Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lomiir 02-06-04, 12:37 AM	After seeing the humiliating Dungeons and Dragons movie I'm reluctant to ask this question, but is there any chance for another D&D movie? The early Drizzt novels could make a great movie. Basically what I'm asking is there enough of an incentive for anyone to make another D&D movie with a little more serious tone to it? Maybe in a few years when the accessilbility of such great effects as in LOTR is wider maybe we could see a good D&D movie?
kedi 02-06-04, 08:09 AM	Originally posted by Lomiir After seeing the humiliating Dungeons and Dragons movie I'm reluctant to ask this question, but is there any chance for another D&D movie? The early Drizzt novels could make a great movie. ot Basically what I'm asking is there enough of an incentive for anyone to make another D&D movie with a little more serious tone to it? Maybe in a few years when the accessilbility of such great effects as in LOTR is wider maybe we could see a good D&D movie? god hell please no. The first movie was totally ridiculus and stupid. The worst fantastic movie i have ever watched. But if they can plan something, better be good, the avatar series makes the best movie, despite the bad storytelling. Dark elf series would not be good, nor the ice wind dale trilogy. Avatar trilogy, with Angelina Jolie (midnight) Johny Depp or Orlanda Bloom (cyric) Kenneth Branagh (Adon) Billy Connely (Bane, Fzoul), can't find apropirate player for Kelemvor, a guy who is both charismatic and muscle-full :) Director: (Quentin Tarantino! :rofl::rofl: ) Peter Jackson
Wooly Rupert 02-06-04, 11:18 AM	I think that doing any movie based on an FR novel (or trilogy) is a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. If they chose to do one on Drizzt Do'Urden's early years, then someone would complain that they shoulda done the Icewind Dale trilogy, instead. If they did that trilogy, then someone would complain that they shoulda gone later into the series... Say they pick someone else instead of Drizzt. Elminster, perhaps. Then people complain that El's getting yet more screen time, when they want to see less of him. Or they don't want to see a Chosen in a movie at all... The same goes for any of the Chosen of Mystra, really. And why couldn't they have picked Drizzt? So ruling out the iconic characters, who's left? Well, they could do the death of Azoun IV... But other people would want to see the Avatar trilogy. They could do that, but other people would want to see the Shade books... Why a trilogy? Why not Elfshadow or The Ring of Winter? So they pick a single book. Now the people who wanted a trilogy are unhappy... No matter what book(s) they picked, people would complain. Everyone has their favorites, and think that their fave is the perfect choice. And then we get to the casting. One person might think Julia Roberts (for example) would make a perfect Storm Silverhand, but someone else would think that the girl from Pirates of the Caribbean would be the ideal choice. And so on and so forth. Next is the question of who's gonna do it. If Peter Jackson, with all the money he had for the Lord of the Rings trilogy was available, then most would agree that he'd do a good job. But I've heard people :censored: about those movies, saying how this was wrong or that scene coulda been done better, and why'd they cut Tom Bombadil? My point is that if they chose to do a novel, people would find reasons to be unhappy about it.
Cunning Linguist 02-06-04, 11:44 AM	People might say that Lotr was so and so and some may say it was bad, but regardless, it was a good movie. But, if you look at the history of D&D and moving pictures. D&D The Series - AWFUL cartoon.. D&D The Movie - Worst Movie ever.. D&D: Scourge of Worlds - Not all that. So, it's trackrecord is kinda bad.. Perhaps they could change that, and for what it's worth, let them try. But if experience tells us anything its going to be bad.
Azuresaber 02-06-04, 12:12 PM	How about "Once around the Realms". It has alot of everyone's favorite characters. It has a lot of comedy and magic to boot. That and it gives everyone a good base to start from for any future ventures. Besides Volo is a great character, you could cast Dom Deluise to play Passpout. John Franks to play Kelban. Volo would have to be some unknown chubby guy. But I think t would be a great film. Lots of flavor. Jackson would be a logicial choice to direct since he has a loyal following.
MR. T 02-06-04, 02:20 PM	Even though the track record for the DnD stuff isn't the best, lets not forget how bad some of the pre-Jackson LotR movies were! Give it time, eventually someone will commission a good flick. ps As much as everyone hates Once Around the Realms, dude, I'm totally with you! I thought that book was hilarious! Don't know about a movie, but definately a funny novel.
Ranger REG 02-06-04, 02:49 PM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist D&D The Series - AWFUL cartoon.. Actually, I like the cartoon back in the last millenium. I grew up on that. It was my first exposure to D&D and prompted me to get the game. D&D The Movie - Worst Movie ever.. No-brainer. Courtney Solomon could have used the writers from the animated series above, IMHO. D&D: Scourge of Worlds - Not all that. Actually, I like the DVDn. I just wish there are more. So, it's trackrecord is kinda bad.. Perhaps they could change that, and for what it's worth, let them try. But if experience tells us anything its going to be bad. If we based on past experience, then Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings would not have been made, since the 1960's Rankin-Bass version would have stopped any future film production based on Tolkien's work. Granted, the movie is bad, and I hope we do not revisit that storyline. But I still have faith that someone who is a little bit more savvy in the film industry, will make a D&D film worthy of the mainstream box office.
Fabius Maximus 02-06-04, 03:34 PM	There actually are plans for a second D&D-Movie, probably based in the Dragonlance setting. Look here. (http://www.dragonlance-movie.com/cgi-bin/dlcont/news.asp?id=48)
Mystery Man 02-06-04, 04:05 PM	Why base it on a published novel at all?
Wooly Rupert 02-06-04, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by Mystery Man Why base it on a published novel at all? That was the point I was trying to make, but it seems to have been ignored...
Monsoon28 02-06-04, 06:28 PM	One question, why not a series of Anime instead, the production costs are lower and you can do whole series of stories including RA Salvatore, E. Cunningham, T.Denning or even Greenwood. So instead of one movie we can get a whole bunch of Anime's and make them the perfect length. The Problem with a DnD Movie based on a Novel FR or DL; Is that someone will complain if they leave out this scene or that. just a thought, of coarse I've have this Idea for all the Star Wars books already ;) And for the record my vote is either for The Return of the Archwizards or possibly the new Everis Cale series. Peace...
Telagaunt 02-06-04, 07:55 PM	If any FR based D&D movie were to be released I rather have them do it on The Dark Elf Trilogy. And if it's going to be about anyone famous, it ought to be Drizzt. I say this because you don't need to be some Realms-informed viewer to understand the DET. The Dark Elf Trilogy starts out nicely, and not at all confusing throughout the trilogy about the drow nature, culture, history. They explain these things. It's a small community, almsot seperate of the world of FR. The Dark Elf Trilogy would be a good starting point and would appeal to new fans better than other novel/trilogies. The problem with starting with the IWD Trilogy or another Drizzt trilogy is new viewers should not have to be confused. They wouldn't understand it. Sure the movie could explain a lot of stuff, but you can't get the feeling that you would had you known about their past. And while FR fans would not be lost, a big portion of the reason to do a movie should be to attract new fans. Look at all the new LotR fans in the world who never even heard or read one of the books? A problem I find with doing a story with the World Above is it's too much. I wouldn't think it's a good starting point. Maybe you could get away with Elminster Making of a Mage, but even still people would say 'Who the hell is Elminster?' 'Why's he so important?' I dont think they would do that with a Drizzt movie (if it were the DET) because the storyline will keep them excited more than an Elminster one IMO or about the Time of Troubles (which would really confuse people). I just feel they wouldn't say so much, "Who's Drizzt?" as they would be feeling the emotion and hardships a creature like Drizzt (a good drow) is trying to live and survive from his evil homeland. Not so confusing and meshed up storyline. But that's my opinion.
Ranger REG 02-07-04, 02:54 AM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert That was the point I was trying to make, but it seems to have been ignored... Because the D&D movie that we had to watch ... is not based on a novel but one of the director's past games. As for your concern ... you cannot please everyone (I learned when I used to DJ at dances and I have to select the music.) The Tolkien Purists, who are so adamant that no one can make a movie based on the LOTR in the first place, will continue to air examples that supports their criticisms. But the mainstream audience love the films. The film is an adaptation, not a translation. Peter Jackson did his best to portray the story in a cinematic and relevant fashion that everyone would enjoy. Even the late Professor said that one cannot translate his book directly and wholly onto the big screen, and given the opportunity he would have written an adapted screenplay that is more cinema-friendly. I believe that if the Professor is looking down, he'll give Peter Jackson a nod. Money-wise, it was a big gamble to make the three films and have them each opened a year apart, but the suits at New Line and United Artists are very happy at the box office sales figure, both domestic and worldwide. And I'm not counting on the DVDs. So perhaps they should base it on a novel that everyone recognized and enjoyed reading (at least the ones that hit the NY Bestseller List). After all, the Lord of the Rings is based on a novel trilogy.
Wooly Rupert 02-07-04, 03:15 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG So perhaps they should base it on a novel that everyone recognized and enjoyed reading (at least the ones that hit the NY Bestseller List). After all, the Lord of the Rings is based on a novel trilogy. But there is no one book that everyone liked, and even if someone likes a book, that doesn't mean that they'd want to see it made into a novel. For example, I liked the dark elf books, but I'd not want to see them made into a movie, because I'm bored with Drizzt. And though I don't dislike Elminster, he's already got enough screen-time in the Realms, so I'd not be eager to see a movie of him, either. Quite frankly, I'd expect to be disappointed with *any* movie based on an FR novel. By not doing a movie based on a novel, they avoid a lot of complaints. Sure, it'd generate complaints for *not* being about a novel, but certainly less than it would if it was a novel. Besides, a movie based on something literary doesn't have to be based on a specific bit of that literature -- look at movies like X-Men. That one was not based on any particular story arc from Marvel, but was still an enjoyable movie.
Tempus665 02-07-04, 05:28 AM	Originally posted by Monsoon28 One question, why not a series of Anime instead So instead of one movie we can get a whole bunch of Anime's and make them the perfect length. :nonono: D&D is too good for anime. I don´t want a beholder to look like a pokémon. Please...
Monsoon28 02-07-04, 05:39 AM	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- D&D is too good for anime. I don´t want a beholder to look like a pokémon. Please... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh God please no, Not Pokémon! I'm not talking kiddy Anime! Their is some really great stuff out there that isn't characters with big doe eyes and over sized heads. Maybe something more like Ninja Scroll, adult Anime but without the nudity.
Ardent 02-07-04, 07:11 AM	Anything by Salvatore would be a bad idea on film, simply because his style of writing would require the film to have an underlying narrative, making it a very noir-feeling film and tick off about 70% of the desired audience (although not yours truly...I happen to enjoy film noir). As far as a Dragonlance movie...as much as so many people love to hate it, you have to admit...it couldn't possibly get worse on film.
WizO_BigSister 02-07-04, 02:22 PM	Please remember the new rules about novels. You are allowed to talk about the iconic characters who appear in source books as well as novels; and you are allowed to refer to novels as part of a discussion on another theme. However you are not allowed to discuss the merits or aotherwise of any novel, or get into any form of literary discussion of a novel.
Capn Charlie 02-07-04, 03:39 PM	A FR movie would be nice, but is doomed to failure IMO. The LotR movies set the bar too high, and DnD movie set expectations too low. However, I would just plain LOVE to see a FR movie. I would kill to see Elminster played by Sean Connery and Halaster played by Christopher Walken.
Alac Luin 02-07-04, 07:25 PM	I may just be sick or something, I kinda liked "D&D: The Movie" IMHO it was far better then, say Beast Master 3 (even beast master 1). There was one fantasy movie where a guy and girl were raised as siblings, and they told thier parents that they were leaving the village becouse they fell in romantic love, and couldent stay with them, for they knew a brother and sister shouldent be like that, but they still wanted to be together. It wann't untill that time did the parents tell them they weren't really bro&sis, and the parents wanted them to be romantic. This was just wrong, and that was the worst fantasy movie ever.
LupinKnight 02-07-04, 07:33 PM	Anime? Speaking as an anime fan and a fan of Dungeons and Dragons, it would never work. Dungeons and Dragons has a certain 'old-school' feel to it (well, that is what the generic and suggested is) that would not translate to anime. Next, there was a FR show planned. However, a small amount of time ago, funds became innsufficient and the project was scrapped. Doesn't bother me, I was against the idea.
Ranger REG 02-07-04, 07:43 PM	Originally posted by Capn Charlie A FR movie would be nice, but is doomed to failure IMO. The LotR movies set the bar too high, and DnD movie set expectations too low. And yet for some unexplained reasons, Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearls was last summer's box office hit. While I personally do not think the film is nowhere near the bar set by the LOTR films, it was a success. However, I would just plain LOVE to see a FR movie. I would kill to see Elminster played by Sean Connery and Halaster played by Christopher Walken. While Sean Connery may jump at the chance to be in such a film (but only if you give him free reign, which is one of the factors that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen took a dive last summer; beaten by Johnny Depp's pirate film), I'd rather use unknowns, or B-list actors.
Cunning Linguist 02-07-04, 07:43 PM	Dungeons and Dragons has a certain 'old-school' feel to it (well, that is what the generic and suggested is) that would not translate to anime. I don't agree. Records of Lodos Wars and BASTARD!!! both have a great D&D feal over them, and they are both good animes.
Ardent 02-08-04, 04:10 AM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist I don't agree. Records of Lodos Wars and BASTARD!!! both have a great D&D feal over them, and they are both good animes. Record of Lodoss War is a completely unattainable goal, though. If you don't believe me, pick up the second half of the saga. Nothing quite reaches the original insofar as fantasy anime goes (and it is out there if you look hard enough).
Charles Phipps 02-08-04, 05:21 PM	Okay, I'd like to open up a dialogue here because frankly I want to know what people's problems with Dungeons and Dragons the movie was... I mean I thought it was supposed to be a comedy that could be taken marginally seriously. I mean did people want the Lord of the Rings? What the Hell happens in your games? In my last session the characters fled in terror from the big bad, stole the Towers of High Magic from Evermeet, and abused horribly a adolescent gold dragon No one complains about Knights of the Dinner Table being unrealistic. You COULD do a epic-high fantasy glorious story of good vs. evil but is that true to D&D? I mean really isn't it doing a disservice to original story work that's entirely serious to slap the D&D label on it? Slayers might have been called D&D the cartoon but it's an entirely original work too. Instead Courtney Solomon replicaed game play with anachronisms, cheesy overacting, and occasional moments of trying to replicate something absolutely grand and breathtaking. The Dragons, architecture, and setting were in my mind pretty damn spectacular. At one point the heroes even try to sneak away IN PLAIN SIGHT Are fans of the hobby taking the D&D label so seriously they expected William Shakespeare rather than something completely over the top? D&D is meant to replicate a bunch of college guys getting together to sling dice and pretend to be guys who break stuff. If it evolves past that its because of your own efforts not the system or the advice of the books themselves. I think its also unfair to judge it against "Dragonlance" or "Icewind Dale" or whatnot. If Forgotten Realms is done, it better damn well have Elminster in my mind But if it doesn't...I really shouldn't feel that way. What's iconic for DMS varies from table to table. For instance in my games the Forgotten Realms are like the Wizards Three only the players are in on the jokes. Its an inherently silly place with even folk like Fzoul and Manshoon somewhat in on the joke its all ridiculous (only occasionally interrupted by villains who JUST DON'T GET IT) If I saw that flavor I'd be happy with the movie but I'm sure people would hate it
Ranger REG 02-08-04, 07:51 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps I mean I thought it was supposed to be a comedy that could be taken marginally seriously. I mean did people want the Lord of the Rings? What the Hell happens in your games? While that Wayan Brother was there to provide comic relief, I didn't expect it to be a comedy film, but an action-adventure, which they failed in that as well. I mean, there is one dungeon scene that is Ridley himself going through it, not as a party. No one complains about Knights of the Dinner Table being unrealistic. You COULD do a epic-high fantasy glorious story of good vs. evil but is that true to D&D? Because that is meant to be a comedy, a parody of our own tabletop gaming lifestyle. I mean really isn't it doing a disservice to original story work that's entirely serious to slap the D&D label on it? Slayers might have been called D&D the cartoon but it's an entirely original work too. A disservice? Making a D&D film is not a disservice to Walt Disney's Dragonslayer film, but making the Courtney Solomon version of a D&D film might as well be. I'm sorry, but while we inject humor into our D&D game, we are not running a comedy role-playing game. Instead Courtney Solomon replicaed game play with anachronisms, cheesy overacting, and occasional moments of trying to replicate something absolutely grand and breathtaking. The Dragons, architecture, and setting were in my mind pretty damn spectacular. While the special effects are decent, that is not main ingredient of cinema art. One should never make a film around special effect as the centerpiece. Special effect is there to complement the story, whatever the hell that is in Courtney's D&D film, not overwhelm. I mean, after Ooh-ing and Ahh-ing over the special effects -- which is brief when the excitement worn off -- what is there to tell about story? Are fans of the hobby taking the D&D label so seriously they expected William Shakespeare rather than something completely over the top? D&D is meant to replicate a bunch of college guys getting together to sling dice and pretend to be guys who break stuff. Maybe. But then again, while we hated D&D film, many of us actually liked The Gamer DVD. Basically, a parody of our tabletop gaming. And yet it is believable. Why? Because I relate to those funny moments in a gaming session that takes place between players and the ungawdly acts they make their PC do it. I mean if Ridley is meant to be a PC, at least give us a glimpse of the player running it. I think its also unfair to judge it against "Dragonlance" or "Icewind Dale" or whatnot. If Forgotten Realms is done, it better damn well have Elminster in my mind Just as we want D&D to be enjoyed by us, you just want to have any Elminster in any kind of FR film. In a way, you are not so different ... well, maybe with Elminster. I prefer the right kind of actor, not any kind, if it is relevant to a story, not just to be there. If I saw that flavor I'd be happy with the movie but I'm sure people would hate it So will the mainstream audience, which is still an enigma to me. After all, several years ago, there was a similar pirate film only the starring character is a lady (actress Geena Davis), that bombed, yet this Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl starring Johnny Depp -- from FOX's 21 Jumpstreet TV series -- made a profitable sales in the box office. Anyhoo, all I know is that the D&D film is not that great (should have bypassed the theater and gone straight to video), and the mainstream audience agree with me.
Charles Phipps 02-08-04, 08:20 PM	The Elminster comment was meant to show that it was an unreasonable gut reaction but one I could get over. Now Re: The D&D movie I admit I personally would have preferred to have seen the players behind it. I'd actually think it would have been better accepted by gamers to interrupt moments to have Ridley's "player" and "girlfriend" bringing their out of game stuff to the table Or Wayans getting smacked a bit for breaking mood And just "old middle aged guy who isn't a friend but came to the table because of the add a the game shop' Re: The Gamer Is this really more popular than the D&D movie because I've never seen it yet all my friends have copies of the D&D movie. I know the detractors are loud but... In any case I don't think the D&D movie was meant to be a serious adventure. More a simulation of how a table-top game would progress from "in the table" I may be overwhelming myself but while I can appreciate people's feelings, I do want to defend the film. In addition to the special affects * I liked the idea of the Wands of Dragon Control * I liked the idea of a magocracy * The idea that destroying Dragons will destroy Magics framework in the world * I enjoyed the power struggle In other words it was only the characters I didn't like and then it was only restricted to Jimmy Olsen and Wayans
Wooly Rupert 02-08-04, 09:31 PM	Originally posted by Ranger REG And yet for some unexplained reasons, Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearls was last summer's box office hit. While I personally do not think the film is nowhere near the bar set by the LOTR films, it was a success. While Sean Connery may jump at the chance to be in such a film (but only if you give him free reign, which is one of the factors that The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen took a dive last summer; beaten by Johnny Depp's pirate film), I'd rather use unknowns, or B-list actors. I thought Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl was a fun movie, very enjoyable. I saw the Geena Davis one years ago, and nothing from it even made an attempt at sticking in my mind... I thoroughly failed to be impressed with LXG, as well. In response to some others: As for the iconic characters of the Realms in a movie: that'd make me less likely to see it. While I have nothing against Drizzt or Elminster, I feel both of them have gotten way too much air time already. I want to see less of them, not more. And as I tried to point out earlier, if you pick an iconic character but not another, then there will be those who prefer someone else and will complain that they weren't in the movie. The best way to irritate the smallest number of people is to go totally from scratch. That will still irk people, but it'd not be as bad as it could otherwise be.
Charles Phipps 02-08-04, 09:34 PM	Why make a Forgotten Realms movie and not use Elminster or Drizzt? Its like making a Dragonlance movie and not using the War of the Lance
Wooly Rupert 02-08-04, 09:38 PM	Oh, and I never bothered with the D&D movie. The previews failed to grab me, so I didn't see it.
Charles Phipps 02-08-04, 09:43 PM	Its' an interesting film marred by acting that either is mind-numbingly bad as to be unbelievable or simply the deliberate choice of the editor that makes it incredibly hilarious to watch. It has a complicated political plot to unseat a mageocracy's empress whose eglatarian and democratic and involves a quasi-environmental theme where the Weave equivalent of the world depends on the existence of dragons and the main plot (use magical artifacts to send dragons to destroy each other's political faction) will destoy the planet. Only time thousands of dragons have fought each other on screen to my knowledge. I enjoyed it but can understand why people were dissapointed, just can't fathom why people hate it so much.
Wooly Rupert 02-08-04, 10:08 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps Why make a Forgotten Realms movie and not use Elminster or Drizzt? Its like making a Dragonlance movie and not using the War of the Lance There's a difference between iconic characters and world-altering storylines. You can't take Dragginglance and not in some way reference the War of the Lance. Nor do I agree that that is the only thing a Dragginglance movie could be about. On the other hand, there is much in the Realms that does not involve Drizzt Do'Urden, Elminster, or any other Chosen of Mystra. As I've pointed out before, there are people who absolutely love Drizzt Do'Urden, and there are those who absolutely love Elminster... Some are quite fanatical about it. To those people, a movie that featured the other character, but not theirs, would be a gauranteed failure. "OMG!!!11 How could u do a movie that didn't feture <insert character name here>??!? This movie is gona suk, I hate it and hope u guys go out of business for not focusing on <insert character name here> insted!!!11" Need I say more on that issue? And then there are those, like myself, that are tired of the hype those two characters receive, and who would prefer to see just about anyone else in a movie. Sure, I like Drizzt Do'Urden -- I have liked him since there was only one trilogy about him. But now there's how many books about him? I'll still read the new ones, but I no longer care enough to buy the hardcover. It's just not worth it, anymore. I'm bored with him. Just how much can you do with once character? As for Elminster, let's be realistic. His stature in the Realms has become quite large, and from reading the early stuff, I'd wager to say that Mr. Greenwood didn't intend for the Old Sage to become that much of a mover and shaker. He went from being an old but powerful wizard to one of the most influential people the Realms has ever seen. He's battled gods, been everywhere, and even helped raise the mythal over Myth Drannor. Part of the Return of the Archwizards trilogy relied on having Elminster out of the way. That is just too much. When do we finally say he's jumped the shark and move on to something else? Elminster and Drizzt are *not* synonomous with the Realms. Not every book features or even mentions those guys, and many of the books have still done well. So a movie would not need either of those two to succeed, if it was done well.
Charles Phipps 02-08-04, 11:57 PM	There's a difference between iconic characters and world-altering storylines. You can't take Dragginglance and not in some way reference the War of the Lance. Nor do I agree that that is the only thing a Dragginglance movie could be about. On the other hand, there is much in the Realms that does not involve Drizzt Do'Urden, Elminster, or any other Chosen of Mystra. But I always have viewed the Forgotten Realms as primarily a "character based" place of action while Krynn itself is a setting based place. In Krynn Tanis, Raistlin, and the like don't really matter (though Raistlin has his fanatic fanbase) because its really about the gods, dragons, and the lance. On the other hand Forgotten Realms doesn't have Earth-shaking events really on the likes of Middle Earth because its a place that's about its many peoples and regions. Its too diverse to have anything that covers the realms themselves. About the only thing that shaking was the ToT. Instead the Forgotten Realms are ABOUT Drizzt, Elminster, the Seven Sisters, and the many thousands of stories in the ubber-rich magical environment. It is their epic, magical, "Good Lord knows what's around the next corner" like Odyssesy that is the TRUE FR. Its like a myth because there's no internal logic to the setting beyond its a place of wonders
Wooly Rupert 02-09-04, 12:52 AM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps On the other hand Forgotten Realms doesn't have Earth-shaking events really on the likes of Middle Earth because its a place that's about its many peoples and regions. Its too diverse to have anything that covers the realms themselves. About the only thing that shaking was the ToT. Instead the Forgotten Realms are ABOUT Drizzt, Elminster, the Seven Sisters, and the many thousands of stories in the ubber-rich magical environment. It is their epic, magical, "Good Lord knows what's around the next corner" like Odyssesy that is the TRUE FR. Its like a myth because there's no internal logic to the setting beyond its a place of wonders No Earth-shaking events? What do you call the raising of Evermeet, the Fall of Netheril, the Dawn Cataclysm, and the Time of Troubles? Also, to a lesser extent, the Horde invasion, the death of Azoun IV, and the return of Shade? Granted, the Realms are more character driven. But Drizzt and the Chosen are not the only characters! There are easily hundreds, if not thousands, of other characters to choose from... You could take a random guard at the Twisted Tower, or Fzoul Chembryl, or anything in between. You yourself reference thousands of stories. So why do we have to pick one that's already been done? When The Crystal Shard was released, no one had heard of Drizzt Do'Urden. In fact, Drizzt was created to be Wulfgar's sidekick, not the main character! It was only later that he became a Realms icon. Drizzt was quite literally a spur of the moment creation. Mr. Salvatore is to be commended for the success of that bit of fancy mental footwork, thinks I. I think that using one of the already existing iconic characters is a bad idea, for reasons I've already stated. Why can we not let a movie intro a new iconic character or characters? Like I said, Drizzt was new, a long time ago... For that matter, why does it have to be an iconic character at all? Most of my fave Realms characters are not the iconic ones. Danilo Thann may be close to being iconic, and the same could be said for Liriel Baenre. But they don't have the fanatical following of some of the others... How about Cat and Giogi Wyvernspur? I really like those characters as well, and they're far from iconic. But they have had their own stories and influence upon the Realms in general... I also loved the comics set in FR. Kyriani, from the AD&D title, is one of my all-time favorite characters. I also liked a bit character from the same title, Tertius Wands. Tertius has popped up in the fiction. Kyri has been mentioned in at least two supplements, and the other main characters from the title have been in others. Kyri, in particular, has left her mark on the Realms, and yet she's only been statted out once, and that was in the comics! There are so many characters to chose from already... Why play with the ones that have already seen far too much air time? No, I think the best thing to do is what most of the writers of Realms fiction have already done: Come up with new characters, and let us discover all there is to know about them as the story is unfolding. Give us, once more, the joy of learning who the new characters are. And that would be better for the non-FR fans, as well. Sure, most of the people on this forum know who the characters are. But we are prolly not a large portion of the movie-going demographic. If the movie focused on an established character that's starred in a string of novels, then a portion of the audience is gonna be lost right there (not to mention the ones I mentioned before, the ones irked about their fave character not being the one in the movie). Sure, the character could be explained in the movie, but unless there's like a fifteen minute recounting of their history, then the people not familiar with the character would not get the full appreciation of him or her. Intro'ing a whole new cast of characters gives the FR fans new material to play with, and starts off all the movie-goers, fan and non-fan alike, on the same footing. This is a very good idea. It also avoids the casting issues, since everyone would have their own opinion on who would make the best Drizzt or Elminster. There has, in fact, already been a thread for casting Realms characters... I could see having an iconic character pop up for a cameo, but not much more than that.
Ranger REG 02-09-04, 05:07 AM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert As for the iconic characters of the Realms in a movie: that'd make me less likely to see it. While I have nothing against Drizzt or Elminster, I feel both of them have gotten way too much air time already. I want to see less of them, not more. Oh, to be a devil's advocate... With all due respect, I don't think Drizzt nor Elminster have as much overexposure as the iconic characters of Tolkien's literary works over the year, even though Tolkien wrote a few, while Salvatore and whoever is writing Elminster's stories have more books on them. But just as Strider and Gandalf are a fixture of Middle-Earth, so are Elminster and Drizzt of Faerun. And as I tried to point out earlier, if you pick an iconic character but not another, then there will be those who prefer someone else and will complain that they weren't in the movie. The best way to irritate the smallest number of people is to go totally from scratch. That will still irk people, but it'd not be as bad as it could otherwise be. Your point is valid. Besides, Drizzt and Elminster there are other notable iconic characters in Forgotten Realms thanks to the truckloads of novels. It may be difficult to pick just one or a few. But I think it can be forgiven if the selection of characters are good and relevant to the story. More importantly, the story HAVE to be good that one can overlook the cast of characters. Sure, there will be a few irate fans (just as there are Tom Bombadil fans ranting about the LOTR films), like it or not, your main focus is the mainstream audience, and making the cinema story believable to them. Of course, you can do it like X-Men movies and make cameo appearances of other characters. Again, the main crux is the screenplay, the script, the story ... plus a whole lot of details. Like I said, I'm spoiled by the LOTR films.
Charles Phipps 02-09-04, 09:19 AM	No offense but no, none of those events were realms shaking. part of the appeal. Allow me to quote Ferris Bueller, Bard of the Realms. "Today we learned about the sacking of Evermeet today. I'm not elvish, I don't plan on becoming elvish. The elves could be eaten by the Tarrasque and it still doesn't change I don't have I horse." the Dawn cataclysm was restricted to the gods The Fall of Netheril was an ancient past thing like the fall of Atlantis in Earth history I mentioned the time of troubles but the horde again could be ignored outside of the regions it invaded and Azoun's detah is a minor part of Cormyr history really
Wooly Rupert 02-09-04, 01:06 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps No offense but no, none of those events were realms shaking. part of the appeal. Allow me to quote Ferris Bueller, Bard of the Realms. "Today we learned about the sacking of Evermeet today. I'm not elvish, I don't plan on becoming elvish. The elves could be eaten by the Tarrasque and it still doesn't change I don't have I horse." the Dawn cataclysm was restricted to the gods The Fall of Netheril was an ancient past thing like the fall of Atlantis in Earth history I mentioned the time of troubles but the horde again could be ignored outside of the regions it invaded and Azoun's detah is a minor part of Cormyr history really Excuse me? None of those events were Realms-shaking? How can you say that? When Evermeet was raised, it altered the geography of the Realms and destroyed nations and cities. When Netheril fell, one of the most powerful deities around (and there was only like 10, to begin with) was destroyed and replaced, the most poweful nation on the planet became nothing more than ruins, and the nature of magic was forever altered. The Dawn Cataclysm saw the destruction of deities, and the sundering of at least one other. There had to have been an impact on the Realms from that... The Time of Troubles also saw the destruction of deities and the rise of new ones. There are still lingering effects of that, both in the godly realms (Shar's replacement of Ibrandul, Leira's loss, the return to preeminence of Shaundakul) and in the mortal lands (the Helmlands, other magic dead/wild magic areas, the battle in Waterdeep). The Horde invasion. The Horde sundered the Dragonwall, Shou Lung's greatest defense. This thing was far more impressive than the Great Wall of China ever thought about being. They then rolled thru Shou Lung, humbling that nation. They ravaged Rashemen, and it was only an alliance of Western powers that stopped them -- making it, in effect, something approaching the Realms's first World War. Rashemen is still recovering, and the Zhents made out pretty well in the deal as well, due to the bargains made to get them on board. This, to a lesser extent, influenced the amount of destruction caused when Zhentil Keep was razed: Vrakk had been distinguished during the campaign against the Tuigan, but when he returned to the Keep, he and his orcs were treated like dirt. So he destroyed the bridges across the river. This trapped a lot of people in the part that got destroyed, but limited most of the destruction to that half of the city. When Nalavara and her hordes invaded Cormyr, one of the most powerful nations of the Heartlands came close to destruction. They survived, but it'll be many years before the Forest Kingdom has the kind of clout it once had. The power balance of the Heartlands is now changed. And the return of Shade threatened to alter the entire climatic patterns of Faerűn. Had their attempt to melt the High Ice not been stopped, the Heartlands would have dramatically suffered. Nations would have shrunk, and the more bestial inhabitants would have gained a serious foothold. Centuries of civilization would have been undone. Even though that didn't happen, look at what did: Cormyr lost one of its cities, the Anauroch is now forever altered, and the last elven refuge on Faerűn was nearly destroyed. If those are not Realms-shaking events, then I'd hate to see one!
Herr Doktor 02-09-04, 01:40 PM	I'd say the best course for a Forgotten Realms move would be in the "style" of Spellfire. I know a lot of people have things to say about that book... Sometimes in the negative. But, I'd say a movie that incorporates the major players and sites would be the best screen representation of the Realms. In short... Gimme a Knights of Myth Drannor film! I wanna see Torm and the rest o' the bunch on screen.
Charles Phipps 02-09-04, 02:33 PM	Again, no one cared about Evermeet but the Elves. The Dawn Cataclysm hasn't even been written about because WotC thinks its utterly unimportant. Again I've mentioned the Time of Troubles, the Tugian horde MIGHt work But is THE Forgotten Realms movie going to be wasted on the Atilla the Hun invasion? I admit *IT MIGHT WORK* but it has none of the "United Realms vs. Threat" that is in other settings and that's part of the appeal in my view of the setting. There is no "Sauron" big bad but a few thousand little ones, as it should be. Always more to kill But I stand by my statement FR works because of its characters not because of its setting. I admit El and Drizzt are not the MOST important FR characters but they are the most recognizable.
Wooly Rupert 02-09-04, 04:19 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps Again, no one cared about Evermeet but the Elves. The Dawn Cataclysm hasn't even been written about because WotC thinks its utterly unimportant. Again I've mentioned the Time of Troubles, the Tugian horde MIGHt work But is THE Forgotten Realms movie going to be wasted on the Atilla the Hun invasion? I admit *IT MIGHT WORK* but it has none of the "United Realms vs. Threat" that is in other settings and that's part of the appeal in my view of the setting. There is no "Sauron" big bad but a few thousand little ones, as it should be. Always more to kill But I stand by my statement FR works because of its characters not because of its setting. I admit El and Drizzt are not the MOST important FR characters but they are the most recognizable. I have yet to have brought up the attack on Evermeet. As you point out, that was mostly isolated. I was referring to the High Magic ritual that created the island, and caused much destruction elsewhere in the process. And my mention of Realms-shaking events was not a call for those to be in a movie. I was simply trying to point out that Dragginglance and Greyhawk are not alone in having world-altering events. At no time did I suggest that the events be part of a movie. Nor did I disagree with your statement about why FR works. It does have many, many strong and distinctive characters. However, I think the fact that these characters are in a richly detailed and imaginative setting is equally important. And I will admit that Drizzt and Elminster are the most recognizable characters. My whole point has been that with the existing richness of the setting, there is no need to antagonize certain groups of fans, or drive away potential fans, by focusing on any one character (or group of specific characters) or novel. I am saying that I think the best course of action is to do what many of the novel writers have done: write a new story with new characters. As I said before, even Drizzt was a new character, once.
Monsoon28 02-09-04, 08:28 PM	Ok, Let's remember one thing for this movie to be successful, it would have to appeal to the main stream, who cares if a percentage of RPG fans are happy if the movie makes only 20Mil and cost 90 to make. So Forget Drizzt, sure I like him, but I prefer Breunor as a character. The real question is who in the main stream is going to care about a Drow Elf Movie, people are going to say"What are Drow? So their just "Black" elves?" and so on. Then with Elminster or Khelben (who I'd rather see) It still comes down to the story or else Critics and Audiences will just compare the Actor doing the Wizard to McKellan's Gandalf (And personally McKellan is one of the Greats!) The Story would have to be the thing, and it would have to be captivating to a very large Audience, So while some stories are likely to work such as a Trilogy of War of the Lance or a Single movie on let's say Death of the Dragon, People might not really dig the Time of Troubles. Who knows Legend of Huma could be a sleeper hit. *shrugs* Just a thought...
Jadeforest 02-10-04, 12:13 AM	As long as the movie is fairly simple and good it has a chance to be successful, regardless of who or what it is about. A good script, decent actors and effects usually yields a pretty good movie. Heck how many movies lack hardcore in all those areas and still yield millions? Like a few have mentioned before no matter what is done this movie (or series of movies) will not please everyone, especially the fanatics, so really I doubt this group of people is even considered in the making of movies. Personally I think with intilligent and passionate people working on it stuff like the Dark Elf Trilogy or even Avatar Crisis could translate well. And if an independant story was done, as long as it doesnt resembles something a meth junkie wrote while viewing a 24 hour marathon of Tiny Toons I'll be happy as well.
Ardent 02-10-04, 06:24 AM	The biggest thing is it has to be worth watching a second time. Most of the money comes aftermarket, particularly in genre-specific films like any fantasy-based film. LotR has been so successful because everyone, and I mean everyone, I know has a copy of each of the films. Heck, at Christmas time there were three copies of Fellowship and two of T2T in the living room at my parents' house.
Selgaunt 02-10-04, 10:31 AM	I still think the best way to ever see a FR movie on the screen would be to have it in cartoon form.(not like the japanese anime where the characters have heads the size of their upper bodies or eyes the size of my hand!!) It would be cheaper to make, no actors needed, and you could easily make a movie about all the trilogies(well at least the most popular ones!!!) trying to find real actors to fill in the shoes of imaginary characters might be hard to do...I'd rather see a well made cartoon about Drizzt, Wulfgar, Bruenor, Entreri. or another one about The Zhentarim, or Elminster, Halaster Blackcloak, The red wizards and Tam. The best about these is that even if they "flop" at the box office, i'm pretty sure video sales and rentals would be awesome over a long period of time!!!
Jadeforest 02-10-04, 11:57 AM	It would be cheaper to make, no actors needed, and you could easily make a movie about all the trilogies(well at least the most popular ones!!!) Voice Actors can make or break a movie, get really bad ones and no one will want to watch it. So unless you go with A list talent for your VAs getting unknowns means it will probably suck in cartoon form. Ruroni Kenshin comes to mind in this regard. ;p
Charles Phipps 02-10-04, 12:07 PM	Good points but... [I have yet to have brought up the attack on Evermeet. As you point out, that was mostly isolated. I was referring to the High Magic ritual that created the island, and caused much destruction elsewhere in the process.] Deep Impact: Forgotten Realms is not exactly what I would call a good movie
Wooly Rupert 02-10-04, 12:30 PM	Originally posted by Charles Phipps Good points but... [I have yet to have brought up the attack on Evermeet. As you point out, that was mostly isolated. I was referring to the High Magic ritual that created the island, and caused much destruction elsewhere in the process.] Deep Impact: Forgotten Realms is not exactly what I would call a good movie I will quote myself, from the same reply that you quoted: Originally posted by Wooly Rupert And my mention of Realms-shaking events was not a call for those to be in a movie. I was simply trying to point out that Dragginglance and Greyhawk are not alone in having world-altering events. At no time did I suggest that the events be part of a movie. And though I've not seen Deep Impact, I'm fairly certain that it had little to do with ripping holes in continents to make an island elsewhere.
Qual 02-10-04, 01:25 PM	Hey there. Most of the ideas mentioned here are based on multiple books (triology or more). Most films are based on a single book (LOTR, being a 12 epic is the exception). Maybe it's not a case of being overly ambitious and trying to make another epic trilogy of films, or else trying to cram three books into a rushed two hour film. It might be a better idea to take either a short story, or at most a single self contained book and adapt that for film. Actually, someone mentioned the Legend of Huma. That would be a good start, introducing the mytho of Dragonlance, with one central heroic character with a whole fairy-tale feel to the story. Some elements would have to be omitted (for time and story flow), but overall would work as a film. Peter Jackson was EXTREMELY lucky to find people to produce LOTR (it came really close to not being made). It would be a hard sell to convince anyone that an even more "niche" book should be made into a movie, let alone a series of movies. Just some thoughts. -Qual
Cunning Linguist 02-10-04, 01:59 PM	Most of the ideas mentioned here are based on multiple books (triology or more). Most films are based on a single book (LOTR, being a 12 epic is the exception). The major Sci-fi, Fantasy films are 3 or more movies in one haul. Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, X-Men, Conan (Im counting Red Sonja as the 3. conan movie in this case) and Harry Potter. All of whom might be seen in each own, but make out a bigger, larger then life movie when seen as a whole. Sure, there are also some movies that are single fantasy movies. Brazil and The Princess Bride. Both of them good movies.. However, for big selling movies, several is better then one.
Lord Kellnor 02-10-04, 04:55 PM	Why dump the idea of an anime movie? Just look at "Final Fantasy". It was very very well made at and it would be a whole lot more easy to depict dragons, spells, drows, planes and all! -Lord Kellnor
Wooly Rupert 02-10-04, 06:05 PM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist The major Sci-fi, Fantasy films are 3 or more movies in one haul. Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, X-Men, Conan (Im counting Red Sonja as the 3. conan movie in this case) and Harry Potter. All of whom might be seen in each own, but make out a bigger, larger then life movie when seen as a whole. Sure, there are also some movies that are single fantasy movies. Brazil and The Princess Bride. Both of them good movies.. However, for big selling movies, several is better then one. I'm gonna have to disagree with your statement. In many cases, the only reason we get sequels is because Hollywood thinks "Hey, if it worked once, it'll work again!" I'll admit that some of the ones you listed were made with the intent of them being a trilogy (or more, as in the case of Harry Potter). But a lot of movies, fantasy/sci-fi or some other genre, get sequels simply to get more money. And some sequels actually detract from the previous movies, like Temple of Doom and the second and third Matrix movies.
Alac Luin 02-11-04, 01:26 AM	I'm sitting here watching Final Fantasy: Spirit Within at this time. Computer Graffics would work great (anime is more used to define japaniese style cartoons- big eyes, blue hair, monkees named Chim Chim, etc) There is almost no way Silverymoon can be recreated on a set. I also don't understand why anyone needs earth changing events to make a movie. Die hard changed nothing but the people on that particular floor of that particular building. Speed only delt with the people on that bus for the most part. When harry met Sally really only impacted harry and sally. A good movie deals more in individual charicter development as opposed to "world changing" events. Sure, save the world can make for a great backdrop, but shouldent be the focus.
Lord Kellnor 02-11-04, 10:59 AM	My bad for misinterpreting the full meaning of anime movies:angel: What I meant was, that it could be great to se a computer animated FR movie of some sort - the animation being on the same level as Final Fantasy -Lord Kellnor
Alac Luin 02-11-04, 11:11 AM	I agree. The problom still is what story out of the 1000 posibilities will they tell, and not alianating the fans of the other 999 stories?
Cunning Linguist 02-11-04, 11:38 AM	And some sequels actually detract from the previous movies, like Temple of Doom and the second and third Matrix movies. Steven Spielberg and George Lucas have both said that Indiana Jones was supposed to be 3 movies, and the Wachomwski brothers was planing a trilogy from before they made the first movie. Some may say that they are worse then the first (and I somewhat agree) but they where planed as more then just one movie.
Ardent 02-12-04, 07:20 AM	Indy's character was actually written with a series in mind. But when everyone got a look at the scope of Temple of Doom (essentially a pilot), it was clear Indy was a movie hero. Interestingly enough, Tom Selleck was cast as Indiana Jones. Can you imagine? I wouldn't spend money on animated film (this is starting to become a rule of mine, just through unpleasant experiences), and I don't like this new-fangled "one for the hook, two for the payday" movie-making. It's just crass insofar as I'm concerned. LotR deserved six movies, frankly, so I'm not complaining about 3 4-hour ones. A FR movie *might* draw my intrest if it was done well...but that's a huge caveat. Anything else probably wouldn't, although I *might* be tempted by a Legend of Huma movie (or duology).
Capn Charlie 02-12-04, 09:00 AM	And it's that kind of elitism that will doom a FR movie to failure. For my $7 I just want an entertaining movie. I don't expect an epic to last the ages and redefine fantasy for a generation. I just want an entertaining movie. If I enjoy it, it is a good deal. If you go out expecting to see a realms that exists only in your own mind, you will be dissappointed. Plain and simple. If it DOES turn out to be an awe inspiring epic that makes Jackson look like Backshi, then great. But if you have such a high standard of expectations, then you will be let down. I don't expect the new Adam Sandler movie to be a piece of comedic genius that will make my heart's desire come true, and send me into a new age of laughter. But I do expect to enjoy the two hours.
Monsoon28 02-12-04, 09:38 AM	Ahh now there is the problem, Expectation. We've all seen it, the recent Star Wars Trilogy, The Matrix you get so hyped up for the movie that if it doen't fit with what you expected you end up being disappointed. Which is why I go to these movie usually with little or no expectations, for me the result is that I've enjoyed the new Star Wars though I still think ESB will forever be the best film. As well Reloaded and Revolutions were enjoyable, to me at least. And X2 was even better the the original X-men, once again IMHO. For a FR or DL movie to work you have to remember to Curb your Enthusiasm, it's just a film in the end after all. *tosses 2 Copper at the crowd* :smirk:
Eccerion 02-14-04, 07:10 AM	Anime is definetly one of the better mediums for the fantasy genre for several resons: -Any location you want you can just make the way you like it, no converting the whole countryside for a 10 sec shot and no need to build an expensive movie set that will most likely just be demolished after your done. After all it would be hard to put locations like Silverymoon, Waterdeep and the city of shade in a RL movie without it looking either to dull or to overdone. -You need monsters, magical creatures or elves? just make em, no need to go with prostethic feet or pointy ear clips, and if you have CGI effects you can use them to polish up the drawn images for some really fantasic results. -Characters apperance? easy to adapt and in an Anime things may look silly at times when taken over the top but it would be beyond words in a RL movie, can you imagine the trouble of shooting a fight scene involving one or more characters with knee- length hair jumping around? even whit CGI to make it possible it would look strange at best (Imagine J.Lo with hair about 3 times her current length) -Fights can be as simple or fantastic as you want, sky is the limit, litteraly, and you dont need to send your actors to several weeks worth of kendo training just so they know how to hold a sword properly. Pluss you avoid the whole "Legolas syndrome", where you have something that looks cool in RL but still dosnt seem quite right. -And maybe most importantly in a fantasy film, MAGIC! whats a fantasy film without magic? If previous fantasy films have taught us anything its that its hard to make magic look belivable, either it looks so cheesy you cant belive they went for it, or its just a knock-off of the force "need to snap chains, flick finger at chain, chain breaks.....feel the force luke:P" Even if they dont make a D&D anime movie they could make OVAs, either small (2-4 volume) storys or several stand-alones just to "feel the current". If these sell well you can move on to more ambitious projects, after all thats the way they do it Japan, if the ova tanks you dont make a movie that will end up loosing you more money, if it sells you make more. Anime already has many series and movies in the fantasy genre among them the most "D&Dish" series I`ve seen would have to be Record of Lodoss war, is practaly D&D the way it should be (they should have watched this before making that D&D movie abomination). Granted RoLw exagerates elf ears a bit but its one of those "eh I can live with it" kind of things. The series has some of the most amazing dragons ever and i swear they pinched the last part of the OVAs opening from dragonlance temple of thakesis picture:D For those of you not to into Anime just watch Princess Mononoke, possibly one of the greatest anime movies ever made, if it dosnt turn you nothing will. and it definetly belongs in the Fantasy genre, I had my PCs run into some giant warg wolves after i saw this one and boy did they get a shock when the huge mother wolf came along ;)
druid berrymore 02-14-04, 03:44 PM	Anyone seen Wonderful Days? It's a Korean 2d/3d movie(3d BGs and 2d characters). It looks simply amazing. The story isn't the best, but the visuals make up for it. I can imagine a FR animated movie done in that style, but above all the story must be worth it.
Josh Davids 02-14-04, 04:19 PM	I got to agree with some points wooley repert brought up about the reason why new characters should be used. Plus I think you might have missed one of them. Imagine when someone’s favorite character is used and it isn’t what they expected, god you would never hear the end of it till their dieing days. “oh god did you see Drizzt in that movie, he was too tall and not thin enough” , “or man look at the way he fights he suxs.” As for the type I would have to agree with the anime approach, anime is far more then just DBZ or Fatal fury type of animation. There are several pieces I would consider fantasy from record of Lodoss Wars, to Slayers though that is more comedy then anything else, Bastard as well, but the one I am surprised not brought up yet is Berserk. So far my all time favorite series from the artwork which had characters look like they could wield the swords they used to a good story behind Gatsu and Griffith and Caska. I think that style would be best for a FR movie, with the spell effects added in of course. Also most of the stuff from Studio Ghibli as well from Laputa, to Nausicaa to so many others. Also Eccerion you don’t always need a computer to refine an anime into spectacular scenes look at Mononoke, he didn’t use a single computer in that it was all drawn by hand and inked by hand, the guy is a zealot when it comes to using no computers on his stuff. I still can’t believe how he pulled off some of those effects from the nightwalker to the demonic boar. It boggles the mind sometimes. My hope is that they use brand new characters for a movie or series, have a good storyline but not over the top, and if animation is used have it done by a descent artist not someone like the guy who did aeon flux. Record of Lodoss wars was good so was berserk I get tired of the bouncing chests and huge swords wielded by toothpick thin men or scenes that are supposed to be of ancient rome but belong in some future setting. Also a little known fact about record of lodoss wars it was created using the D&D setting as a blueprint they wanted to make a movie based on the game and poof you got record of lodoss wars.
Alac Luin 02-14-04, 07:13 PM	The problum is that hand drawn animation is EXPENCIVE a team of 20 artists being paid a minimum of $50 dollors an hour, plus the camra people, plus.... The reason computors bring used it brings the cost down. It also speeds prodution time.
Ranger REG 02-15-04, 01:46 AM	$50 dollars an hour?!?!!! What nerve those artists to demand such price! We could go overseas where labor is cheap outside the United States. I'm sure there is a country with an animation sweatshop.
Capn Charlie 02-15-04, 05:05 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG $50 dollars an hour?!?!!! What nerve those artists to demand such price! We could go overseas where labor is cheap outside the United States. I'm sure there is a country with an animation sweatshop. George? Mr. Bush...
Ardent 02-15-04, 05:14 AM	Originally posted by Alac Luin The problum is that hand drawn animation is EXPENCIVE a team of 20 artists being paid a minimum of $50 dollors an hour, plus the camra people, plus.... The reason computors bring used it brings the cost down. It also speeds prodution time. This of course, should highlight the fact that (and I think REG's sarcasm got at this) ALL movies are expensive, particularly fantasy movies (which require quite a bit by way of CG). Computers are used, by and large, because they offer the best digital rebrushing, editing and CG. Not because of any mystical lower-cost field surrounding them (really, ILM's CG artists make at least as much as the typical hand animator -- you're trading one sort of trade for another). A team of talented craftsmen (like the guys from WETA who worked on LotR) isn't all that much more expensive than the typical studio lot schmoes who don't have half as much talent and certainly aren't willing to travel out in the middle of nowhere in New Zealand for months at a time to build sets and film (well, I shouldn't say that, but it'd be far too costly compared to an on-location company like WETA). I'm willing to bet an animated film would be cheaper, look cheaper, feel cheaper and generally leave the audience feeling cheated.
Eccerion 02-15-04, 05:38 AM	anime is far more then just DBZ or Fatal fury type of animation. Word :cool: I am surprised not brought up yet is Berserk Lol cant belive i forgot Berserk (DOH), I didnt mention slayers (one of my all time favs) because though its definetly a D&Dish series I think Lodoss war and Berserk capture the essance of the game better. Also Eccerion you don’t always need a computer to refine an anime into spectacular scenes look at Mononoke, he didn’t use a single computer in that it was all drawn by hand and inked by hand, the guy is a zealot when it comes to using no computers on his stuff. Hehe zelot is an understatement, dudes a genius allright. What I meant wasnt that you SHOULD use CGI, but you COULD, it cuts down on production time and cost, something alot of studios are pretty adamant on doing. Its easier to draw 5 orcs and then use a computer to make them into 500 then actually drawing 500 individual orcs. CGI definetly has its uses and can really enhance the work, long as its not overdone (HINT HINT Lucas;)) Also a little known fact about record of lodoss wars it was created using the D&D setting as a blueprint they wanted to make a movie based on the game and poof you got record of lodoss wars. IT WAS!?!:confused: :mymy: I knew RoLw was based on an RPG in Japan with the same name but I never caught the fact that it was our beloved D&D, a non-TSR champaign setting maybe? Not like there was any lack of those in the old 2e times. My hope is that they use brand new characters for a movie or series, have a good storyline but not over the top, and if animation is used have it done by a descent artist In total agreemnt on that one. By using new characters you avoid much of the rabid fanbase quagmire, and you could still throw in a know character as a cameo from time to time, like having the cast go to Shadowdale and meet Storm Silverhand. Plus its a good way to establish new characters into the FR cosmos, after all Drizzt was an unknown too at one point. I get tired of the bouncing chests and huge swords wielded by toothpick thin men or scenes that are supposed to be of ancient rome but belong in some future setting Lol do these thigns happen in anime?:P lol thats what seperates alot of series, just how much fan service and outright weirdness you throw in the mix. Just look at Reyearth, there you have a 15 year old girl , thin as a post with arms like pipes weilding a two handed broadsword thats bigger than she is like it was weightless, and even though one of the later MKR episodes "explained" it by making it actually weightless in her hands alone (nice save MKR:D), lots of other shows DONT, they just assume its perfectly natural for people to swing weapons 3 times their size around effortlessly. Fun though it may be at times it tends to get old fast. We could go overseas where labor is cheap outside the United States. I'm sure there is a country with an animation sweatshop There is, we call it Japan :angel:
Ardent 02-15-04, 06:44 AM	I'm not saying there aren't good anime fantasy out there...but things like .hack and RoLW and Berserk are pinnacles. There's a lot more that people who live in the states (and don't travel to southeast asia very often) flat out won't see. Some of it's good, most of it's bad. Anime, like any other medium, has as much down as it does up. The difference is that it's not, by and large, a medium native to the largest consumer audiences (USA) so they don't often see a lot of the down. Overall, I like anime. But if I could see it live-action, I'd probably like it more. ;)
druid berrymore 02-15-04, 12:44 PM	Please don't say this. Even if you are joking, it makes my stomach turn hearing it. Artists deserve $50 an hour...or more. A doctor learns how to be a doctor for roughly 8 years, but drawing can't be learned in 8 years. It takes much longer. Artists deserve what they get paid. The reason animation companies pay animators so much is because animators(good animators) are extremely hard to find. Same goes for background painters. Overseas? Send inbetweening(the drawings inbetween keys)overseas, because it takes less skill. The script, storyboard, layout, and key animation, however, has to be done here where the $50 an hour people are(the ones who will hopefully make the movie good). If you cut corners the movie will suck. Personally, I'd do the whole thing here, or in Japan...and send assisting(inbetweening) to Korea. Korea is cheap, but still good at assisting. My personal vision of FR would be in this style: http://wonderfuldays.co.kr/english/ Originally posted by Ranger REG $50 dollars an hour?!?!!! What nerve those artists to demand such price! We could go overseas where labor is cheap outside the United States. I'm sure there is a country with an animation sweatshop.
Wooly Rupert 02-15-04, 02:01 PM	Originally posted by Eccerion In total agreemnt on that one. By using new characters you avoid much of the rabid fanbase quagmire, and you could still throw in a know character as a cameo from time to time, like having the cast go to Shadowdale and meet Storm Silverhand. Plus its a good way to establish new characters into the FR cosmos, after all Drizzt was an unknown too at one point. Thank you! It's nice to see other people picking up on the points I spent the first part of this thread arguing! :D
Alac Luin 02-15-04, 07:03 PM	I'm not trying to debate wheter the artist deserve $50 aan hour or not, it was really just a number I picked out of the air that sounded realistic. Belive it or not, computor generated animation is cheaper then hand drawn animation. Sure the artist might get paid the same, but onece they have the model for a charicter, (thats one rendering) that mobel is used for the intire "filming", moveing the computer charicter along the computer background. This is opposed to haveing to have an artist to draw the charicter onece or each and every frame (avg, 34 frames per second, thats 34 artist renderings of 1 charicter per second of film) In any regards, I would love to see a FR film, perferably with unknown charicters I don't want to see the typical "animie" style, as animie style typically gives charicters big heads. Say no to bobble headed drow. :)
Wooly Rupert 02-15-04, 08:35 PM	Originally posted by Alac Luin In any regards, I would love to see a FR film, perferably with unknown charicters I don't want to see the typical "animie" style, as animie style typically gives charicters big heads. Say no to bobble headed drow. :) It depends on the anime you watch. Many of them have realistically proportioned characters. Just look at Macross Plus, Macross Zero, Ninja Scroll, Wicked City... All of those are well-done and had realistic artwork.
Elereth_Berantor 02-15-04, 11:53 PM	Originally posted by druid berrymore Anyone seen Wonderful Days? It's a Korean 2d/3d movie(3d BGs and 2d characters). It looks simply amazing. The story isn't the best, but the visuals make up for it. I can imagine a FR animated movie done in that style, but above all the story must be worth it. Yep, great movie, and I could see an FR movie in that style. The misperceptions about anime in this thread borderline on the hilarious and nearly fall into the moronic, though... :mad: Anyway, as for what the movie would be about... well I think it'd have to be one of the novels. Despite what everyone has said about "no Drizzt!" etc, I think that a Drizzt-based movie would actually do well if made right. I think it could easily have the potential to make a good bit of money with the general public--keep it serious, keep it smart, and make it right. 2d/3d animation would probably be best--even with today's effects I cannot see anyone portraying a Drow or even a Dwarf correctly (though the dwarves in LoTR looked pretty good).
druid berrymore 02-16-04, 03:13 AM	34 frames? Really? Where do you live? Here in North America, it's 24 frames a second. That's 12 or 24 drawings a second; 12 if you are shooting one 2's, and 24 if you are shooting on 1's. Originally posted by Alac Luin This is opposed to haveing to have an artist to draw the charicter onece or each and every frame (avg, 34 frames per second, thats 34 artist renderings of 1 charicter per second of film)
Amoun 02-16-04, 08:33 AM	oh god please dont start arguing about frames per second *hits head on table* while mildly relevant its unnecessary to argue about how many frames per second there are
Eccerion 02-16-04, 02:31 PM	Say no to bobble headed drow. LOL cant you just imagine a SuperDeformed Drizzt running around being chased by a SD Artemis Entreri waving swords after him?:D heheh now that would be a sight, would blow Drizzts credability (such as it is) out of the water. Many of them have realistically proportioned characters Indeed, the series Wooly Rupert mentioned are good examples, in fact most of the "serious" animes keep the anatomy fairly realisticaly proportioned, after all its kind of hard to tell a serious story when the caracters look all whacked out
Alac Luin 02-16-04, 06:14 PM	This morning I realised Pixar Entertainment is no longer bound by it's ties to Disney. Sure Pixar is only known for its CG cartoons, but they definitly have the technology for such an undertaken (as seen in Sully's fur in Monster's Inc.) It could help them break out of the "kid's only" cubby hole they are in. Just a random thought. :D
Ranger REG 02-16-04, 07:33 PM	Originally posted by druid berrymore Please don't say this. Even if you are joking, it makes my stomach turn hearing it. Artists deserve $50 an hour...or more. Yes, but it is coming from out of our pockets. :devil: Look, while I'm one who can reasonably accept the current price range for RPG products (which is reasonably affordable, when you factor EVERYONE involved in the making of the product), there are those who doesn't. But On-Topic... While I like animation of any kind, I better relate to live-action character than an animated figure. To me, animation is a nostalgia of my childhood, even though it is a naughty one (yes, I don't mind seeing R- or X-rated animations). Still, whatever visual cinematography they prefer, what bogs down is the story and how it is interpreted in motion picture, animation or live-action. With all the CG effects technology we have, it is hard to distinguish which is animated or not. We know that a fell beast does not exist, and yet we see them interacting with its live-action rider, a Ringwraith. If you go with animation, more than likely the director will have to aim for a G-rated audience, making graphic stuff like decapitation a little less horrific to a 3-year-olds. For me, a fantasy film based on DL, FR, or GH would have to be at least PG-rated.
Baptor 02-16-04, 11:04 PM	Well if they do make one, me and my players agree unanimously that Sean Connery should play Elminster. Did anyone see him in League of Ex Gentlemen? I think he would be PERFECT. An old man with a sarcastic attitude thats good with the ladies but can still kick butt. Oh yeah... And for some reason I love the idea of Johnny Depp playing Cyric, it fits too well methinks. Onward with a Forgotten Realms movie!!
Ranger REG 02-17-04, 02:44 AM	To some of you guys, What's with the obsession with Sean Connery? If he wants to do it, then let him do it. If he pulls an attitude like he did in The League of Extraordinary Genltemen film, I wash my hands of this movie as well. I still prefer unknowns.
Monsoon28 02-17-04, 11:22 AM	Originally posted by Alac Luin This morning I realised Pixar Entertainment is no longer bound by it's ties to Disney. Sure Pixar is only known for its CG cartoons, but they definitly have the technology for such an undertaken (as seen in Sully's fur in Monster's Inc.) It could help them break out of the "kid's only" cubby hole they are in. Just a random thought. :D Just realized this did you! :D Of Coarse I'm a Disney hater since the Bean counters and Eisner took completely over. :smirk: But do you think Pixar is really up for this? I think Dreamworks might be better suited for a more adult CG Movie. If you go with animation, more than likely the director will have to aim for a G-rated audience, making graphic stuff like decapitation a little less horrific to a 3-year-olds. For me, a fantasy film based on DL, FR, or GH would have to be at least PG-rated. Anime type films are not at all indicative to a G-rating. Unless your talking about releasing it in theatres which was not what I was aiming for when I first mentioned Anime. I think it's ideal for Direct sales, but of coarse if sales are extraordinary then sure try putting one on the Big Screen. Then bring in Dreamworks ;)
Wooly Rupert 02-17-04, 12:13 PM	Originally posted by Monsoon28 Anime type films are not at all indicative to a G-rating. Unless your talking about releasing it in theatres which was not what I was aiming for when I first mentioned Anime. I think it's ideal for Direct sales, but of coarse if sales are extraordinary then sure try putting one on the Big Screen. Then bring in Dreamworks ;) Yeah, the ones I mentioned above are definitely for mature audiences... Macross Plus and Macross Zero (thus far) haven't been too bad, and could squeak by with a PG or maybe PG-13. Ninja Scroll and Wicked City are definitely R-rated. A friend of mine walked in on her husband when he was watching Perfect Blue. She came in on exactly the wrong scene... It's important to the plot, and not terribly graphic, but seeing her husband watching that was enough to seriously tweak her off.
ENHenry 02-17-04, 12:46 PM	I can't see Sean Connery as Elminster, unless Connery can do a lilting Irish Accent (for those who've heard Ed do his Elminster Impersonations). I will also state my belief that no live-action movie will EVER be successfully made featuring or starring drow. The reason, simply, is the inevitable accusations of racism and racial stereotyping that will come out of the media and various activist groups. How on earth would you portray it? Use actors in black-face (or blue-face, or violet-face)? Noooo. Not even going there with a ten MILE pole. Use African-American Actors? Then the issue of stereotyping will undoubtedly be raised. You'll have pundits suggesting that the evil and cruelty of Dark Elves is a subtext for portraying all Africans and African-Americans as "evil." I was firmly comvinced of this when some geniuses referred to Jango Fett as "Hispanic" (the actor is Filipino), and read volumes into the planet Camino's name. These are the same geniuses who see Nemoidians as "Asian" and Jar Jar as a Carriben Black Stereotype. Much as Fantasy leaves some stereotypes behind, you'll have some activists trying to make a name for themselves by making analogies that don't belong. -------------- What I would love to see is a Realms tale based on Shandril Shessair, and the first Spellfire book. It would be a good tale to adapt; -You have a strong female lead -You have a coming of age story -you have a love interest -You have wicked cults and a NASTY dungeon (Myth Drannor) packed full of action and violence -You have a MacGuffin (the Spellfire) that pushes the plot when it's slow -You have tons of Cameo appearances -You have NO Drow elves It's got everything for getting an audience interested, and a naturally open ending for a second tale of shandril's adulthood, should there me a market. The downside is that it is very expensive to do.
Mystery Man 02-17-04, 02:57 PM	"If you go with animation, more than likely the director will have to aim for a G-rated audience, making graphic stuff like decapitation a little less horrific to a 3-year-olds. For me, a fantasy film based on DL, FR, or GH would have to be at least PG-rated." I think it would make an awesome cgi movie. Look at the first film in the animatrix and you'll see what I'm thinkin'. That's a PG-13 that could go R with a few modifications. The problem is time I would guess. I have no idea how long it would take to make a full length feature film using that type of animation. At least then you could make drow like they're supposed to be, dwarfs and halflings too. And the monsters!
Mystery Man 02-17-04, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by ENHenry Much as Fantasy leaves some stereotypes behind, you'll have some activists trying to make a name for themselves by making analogies that don't belong. In spite of these fools the Two Towers was still released as the Two Towers. Starwars is still going strong.....
Taeleraed_Saahdel 02-17-04, 05:04 PM	I think that an animated FR movie would be the best idea, so long as it wasn't an anime or a disney movie. Many people believe that Peter Jackson would be the only acceptable Director, but let's face it. He'll be biased and likely see it as a LotR rip-off. perhaps Tim Burton? Not a Nightmare before Christmas animated film, mind you, but I think he could bring the same to Forgotten Realms as Brom did. A concept design work done by Tood Lockwood and Sam Wood, and of course Brom, would give the Realms movie its distinctive 'look'. If it were live action, I would like to see Elminster played by Donald Sutherland (Space Cowboys), for he has the voice (in my own opinion) and the hawk-nose, along with the height, gaunt figure, and the cocky, almost senile grin...Christopher Walken could play none other that the God Cyric (ever see the movie "The Prophecy"?) It can be done, but NOT by the LotR staff. It just doesn't feel right...
richardharrison 02-17-04, 05:43 PM	Originally posted by ENHenry I was firmly comvinced of this when some geniuses referred to Jango Fett as "Hispanic" (the actor is Filipino), Filipino? I think you mean New Zealand Maori. Temuera Morrison from Rotorua.
Monsoon28 02-17-04, 07:49 PM	Sorry Gotta go against you on using Tim Buton, Love his work but the kind of flavour he adds wouldn't fit unless you're talking a Cyric the Mad type film. But right with you on Donald Sutherland! Excellent Choice though since I'm for animated it would be his voice only. Johnny Depp of coarse can do anything and is ALWAYS a good choice along with John Cusack! Lastly, I don't think Peter Jackson would take the job simply because he isn't looking to be type-casted as a Fantasy Director. LotR, was a childhood Dream (as it was my own and many others). Somebody else out there is doing Narnia, and if the almighty Azuth should wish it, maybe somebody good will do the same for FR. Btw what ever happened to Greenwood FR TV series?
Capn Charlie 02-18-04, 02:45 AM	Whatever they decide 9or would decide) about a FR movie, I just want them to consign themselves to an R rating from the get-go. When flipping through the channels I have a "star" rating system for movies based on how many advisories they have. I have yet to be dissapointed by any movie with 6+ advisories. If they consign themselves to an R rating they can just go from there and make the movie with out having to dumb down the script or "kiddy" it up. If it does turn out pg13, all well and good, but if they have to hamper creativity to make it fit in a category, it will be bad. I don't want to see the "kill"ing that happens in some movies. They strike a bad guy and they fall, and then it is over. To capture the seriousness of killing sommeone ior something you have to show enough detail so you understand these aren't wicker targets. Terentino(sp?) is a good candidate. Everyone knows that dnd, at it's core, is about killing sstuff. The deep roleplay was added later, the killing was what it was about. I don't neccesarily want to see CSI type closeup images every 5 seconds, but I do want to see a realistic amount of gore. And violence. A Drizzt movie should look like the intermittent bloodbath it is. As far as Connery playing El, well, come on you have to admit he has the look. And think about it, Christopher Walken as Halaster. Then again maybe not, but...
Ardent 02-18-04, 04:16 AM	I dunno, when I picture Elminster I see Liam Neeson or Sam Elliot. Just the way I think, I guess. As far as Christopher Walken as Cyric...I guess. Walken's getting old fast, though. Brilliant actor he may be, but old. ;) I still very much like the idea of a live action film and I *love* Tim Burton. Although I don't think he'd ever touch this project with a ten foot pole.
Alac Luin 02-18-04, 10:49 AM	Originally posted by Capn Charlie As far as Connery playing El, well, come on you have to admit he has the look. And think about it, Christopher Walken as Halaster. Then again maybe not, but... How about Rutger Hauer as Halaster. I know, it would be a strech of his acting ability to play an insane madman ;)
Taeleraed_Saahdel 02-18-04, 01:43 PM	I think Anthony Hopkins would be the best choice for Halastar Blackcloak...Ever see hi min "instinct'? Fantastic. A true madman. With the long hair and the beard. Perfect.
Melkor 02-18-04, 02:02 PM	We could get VIN DIESEL (in wrestling announcer voice) in it for some old fashioned Orc stomping or Zhent bashing or Draco-lich slaying. I actually saw online around the time of xXx that he was a DnD geek at one point. I think the most important part is the portrayal of the setting. Keep in mind that 90% of the audience is going to have no idea what FR is, or who any of the characters are. Despite all of the ranting we might do. I think it needs to be in a traditional high fantasy form: farmboy-dramatic event-discovering the world-quest of epic proportions. And yes acting is important, but first it needs script-writing then directing then acting. I think we have to hope for a fun movie, not an epic one.
ENHenry 02-18-04, 02:24 PM	Originally posted by richardharrison Filipino? I think you mean New Zealand Maori. Temuera Morrison from Rotorua. KNEW I shoulda double-checked beforehand. Thanks for the correction! I could see Anthony Hopkins as Halaster - but I could see Jeremy Irons in the role even more. :D
druid berrymore 02-18-04, 02:53 PM	Originally posted by ENHenry I could see Anthony Hopkins as Halaster - but I could see Jeremy Irons in the role even more. :D What about Crispin Glover as Halaster? Actually, nevermind....I'd rather see Crispin Glover as Sammaster.
Alac Luin 02-20-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by Monsoon28 But do you think Pixar is really up for this? I think Dreamworks might be better suited for a more adult CG Movie. Watchin Shrek for the first time, (thats why I'm quoteing this at a late period) and dreamworks would work, I think both Dreamworks or Pixar could do it. I just felt Pixar could do it to breack the kids stero type. Now I'm off to make my Half Dragon Donkey.
Cunning Linguist 02-20-04, 08:27 PM	I think a french movie would be good. Try to make Chanal+ produce it. They made movies that look great, and they fund films that may not have as much prospect as other films. And they look good, just look at.. Brotherhood of the Wolf, City of lost children and Muholland Drive. All these movies look great, and they cost 1/10 of what a hollywood movie does.
Ardent 02-21-04, 04:04 AM	Originally posted by Cunning Linguist They made movies that look great, and they fund films that may not have as much prospect as other films. And they look good, just look at.. Brotherhood of the Wolf, City of lost children and Muholland Drive. All these movies look great, and they cost 1/10 of what a hollywood movie does. Ironic you should mention them, because this was one of the roundtable discussions amongst (predominantly British and American, I will admit) ex-pats the other night. It began with the simple, earnest question "Did anyone understand Mulholland Drive?" and quickly degenerated into a general questioning of the ability of French filmmakers. I, personally, would rather the movie cost ten times more and be understandable by a majority of persons rather than cost ten times less and be understandable by a slim, esoteric minority.
Cunning Linguist 02-21-04, 06:13 AM	Not understanding Muholland Drive comes from the fact that it was made by David Lynch, not that it was french.
Alac Luin 02-21-04, 07:05 PM	Originally posted by Ardent I, personally, would rather the movie cost ten times more and be understandable by a majority of persons rather than cost ten times less and be understandable by a slim, esoteric minority. As long as your not the one paying for the production cost who cares. The idea is for someone to finance the "niche" audience of a FR movie. Few people will invest more then what they believe they can get back. This is why production cost is of a concern. For the movie patron, we pay our $7 ticket (or $15 price for DVD) price, and were done, enough people need to go and pay their $7 (again, or $15 price for DVD)to make financially feasible (ie, enough to pay production cost and make some kind of profit. Considering some of the failures in the D&D track record few people are willing to invest large sums of money.
Ardent 02-22-04, 03:55 AM	You'll notice I hold my opinion personally. ;) I'm not a producer, but if I were, I'd be a huge believer in direct marketing something like a Forgotten Realms movie. The social stigma is still alive and well, at least in America and Britain, and it's unlikely a fantasy genre film that isn't Lord of the Rings will be able to shatter those stigma barriers on attendance.
Neo2151 02-23-04, 10:40 AM	Honestly if they even did plan to do a second attempt at a D&D movie, and IF they placed it in Faerun, what better story to follow than Spellfire? Using a trilogy is more of a good idea than a stand-alone because of the possibility that it will do well, and people will want a sequil. What better sequil than the second part of a story? Also, Shandril's story is far enough removed from the "heavy" realms characters that a few random instances of Elminster won't matter much. People will just assume (if they aren't familiar with FR) that this wizard is supposed to be some kinda well-known powerful wizard that they're calling the aid of. The story was excellent and would most likely hold up in theatres, and Realms fans would get to see camio's of some of their fav characters. However, IF they did decide to base it in a particular world... it would probably end up in Greyhawk or Dragonlance, most likely Greyhawk. Dragonlance is more simplified than Forgotten Realms and would make for an easier movie production... and Greyhawk is where 3.5 D&D is BASED in... making it an obvious choice. P.S. People keep saying El's had too much air time, but if anyone's seen too much air-time, it's definitly not Elminster (7 books and camio's)... it's Drizzt. Even though he's one of my favorite characters in the realms, c'mon... 17 books about him??
Knightcrawler 02-24-04, 12:14 AM	Dragonlance would be the best choice. Just because the fan base is larger. Before I get flamed let me explain. A lot of people who have never gamed read that series. Its very popular among nongamers. I think that would have a much better chance to do well. Plus a very clearcut good vs. evil.
Wooly Rupert 02-24-04, 01:15 AM	Originally posted by Knightcrawler Dragonlance would be the best choice. Just because the fan base is larger. Before I get flamed let me explain. A lot of people who have never gamed read that series. Its very popular among nongamers. I think that would have a much better chance to do well. Plus a very clearcut good vs. evil. If the fan base is so much larger, then why is WotC not pushing Dragginglance more?
Kuje31 02-24-04, 02:28 AM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert then why is WotC not pushing Dragginglance more? Because WOTC is letting Soverign Press print the sourcebooks. Like many of the old campaign settings WOTC only put out the campaign setting so they can get the most $$ from it, all other sourcebooks have been put out by Soverign Press. This was the same thing WOTC did with Ravenloft. WOTC put out the campaign book but the rest of them are printed by the company that is a parent company of White Wolf. Yes WOTC still puts out the Dragonlance novels also since novels tend to bring in money also. :) Also there was/is talk of a Dragonlance movie at 2002's Gencon. http://www.dragonlance.com/news/rumors.asp An option has been taken out on a Dragonlance movie. Whether or not it will translate into an actual film is anyone's guess at this point, but it does mean that there is some interest in the project. Also, the site below has a lot more info on the movie. http://www.dragonlance-movie.com/cgi-bin/dlcont/contents.asp
Ranger REG 02-24-04, 03:41 AM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Because WOTC is letting Soverign Press print the sourcebooks. Like many of the old campaign settings WOTC only put out the campaign setting so they can get the most $$ from it, all other sourcebooks have been put out by Soverign Press. This was the same thing WOTC did with Ravenloft. WOTC put out the campaign book but the rest of them are printed by the company that is a parent company of White Wolf. While you are correct about the WotC/Sovereign Dragonlance arrangement, it is very different when it comes to Ravenloft arrangement. White Wolf and its subsidiary company, Arthaus, have been granted full license where they designed and published the Ravenloft core campaign book and supporting supplement products, while WotC reap the royalties. It is the same type of arrangement when it comes to Gamma World. By these arrangements, however different, TSR/WotC games continues to thrive.
Kuje31 02-24-04, 04:10 AM	Originally posted by Ranger REG While you are correct about the WotC/Sovereign Dragonlance arrangement, it is very different when it comes to Ravenloft arrangement. White Wolf and its subsidiary company, Arthaus, have been granted full license where they designed and published the Ravenloft core campaign book and supporting supplement products, while WotC reap the royalties. It is the same type of arrangement when it comes to Gamma World. By these arrangements, however different, TSR/WotC games continues to thrive. Funny, that's not how I've heard it from the people who wrote the Ravenloft campaign setting. Soverign Press has the same license as the people of Arthaus. WOTC put out both campaign settings and all supplement material is then put out by either Soverign Press or Arthaus. Same deal with Kalamar and Oriental Adventures. WOTC put out the main books since those draw the most money and then 3rd party took over the supplement books. Kenzer Company has the license to continue Kalamar and AEG has the Oriental Adventure license for more sourcebooks for that. But WOTC still owns the license for Ravenloft (since they are still publishing Dragon articles), Oriental Adventures, Dragonlance (since they are still publishing novels and Dragon articles), and Kalamar. However, this is getting way off topic so let's drop this subject and I only brought it up because Wooly asked why WOTC doesn't do much with Dragonlance. :)
Archangel 03-30-04, 03:25 AM	I vote for a Dark Elf trilogy movie! Starts at the beggining and slowly introduces us to the world of the dark elves and one boy trying to escape it. I am sorry but whatever you say this is still the greatest story that has the greatest potential of touching the hearths of mass viewers that know nothing about D&D or FR! How one or the other fan feals about this is not really important because if this movie makes it than the series will come and more and more movies so in the end everybody will be happy! But if this second movie also failes that who knows how long we'll have to wait for another fantasy movie! *smites ArchDevil
Archangel 03-30-04, 03:25 AM	Double POST!
Archangel 03-30-04, 03:28 AM	Triple POST!
Wooly Rupert 03-30-04, 04:27 AM	Originally posted by Archangel I vote for a Dark Elf trilogy movie! Starts at the beggining and slowly introduces us to the world of the dark elves and one boy trying to escape it. I am sorry but whatever you say this is still the greatest story that has the greatest potential of touching the hearths of mass viewers that know nothing about D&D or FR! How one or the other fan feals about this is not really important because if this movie makes it than the series will come and more and more movies so in the end everybody will be happy! But if this second movie also failes that who knows how long we'll have to wait for another fantasy movie! *smites ArchDevil *sighs* Have you not read any of my reasoning for not basing a movie on a novel? Also, as others have pointed out -- just how well would this fly to the general public? Unlike the LotR books, the Drizzt books aren't something everyone has read. And if you do put a movie on the big screen that shows a bunch of dark-skinned people who are thoroughly evil, then what will the various ethnic/political groups say? Sure, we, the fans, know that it's not racism. But will the average movie goer see this? The political action groups -- the ones that look for the smallest things to make a huge commotion out of -- will they understand that? Sure, make a Drizzt movie. And kiss WotC goodbye, because that'd be the end of them.
Ranger REG 03-30-04, 07:35 PM	Originally posted by Kuje31 Funny, that's not how I've heard it from the people who wrote the Ravenloft campaign setting. Soverign Press has the same license as the people of Arthaus. WOTC put out both campaign settings and all supplement material is then put out by either Soverign Press or Arthaus. AFAIK, it is White Wolf/Arthaus that published the Ravenloft Campaign Setting Book, and more recently the Ravenloft Player's Handbook. WotC have no hand in it except for collecting royalties for the use of Ravenloft trademarks. Only WotC foot the bill to have DLCS printed and therefore reap the revenue of that product's sale. Sovereign Press, the designers of said book, was paid for the material. Outside of the DLCS Sovereign Press also agreed to suppport the book with supplements only they have to foot the bill in publishing them in print. I'm hoping that they will have released the 4th Age/War of the Lance supplement soon. Same deal with Kalamar and Oriental Adventures. KoK is Kenzer & Co. creation. They paid WotC for the use of D&D trademarked logo. Only Kenzer & Co. designed and published their KoK products. WotC sold AEG the entire IP of L5R and Rokugan (acquired from Five Ring Publishing Group, the original IP owner) to AEG. In that agreement, WotC is allowed to use Rokugan as the featured setting for their new Oriental Adventures book as well as the license to print-publish L5R/Rokugan fictions, and AEG can use the OA trademarked logo for their Rokugan line. IOW, each agreement is not similar, just on a case-by-case basis.
Kuje31 03-30-04, 08:00 PM	Originally posted by Ranger REG AFAIK, it is White Wolf/Arthaus that published the Ravenloft Campaign Setting Book, and more recently the Ravenloft Player's Handbook. WotC have no hand in it except for collecting royalties for the use of Ravenloft trademarks. Only WotC foot the bill to have DLCS printed and therefore reap the revenue of that product's sale. Sovereign Press, the designers of said book, was paid for the material. Outside of the DLCS Sovereign Press also agreed to suppport the book with supplements only they have to foot the bill in publishing them in print. I'm hoping that they will have released the 4th Age/War of the Lance supplement soon. KoK is Kenzer & Co. creation. They paid WotC for the use of D&D trademarked logo. Only Kenzer & Co. designed and published their KoK products. WotC sold AEG the entire IP of L5R and Rokugan (acquired from Five Ring Publishing Group, the original IP owner) to AEG. In that agreement, WotC is allowed to use Rokugan as the featured setting for their new Oriental Adventures book as well as the license to print-publish L5R/Rokugan fictions, and AEG can use the OA trademarked logo for their Rokugan line. IOW, each agreement is not similar, just on a case-by-case basis. [/B] Fine, you heard what you heard, and I heard what I heard. This is a old arguement any way, so let's just agree to disagree, because as I said, it is off topic.
Archangel 03-31-04, 05:38 AM	*sighs* Have you not read any of my reasoning for not basing a movie on a novel? Also, as others have pointed out -- just how well would this fly to the general public? Unlike the LotR books, the Drizzt books aren't something everyone has read. And if you do put a movie on the big screen that shows a bunch of dark-skinned people who are thoroughly evil, then what will the various ethnic/political groups say? Sure, we, the fans, know that it's not racism. But will the average movie goer see this? The political action groups -- the ones that look for the smallest things to make a huge commotion out of -- will they understand that? Sure, make a Drizzt movie. And kiss WotC goodbye, because that'd be the end of them. Well your reasoning is wrong! And if can't see it after 4 pages then I can't help you! *smites ArchDevil
Wooly Rupert 03-31-04, 10:40 AM	Originally posted by Archangel Well your reasoning is wrong! And if can't see it after 4 pages then I can't help you! *smites ArchDevil No, my reasoning is NOT wrong. I'm trying to be realistic here. How many others on this thread can say that they are attempting to look at all the variables that go into a successful movie venture?
Faraer 03-31-04, 11:30 AM	Despite auteur theory, the way films end up is greatly dependent on the script, the control of the studio, the design, the cinematography and, crucially, the production department. Hollywood films have a narrow stylistic and emotional range for these reasons. Similarly, American TV drama all looks the same. British TV drama all looks the same. In order to make a Realms film that felt like the Realms, rather than a standard action movie with Realms proper names -- as with the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen movie and so many others -- both the money people and the production guys working on it would have to understand the Realms at a fairly deep level. That isn't possible because the sword and sorcery origins of the Realms aren't widely read or understood; despite the much greater exposure of The Lord of the Rings, it's still a miracle the films ended up as authentic as they did. I don't know how close a Realms film has come to happening, and I don't doubt it could be good promotion for WotC. But I don't see how there could be a big-budget Forgotten Realms film in more than name, and I don't see Hasbro licensing the Realms to independents. As for the suitability of Homeland: it's a good story, but not better than dozens of others in the Forgotten Realms, has little connection with the aboveground setting, and its name recognition isn't great enough by itself.
pblogic 04-03-04, 04:17 PM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert I think that doing any movie based on an FR novel (or trilogy) is a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. If they chose to do one on Drizzt Do'Urden's early years, then someone would complain that they shoulda done the Icewind Dale trilogy, instead. If they did that trilogy, then someone would complain that they shoulda gone later into the series... Say they pick someone else instead of Drizzt. Elminster, perhaps. Then people complain that El's getting yet more screen time, when they want to see less of him. Or they don't want to see a Chosen in a movie at all... The same goes for any of the Chosen of Mystra, really. And why couldn't they have picked Drizzt? So ruling out the iconic characters, who's left? Well, they could do the death of Azoun IV... But other people would want to see the Avatar trilogy. They could do that, but other people would want to see the Shade books... Why a trilogy? Why not Elfshadow or The Ring of Winter? So they pick a single book. Now the people who wanted a trilogy are unhappy... No matter what book(s) they picked, people would complain. Everyone has their favorites, and think that their fave is the perfect choice. And then we get to the casting. One person might think Julia Roberts (for example) would make a perfect Storm Silverhand, but someone else would think that the girl from Pirates of the Caribbean would be the ideal choice. And so on and so forth. Next is the question of who's gonna do it. If Peter Jackson, with all the money he had for the Lord of the Rings trilogy was available, then most would agree that he'd do a good job. But I've heard people :censored: about those movies, saying how this was wrong or that scene coulda been done better, and why'd they cut Tom Bombadil? My point is that if they chose to do a novel, people would find reasons to be unhappy about it. I think that fact that 'some people would complain no matter what' is a stupid reason not to make a movie. Some people will complain about EVERY movie in EVERY genre EVER made. Your argument is a good argument to never create ANY art at all.
XZooDude 04-05-04, 12:29 AM	I discovered this thread a little late, but I'll add my own two cents in to the discussion, in no particular order: 1. While I think an animated FR movie could be pretty cool, I don't think it will happen. The reason is that animation still carries a stigma in the US of being for kids, at least in the mainstream. The few animated movies that were aimed at teenagers or older (Titan A.E, Final Fantasy) did fairly lousy at the box office from what I remember, despite being decent movies. At best, an animated FR movie would be a very risky venture, and I doubt any major studio would take it on. 2. Any successful movie ideally has to reach the largest amount of people possible. PG, or PG-13 movies reach far more people than R movies, and since the fan base for fantasy films are generally younger, those would be the ratings you'd want for such a film. Besides, LOTR was PG-13 (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) and that was perfectly fine. 3. Characters that have a small fanbase can have a successful mainstream film - Hellboy was tops at the box office this week, and that's not a mainstream comic book character by any stretch of the imagination. 4. If you make a film with interesting, accessible characters and a strong story, people will see it, regardless of whether or not they are familiar with FR at all. I guarantee if you have a great looking trailer featuring a clip of Drizzt in battle, or Elminster performing some magical feat, you will garner interest from your average movie goer. Regardless of your opinion of Drizzt, he's a different enough character visually that he would garner interest from filmgoers (again, look at Hellboy for an example of a visually interesting character). 5. Speaking of those two characters, I think a film with either or both would be fine. So would a movie with completely new characters. I think the question that needs to be asked is, what would a FR movie have to have in it to make it a FR movie? What distinguishes the Realms from any generic fantasy setting? 6. If a FR movie is made, it's going to be a gamble. As such, the initial movie would have to stand alone. It could hint at a sequel, of course (and probably should). The movie would have to establish itself as successful before the idea of sequels could be entertained. 7. Finally, no FR movie will ever please everyone, and you have to look at pleasing the majority of fans, not a vocal minority. That's all I have for now, but I'm sure I'll come up with others...
Boz Shulun 04-05-04, 08:40 AM	When it comes to production costs and fan base, if there is no financial support for a FR movie then generate some. I’m sure that everyone would pay $10, $20… $100 to see a well-made FR movie. Start a grass roots campaign (fundraiser) to have a fan-financed movie made. ---------------------now for reality--------------- There will never be a FR movie made. Why? 1. Mainstream Hollywood execs want something easy 90% of the time. Every once in a while you get a visionary (or a nut) who will go out on a limb, but there are just too many who are looking to ride the coat tails of the truly ingenious and talented. A truly well made FR movie would be way harder to make than the next buddy cop movie. 2. While LotR was a smashing success, fantasy and D&D in particular is still perceived as a hobby for booger-eating nerds. Once the buzz about LotR dies down, mainstream audiences will forget fantasy for the next J-Lo flick and we will be exiled to the end of the lunchroom table to play our little game and dream. 3. The FR fan base is too factioned (as stated above). You have the Pro-Drizzt camp (but that camp is broken into early and late career), Anti-Drizzt/Pro Drow, Anti-Drow… etc. Hollywood can see things like this and stay away. Think about it. They are all about image and perception. I could see it now, an Entertainment Tonight report on how even the FR fans (one faction or other) hate the movie. I am not suggesting a new and better D&D movie shouldn’t be made (the best part of the first one was the Dragonlance card I got at the gate that I promptly threw in the trash). I would love to see one. But I remain skeptical.
Faraer 04-05-04, 12:10 PM	I don't think Boz Shulun's point 2 is the case. I think the tide has decisively turned, that the literary-snob anti-fantasists are now on the rearguard. About 25 of the 30 top (non-inflation-adjusted) box-office films of all time (http://www.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies) are fantasy or SF. That's what's really mainstream, despite certain media voices. XZooDude's point 5 is the operative thing. If a film doesn't get the spirit (rhythm, nuance, structure) of the Realms right, and as I said I don't see how it could, it would from a Realms point of view be no more than a marketing thing. And welding Drizzt more closely to the perceived Realms is clearly not a good idea.
Boz Shulun 04-05-04, 01:09 PM	Originally posted by Faraer I don't think Boz Shulun's point 2 is the case. I think the tide has decisively turned, that the literary-snob anti-fantasists are now on the rearguard. About 25 of the 30 top (non-inflation-adjusted) box-office films of all time (http://www.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies) are fantasy or SF. That's what's really mainstream, despite certain media voices. Excellent point. I wonder, though, before LotR how many fantasy or SF movies were taken seriously enough to win an Oscar? (Honest question, I really don’t know.) Not that winning an Oscar determines a good movie (i.e. Shakespeare in Love and Driving Miss Daisy).
Klyden 04-05-04, 10:42 PM	I don't think D&D should be a movie series or even a single movie. After seeing the first D&D Movie, all I could think about while watching it was how much my brain was hurting watching it. My opinion though. Feel free to disagree.
Mutablegenus 04-05-04, 11:51 PM	Originally posted by Wooly Rupert I think that doing any movie based on an FR novel (or trilogy) is a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. If they chose to do one on Drizzt Do'Urden's early years, then someone would complain that they shoulda done the Icewind Dale trilogy, instead. If they did that trilogy, then someone would complain that they shoulda gone later into the series... Say they pick someone else instead of Drizzt. Elminster, perhaps. Then people complain that El's getting yet more screen time, when they want to see less of him. Or they don't want to see a Chosen in a movie at all... The same goes for any of the Chosen of Mystra, really. And why couldn't they have picked Drizzt? So ruling out the iconic characters, who's left? Well, they could do the death of Azoun IV... But other people would want to see the Avatar trilogy. They could do that, but other people would want to see the Shade books... Why a trilogy? Why not Elfshadow or The Ring of Winter? So they pick a single book. Now the people who wanted a trilogy are unhappy... No matter what book(s) they picked, people would complain. Everyone has their favorites, and think that their fave is the perfect choice. And then we get to the casting. One person might think Julia Roberts (for example) would make a perfect Storm Silverhand, but someone else would think that the girl from Pirates of the Caribbean would be the ideal choice. And so on and so forth. Next is the question of who's gonna do it. If Peter Jackson, with all the money he had for the Lord of the Rings trilogy was available, then most would agree that he'd do a good job. But I've heard people :censored: about those movies, saying how this was wrong or that scene coulda been done better, and why'd they cut Tom Bombadil? My point is that if they chose to do a novel, people would find reasons to be unhappy about it. then why don't they just do them all?;) ;) ;)