Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Godzilla 03-25-06, 05:58 PM	Has anyone seen Scourge of Worlds: A Dungeons & Dragons Adventure and the made for TV movie, D&D 2: Wrath of the Dragon God? If you have, are either any good? I know that Scourge of Worlds: A Dungeons & Dragons Adventure isn't much of a movie, but more like a video game in DVD format, but whatever. At IMDb.com, D&D 2: WDG is rated higher than the craptastic 2000 release, but is it wroth seeing? Thanks!
Whisper_Swiftblade 03-25-06, 06:20 PM	They where both bad.
Elder Elemental Evil 03-25-06, 06:43 PM	And yet infinately better than the 2000 release.
Ranger REG 03-25-06, 06:50 PM	They where both bad. Actually, the Scourge of Worlds is way better than the first D&D film. I'm too scarred from the first D&D film to watch the sequel.
VFults 03-25-06, 07:03 PM	Scourge of Worlds is fun for what it is. If you pick it up, get the Collector's Edition with the two extra endings to extend the play value. Wrath of the Dragon God is miles better than the first D&D film. This is not saying it is a good movie, but I was entertained by it and enjoyed the character archetypes presented in the film along with their questionable party tactics. Regards, V
Ranger REG 03-25-06, 07:17 PM	Wrath of the Dragon God is miles better than the first D&D film. This is not saying it is a good movie, but I was entertained by it and enjoyed the character archetypes presented in the film along with their questionable party tactics. Nope. I'm still not convinced. :noway:
DM Dave 03-26-06, 08:31 AM	Nope. I'm still not convinced. :noway: your loss. Many seeds of good ideas... especially Malak's vault, which screams to be develped into a full adventure... and I'm not talking about the module on the DVD. They used D&D magic items (gem of true seeing, vorpal sword), D&D monsters (dark mantles, lich), D&D character classes (Cleric, fighter, barbarian, rougue, wizard; all faithfully portrayed) and the movie itself played like many games I've had sitting around my table. Of course much of the acting was poor, the effects mediocre, and there were a few plot holes that you could fly a 747 through... but taken as a whole it was a very satisfying movie experience for a D&D fan. :D They even referenced several classic D&D modules: Shrine of the Kuo- Toa, and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. Cool extras on the DVD, including an interview with Gary Gygax. It was hilarious seeing the actors in full makeup on the set reading about their character classes from the player's handbook... CLASSIC. :D :D It was obvious that the film makers respected the source material, and just weren't making a movie that used the brand name and nothing else. As an aside, I wonder how many of us figured out why Malak's name on the obelisk was spelled with an "X" (Malax), long before the characters did in the movie...lol! :rofl:
SKOLJACK 03-26-06, 09:44 AM	Has anyone seen Dungeons & Dragons 2: Wrath of the Dragon God? It will be on today (March 26th, 2006) at 12.30 PM on the Sci-Fi Channel along with other movies with ":dragon:" in the title!
Ranger REG 03-26-06, 08:11 PM	your loss. *examines himself* Nope. Not feeling any loss. :cool:
Luris_Blear 03-26-06, 09:44 PM	I actually liked the first better. To clarify: the perfect D&D movie would have the pacing, budget and gloss of the first movie to go with the mood and quality game references in the second film. My complaints with part 2: Most of the internal rooms looked like the same set with the furniture moved around. It was supposed to be the same city as the first movie, but the big city feel and improbably tall spires were all gone. In that movie's favor, the game references were of much higher quality. They also weren't on an epic quest for a magic stick that was obviously made of plastic. It's not fair at all. The second movie was killed by a poor budget and almost equally poor pacing. I'll try to give part 2 another chance soon, but I really was disappointed the first time around.
VFults 03-26-06, 10:13 PM	For me, the best things in D&D 2 were the game references and the performances by the actors who played the rogue and barbarian; their verbal sparing was entertaining, especially when the rogue rebuked the barbarian in the goblin shaman's hut. Regards, V
Sh0ck-Wave 03-27-06, 05:43 AM	I heard there's a commentry for the 2nd D&D movie with people playing the parts of the main D&D characters (ie. Krusk the barbarian, Mialee the wizard, etc). Again it doesn't sound like its worth buying the DVD for .. but could be a laugh.
Sulaco 03-27-06, 10:25 AM	Scourge of Worlds is a nice llittle diversion. The D&D2 movie was cheaply made and less than spectacularly acted, but it was a fun little flick defintiely worth checking out. Despite it's weaknesses it is miles better than the first. While the original made me dread a sequel, the second actually makes me look forward to another (hopefully with a budget).
MagicPrime 03-27-06, 02:30 PM	I agree with many of the above posts. Although WDG didn't have a huge budget, and the acting wasn't as good as i would have liked. All in All I liked the movie. The acting kinda made you feel like you were watching a group on tabletop. Also, unlike the first movie, their attention to detail was incredible. The whole time we watched the movie we had our books beside us to make sure they got things right - and they did. They even had the correct material components for the Vision spell the wizard casts at the begining. (Even down to the "Expensive Kind" of incense). Many mentions of Obad-Hai were cool, and even Falazure can be found in the Draconomicon (we were really impressed to find that). And the head wizard old guy is wearing a robe with seven eyes that looks incredibly like the robe the archmage has on in the DMG. So although the movie seemed more like a Pilot for a series, and suffered from some problems (at no fault of their own) It was still quite enjoyable and many DnD fans can watch it and get alot of the inside jokes. Ah yes, and the introduction of the Halfling Rogue made me remember why I don't trust halflings...
Dench 03-27-06, 02:44 PM	Scourge of World is a good material, specially the collector's edition. I haven't seen the D&D 2 movie so i cannot make comments about it
Rocketboy13 03-27-06, 03:34 PM	I think expectations have a lot to do with how well a movie goes over, the first D&D movie was long awaited had a decent cast and budget, and people wanted and expected it to be good. And it wasn't. D&D 2 had two things lowering expectations for it, the first movie, and the fact that it was a sci-fi original movie, something that comes with a lot of negative conuctations. And it didn't suck, so it seems spectacular by comparison. The animated, choose your own ending, D&D film is good, it has a decent plot, decent character moments, but its animation is a little on the weak side. If they brought the animation up it would really be great. No one had real expectations for it. If you want real D&D movies I would recomend you watch the first Shrek movie, it may be the best fantasy movie ever made. Its sequal, which experienced higher expectations, was considered poorer, and it really did not have as good of pacing, character developement, and had a weaker story. Hopefully the third will live up to the first.
metamind 03-27-06, 03:38 PM	Wrath of the dragon god, I saw that on Sunday, and my friend rented it too. Personally, I think it gave a new definition to sucked, but thats just because they didn't try hard enough.
raven darqhart 03-28-06, 12:49 AM	D&D 1 was ungodly hollywood ********. I haven't yet seen Scourge of Worlds, but I will before the year is out. Wrath of the Dragon God was ALMOST what I was hoping it would be. It is well worth watching, especially since the script was actually game tested. Of course, if Godzilla is G-zilla from MySpace, then he'll hate it because WotDG was written based on 3rd Ed concepts. Also, Legendary Films recently optioned the rights to Dragonlance for filming. They have yet to decide what they will do with the rights, considering they are like the 3rd group to have optioned the rights.
High Octane 03-28-06, 01:45 AM	Scourge of Worlds is not too bad. It definitely gives an accurate feel for the game. The dialogue is extremely dull though. The action is kind of cheesy. The acting is good though, the voice actors are accurate portrayals of 3 of our favorite characters. The 2nd D&D movie was non-offensive, which is a lot more than can be said about the first one. I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, considering a few things. It WAS a movie of the week on Sci Fi, and thus didnt have the budget or timeframe of a theatrical release. That being said, the effects werent bad, the acting was alright, the writing was decent. The rogue, the barbarian, and the fighter were all played well. The elf was played..... pretty crappily. The cleric wasnt bad. You might like it, might not. But you probably wont walk away trying to stab yourself.
Ranger REG 03-28-06, 02:30 AM	You might like it, might not. But you probably wont walk away trying to stab yourself. I dunno. Can a rogue Sneak Attack itself? :thinks:
raven darqhart 03-28-06, 03:21 PM	Last night I recorded Dark Kingdom: The Dragon King from Sci-Fi. I'm watching it right now. In all honesty it's D&D set in a Norse kingdom. Not too shabby, really. Of course, I'm only 1/3 of the way through it.
tallforadwarf 03-28-06, 04:01 PM	Hey! SoW is brilliant for what it is. We played it as a group and had a real blast. And died at the end. Several times 'cos the animation was ace. And it only fuel'd our love of Lidda (but perhaps that's one for the 'mature' boards ;P ). D&D2:WotDG was pants. The first film was enjoyable on a couple of levels, camp, crap, etc. The second film takes itself WAY to seriously, has no budget, poor plot (Return of the King had a ghost army and that was cool. If we have one maybe our film will be good!) and some $hit3 acting and dialogue. Also the 'accuracy' is way off. Apparently divine magic is an undiscovered pure form of magic, Darkmantles travel in packs of 20 or so (solitary hunters!), and don't get me started on that Lich. *shudder* If you do see it though - look out for the guy who is running back and forth in the background of the dragon attack. It's as if someone shouted to him; "Quick! Look chaotic!" Brilliant! All IMHO, Peace, tad
Xorial 03-28-06, 04:20 PM	My main complaint about the first movie is they gave the nod to unknown directors, gave them alot of money, then let them use their own game world instead of doing the intelligent thing & develop a script from either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms material. That would have had a wealth of background information and given the movie a little more depth. The second movie tried to meld the story line back into the Greyhawk setting, by referencing older modules & material. As said, it suffered mainly from lack of budget & being connected to Sci Fi Originals. Lets face it, Sci Fi (which I actuallly luv the channel) is the new dumping gound for all the actors & directors that would have been in "B" movies just a few years ago.
Araciel 03-28-06, 04:30 PM	the first movie wasn't even a good movie if you aren't a gamer....thats saying a lot since it was released in theaters... wrath of the dragon god was presented better, although they did still cater to those unfamiliar with D&D "divine magic is completely different from the arcane"...well duh the fact that damodar was made into an undead creature was a little lame. the dragons in the original movie seemed totally bestial, but the dragon god character could talk...could be argued he is a dragon god...but still....and since when does a black dragon spit fire? the lich resides in a forest...hah... that being said, once again it was more true to a lot of D&D conventions than the first movie, although i still think i could write a better script in my sleep....
Araciel 03-28-06, 04:33 PM	also...putting it in a big fan favourite world would be a mistake, as many would feel it was unfair...dragonlance fans might not enjoy an FR movie as much and greyhawk fans might not enjoy an eberron movie as much....a generic setting is a good idea. sticking with a mainly human cast is always a good idea for more mainstream movies, like the first one, but a little diversity never hurts anyone if the movie is made for tv and caters to a certain demographic.
raven darqhart 03-28-06, 05:07 PM	What they NEED to do is get an actual D&D writer(s) to do the script, then give them the budget the first one had. As I was saying earlier, Dragonlance has been on back burners for years, mainly because Hollywood thought the fantasy genre was dead. However, since LotR and Narnia, I'm sure they are rethinking that, since Dragonlance is the next best selling fantasy series ever. Peter Jackson would be the perfect director for a serious theatrically released D&D movie, regardless of the world. As long as the writers are people who've actually played and enjoyed the game, the rest will fall into place.
High Octane 03-28-06, 07:57 PM	One of the huge problems is defining what a D&D movie should be. Is it an epic? An Action flic? A comedy? A horror? Do you REALLY want to try and mix all of those? And most of all, who is the target audience? Sorry, but generally a moviemaker is looking at an age range of maybe 5 years. D&D is played from 12 to 42 easy, if not having a wider range of age. Another question, is it targetting men, women, or both? You can actually argue whether it targets men or both for days on end. Its obvious more players are male, but is the difference slight or overwhelming? If one was to make a true, SERIOUS D&D movie, you would need a few things. 1. Two directors. One who has played D&D, one who has not or not a lot. Why? Checks and balances. The D&D player will make sure it stays true to the game, and the non D&D player will make sure a non-player can understand and follow and be appealed. 2. Good writing. Especially dialogue. The dialogue cant sound too Elizabethan or it feels corny. It has to sound natural, not just regular dialogue with "Thee"s and "Thy"s and "Prithee"s added. My suggestion is first write it using 21st century dialogue, THEN go back and fix anything that is out of place. Keep the changes minimal. 3. A set of *********. Brass ones at that. If you are going to make a movie about a game this misunderstood, you have to be unwilling to cater to people who are in fact too ignorant to understand the game. Specifically, you cant cop out on the religious aspect of the game just because it might offend the right wing christian conservatives. Not to mention the people who scream out "THE GAME IS FOR GEEKS LAWL!" But most of all, you have to be willing to put up with people like us who will analyze every possible angle and find the errors in the movie. "They should get an AoO for that! That round was only 4 seconds long!" 4. A willingness to sacrifice a certain amount of game accuracy for movie quality. This goes along with 3. The movie should overall FEEL like a D&D game, but if it means bending some rules for effect, go ahead. 5. A good budget. Sorry, but if you want magic and monsters to look like anything but plaster and matchsticks, you need the moolah. 6. Good acting. This is two fold. You need both actors who ARE talented, and actors who are willing to put real effort into the movie. The actors dont have to have played the game, since its the directors job to keep them in character and to help them understand it. This does not necessarily mean big name stars (common misconception). Case and point, Pixar's movies. The bulk of their actors are great but they arent mostly A-list actors. The incredibles only had two names I recognized, one was Samuel L Jackson, who had a somewhat small part, and 2 was Jason Lee, and Jason Lee is not an A list actor (Though he deserves to be). Yet that movie was acted BRILLIANTLY. Jeremy Irons was a big name, and what did he deliver? Crap squared. 7. GOOD. MUSIC. Nothing will affect a mood more than music. Good music will make up for poor visuals to an extent. 8. Lay off the cheese. Dont put a 5 point star on the end of a stick and expect us to call it a wand. If you dont have the ability or budget to make it look exotic and cool, just make it simple. Well cut glass looks better than poorly cut diamond. Lets take the wands in Harry Potter for example. Barely more than well shaped black sticks, but they worked out fine. 9. Blacksmiths, leatherworkers, and tailors. And most importantly, good costume designers. The most important thing is to make each important character look like the costume hes wearing has been his clothes for a while. For example, it may be a small thing, but having a flap on an arrow sheath for a rogue but not a paladin, having potions at their side instead of in the backpack, having tatoos, scars, and perhaps some jewelry that reflects their personality. The more clever the better. Maybe the rogues tools are hidden inside his bracers for example. And be sure again to lay off the cheese. Just because a sword is magical doesnt mean you should freaking CHROME IT! 10. Be willing to WORK on this for more than an hour. Dont try a cop out solution to a problem. If you cant get the proper lighting during the night, MAKE IT A DAY SHOT! A day shot with a 20% opacity purple filter does not make it night, despite what Courtney Soloman thought. Dont rush the release. 11. Although the D&D world is a world of black and white morality, that does not mean you should be melodramatic about it. Dont be afraid of the audience having mixed feelings about a character. Good or bad. Give the villain an admirable trait or two. Make your audience want to see him again. 12. Dont insult your audience. Insults can be indirect. Your audience will probably be expecting a whole lot more intelligence from the movie than your average action flic. That means you cant assume they are stupid. When you have to TELL the audience who is a good guy and who is a bad guy through less than subtle means, you have failed. If your bad guy is eating baby soup and beating up puppies then you have failed. Remember, those who are evil generally try to keep it a secret. Soloman started his movie with a narrator's monologue specifically stating who the bad guy is and who the good guy is. Actually using the words good and bad. These are the essentials for making a D&D movie. Most of these can apply to any movie. Follow these and the movie should be good.
VFults 03-28-06, 11:31 PM	If one was to make a true, SERIOUS D&D movie, you would need a few things. I agree with all your points. A great D&D movie is possible with only a little more attention and budget than Wrath of the Dragon God received. I don't fault the director or cast for its short comings; only its budget. Regards, V
High Octane 03-29-06, 12:13 AM	I agree with all your points. A great D&D movie is possible with only a little more attention and budget than Wrath of the Dragon God received. I don't fault the director or cast for its short comings; only its budget. Regards, V Adding another notch to the list and a little more air to my already overinflated ego.
__Slayer__ 03-29-06, 12:22 AM	Just something I have always wondered, what is the point of the Dwarf in D&D 1?
anubisascends 03-29-06, 12:39 AM	I must be about the only person who really enjoyed WDG, I thought it was done well. True, it wasn't the film I hoped it would be, but what do you expect. Turning an RPG from paper to live action can not be easy, no matter who directs it or how much money they throw at it. The references to D&D were great (in my opinion) and if you see the special features on the DVD you will see in the Behind-the-Scenes footage that shows everyone reading from the PHB. I thought that was cool.
Ranger REG 03-29-06, 05:00 AM	One of the huge problems is defining what a D&D movie should be. Depends on the setting and if the film screenplay is being adapted from a novel (or series of novels). But at the core of it all, if the movie can at least be as entertaining as Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearl, then you have succeeded. Also, Courtney Solomon must sell or relinquish his D&D film right.
Ranger REG 03-29-06, 05:06 AM	Turning an RPG from paper to live action can not be easy, no matter who directs it or how much money they throw at it. But it still can be done. Before PJ, LOTR was considered unfilmable. If they focus on character and story development and not too much on "gee, how many D&D mechanics can we translate and squeeze onto the big screen?" ... it can be doable.
Tibs 03-29-06, 07:32 AM	Just something I have always wondered, what is the point of the Dwarf in D&D 1? To have a dwarf in the movie. At least he helped out in a fight. That elf chick didn't do squat.
tallforadwarf 03-29-06, 04:04 PM	Just something I have always wondered, what is the point of the Dwarf in D&D 1? Hey! I can answer this one! Watch the scene where Tom Baker heals up Jimm... er, Ridley in the Elven village. In the final shot the Dwarf looks straight at the camera and raises his eybrow, as if to say; "WTF is going on here, and, more importantly what are YOU doing watching this?" Brilliant! Seriously, check this out. Peace, tfad
Sulaco 03-29-06, 04:44 PM	If you want real D&D movies I would recomend you watch the first Shrek movie, it may be the best fantasy movie ever made. Its sequal, which experienced higher expectations, was considered poorer, and it really did not have as good of pacing, character developement, and had a weaker story. Hopefully the third will live up to the first. I think you have that backwards. Shrek 2 is generally considered the better of the two films.
pres_man 03-29-06, 06:17 PM	If you are looking for a good D&D movie, I can strongly suggest Conan the Destroyer. For the longest time, I held this movie in very low regard, to me this was not a sequel but a turd. Yet if viewed as a D&D movie and not a pathetic attempt at a sequel for Conan the Barbarian, it actually stands up quite well. I can now enjoy watching it. I think some people's view of the Wrath of the Dragon God sucking is based on a comparison to theatric films. This is a made for TV movie, you have to judge it based on that. I think it was pretty good for what it was, would it have made it in the theater? Not a chance. Compare it to something that was made for TV, for example I thought compared to Xena or Hercules it was very good.
Xorial 03-29-06, 10:41 PM	To have a dwarf in the movie. At least he helped out in a fight. That elf chick didn't do squat. Not really. His main function was to stand around with a stupid look on his face, then charge in so that he ran into the magical effect. They coulda had a half-orc for that. They also gave him the lame costume to make him look like the original painting of Breuner Battlehammer.
TheFlash 03-30-06, 04:19 AM	Hi, (first, I'm sorry, I know my english is bad but It's not my first Language thx...) Wrath of the Dragon God was made with half the budget of its predecessor and was far better than the first. My friends and me were glad with the result. Why? Because of our expectations. It is all a matter of expectations. I recall when the first one was in pre-prod, all the promises we heard from Solomon (An epic movie like Star Wars, My own Design, costumes, bla bla bla) and you guys all remember one of the most horrible 30 millions movie ever made! With this one, we ALL knew that it was a TV movie (and by the way, it would be a awesome Pilot for a TV show) with no budget for this kind of movie. So, our expectations adjust consequently. The choice to shoot on location instead to created a CGI world was brilliant and to use actual Armors and props too. The Script is good for this kind of movie and the acting is respectable. There isn't a lot of CGI but I think it’s a good choice because they were decent. So, the quality is pretty good Overall for a Movie Television. It’s all a matter of medium! I can read a D&D book and say: ‘hey, it’s from Bob Salvatore, but it sucks, and read another one from an unknown author and be surprised with his great imagination and cool Story.” It’s exactly the same with Wrath of the Dragon God. Its not a matter of budget, or say (they should have done this, like LOTR, etc...) We all hope for a big budget D&D movie but I prefer have some little gem like Wrath of the Dragon God from time to time rather that wait 30 years and be so disappointed like I was back in 2000. So, I think that Wrath of the Dragon God is fun, a popcorn adventure, well made and cool to watch. Good Day!
Ranger REG 03-30-06, 08:11 PM	Last night I recorded Dark Kingdom: The Dragon King from Sci-Fi. I'm watching it right now. In all honesty it's D&D set in a Norse kingdom. Not too shabby, really. Of course, I'm only 1/3 of the way through it. Isn't that film a re-telling of the Nibelung(sp?)? Or is it the Beowulf story? One more question: Is Kristian Lokan (the blonde who was also in Terminator 3) nekkid in the movie? If not, perhaps the DVD version? :devil:
Dark_Druid 03-31-06, 02:42 AM	Meat Shield. And additional comedic relief from the other 4 comedic ****in characters. Also, to get chicken in his beard. I hated how in 1 EVERY orc was the same CG character. Look, I head somethign that made me almost wet myself (thank god I have control) the other day. my friend, who is cinema major and knows everything about everything about what's going on in the world says: Peter Jackson is doing a D&d movie. Sometime soon. So with that funding it should be awesome. Then, he's doing HALO. :-D
VFults 03-31-06, 07:13 PM	Peter Jackson is doing a D&d movie. Sometime soon. So with that funding it should be awesome. Then, he's doing HALO.:-D Jackson's next project is an adaptation of the novel The Lovely Bones. After that, he's doing Halo. His calendar is probably full for the next four years with these films. It would be great if he did a big budget D&D movie, though. Regards, V
Kessalin Talira 03-31-06, 08:13 PM	Last I heard, when he was done with King Kong, he was doing The Hobbit.
anubisascends 03-31-06, 10:56 PM	But it still can be done. Before PJ, LOTR was considered unfilmable. You are very correct, maybe they should get PJ to direct it (with about a 150 million dollar budget). I'll bet he could make it better than LoTR, since he really doesn't have anything to limit what he can and can't do.
VFults 03-31-06, 11:51 PM	New Line Cinema still hasn't resolved rights issues for The Hobbit, so there is no start date for it in the near future. Peter Jackson is already working on The Lovely Bones for a 2007 release and will then do Halo. Here's a link to IMDB.com for The Lovely Bones: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/ Regards, V
Ranger REG 04-01-06, 01:09 AM	Peter Jackson is doing a D&d movie. Sometime soon. So with that funding it should be awesome. Yeah, it's called Hobbit: There and Back Again. The Prequel to LOTR. :P (This assumes that New Line Cinema and United Artist have finally resolved their film distribution conflict.)
Ranger REG 04-01-06, 01:12 AM	You are very correct, maybe they should get PJ to direct it (with about a 150 million dollar budget). I'll bet he could make it better than LoTR, since he really doesn't have anything to limit what he can and can't do. I can't help but notice that it is really sad that of all the filmmakers in the world, we (majority) can only turn to PJ as the first-choice director for fantasy genre film. :P
Priest_of_Shaundakul 04-01-06, 01:37 AM	I wish people stopped bring up LOTR in any thread that talks about a D&D movie.
Ranger REG 04-02-06, 03:14 AM	I wish people stopped bring up LOTR in any thread that talks about a D&D movie. Well, we could bring up Narnia, or Willow, or Pirates of the Caribbeans, or Conan the Barbarian, or Lodoss War (anime that is loads better than D&D: The Movie), or... :P Heck, any one of the Troma films are loads better than D&D: The Movie. :rofl:
alder_zeal 04-02-06, 04:01 AM	Now there is a D&D story with no official title. You hace it all except exotic races beyond Human and Elves. The dragons in are to be feared as they should be. For D&D I think Forgotten Realms would be best suited in movie form, in an epic sense. Forgotten Realms has the characters people who do not role play may of heard of. If they can do x-men they can do Forgotten Realms. As for a continuing series I say Eberron is a better choice so the die hard fans cant complain, and strong new stories can be told. Over all D&D in mass media could work. The thing is to do it right, and not make it overly geeky where you loose the market of 18 to 35 which is key to keep it on tv. Super Natural on WB is a good example of this. A example of failing is Kindred the Embraced, this show tried to jump right into here are vampires and a whole totally new secret society and they eat people. If it was told differently it may of had a chance. I think for Mass Media a White Wolf product has better chance to make it that than WotC. Hasbro does not care about producing storylines watch Gi joe sigma 6 and transformers they just want the kids to say i want that. (I have 7 and 5 year old boys) It all goes together I would love to see a Star Wars Rogue Squadron or New Jedi Knights on Sci Fi, but doubt it will happen any time soon. A Eberron Campaign could be a lot of fun to see, but cost on set for all the different costumes races and classes will hurt production too much
Ranger REG 04-03-06, 02:36 AM	Hasbro does not care about producing storylines watch Gi joe sigma 6 and transformers they just want the kids to say i want that. (I have 7 and 5 year old boys) Hasbro has no control over the shows' quality. If you're expecting Hasbro to formally denounce the shows, it would look bad in the eyes of their customers, mainly children who does not have the same experience we adult have when we first watched the originals and can compare the new ones. AFAIC, WotC did a smart thing not to hype the sequel as they once did for the first film. They put some distance between their game and the movies. Of course, one should expect fans of the sequel to complain why WotC wasn't gotten on the bandwagon, as is their right of expression. (For which I would say to them: tough noogie. :P )
SilverJunkie 04-03-06, 03:33 AM	Best D&D movie ever= DragonStrike anyone see this one? 1993, came with a board game. Man-scorpion, owlbear that talks to itself, a character who's class was "elf". Oh and everyone called each other by their class. I loved that movie. One of my first crushes was for the Wizard. I think it was the way he said "cleric" and possibly the coyote skin.... Am I alone on this?
FourColor 04-03-06, 05:30 PM	My hierarchy of D&D Movie goodness: Scourge of Worlds Collector's Edition D&D 2: Wrath of the Dragon God D&D 1 Just wait until D&D movie 3.0/3.5 comes out! In 3-D, it may even have attacks of opportunity! ;) The best D&D Open Source movies are, in my view, Dragonslayer, Conan the Barbarian, and The Gamers.
Balor von Balorvitch 04-03-06, 05:46 PM	Ok if they are to make a another D&D movie please let it not be D&D 3! They should call it something similar to its world or make a movie that is based on previous novel. As long as a movie has the stigma of being a 'D&D' movie it will never be that good. Look at the great D&D novels, Dragonlance, Ice wind Dale, The Dark elf triology they are great because they tell a story that works within D&D without being blunt. If they make another movie D&D should be a small logo at the bottom.
CTHUHLU_THE_GROOVY 04-03-06, 09:16 PM	I feel dirty for saying this but- I think a d&d movie should be as cheesy and casmpy as possible. The only exception to tis would be an Eberron movie. I'm not picky but I like the movies to be fun and rules accurate. That's it.