Bulabase 06-29-04, 08:18 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 I saw the movie with my at-that-time 8, 10 and 12 year old nephews. I loved it because I saw them enjoying it. I was personally disappointed that the directors / script-writers did not choose whether they were going to make a movie that catered to longtime players of the game, or to their kids, instead making one that was somewhere in between, with the worst elements of each, but my nephews enjoyed it. So it was a good movie for them, and good enough for me because they enjoyed it. But the movie was not good enough for me to enjoy on its own. I think you are right. Now that I think about it, I have talked to a number of younger people who didn't seem to be bothered by all the things that got under my skin. I seem to recall thinking Conan the Destroyer was pretty cool the first time I saw it. If it can entertain young folks and maybe get them interested in gaming, that is a good thing.
Darth K'Trava 06-29-04, 08:39 PM	When I saw the trailers for the movie, I first thought it was a couple of gamers who got thrown into a D&D world. Talk about a surprise! Me and a friend of mine saw it matinee and I guess the rest of our group saw it matinee as well later on..... We told them that it was worth, at the most, matinee price not full price. Whereas the LOTR movies were worth full price, even though I'm not a reader of the novels, I still enjoyed them.
Shadow Weaver 06-30-04, 02:32 AM	Actually no, I can see her getting cosmic justice for her role in the D&D movie by only being able to find acting roles from now till the end of her days in Ernest movies and porno flicks. Sadly, there will be no more Ernest films... Back OT, I'm in favor of an entirely new cast for the next D&D movie.
Big Dawg 06-30-04, 08:43 AM	I've seen darkness falls. It was awful.
Count Dooku 06-30-04, 08:58 AM	Someone earlyer said they expected a bad movie and since it surpassed their expectations they liked it.............:confused: What horrors did they have playing out in their head before they walked into the theatre? As far as the earlyer posts on this thread about a bomb is either something that stinks or something that didnt earn money I do have this to say. Even if a money earns a good profit if the general opinion is that it sucked a sequel is usually not made. A second D&D movie that is a real sequal to the Ridley story is very surprising. Remember USA'a rendition of Godzilla? That movie made a lotta money. everyone was so amped to see a cool concept like Godzilla done with a budget. What we got is poo. Roland and Emrich said Godzilla was to be a trilogy. Despite the financial success of the film we never got Godzilla 2 because of the negative reaction to the film.
Wood 06-30-04, 09:02 AM	I'll throw in my two cents here. I wasnt even aware of the first movie until it was released to theatres, at which time a friend of mine was nice enough to arrange a midnight screening for some of the core group. I dont remember hardly anything at all about the movie, but I do remember that afterwards we were all quite distressed with it. I'll say now what I said then. "This movie, much like everything else that is created under the name of dungeons and dragons, was not made for us. For those of us who have played first ed for years and years there is no way to make a movie to satisfy us. No stroyline could ever parallel the adventures that we have lived. At least not to us. If we are looking to wotc to immortalize the heroics of so many dead characters, we are hoping in vain." D&D in the hands of corporate money mongers has always ever been and will always be nothing more than a cash cow. Its a business. Thats all. I will say that I wont be going to see the sequel. I dont care who is in it. And for the same reason I dont buy gaming books anymore. Hell, I wouldnt know a third edition players if you threw it at me. Real gaming, and every expression of it, happens in the imagination of the minds eye. Because of that it will never translate to the big screen. Its flat ****in impossible.
Amaron Blackthorn 06-30-04, 11:31 AM	It was a bad movie. Beholders as guard beasts? Nu uh.
LordofIllusions 06-30-04, 02:13 PM	The first DnD movie was corny. The second DnD movie will probably be corny because when it comes to bringing DnD to life the director's skills are obviously on the low. Whether the people on the boards are supposedly lying about going to see it or not(As our Psychic friends predict.) or whether "the movie was made for them or not" the fact of the matter is the first DnD movie was extremely corny and most likely the second one will be corny as well. ~~~
Shemeska the Marauder 06-30-04, 03:51 PM	Originally posted by Big Dawg I've seen darkness falls. It was awful. I'll respectfully disagree with you. It had a corny ending for a horror movie, but it was honestly creepy for 9/10 of the entire flick. I enjoyed it.
Darth K'Trava 06-30-04, 04:25 PM	Originally posted by Count Dooku Remember USA'a rendition of Godzilla? That movie made a lotta money. everyone was so amped to see a cool concept like Godzilla done with a budget. What we got is poo. Roland and Emrich said Godzilla was to be a trilogy. Despite the financial success of the film we never got Godzilla 2 because of the negative reaction to the film. Yeah. All the 'Zilla fans got PO'ed about it, a friend of mine included. Granted it was what got me into watching Godzilla movies...... they were more fun to watch than this one was.
Shemeska the Marauder 06-30-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by Darth K'Trava Yeah. All the 'Zilla fans got PO'ed about it, a friend of mine included. Granted it was what got me into watching Godzilla movies...... they were more fun to watch than this one was. MST3K summed up that movie unwittingly when they were using the following line to make fun of another movie: "Sounds like a Matthew Broderick movie!"
Darth K'Trava 07-01-04, 03:29 PM	That and watching Godzilla do X-rated things to the Chrysler building was wrong on sooooo many levels.
Mantel_DeMenglamaar 07-01-04, 05:31 PM	Lets return to the main topic. Lest we stray too far and become fodder for the forum administration. :D
Sarcor 07-01-04, 06:09 PM	The beholder would have killed them all.. The whole cast couldn't handle a chalenge rating of 2. Though I might watch the sequel if a Illithid sucks out Ridley's brains in the first 5 min, because waiting 15 min to see it would be too long a wait.
K.O.E.G 07-01-04, 06:22 PM	You don't want a serious D&D movie people, I know what you would get. A Broody, over emotional film that followed Drizz't. And what would we have then? EVEN MORE Drizz't Clones!
Sarcor 07-01-04, 06:39 PM	Oops.. my computer hiccuped and I dupe posted.. Sorry
Bulabase 07-01-04, 11:28 PM	Just out of curiosity, what level of quality in a D&D sequel would please people? I think we can all agree that Oscar level work is out of the question, so what would you settle for? Earnest Goes to Camp, Underworld, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Where does it become good enough?
BanausicParadox 07-02-04, 01:38 AM	Underworld, the first movie was better than Earnest Goes to Camp.
Ranger REG 07-02-04, 03:22 AM	Originally posted by Sulaco The way some people were coozing over Zoe McKlennan (is that her name?) and the elf-ranger chick in the film you'd think it was a soft porn epic. :nonono: Well, one can only imagine. :D Especially when Zoe McLellan appear every friday night on JAG with that other beauty, Catherine Bell.
Ranger REG 07-02-04, 03:34 AM	Originally posted by Bulabase Just out of curiosity, what level of quality in a D&D sequel would please people? I think we can all agree that Oscar level work is out of the question, so what would you settle for? Earnest Goes to Camp, Underworld, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Where does it become good enough? About as good enough as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl? About as good enough as Dragonslayer?
Count Dooku 07-02-04, 07:19 AM	About as good enough as Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl BINGO!! Ya hit the nail on the head. Here Ranger REG...you get a cookie :cookie:
Bulabase 07-02-04, 12:42 PM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox Underworld, the first movie was better than Earnest Goes to Camp. It was not my intention to rank the films I listed. I just wanted to offer a few less than top quality movies a food for thought. And you, I agree that Underworld was better than Earnest Goes to Camp.
Big Dawg 07-02-04, 12:52 PM	I'll respectfully disagree with you. It had a corny ending for a horror movie, but it was honestly creepy for 9/10 of the entire flick. I enjoyed it. yes that ending was poop and it ruined it. Just out of curiosity, what level of quality in a D&D sequel would please people? I think we can all agree that Oscar level work is out of the question, so what would you settle for? Earnest Goes to Camp, Underworld, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. Where does it become good enough? how dare you put a piece of gold like Dodgeball in the same quality as Ernest goes straight to video! Dodgeball was so funny! If we are lucky the D&D movie will be half as good as that. I want a Pirates of the Caribbean quality with an R rating!
Amaron Blackthorn 07-02-04, 12:58 PM	The movie smells like doody!
LordofIllusions 07-02-04, 01:04 PM	Originally posted by Ranger REG Well, one can only imagine. :D Especially when Zoe McLellan appear every friday night on JAG with that other beauty, Catherine Bell. I hope your not talking about the Wizard female with the big head(I mean that literally.) ? :eek: Because if you are I feel for anyone that thinks Ms. Potato Head is attractive. She looks like an everyday chic with an oversized dome. ~~~
Big Dawg 07-02-04, 01:16 PM	I hope your not talking about the Wizard female with the big head(I mean that literally.) ? Because if you are I feel for anyone that thinks Ms. Potato Head is attractive. She looks like an everyday chic with an oversized dome. LOL, she was alright I guess. I wasn't like OMG that girl is smoking at all, but I wasn't like she's a skank either.
BanausicParadox 07-02-04, 01:17 PM	While Underworld was indeed better then arnest Goes to Camp my intention was to say that the first D&D movie was better then arnest Goes to Camp, and that I would be satisfied with an underworld quality D&D Sequal
Bulabase 07-02-04, 01:43 PM	Originally posted by Big Dawg how dare you put a piece of gold like Dodgeball in the same quality as Ernest goes straight to video! Dodgeball was so funny! If we are lucky the D&D movie will be half as good as that. I too liked Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story. I would also be overjoyed if the D&D sequel were even close to that level of quality. I just meant to list a few movies that won't get an academy award. I thought Underworld was pretty bad, but I would still consider an equal level of quality in the D&D sequel to be a considerable improvement.
BanausicParadox 07-02-04, 02:14 PM	As long as there isn't a Wayans brother in it, it will be an improvement
Count Dooku 07-02-04, 07:17 PM	Zoe McLellan is very attractive. Underworld was great. Thank you :D
WizO_Catoblepas 07-02-04, 07:38 PM	I'm looking for a Pirates of the Carribean type movie without the Pirates of the Carribean type movie ending. Simply the worst movie ending in motion picture history and that includes the first Dungeons and Dragons movie. :nonono:
Mirtek 07-02-04, 07:55 PM	Did people ever realize/care that the idea of undead simply walking toward their goal at the bottom of the ocean, as the undead pirates did in PoC, appeared in a D&D novel years before the skript to PoC was even written? I got really :b: when a friend of mine said "Great idea! I have to use it in D&D!" :mad:
Seeker95 07-02-04, 08:18 PM	Originally posted by Mirtek the idea of undead simply walking toward their goal at the bottom of the ocean, as the undead pirates did in PoC, appeared in a D&D novel years before the skript to PoC was even writtenThe imagery and plot device is a nod to "The Crimson Pirate", a 1952 pirate film starring Burt Lancaster. Considerably earlier than any D&D novel.
Sarcor 07-02-04, 09:24 PM	I'm going to think like a studio exec for a bit and come up with another great gimmick for the D&D sequel.. I got it.. Instead of bringing Zoe back for the sequel, just have Marlon Wayans dress up as a "white chick" and play her role. It worked for austin powers, didn't it? And we already know there's chemistry between Marlon and Justin Whalin. Record of the Lodoss war, though cliche, was more loyal to the D&D franchise than the D&D movie was. And woodchuck was just cool.. much better than snails. I still say D&D 50% Indiana Jones + 25% Cube + 25% The Ewok Adventure. Okay.. I'm joking about the ewok adventure.. but maybe 25% Willow instead. After all, Willow did polymorph that witch into a goat. And Sorsha was hot.
Ranger REG 07-02-04, 09:28 PM	Originally posted by Count Dooku BINGO!! Ya hit the nail on the head. Here Ranger REG...you get a cookie :cookie: But D&D: The Movie is nowhere near the level of entertainment quality of PotC:CotfBP. * returns the cookie unbitten *
Ranger REG 07-02-04, 09:33 PM	Originally posted by WizO_Catoblepas I'm looking for a Pirates of the Carribean type movie without the Pirates of the Carribean type movie ending. Simply the worst movie ending in motion picture history and that includes the first Dungeons and Dragons movie. :nonono: * sings along * "Yo ho ho, and a bottle of rum." :smirk: Perhaps.
Ranger REG 07-02-04, 09:40 PM	Originally posted by LordofIllusions I hope your not talking about the Wizard female with the big head(I mean that literally.) ? :eek: Because if you are I feel for anyone that thinks Ms. Potato Head is attractive. She looks like an everyday chic with an oversized dome. Hmm? Oh, you mean Thora Birch. :smirk:
BanausicParadox 07-02-04, 11:15 PM	Originally posted by WizO_Catoblepas I'm looking for a Pirates of the Carribean type movie without the Pirates of the Carribean type movie ending. Simply the worst movie ending in motion picture history and that includes the first Dungeons and Dragons movie. :nonono: I'm sorry, but how can you consider Pirates of the Carribean's ending worse than everyone turning into color and flying off into the distance which, if memory serves was the ending of the D&D movie?
WizO_Catoblepas 07-02-04, 11:41 PM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox I'm sorry, but how can you consider Pirates of the Carribean's ending worse than everyone turning into color and flying off into the distance which, if memory serves was the ending of the D&D movie? Well, let's see, the governer's daughter runs off with the pirate (who was to be executed), and the governor and her fiancee, some miliatary commander, look at them as giving some nodding approval as some misfits ride off on a pirate ship. Yeah, that's going to happen. Worst movie ending ever. Let's just hope Dungeons and Dragons 2 doesn't have such a "swell" ending. edit: Like I said, I liked the rest of the movie. However, the ending just ruined it for me.
BanausicParadox 07-02-04, 11:48 PM	How bout if the pirate had died, but then the governors daughter was told that she could go see him and not to "Question the gift" and then it turns into a laser light show as she shoots off into the distance?
BanausicParadox 07-03-04, 12:03 AM	sequels *Must* be stopped.
WizO_Catoblepas 07-03-04, 12:08 AM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox How bout if the pirate had died, but then the governors daughter was told that she could go see him and not to "Question the gift" and then it turns into a laser light show as she shoots off into the distance? Yep, a much better ending figuring that through most of the Pirates of the Carribean the governor and miliatary commander were trying to kill off the pirates, but in the last two minutes of the movie they chuckle and have a change of heart. The actions of these characters were not in alignment with the character's actons through the rest of the movie. Thus, it really drags down the rest of the movie. At least Dungeons and Dragon had an ending that really in accordance with the rest of the movie. I'm not saying that Dungeons and Dragons is a better movie, but it sure had a better ending. edit: Agreed. Both movies don't have ending that one should write home to mom and brag about.
Soel Griffin 07-03-04, 12:44 AM	Originally posted by WizO_Catoblepas Well, let's see, the governer's daughter runs off with the pirate (who was to be executed), and the governor and her fiancee, some miliatary commander, look at them as giving some nodding approval as some misfits ride off on a pirate ship. Yeah, that's going to happen. Worst movie ending ever. Wha? D&D 's ending ( the energy transformation) had notheing whatsoever to do with any of the rest of the movie. At least Pirates's ending had some storyline reason( even if it was hard to fathom.) It just seemed like Solomon couldn't figure out a proper ending. It's just stupid!
Sarcor 07-03-04, 06:57 PM	I'm just curious which spell turns a group of people into little colored balls of light that fly away.. If it's not in the PHB, then the ending is that much worse. And the pirates ending was about a father being happy for his daughter and the other guy being a good man and letting her go. It's not a strech for the father, because all he wanted was his daughter's happiness. While the other guys motivation was that he really did love her and for that breif moment he put her happiness above duty. So there.. :P So now that I've said that.. stay on topic. :) Gerry Liveley did direct Hellraiser: Bloodline, which wasn't bad for a Hellraiser movie.. But I think that was the screenplay, the directing wasn't paticularly inspired. Also.. based on this article. Dragons Sequel Heats Up (http://www.filmstew.com/Content/DailyNews/Details.asp?Pg=1&ContentID=8362) . The production company they're using this time specializes in $5-$20 mil budget films.. the D&D sequel might have an even lower budget than the original.
Seeker95 07-03-04, 09:04 PM	Originally posted by Sarcor I'm just curious which spell turns a group of people into little colored balls of light that fly away.. If it's not in the PHB, then the ending is that much worse.Thematic flavor description for any number of spells: teleport plane shift polymorph other / any object (3.0 vs. 3.5)
WizO_Catoblepas 07-03-04, 11:31 PM	Originally posted by Sarcor I'm just curious which spell turns a group of people into little colored balls of light that fly away.. If it's not in the PHB, then the ending is that much worse. Seeker quoted some good ones. Other things would include Wind Walk or just plain Wish/Miracle. And the pirates ending was about a father being happy for his daughter and the other guy being a good man and letting her go. It's not a strech for the father, because all he wanted was his daughter's happiness. While the other guys motivation was that he really did love her and for that breif moment he put her happiness above duty. So there.. :P Yes, these are very reasonable reaction ... for 21st century men. Figuring that piracy/bucaneering was a very serious matter in the 17th century, these are hardly reactions for 17th century men. So now that I've said that.. stay on topic. :) My main reaction is that someone had hoped that Dungeons and Dragons 2 was at the same quality as Pirates of the Carribean. I agreed, just as long as the endings aren't at the same quality since the ending for Pirates of the Carribean is seriously lacking. Do I hope for the same excellent ending as Dungeons and Dragons. No way. However, I don't think it asking much that the ending for the new movie is better than those two. Tody I got in the mail Boorman's Excalibur on DVD. If it had the quality of ending as that movie, I'd be happy.
Sarcor 07-04-04, 02:13 AM	Originally posted by WizO_Catoblepas Yes, these are very reasonable reaction ... for 21st century men. Figuring that piracy/bucaneering was a very serious matter in the 17th century, these are hardly reactions for 17th century men. True. But mainstream movies almost always imprint today's morals & views upon the characters to make it PC. And I only called topic because the focus became the ending of pirates instead of the ending of D&D or a comparison to it. The ending is important.. but a good ending can't save a totally abysmal movie. Now Pirates was a good comparison to what D&D should partially aspire to be, since it's all about adventure with a bit of swashbuckling. What other qualities should the movie have? A little more epic. Darker tone?
WizO_Catoblepas 07-04-04, 02:25 AM	Originally posted by Sarcor True. But mainstream movies almost always imprint today's morals & views upon the characters to make it PC. And I only called topic because the focus became the ending of pirates instead of the ending of D&D or a comparison to it. I was only focusing on the ending of Pirates since my only complaint was that I didn't want Dungeons and Dragons 2 to have the same ending as Pirates. Guests were asking me why, so I was just explaining what I didn't like about it. Yes, it wouldn't be bad if Dungeons and Dragons 2 had the same kind of swashbuckling adventure ... but just lose the ending. What a stinker. As for what I would like to see, I liked the symbolism, wit, lore, action scenes, and dark scenery/music that Excalibur had. (You can see which way I'm leading)
Ranger REG 07-04-04, 03:52 AM	Yeah, the ending could have been better, but I'd still leave the part where Jack Sparrow escaped on a ship ... still intact. ;)
The WarOverlord 07-04-04, 07:04 AM	Originally posted by Sarcor Okay, it did make its money back. But it wasn't what I'd call quality. The original D&D was a pre-LOTR fantasy movie; expectations for the genre are higher now. I'd expect that the producers are seeing it as a franchise that could possibly fill the void left by the LOTR movies. They probably figure... they're both fantasy, they both have swords, dwarves, and elves. I bought the D&D movie, very much on sale, for the simple fact that it's funny how bad it is. Jeremy Irons getting his jollies of his staff of dragon control. The "Did you think you could steal my destiny" chest slap. It's amusing... but I'd rather have a quality movie. I like to share the pain with others. Maybe they don't have a script yet and it's not to late to start fresh, a feat it took batman 4 movies to try, the Star Trek producers still haven't figured it out. I won't pay to see D&D if it's even loosely related to the previous movie. No civil rights for non-wizards moments. Snails is dead, he should stay dead. Maybe train the new cast members to fight, athough I can't see Paris wielding any weapon effectively. Oh, Yes if they only could have slapped the D&D Movie Title on Peter Jacksons' version on The "Lord of the Rings Trilogy" :angel: Not that it would be too far fetched as the Creators of D&D are LOTR fans and the Game and lore is loosey is based on the love of Middle Earth history (Gandalf=Eliminster....both battle a really big ugly dude and fell in a "pit", Elves moving to Undying lands=Moving to Evermeet,etc) Yep D&D is a basterdation of LOTR :angel: Anyways, I actually enjoyed the D&D Movie and in fact it was the last movie my family saw together before my Dad past away and he really enjoyed the movie to. Now my family wasn't into D&D but since they know I was they was asking me questions. Of course they heard me mutter "What the.......this must be the writer's Homebrew" I mean It was fine when compared to Conan the Barbarian, Conan the Destroyer, Dragon Slayer, Beast Master, Clash of the Titans, Excalibur, Merlin, and all the other Fantasy type movies in the Pre-Peter Jackson's LOTR, but I think my minor disapointed echos every other D&D fans expectation of seeing a Established Story on the Screen instead of a Homebrew World where there are no Clerics, Mages are the nobility, and Dragons are the ultimate embodiment of Magic in the world :confused: I bet anybody that thinks their own Homebrew Campaign could be turned into a "D&D Movie" cause they think it is good would find all the other D&D fans outside the gaming group having the same complaints for the original "D&D Movie" of the story "sucking" cause they couldn't give a Dwarf's hiney about your Homebrew campaign world or some half wit characters they never heard of before....a established story like "the Avatar Tales(time of troubles)" would have been better :rolleyes:
The WarOverlord 07-04-04, 07:06 AM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox sequels *Must* be stopped. Yeah, Disney has become a Cash-***** With the Success of Pirates of the Carribeans they are already making PoC2 and PoC3 :rolleyes:
Seeker95 07-04-04, 08:19 AM	Originally posted by The WarOverlord With the Success of Pirates of the Carribeans they are already making PoC2 and PoC3 Cool! There is a very easy way to avoid bad movies. Don't go see them. Aside from that, assume that someone out there really likes the movie you deem crappy. I mean, seriously. Look at the Cannes or Sundance Film Festivals. The highest raves for the crappiest films. Why? Cuase some people really like "unique" camera angles, and the umpteenth sexuality angst script of the year. I don't like the films, so I don't go.
Darth K'Trava 07-04-04, 04:30 PM	I agree with Seeker: COOL! I liked Pirates of the Caribbean! :D
Sarcor 07-04-04, 06:02 PM	Conan the Barbarian is classic and should not be compared to the D&D movie. And it's well worth watching the DVD for Arnold's commentary track. It's way too funny. Conan! What is best in life? Some of the older fantasy setting movies like Krull, Dragonslayer, and Excalibur, and Conan are a little dated now but are still good. I don't believe that the D&D movie will ever be considered a classic. Oh.. and for a hilariously bad fantasy movie... watch Eyes of the Serpent. It's a $3.00 dvd that is just horrid. The D&D movie is almost watchable by comparison.
Zaxon D'Mir 07-04-04, 11:32 PM	Do any of you guys remember the Deathstalker movies from the 80's? Horrid Conan rip-offs they were! But, they were BETTER than the D&D movie! Hell, I used some of the plots to help frame some adventures in the late 80's. I'm not worried about a D&D sequel. If WOTC/Hasbro really,truly cared they would step in and cough up the necessary cash to produce a quality film based in the Realms either retelling the Avatar Trilogy or a fantastic interpretation of the Throne of Bloodstone module or something of value that most D&Ders could really gravitate around. It would become a marketing bonaza if, and only if, WOTC really put their Cash Cap on and decided to get serious. A successful TV series or hit movie could catapult D&D back into another golden age similar to that of the 80's. But like I said I'm not worried about it and I'm not holding my breath either. Besides, I'm waiting for the Elric movie. It sounds quite promising so far.
Ranger REG 07-05-04, 02:36 AM	Hasbro is not in the film production business ... thank goodness.
Bacon and Eggs 07-05-04, 09:44 AM	So no Live action My Little Pony movies? :bigeyes: pity
Seeker95 07-05-04, 11:06 AM	Originally posted by Bacon and Eggs So no Live action My Little Pony movies?Didn't you see The Horse Whisperer and Seabiscuit? :D
farscapesg1 07-05-04, 10:17 PM	Personally, I think the next DND movie will be at least almost as awful as the first. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the movie), I'm a glutton for punishment and will probably watch it (at matinee prices). The problem is that to do a good DND movie IMO, they need to base it off of a book or series of books. Once they have a couple of these then they could try branching out into unknown areas. Do you start with trying to make movies about a superhero that someone behind a desk thinks up, or do you base it off a pre-existing comic book? The comic book angle gives you a predefined audience, but also material to use to base the movie off of (just don't look at the Hulk movie with this, cause it was awful). IMO (and I think many others would agree) using the Dragonlance books for a DND movie would work. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they would kill Raistlin's character because he isn't the "goody-goody" type of character that the general audience feels is required for all non-villan characters. Personally, I prefer the dark heroes over the goody-goody ones (Wolverine, the Punisher, Spawn, etc.). If they decided to use FR as the basis, all I can say is stay away from anything related to Drizzt or Elminster.
Ranger REG 07-06-04, 06:43 PM	Originally posted by farscapesg1 If they decided to use FR as the basis, all I can say is stay away from anything related to Drizzt or Elminster. I disagree. Drizzt got a lot more exposure, thanks to R.A. Salvatore's series of novels spotlighting this unusual drow ranger.
Bulabase 07-06-04, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by farscapesg1 Personally, I prefer the dark heroes over the goody-goody ones (Wolverine, the Punisher, Spawn, etc.). If they decided to use FR as the basis, all I can say is stay away from anything related to Drizzt or Elminster. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Drizzt qualify as a "dark hero?" (no pun intended)
Ranger REG 07-06-04, 07:18 PM	Nope. This guy has more conscience than the Daywalker, Blade. His moral makes paladins looks like rogues.
Count Dooku 07-06-04, 07:24 PM	OK.....when I was giving out cookies....I was praising someone for saying that the D&D movie sequal should be the quality of PotC. I was pretty much thinking along the lines of budget and effects....not script. Id actually like a more serious script...there was a little to much levity in PotC. As for making a Drizzt movie.....I vote no.....at least I would like a few movies depicting Drow as the evil villians they are.....THEN make a movie showing Drizzt. The world at large doesnt even know about drow....we need to put the image of these wicked creatures in peoples heads....then go 180 and show Drizzt.
Bulabase 07-06-04, 07:30 PM	My knowledge of the character, Drizzt, comes exclusively from The Dark Elf Trilogy. In those books, IMHO, he is presented as a conflicted and complicated hero. While in his heart he is deeply good, he carries much anger and despair. He certainly doesn't seem like a cookie-cutter "good guy" to me in those books.
farscapesg1 07-06-04, 08:23 PM	Originally posted by Bulabase My knowledge of the character, Drizzt, comes exclusively from The Dark Elf Trilogy. In those books, IMHO, he is presented as a conflicted and complicated hero. While in his heart he is deeply good, he carries much anger and despair. He certainly doesn't seem like a cookie-cutter "good guy" to me in those books. Well, it's been awhile since I read the original trilogy (and I never read anymore past that), but while he might have had anger and dispair, he was still always good at heart. No chance of him even considering killing one of his friends, let alone his own brother (as Raistlin did in his trials in the Tower of High Sorcery). I guess what I am getting at is that all heros don't have to be good. Raistlin wanted to help the down-trodden and held a big part in the War of the Lance, but his greed for power often consumed him, resulting in many questionable acts. Another good set of books (though they are not DND-based) is the Coldfire trilogy by C.S. Freidman (Black Sun Rising is the first novel). Of course, there again I find myself drawn to the dark character, namely Gerald Tarrant ;) That would be another series that I would love to see on the big screen.
The WarOverlord 07-07-04, 08:00 AM	Originally posted by farscapesg1 Personally, I think the next DND movie will be at least almost as awful as the first. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the movie), I'm a glutton for punishment and will probably watch it (at matinee prices). The problem is that to do a good DND movie IMO, they need to base it off of a book or series of books. Once they have a couple of these then they could try branching out into unknown areas. Do you start with trying to make movies about a superhero that someone behind a desk thinks up, or do you base it off a pre-existing comic book? The comic book angle gives you a predefined audience, but also material to use to base the movie off of (just don't look at the Hulk movie with this, cause it was awful). IMO (and I think many others would agree) using the Dragonlance books for a DND movie would work. Unfortunately, I have a feeling they would kill Raistlin's character because he isn't the "goody-goody" type of character that the general audience feels is required for all non-villan characters. Personally, I prefer the dark heroes over the goody-goody ones (Wolverine, the Punisher, Spawn, etc.). If they decided to use FR as the basis, all I can say is stay away from anything related to Drizzt or Elminster. Even with a existing Story it's how it is Edited and presented that can make a difference I.E. Peter Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings v.s. the 1970s cartoon version :rolleyes: I.E. what makes Mel's Gibsons version of "the Passion" different from the other versions of the CHrist Stories? I.E. Harry Potter considered "true to the book" though a lot of things had to be edited or "formatted to visual aspects"
LordofIllusions 07-07-04, 08:18 AM	Originally posted by WizO_Catoblepas Yep, a much better ending figuring that through most of the Pirates of the Carribean the governor and miliatary commander were trying to kill off the pirates, but in the last two minutes of the movie they chuckle and have a change of heart. The actions of these characters were not in alignment with the character's actons through the rest of the movie. Thus, it really drags down the rest of the movie. At least Dungeons and Dragon had an ending that really in accordance with the rest of the movie. I'm not saying that Dungeons and Dragons is a better movie, but it sure had a better ending. edit: Agreed. Both movies don't have ending that one should write home to mom and brag about. *Gives Catoblepas a look of sheer horror* You.........cannot.......be.......saying .........that..........the........waste. ......of......film.........that.......wa s........DnD...........was..........bett er.........than........Pirates of the Carribean ? You CANNOT be serious ? ~~~
farscapesg1 07-07-04, 08:27 AM	Originally posted by The WarOverlord Even with a existing Story it's how it is Edited and presented that can make a difference I.E. Peter Jackson's version of Lord of the Rings v.s. the 1970s cartoon version :rolleyes: I.E. what makes Mel's Gibsons version of "the Passion" different from the other versions of the CHrist Stories? I.E. Harry Potter considered "true to the book" though a lot of things had to be edited or "formatted to visual aspects" You are absolutely right about this, but at least using a pre-existing story would give them something to work with. I just don't see any hollywood writer coming up with a brand new storyline that the DND players would be very happy with. I am a big fan of LOTR, but though I could pick out the changes they made to the storyline, I was still very happy with the way that the trilogy was brought to the big screen. I just feel that for them to make an attempt at something that will be a hit on the big screen, they will probably have to use a pre-existing story.
Bearfoot 07-07-04, 11:19 AM	In your opinion it was.. unfortunately not in mine. As a matter of fact, I'd settle for just a few memorable moments and a lot of fighting rather than what I'd really like. I like characters that I can sympathize with. That takes character development, something that the type of movies of the DnD movie type are rather notorous for lacking. Spiderman 2 proved that it could be done... (Awesome flick as an aside, if you care for the character in the slightest SEE IT.. but then again you probably already have.) Now let's just see it in a DnD script... Originally posted by BanausicParadox Underworld, the first movie was better than Earnest Goes to Camp.
Ranger REG 07-07-04, 06:45 PM	Originally posted by Count Dooku As for making a Drizzt movie.....I vote no.....at least I would like a few movies depicting Drow as the evil villians they are.....THEN make a movie showing Drizzt. I'm not going to live that long, so I don't know if they're capable of making a "few more D&D movies" before Drizzt.
BanausicParadox 07-07-04, 06:56 PM	So you're saying Earnest Goes to Camp has character development?
High Octane 07-11-04, 06:10 PM	More than the DnD movie did. http://www.petitiononline.com/Decealon/petition.html Ive shown it before but I thought it was relevant here. Im a 21 year old with no professional experience in writing and yet I have outlined a DnD movie script that is 15 times better than the DnD movie. A good DnD movie wont be made unless the number of DnD players in the country triples. The DnD movie cost 35 mil and only MADE 15 mil in the US! How it managed another 35 mil from INTERNATIONAL sources is boyond me! They must have added subtitles and tried to pass it off as an American "Foreign Film" That people who think they're "enlightened" will say "Of course you have to be ENLIGHTENED to understand it." The first movie showed the problems evident in trying to get a movie about DnD passed. First they face the problem of the limited fanbase. More people read or have read spiderman than play DnD, so theres no guaranteed audience. DnD also is a VERY involved game and Explaining it to an audience would take too much of the movie. The only hope is that the audience wont question magic or how its cast. Then theres the whole problem of religion. The first movie CLEARLY avoided at all COSTS putting clerics into the game. Heaven forbid. As Ive said before, divine influence is a third of the DnD world! To leave that out leaves out a HUGE part of the game and its concepts. As said before, there isnt a very large guaranteed audience, so the company will be reluctant to risk any large amount on it. Thats why the DnD movie was given only 35 mil. (Im glad more wasnt spent. It would be wasted money.) Finally, I think that Dungeons and Dragons wouldnt be passed as a movie unless it had massive amounts of dragons in it. Of course, heaven forbid they should be INTELLIGENT creatures!! Heaven forbid there is a polytheistic religion that ACCURATELY represents DnD!! Heaven forbid there should be a decent group! Heaven forbid the actors ACTUALLY TRY!!
Ranger REG 07-12-04, 05:33 AM	I have to ask: In the history of the mainstream use of the internet, is online petition ever effective?
EnigmaRPG 07-12-04, 11:53 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 The first movie made back its money and then some. Far from a bomb. And that doesn't even count foreign markets and video, where it continued to add to the profits. I'm sure the definition of bombs would be, was a waste of money. When I saw this movie in the theatres there were die hard D&D fans in costume and many of them bood at the end of the movie. And I'm pretty sure that any more movies escpecialy if they follow the same story will probably not make it as well because no self respecting D&D fan should be caught dead at another travesty shuch as that.
EnigmaRPG 07-12-04, 11:57 AM	Originally posted by Count Dooku OK.....when I was giving out cookies....I was praising someone for saying that the D&D movie sequal should be the quality of PotC. I was pretty much thinking along the lines of budget and effects....not script. Id actually like a more serious script...there was a little to much levity in PotC. As for making a Drizzt movie.....I vote no.....at least I would like a few movies depicting Drow as the evil villians they are.....THEN make a movie showing Drizzt. The world at large doesnt even know about drow....we need to put the image of these wicked creatures in peoples heads....then go 180 and show Drizzt. I agree and besides we wouldn't want Hollywood to screw up the good drow name.
Darth K'Trava 07-13-04, 05:30 PM	Then theres the whole problem of religion. The first movie CLEARLY avoided at all COSTS putting clerics into the game. Heaven forbid. As Ive said before, divine influence is a third of the DnD world! To leave that out leaves out a HUGE part of the game and its concepts. Just remember: If they'd included clerics, they'd have rezzed Snails....
TyrantOfPants 07-16-04, 06:43 PM	I'm fairly open to the idea of a new D&D movie...I'll see it, and if it sucks then i've lost 6 bucks and a couple hours, not really a big deal. As people have said, the best way to avoid bad movies is to not see them.
Count Arioch the 28th 07-16-04, 08:59 PM	Originally posted by EnigmaRPG I'm sure the definition of bombs would be, was a waste of money. you're right. Except that the D&D movie made the studios money. Therefore, it wasn't a bomb. YOUR money doesn't matter, THEIR money does. They made money. Therefore, since they made a profit, it wasn't a bomb. Waterwrolds was a bomb. the studios lost a lot of money on that one, despite the fact that the movie kicked ass, in my opinion. Despite the fact I liked it, and know a lot of people who did like it, it was a bomb because the studio lost so much money off of it.
High Octane 07-17-04, 01:30 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG I have to ask: In the history of the mainstream use of the internet, is online petition ever effective? No, but it makes me feel a little better having signed it. Anyway, I don't know how the fans could make it more abundantly clear to Hollywood to not make another crappy DnD movie! Every critic BLASTED it, every fan I know HATED it, And they all are pretty much promissing to NOT see the sequel! The idea of a sequel is to follow a SUCCESSFUL franchise! I ask all of you to PLEASE not PAY to see this movie! If you can see it for free, then do so if you wish to tell others why NOT to see it. BUT DO NOT GIVE THESE PEOPLE MONEY!!! This movie is an insult and I MEAN insult to DnDers. People think all DnD games are that bad and stupid!
Sarcor 07-17-04, 01:37 AM	Yeah! What he said!
boschdevil 07-17-04, 01:41 AM	Originally posted by High Octane BUT DO NOT GIVE THESE PEOPLE MONEY!!! This movie is an insult and I MEAN insult to DnDers. People think all DnD games are that bad and stupid! Honestly, I really can't follow this advice since I really don't know if the movie is bad or not. After all, the whole point of this thread is to worry about someone who might be in the movie. I'm thinking that this means that the movie hasn't been made yet. What I'm planning on doing is waiting until the critics review the movie, which should be right before its release. If they give it a good review, I'll give the movie a chance. If not, then I'll probably won't. However, I'm going to worry at this time about "what could be" figuring that I have no influence over what movie will be made at this time. The director has a direction that he wants to go. I just hope that it is the right one. Past perfomance does not alway indicate future trends. Otherwise, Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 would have out of this world - IMHO, they were barely passable.
Random bloke 07-17-04, 06:54 AM	Originally posted by boschdevil Past perfomance does not alway indicate future trends. Otherwise, Star Wars Episode 1 and 2 would have out of this world - IMHO, they were barely passable. Yes it does. Regardless of the fact that the original SW movies were bad, directors get worse, not better, through their carrier... Anyways, at least you're willing to listen to critics before you encourage these people to create more crap...
Seeker95 07-17-04, 12:20 PM	Originally posted by boschdevil What I'm planning on doing is waiting until the critics review the movie, which should be right before its release. If they give it a good review, I'll give the movie a chance. If not, then I'll probably won't.I can't even commit to this much. If they give it a bad review, I have to be suspect. Critics are notorious for offering reviews of movies that belong to a genre they do not like. I cannot trust a negative review of vampire movies. I cannot trust a negative review of fantasy films. I cannot trust a positive review of art films. This movie will get a negative reivew, even if it is good. It will not be as good as Lord of the Rings -- the only fantasy movie critics have uniformly loved. It is a movie with D&D in the title. I will see it. If it is bad, I will only see it once.
Random bloke 07-17-04, 01:36 PM	Seeker - in all the recent D&D movie threads, it seemed extremely important to you to make sure everyone know that this movie is being made because the last one made money, and nobody cares how well or badly it will be recieved. Yet you're going to encourage "them" to keep creating bad films by giving them money? My opinion on the subject always went so: If a movie is good, then I will give my money to it's creators, and hope they make more good movies. If it's bad, I will wait until a friend has it, or till they show it on cable. If it turns out to be an unexpected gem, I'll buy the DVD. Consider it a helping hand in movie evolution. IMO, one can trust the reviews given by fellow gamers - at least to provide an accurate description of what the movie is like, even if you disagree with their opinions of it's worth. For example, I couldn't wait to see LoTR once I saw that the negative opinions consisted of "how dare they leave the prancing gnome out!". Same reason I'm looking forward to the Hawk the Slayer DVD.
Seeker95 07-17-04, 03:10 PM	Originally posted by Random bloke Seeker - in all the recent D&D movie threads, it seemed extremely important to you to make sure everyone know that this movie is being made because the last one made money, and nobody cares how well or badly it will be recieved. Yet you're going to encourage "them" to keep creating bad films by giving them money?Ironic, huh? I really have no problem with folks in Hollywood making crappy movies. Even crappy movies that have the name D&D on it. I won't spend more than a matinee on a movie that won't be that good, and I won't watch twice a movie that I didn't like. I won't petition a movie being made. I won't picket a theatre showing it. However, I will (and did) write a letter to Eliza Dushku telling her to never ever ever lend her name to a movie like Wrong Turn again. :D
Darth K'Trava 07-18-04, 05:41 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 I can't even commit to this much. If they give it a bad review, I have to be suspect. Critics are notorious for offering reviews of movies that belong to a genre they do not like. I cannot trust a negative review of vampire movies. I cannot trust a negative review of fantasy films. I cannot trust a positive review of art films. This movie will get a negative reivew, even if it is good. It will not be as good as Lord of the Rings -- the only fantasy movie critics have uniformly loved. It is a movie with D&D in the title. I will see it. If it is bad, I will only see it once. Critics think most movies suck. Unless it's those movies that are aimed for the Oscar race. The average movie, IMO, is much, MUCH better than most movies that are aiming for Oscar nods.
Midnight Lurker 07-19-04, 07:24 AM	Darkness Falls is a pretty good horror flick... I'm going to quote the plot summary from the IMDB website:DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: THE SEQUEL is based upon the highly successful role playing game, DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. The sequel's adventure tells the story of an evil wizard who steals a black orb which controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil.Any thoughts?
Seeker95 07-19-04, 09:06 AM	Originally posted by Midnight Lurker Any thoughts? Sounds good so far.
gleep 07-19-04, 02:37 PM	As has been mentioned, sometime in the grey mists of the beginning of this thread, the aspects of D&D that make it a favorite game are not things that would translate well to a movie. D&D is a great game because we, as players, make the game as we go along. It's rather difficult to do that with a movie. Another major aspect of D&D is the ruleset. We know as players that certain things will happen in certain situations, plus or minus a bit of luck. That means a movie that presents itself as Big Screen D&D (tm) will need to follow that same logic. Magic Missiles should look like magic missiles, bull rushes should look like bull rushes, and a dragon should be all dragonish. What's more, the characters would need to follow the rules for characters... imagine the annoyance if the low-level mage were to cast too many magic missiles! Or worse, concentrate extra hard and toss out a meteor swarm! Those kinds of limitations are more than a little bit annoying to work with as a writer. Staying within the rules of the game doesn't allow much in the way of artistic license. [Edit: for proof of that, look at the first one. The tried to change a lot for contemporary audiences. Ended up with something that didn't work well at all. :) ] Lastly, there are the worlds. D&D has several published settings, any of which could be used... and some of the older ones wouldn't even be recognized. [Edit: and that assumes solomon has the rights to any of the settings. If not, he either makes something up out of left field or ends up with something more historical in setting.] My opinion is that any movie "made from" D&D will be rather corny... But a fantasy movie that has some parallels can be quite good. In any case, for us to recognize D&D in a movie, it'll take some very good talent to overcome the obsticals. And that talent takes money. I don't think they'll get enough if they try to keep the D&D label. A lonewolf fantasy movie may well end up better off. But if we're lucky, we'll eventually get to: Dungeons and Dragons IV: The Search for Vecna's Head. :D --gleep
Serena DarkMyst 07-19-04, 03:16 PM	Personally I think that the D&D film franchise should not proceed with a continuation of the story from the first film. Id rather see "Dungeons & Dragons : The Tomb of Horrors" a film based from the "Return to the Tomb of Horrors" module. I absolutely loved that adventure, plot and all......thought it'd make an exellent film premise....although there is a lack of your traditional fantasy monsters (i.e......dragons and the like) I think with the proper attention given to it, that the film could go on to be great.....and then they wouldnt have to bother with making sequels...every D&D film afterward could just be a completely different epic tale. For example, another idea would be "Dungeons and Dragons : IceWind Dale" a film version of the classic Icewind Dale trilogy.....of course that would be difficult to condense three novels to one film and keep continuity to the original story......but sue me....it was just an idea
MiraiGen 07-20-04, 12:38 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG I'm not going to live that long, so I don't know if they're capable of making a "few more D&D movies" before Drizzt. I can safely say that not only is a Drizzt movie a bad idea, but it'd be a nightmare. Think about Mistique from X1 and X2. Think about NightCrawler from X2. The NIGHtMARE of making their skin blue would be amplified by making a man's skin black. it took HOURS to make that skin black... then...Matron Malice...and Jarlaxe...and Dinin....and...and...and...oh the horror. Plus, anyone who goes to see it would not be able to truly capture exactly how evil the darkelves are...only DND players can truly appreciate it. But anyway, back on topic.... It's goign to be like the first one. A nightmare to watch...horrible acting....laughable plot...plot holes a mile wide...and I'm going to see it. If only because of the slipshod use of elves and dwarves, and the horribly lousy use of magic...and the RIDICULOUS thought that dragons are some sort of beast you can just point in the right direction and say "Sic em." It's going to be bad, and it's going to be hilarious. In my opinion, you want to see DND at it's finest, go watch LOTR trilogy. THAT'S a ****ing quest to destroy a Ring of Invisibility that happens to be a lich's plhactery. And Aragorn's sword? A +1 longsword. Nuff said.
Midnight Lurker 07-20-04, 04:24 AM	Just imagine how hard it would be to watch a Drizz't movie... Just staring at a dark screen, since there's no natural light in the Underdark... just enough magical light to see glimpses of silhouettes... Or worse, the entire thing could be filmed using effects to make it look like infravision... imagine an entire movie in "Predator-vision"
Seeker95 07-20-04, 11:58 AM	Originally posted by Midnight Lurker since there's no natural light in the Underdark... just enough magical light to see glimpses of silhouettes... It worked for Pitch Black. And they even made a sequel to that!
BanausicParadox 07-20-04, 02:42 PM	...unfortunately
MiraiGen 07-20-04, 06:23 PM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox ...unfortunately I need say nothing else.
MiraiGen 07-20-04, 06:24 PM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox ...unfortunately I need say nothing else.
Seeker95 07-20-04, 07:31 PM	Originally posted by MiraiGen I need say nothing else. Yet you did. Twice. :D :P
MiraiGen 07-20-04, 07:33 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Yet you did. Twice. :D :P It's not my fault the DND forum's server is weak.
gleep 07-20-04, 07:54 PM	Originally posted by MiraiGen It's not my fault the DND forum's server is weak. And there you did again. :D --gleep
Count Dooku 07-20-04, 07:57 PM	Not to wander off topic...But didnt the drow use heat vision in the books "Predator Vision" in the Drizzt books? I thought drow saw in black and white Darkvision.
Terics 07-21-04, 03:54 AM	They're supposed to, but R. A. Salvatore decided that seeing in black and white makes no sense whatsoever where as heat sensing is believable.
Midnight Lurker 07-21-04, 04:35 AM	That, and in 2nd Edition (when the first Drizz't books were written) Drow, like many other creatures, had Infravision, not "Darkvision".
Terics 07-21-04, 04:39 AM	Why on earth did they change it?
Archangel 07-21-04, 04:44 AM	Because in 3rd Edition Infravision would then pierce Invisibility and like!
Random bloke 07-21-04, 07:45 AM	Originally posted by Archangel Because in 3rd Edition Infravision would then pierce Invisibility and like! Bad phrasing. Infravision is Sci-Fi. Dark-vision is fantasy. If you take Infravision as we on earth know it, you have to stop giving of heat in order to be invisible to it. Can they track better, even on rock? How does Iron Body effect this? Etc, etc... too much of a hassle.
MiraiGen 07-21-04, 10:08 AM	Originally posted by Midnight Lurker That, and in 2nd Edition (when the first Drizz't books were written) Drow, like many other creatures, had Infravision, not "Darkvision". Which is also why he can apparently cast Darkness, Farie Fire, and LEVITATE too....way too good.
Darth K'Trava 07-21-04, 01:03 PM	Originally posted by Random bloke Bad phrasing. Infravision is Sci-Fi. Dark-vision is fantasy. If you take Infravision as we on earth know it, you have to stop giving of heat in order to be invisible to it. Can they track better, even on rock? How does Iron Body effect this? Etc, etc... too much of a hassle. That's how Salvatore described how they were able to see stuff and people. Heat. Body heat. And how they were able to tell time from Narbonel by how much heat it put out at any given point.
Bacon and Eggs 07-21-04, 01:30 PM	* Lands and dusts self off * Drizz't would not be a good idea for a movie. Just a bit too crazy for my liking. That dark loner type has already been done with the batman series. * runs away crying *
Seeker95 07-21-04, 02:18 PM	Originally posted by Darth K'Trava That's how Salvatore described how they were able to see stuff and people.Partly because... The Salvatore books started long before there was any 3rd edition. Darkvision *was* infravision. Drow had infravision. He wrote the books according to the mechanics of the game at the time. He just hasn't changed the books when the game mechanics changed, since his books have a certain degree of continuity to them.
tak1108 07-21-04, 09:21 PM	I should piont out that the first time I saw, the movie "The 13th Warrior" I thought it was a D&D adventure translated. It was PERFECT as a D&D Movie. Think about the way the story starts. The Seer sees that the 13th warrior is dark. This man travels with others who he doesn't know if they are good or bad, and there are fights betwen different men. There are swords, and socrcery (the 2 seers) It is the Perfect D&D Movie. Later I found out that it wasn't a D&D adventure turned into a movie, but a book turned into a movie. There is no reason I couldn't have been though. There was no save the world (Thank God). It was about a small part of the world, and a group of people being terrorized. There was great character development both of the 13th warrior and the other warriors. That would make a great movie. Not about princesses and evil wizards, but about people. People living in Faerun or Oerth, or whatever that are fighting local evil. Not a sky full of dragons. I have always though the best part of D&D were levels 1-5. Those are the real formative levels (years) of a character. It's about the beginning, and then the progression and life of a character. I would love to see a whole set of movies that don't just follow the D&D movie, but the world that is D&D. The books do that, at least teh FR ones do. They are stories about different places in the world, and different people. The first D&D movie was about an EPIC STRUGGLE for control over the DRAGONS. The movie should at least start out with the beginning. Even if it's flashback, or back story, you can't just have a couple of theives (who are the worst theives) get mixed up in a plot with the princess or a noble mage. There should be at least 4 D&D movies before we see a single dragon. But that's just my take on it.
VFults 07-21-04, 10:18 PM	Originally posted by tak1108 I should piont out that the first time I saw, the movie "The 13th Warrior" I thought it was a D&D adventure translated. I actually ran the storyline as a game for two my players who had not seen the movie, letting them fill the role of the outsider travelling with barbarians. They had a blast; said it was one of the best games they've ever played. A few weeks later, I brought over my dvd of the movie and the look on their faces as the movie unfolded was priceless. Later, V
Ultarant 07-22-04, 11:47 AM	There is some news at Gaming Report regarding the new film, Dungeons and Dragons II: The Elemental Mights (elementals?). Check it out here: http://www.gamingreport.com/article.php?sid=13643 The article the page links to states that two characters from the original film (played once again by Justin Whalin and Zoë McKellan) will return (presumably at higher levels), and the new leading role will be played by actor Mark Dymond. The story summary: "Part 2 tells the story of an evil wizard who steals a black orb that controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. It’s the classic case of good versus evil as the battle for the control of the kingdom unfolds." So, in other words its the same plot as the first film's. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing that black dragon, especially if there is only one of them (possibly an ancient?). Cheers!
Qui-Gon Jinn 07-22-04, 01:34 PM	Actually, I liked the Dungeons & Dragons movie. I thought it was quite funny. However, I liked the The Scourge of Worlds: A Dungeons & Dragons Adventure much better.
LordofIllusions 07-22-04, 01:37 PM	Scourge of Worlds was a good buy. ~~~
Qui-Gon Jinn 07-22-04, 01:49 PM	Mialee's hairstyle looked better and more well kept. I loved Lidda, because she was so funny. I would liked to have seen Redgar go up against Damodar, though I think Redgar would've beaten Damodar without to much trouble. Mialee would've gotten beaten easily by Profion (IMO). However, I would love to see Lidda beat up Snails. LOL! :D
Terics 07-22-04, 01:53 PM	Mark Dymond has the leading role? has onyone heard of him? My guess is no seeing that he has only been in five movies. Out of those five I only know "Die Another Day" and he's billed after "Snooty Desk Clerk" and "Creep" so you can pretty much assume that he was only in it for about five seconds
rocksalt1 07-22-04, 01:56 PM	Maybe train the new cast members to fight, athough I can't see Paris wielding any weapon effectively. Actually, Paris is quite adept at handling certain weapons. :) Some serious points: 1) I'm glad they are at least trying another one. From a hobby perspective, if they get one person to start playing D&D that didn't play before than it is a success in my book. 2) I would rather have the movie go for a tongue-in-cheek feel ala the Xena or Hercules TV series than try to be serious and fail miserably. The casting of Hilton may indicate a move to this direction??? 3) I don't know if it is possible to make a good, serious fantasy movie using live action as oppossed to animation without the resources, talent and dedication of the LOTR series. Even with everything LOTR had going for it, there are still some cheesy moments (btw, I loved all three so I'm not trying to be critical here) in the films. Anything less than total dedication of cast, crew and studio and a fantasy movie is doomed to a cheese-like exsistance.
Qui-Gon Jinn 07-22-04, 02:03 PM	Does anyone know if Ridley, Snails, Marianna, Norda and the dwarf (forget his name) will be in the sequel?
Terics 07-22-04, 02:16 PM	According to the link Ultarant provided "Marina Pretensa" and "Ridley Freeborn" will be returning for another amazing performance. Oh and the dwarf was named Elwood.
Ultarant 07-22-04, 05:05 PM	I'm glad that the film takes place in the same world and uses some of the same cast as the original film for two main reasons. Firstly, getting into a character in a fantasy world is a difficult thing to do, especially when you have very little time to 'live in' your character and their surroundings. Because the main cast were mostly new actors, I believe it was an up-hill climb to imagine the surroundings and motivations behind the characters. A second go with the same characters will give the actors the chance to develop their roles further, and I think improve in their performance over the first film. Secondly, the fantasy world of the first D&D film did not come across as convincing. If you listen to the director's commentary on the D&D DVD, you'll hear a surprising amount of backstory that doesn't come across in the film very well. A second film set in the same world would help the world come across as a realistic and multi-faceted realm, rather than a place to just pass through. Cheers!
Sulaco 07-22-04, 05:15 PM	Originally posted by Terics They're supposed to, but R. A. Salvatore decided that seeing in black and white makes no sense whatsoever where as heat sensing is believable. The funny thing is that B&W darkvision makes more sense, not less. It just means that they would have a lot more, and a lot more senstivie, specialized rod structures in the eye (rods detect light, cones detect colour). Since colour detection relies on reflected light, there is no reason that darkvision would be in colour. Multi-coloured infravision makes little if any sense. The whole multi-coloured thing is a technilogical technique we humans developed to easily differentiate the different levels of heat detected with an IR camera so we could tell the difference.
BanausicParadox 07-22-04, 05:31 PM	The only problem is that there is *No* light in the underdark not very little, which is what you would need if you had more rods that were more sensitive then normal. And if they had more rods and less cones they probably wouldn't be able to see in color or at least not bright colors even when it was light. Also everything that has darkvision would also have to have the Light Blindness property that the drow do.
Utumno 07-22-04, 06:38 PM	Yes, there will be a new D&D movie. Yes, it will suck. But look on the bright side. There is going to be a new live action version of "The Last Unicorn" coming out in 2006 with Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, and Christoper Lee. There is also going to be a new Conan movie. Including LOTR and all the quality comic book movies that have come out in the last 5 years it is now a golden age for geeks and nerds. So cheer up already!
Darth K'Trava 07-22-04, 07:23 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Partly because... The Salvatore books started long before there was any 3rd edition. Darkvision *was* infravision. Drow had infravision. He wrote the books according to the mechanics of the game at the time. He just hasn't changed the books when the game mechanics changed, since his books have a certain degree of continuity to them. That and why should he? Just 'cause the rules changed doesn't mean a total rewrite of his novels.....
MiraiGen 07-22-04, 07:35 PM	(Deleted by Mirai Gen)
MiraiGen 07-22-04, 07:36 PM	Originally posted by Terics According to the link Ultarant provided "Marina Pretensa" and "Ridley Freeborn" will be returning for another amazing performance. Oh and the dwarf was named Elwood. I hope the "amazing" part wasn't from your perspective...I mean, the ending didn't even make sense.... Originally posted by Utumno \...There is going to be a new live action version of "The Last Unicorn" coming out in 2006 with Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, and Christoper Lee... HOLY **** YEAH! I can't WAIT to see that! That movie KICKED ASS for a cartoon! The aforementioned link As was previously reported; this movie sequel involves an evil wizard who steals a black orb that controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. It’s the "classic" case of good versus evil as the battle for the control of the kingdom unfolds. Wizard....orb...controls dragon....defend the kingdom....evil forces lay waste.... Does this sound like the original movie to you too? God....someone PLEASE tell the producer you can have Dungeons and Dragons without the "Dragon" part? Besides, yes you can use orbs to control dragons according to the DM's guide...and the evil ones aren't neccesarily that brigiht if you drop a few key words (like "steal treasure horde" and "Trick dragon), but they're not animals...they're INTELLIGENT and WISE, not some big beast you tie a reign around and say "Giddyup!" Ugh.
Terics 07-23-04, 05:20 AM	Apparently the fact that the words "Amazing performance" were dripping with sarcasm was lost upon you. I apologize for not bieng clearer.
Null Boundry 07-23-04, 09:05 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Partly because... The Salvatore books started long before there was any 3rd edition. Darkvision *was* infravision. Drow had infravision. He wrote the books according to the mechanics of the game at the time. He just hasn't changed the books when the game mechanics changed, since his books have a certain degree of continuity to them. Just being a little picky but infravision on 2E had a variaty of options from detecting heat through black and white through to seeing perfectly in colour. Its just that for some reason most people chose the heat detection despite knowing the arguements in would cause.
MiraiGen 07-23-04, 12:12 PM	Originally posted by Terics Apparently the fact that the words "Amazing performance" were dripping with sarcasm was lost upon you. I apologize for not bieng clearer. I blame the forum itself for not allowing emotion to go through text. Of course...I blame the forum itself alot.
Qui-Gon Jinn 07-23-04, 05:32 PM	The Dragons were totally trivialized in the D&D movie. I thought the dragon in the Dragonslayer was much cooler. I can hardly wait to see Smaug in the remake of The Hobbit. Smaug was cool in the novel (and the movie). I just wished he had a bigger and longer part. :(
Darth K'Trava 07-23-04, 07:25 PM	Originally posted by MiraiGen I blame the forum itself for not allowing emotion to go through text. Of course...I blame the forum itself alot. That's why someone "invented" smileys. To help "flavor up" plain text.... :D And I noticed that they changed it to darkvision in the new tome, Annihilation, so no more "infravision".....
Count Dooku 07-23-04, 08:08 PM	I can hardly wait to see Smaug in the remake of The Hobbit. Does anyone know if this is DEFINITLY gonna happen?
Mirtek 07-24-04, 11:14 AM	Originally posted by BanausicParadox The only problem is that there is *No* light in the underdark not very little, which is what you would need if you had more rods that were more sensitive then normal. And if they had more rods and less cones they probably wouldn't be able to see in color or at least not bright colors even when it was light. Also everything that has darkvision would also have to have the Light Blindness property that the drow do. Back in the days of infravision there also were countles other beings who had infravisom and no light-blindness. Why Infravision makes no sense and darkvision makes at least more sense (seen in the background of a fantasy setting) (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/infravision.html)Originally posted by Count Dooku Does anyone know if this is DEFINITLY gonna happen? With the insane profit of LotR? Sure, nothing in the world could stop it. It may take some more time, especially with working out who will get how many of tht sweet $$$, but eventually the call of the money can't be denied.
Random bloke 07-24-04, 11:55 AM	Originally posted by Mirtek Why Infravision makes no sense and darkvision makes at least more sense (seen in the background of a fantasy setting) (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/infravision.html) Thanks - was trying to remember where I got my info from.
BanausicParadox 07-24-04, 05:03 PM	Originally posted by Mirtek Back in the days of infravision there also were countles other beings who had infravisom and no light-blindness. I was talking about darkvision. Infravision wouldn't require you to have light-blindness. Ok darkvision still makes less sense to me than Infravision, but from a mechanics point of view infravision isn't feasible.
BlaineTog 07-24-04, 06:08 PM	As much as the DnD movie sucked (and it did, to high heaven), it was embarrasingly the thing that got me into gaming. Why oh why couldn't they have taken this opportunity to plug Eberron? That could have been cool. Trying to make a "classic good-v-evil" flick is like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole: its possible, but requires a lot to do it. LOTR did a darn good job of it because A) the source material was excellent, and B) the studio threw boatloads of cash onto it (which therefore allowed good actors to be cast, great special effects to be put in place, and a superbe director at the helm). Whereas an Eberron-based movie would have had a much easier bar to jump. You don't need a billion dollar bugjet to make a non-uber-corny film in that setting (although it would certainly help). Heck: you could probably get the guy who wrote the setting to write the script (or at least consult).
Count Dooku 07-24-04, 07:58 PM	Before alot of people poo-poo your idea Ill speak up first by saying an Ebbron movie would be hella-cool!!! Talk about a product plug!
Ultarant 07-25-04, 11:17 AM	I'd be fine with an Eberron movie as well. The more I read about the campaign setting, the more I like about it. Cheers!
Dungeon Master 07-25-04, 01:39 PM	I'm fairly confident that The Hobbit will be made into a feature film, but the question is "will it be a Peter Jackson film"? One would think "of course it will", but that isn't neccesarily so. I know there are some licensing issues regarding The Hobbit, although I can't recall who owned the film rights. As for the D&D 2 movie, yeah, it's going to suck.
clydesdale 07-26-04, 01:20 AM	To do list to make the D&D 2 movie better: 1) Represent clerics in some way, shape, or form. Gods are a part of D&D. (That elf geezer doesn't count. "We are part of it..." my foot.) 2) Make the Arcane caster not reliant on powders and wands. 3) DO NOT have lines in the movie that refer to game terms. I almost barfed when Ridley said, "You're just a low level mage." What's next? "The reason he hit you is cause your Armor Class is low." 4) If something reeks of cheese, avoid it. (Profion, that odd skull sitting around for no reason in the first shot of Profion's lair, etc.) 5) Don't forget to name a character! The dwarf's name is never spoken throughout the entire movie. I had to check the special features on the DVD to find out. 6) Do not undo every bad thing that happened at the end of the movie. Snails should have stayed dead. It would have been more moving. 7) Beholders patroling with guards!? Beholders hate all living things not like themselves! I mean, maybe they were charmed or dominated or something, but that's pushing it. 8) If you can afford it, make the special effects better. Inability to do this is forgivable since special effects are expensive. That said, there were some good things about the first movie. 1) Fight sequences weren't bad. 2) Damidar was a good tortured villian. 3) Snails was good comic relief. 4) The characters often acted like teenage RPG dorks. Bickering like children. Ah... PCs... :rofl:
Terics 07-26-04, 01:41 AM	Quite right only... Damodar wore purple lipstick and had no personality, Snails was horrible comic relief, Having the main characters of a movie bickering like children isn't a good thing, and well... I dont remember the first sequences.
Seeker95 07-26-04, 08:54 AM	Originally posted by Terics Having the main characters of a movie bickering like children isn't a good thing,But oh so accurate.
Qui-Gon Jinn 07-27-04, 05:40 PM	I was angry that the fight in Xilas's thieves guild was cut short. Elwood was cheated by having his fight scene cut short. Dwarves are great fighters (like Gimli). Elwood was somewhat of a joke in the movie. I laughed at Ridley's line "You're just a low level mage." What was Damodar's class? He was more of fighter than a magic-user. Personally, I think Damodar could've trashed Profion. Profion was a joke. Damodar was was much better as a villain. I loved how Ridley backstabbed Damodar and threw him off the tower.
Drammattex 07-27-04, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by clydesdale To do list to make the D&D 2 movie better: 1. DragonLance Chronicles <sigh>
MiraiGen 07-27-04, 08:41 PM	Originally posted by Qui-Gon Jinn Damodar was was much better as a villain. I loved how Ridley backstabbed Damodar and threw him off the tower. Even though I hated it when Damodar said it, I liked it when Ridley said this very cool, very evil line. "Oh look...I've cut you...what a shame." It was good delivery. I just wish the evil guy could have said it better. That's kind of part of the point....
LordofIllusions 07-28-04, 11:40 AM	Damodar was corny as can be with that turqoise lipstick on. Not to mention his acting was horrible; and what was up with his costume ? Real plastic, the extra long shoulder pads with that Superman cape he wore made him look like he was wearing a red curtain on his back. ~~~
LordofIllusions 07-28-04, 11:45 AM	Originally posted by Terics According to the link Ultarant provided "Marina Pretensa" and "Ridley Freeborn" will be returning for another amazing performance. Oh and the dwarf was named Elwood. Amazing performance ? ~~~
Bulabase 07-28-04, 12:18 PM	clydesdale:3) DO NOT have lines in the movie that refer to game terms. I almost barfed when Ridley said, "You're just a low level mage." What's next? "The reason he hit you is cause your Armor Class is low." I don't see a problem with this. I have heard people refer to "mid-level managers" IRL, so why shouldn't characters in a fantasy setting speak the same way. It only makes sense in reference to one's standing within an organization, but IIRC, that was the context in the film. Non players would probably not even percieve this line as being odd. If, after the new film is released, we are only arguing about fussy details like this, I will consider the movie a success.
tak1108 07-28-04, 12:37 PM	The first rule of screenwriting and filmmaking is "Show, not tell" Why oh why, do we have to be told "I'm a dwarf, don't you know that dwarves dont ride horses!" Or dwarves don't like elves. It's about character. We don't need to be told that all dwarves do this, or all elves are this, we have one character who has an upbringing up where they don't ride horses or are afraid of them. We need to see this, not be told it. We need to see the apprehension of a dwarf and an elf joining up, and that makes the time when they finally work together on one save the other one, much more powerful. Also, it should be realistic. A maze at a theives guild is not very realistic. especially how ridley just went right through it. Treat the movie, the story as if it was a real world. Not a Fantasy world, but a Real World. Make sure everything is justified. Dont ever say, because it is. When reading a script, I always ask why. why, why why. Why does this character do this? Is it motivated? If it is great, if not, then why? Was there supposed to be a motivation somewhere and it didn't come through? Why Can Ridley get though the Thieves Guild? Is he a better rogue than everyone else in the guild? No he isn't. He is inexperienced and should have never been able to get through that. Why is Snails still alive? There is no motivation that he would have survived in a dangerous world such as D&D unless someone (Ridley?) has protected him his whole life. Being A) A Theif, and B) A flamboyant retarded one, that someone in his life should have captured him and killed him, be it either another adventurer or the City Guard. If Ridley had been his protector, there should have been some tension between the two, when he messed up all the time. Just make the thing real. Take the dragons out. They are not needed. If they are in there, every single person has to be Running for their lives! And What's up with that huge city? Most of the world should be built up of a feudal scociety with a lord in a castle and peasants, or in some cases an agricultural society.
Terics 07-28-04, 02:40 PM	Originally posted by LordofIllusions Amazing performance ? Sarcasm.
Drammattex 07-28-04, 02:50 PM	Originally posted by tak1108 The first rule of screenwriting and filmmaking is "Show, not tell" Why oh why, do we have to be told "I'm a dwarf, don't you know that dwarves dont ride horses!" Or dwarves don't like elves. It's about character. We don't need to be told that all dwarves do this, or all elves are this, we have one character who has an upbringing up where they don't ride horses or are afraid of them. We need to see this, not be told it. We need to see the apprehension of a dwarf and an elf joining up, and that makes the time when they finally work together on one save the other one, much more powerful. Just make the thing real. Tak1108, thanks for sparing me hours of diatribe. EXACTLY. This thread is 7 pages long because we posters have different requirements from our moviegoing experiences. -Some of us are content with eye candy; that's all we require for our $9.50/ $6.00 matinee. That's completely and totally valid because that's the audience the D&D Movie (as well as Dragonheart, Reign of Fire, Underworld, Matrix II and III, Conan the Destroyer, Van Helsing, Independence Day) was made for. -Some of us DO see film as high art, and we want to willingly suspend our disbelief when we see a film, so that we can be immersed in the reality onscreen without making a strenuous effort to justify and assume what the filmmakers are putting in front of us. For those in the second category, THIS is what is wrong with the D&D Movie and any proposed sequel that imitates the first: Tak1108 said "It's about character." In any narrative (film, literature, theatre), the audience's vehicle through the story is/are the main protagonist(s). The world and the story are established through the point of view of these characters and how they (react to/are affected by) the things that happen to them. When the characters are not specific, we cannot relate to them, see as they see, feel as they feel. The D&D movie was very broad. We only get a vague sense of the characters and how they feel about each other. Snails dies at one point, but you shed no tears over it. It's just kind of "too bad." The elf doesn't say much in the movie and the dwarf is crude, but we don't know why. We understand that Whalen's character is a down-on-his luck thief, but it doesn't seem to have any other effect on him than that he wishes he had more money. It's bereft of humanity. On the other hand, if you read LOTR before you saw the movie, you knew that Boromir, for instance, "had it coming." You expected that to happen in the movie. When he went down, though, it was heartwrenching; we knew who he was and what he wanted and why he acted as he did. We saw his vulnerability (all the characters' vulnerabilities) which made him human, and therefore made us (the audience) able to relate to him). This is why so many women LOVE the LOTR films, and they've caught mainstream critical success: people relate to them. They don't have to be exiled kings to feel the strain of a long distance relationship, nor do they have to be a hobbit with a cursed ring to know what it is to feel the pressures of attachment and fixation or the joy of good friends and fine company. It's also about setting. The first act of any screenplay needs to set up the rules for the world. It's SO important. LOTR does this really well ("Three were given to the elves, immortal, fairest of all beings.... Seven were given the the dwarf lords, great miners..." etc). So does Conan (Fire and wind come from the gods of the sky... Crom is your god... learn the Riddle of Steel... etc.) in the first 2 minutes of the film. Even The Last Unicorn cartoon mentioned earlier ("This is an enchanted wood... a unicorn lives here... she is the last..." and then the butterfly mentions the Red Bull). In the D&D movie, I remember Jeremy Irons goes to this castle with the rod and tries to command a dragon and fails. Now, as a gamer I have some pretty shrewd guesses as to what's going on, but they're just guesses. Assumptions. Every time something happens in the D&D movie, you end up thinking "Okaaay, so that's how this world works... I guess." There's some sort of mageocracy, and they're on top, but you don't know why, and for the brightest and best of society they seem pretty easily swayed to do anything the plot dictates them to do, as opposed to any logical sense. The problem is that producers know that special effects movies sell, but they don't realize that the ones that sell longest and best are the ones that have solid human truth to them. They're catching on, but slowly. All the above is why I think they should save their money and pitch the DragonLance Chronicles instead. Characters torn apart by misplaced love, bound by friendship, troubled by trying to live up to the honor and standards of their forbears in a world that begins as sort of mundane, touched with fantastic elements. But then... enter the old gods and dragons. After LOTR, the iron is hot. Okay, done.
MiraiGen 07-28-04, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by Drammattex ...In any narrative (film, literature, theatre), the audience's vehicle through the story is/are the main protagonist(s). The world and the story are established through the point of view of these characters and how they (react to/are affected by) the things that happen to them. When the characters are not specific, we cannot relate to them, see as they see, feel as they feel... ...if you read LOTR before you saw the movie, you knew that Boromir, for instance, "had it coming." You expected that to happen in the movie. When he went down, though, it was heartwrenching; we knew who he was and what he wanted and why he acted as he did. We saw his vulnerability (all the characters' vulnerabilities) which made him human, and therefore made us (the audience) able to relate to him). BINGO. One must use both good character development and good scinematography to make a compelling character mean something. * *SPOILER** For instance, let me use The Last Samurai as an example. Yes, we did get tons of information on Katsumoto and Nathan towards the end, enough to allow us to know who they were, and we saw a man change from a drunkard with a rifle to a noble warrior. However, even that alone cannot be the factor in the absolutely TEAR JERKING moment when the samurai gather together to make one final attack, and are mowed down. Or when Katsumoto begs Nathan to help him commit seppuku. **END SPOILER** the powerful, monumental moment this movie came to should have been what we felt when Snails died. But we didn't. Why...because he was just knifed in the back and tossed aside like a ragdoll without any real care by the director? Somewhat. We just didn't care about his character. He was a bumbling theif who happened to make a noble move at the last minute. So when he died, everyone said, "Oh, that's too bad." While Ridley fell to his knees in tears. Let's just hope they fire the apes they got to do the last movie.
Drammattex 11-04-04, 02:21 PM	<sigh> Check it out here (http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/563/563127p1.html). :looloo:
Asmodeous 11-05-04, 12:40 AM	Personally, I didn't see anything wrong with the first DnD movie. it suited its target audience perfectly. Im sure it is showing at kindergarden's and primary schools all over the world where 6-10 year olds will find it perfectly suited to themselves. it would be nice if there was a DnD movie made for us adults though. DnD is old. A lot of the hard core fans still playing the game from first edition are all in their late 30's - early 40's now. These people dont want to sit thru a movie designed for their grand kids now do they? I say let them make a sequel. they can target any audience they like and as long as they make money, good on them. All I would like is a DnD movie made for adults. I'd add that to my dvd collection no problem at all.
yamiwarlock 03-21-05, 08:52 PM	Gotta love the wizards using fireballs against gold dragons.
Molu Kai 03-21-05, 10:15 PM	I'd bet a hundred bucks that this movie will get a rating less than 5.0 on the imdb. It is going to blow chunks. The sad thing is, it's not like there is an absense of good stories out there. Even some of the weakest D&D based novels would make a better script than whatever they come up with to succeed the first movie (which looks like the way it's headed as they are talking about bringing back Justin Whalen and Bruce Payne, the guy with the blue lipstick, is on the cast list in the imdb). Hell, even converting an old school module, a dungeon magazine adventure, or a video game, would make a better script. Argghh!! Frustrated!!
killcode 03-22-05, 12:58 AM	My BIG problem with D&D the movie was that the adventure, could of been a lot better. The CGI was not good either, I can make better textures, and lighting effects on my computer. The acting was especially bad, except for the Elven chick, she was "alright". But the guy who played Shorty in Scary Movie, What was the point of him being there? Also, the dwarf, completly wrong, I wouldn't of made him look like he did. He should of had a big beard, long hair, like Gimli in LOTR, he looked a LOT better. The people they choose were completly wrong. I mean, would you have Peewee Herman play Conan the Barbarian? They also could of incorperated the classes a little better. They also could of had some better monsters, make it similar to playing an actrual game, as in lots of monsters and such...
jktrondarr 03-23-05, 04:36 AM	as a representation of the dnd game, yes the movie sucked. as a cheezy generic fantasy-action movie than should not have been called dnd, it wasn't that bad. same as with any movie, your resulting opinion depends largely on your initial expectations. for example take van helsing: if you were expecting an in-depth look at the history and motivations of the lead character, then you were probally severely disapointed; but, if you were expecting nothing more than an intense action flick featuring cool movie monsters, then you definantly got your monies worth. i for one will judge the sequel on it's own merit, and not based on the shortcommings of the first film.