Although they left out a few of the "fun" scenes from the novel, I think they got to the heart of the story, characters, and awesomeness of Dragonlance.
Just my
I thought the CGI wouldn't be too bad, but I was wrong about that. It truly ruined the visual aspect of the film when it was present.
They did a good job on the main characters mannerisms, particularly Raistlin's habitual smirk. (Though his eyes twinkled a bit too much...) And I was very happy they included Flint refusing to get in the boat.
The voice acting and music were good. Once I got past the visuals, it was decent.Yet, I was disappointed. I really just did not like it. The relationship between Caramon and Raistlin was explored only as far as the sequence featuring no dialogue (or even facial expressions) in which Caramon tries to help his brother to the boat and was denied.
I can't stand the fact that they were willing to spend their budget on making Tika's boobs and butt constantly bounce and sway, but not on giving the CG real texture or even bumping up the amount of frames used in the animation. I don't mind the style of the animation. But, I do mind that Flint was constantly out of proportion to embarrassing degrees, actions many times held no integration from one movement to another, and there was only shading every once in a while.
The voice acting was something I had high hopes for. You'd think with a cast like that... It just wasn't any good. No inflection, realism, or even creativity. Now, by realism, I mostly mean reacting to their surroundings. It all sounded rushed and like the director said, "You're supposed to shout here." None of it seemed natural because sometimes breaks for breaths simply didn't exist.
The character designs were pretty decent. Sometimes they spent a lot of time on Sturm's armor, sometimes they didn't. What really cracked me up is when I could point out armor or outfits that were straight out of the 3rd Edition core books.
Onto the story. About the time they went to see Forestmaster (that unicorn), things started to get really bad. First, they have a two minute conversation with the spectres, which had no effect on Raistlin at all - they didn't even bother changing his voice or anything. And the part where they freeze Riverwind's sword was laughable. Then they randomly step through a Stargate and find themselves in the Sacred Grove. The Forestmaster/Poison Ivy has them greeted with cornucopia-toting, laughing, centaur hotties. That's not even remotely like the book. As you can see, I have yet to leave one part of the stoy. I could go on forever. So, I'll stop.
WotC, please stop moving on to other entertainment mediums. After the movies, the cartoon show, the mmorpg...I just can't take it anymore.
The animation is kind of jerky, and the voice acting just sounds weird.
And what's with Tas and Flint changing their relative size all the time?
This it to who ever had any part of the making of that monstrosity: Stop it! Right now! if there was anything that was going to give DnD a bad name it is the made for the garbage dung heaps like this that do it!!!
I didn't even have all that high of hopes for this movie, but still it let me down in such away that it makes me not want to ever watch another DnD movie again...of course, I will though! And maybe that is part of what makes me soooo mad.
My advice for any future projects: Maybe get a reputable animation and production company to do it. Try making a film that is good. Or better still, just wait until some good producer/director decides to do it on his/her own, and let them have the rights to do it in their own way. Because you have proven that you can't. I mean seriously!! Way to take a great story and really flop it!
Like what the heck was with the goblins!? They get one giant nostril on their upper lip! Arrrrrgggggg! Seriously!
*Shakes his fist at anyone who had anything to do with that film*
:headexplo :hoppingma*Shakes his fist at anyone who had anything to do with that film*
Uh, yeah, thanks. :surrender
You might find that some members of this forum got a special thanks credit in the movie. So, uhm...yeah. :raincloud
And yeah, it's easy for me to gripe about something, given that I don't make movies or anything...but I think they flopped that movie. And if you happen to be someone who was an animator, or decision maker for the movie.....what can I say? I think they dropped the ball on this one...
I just finished watching this thing.
It sucked.
Hard.
I can see the problem of putting together a book of that length and making it into a feature length story. I'll give a pass on that.
The voice acting was passable. If there was time to act anything I'm sure itwould have been better.
Animation? Wow. Barely. There are so many horrible problems with it I won't start.
What was anyone involved in this thinking?
No, I don't mean people on this board. I'm sure they didn't greenlight it or set a budget. If their names are in the end credits you can be sure no one is going to see them.
Does Wizards realize what they've done? I don't know this for certain but I'd say Dragonlance is second in popularity only to Lord of the Rings. I heard they made Lord of the Rings into a movie a few years ago. I think it did pretty well.
There must have been a better studio to go to. I don't know the animation world that well, but I'm certain there is one working with 21st Century technology.
What was the rush? Get it out for the all important mid-January straight to DVD awards?
The sheer waste of the Dragonlance name on this is criminal. They flushed millions of dollars down the toilet by allowing this thing to happen.
There is nothing good about this. Nothing.
Well sorry man...but maybe you can tell me what was the deal with the Cycloptic nostrils then.
No idea.
And yeah, it's easy for me to gripe about something, given that I don't make movies or anything...but I think they flopped that movie. And if you happen to be someone who was an animator, or decision maker for the movie.....what can I say? I think they dropped the ball on this one...
To be clear, about the extent of my role was a little research for them. I really had nothing to do with the production of the movie, so I can't answer too many questions.
To be fair, there has been a lot of criticism aimed at this movie. Most of it has been aimed at the animation, and I can't say I disagree. I do think the criticisms against the voice actors are a bit much. The story did get truncated, but that's to be expected with a 90-minute film. I just wish some of the one-liners remained.
Where the movie shines, though, is the soundtrack. Tracy Hickman himself referred to it as "Oscar-worthy."
Still, despite its flaws, I found that I enjoyed the movie.
Checking around on the board I saw it mentioned that Wizards held the purse strings on this.
Is that true?
Because it would be...disappointing.
Can anyone explain why WotC would take a multi-million dollar bath on this, and - further - damage their own franchises FURTHER with something like this?
Well sorry man...but maybe you can tell me what was the deal with the Cycloptic nostrils then.
Q*bert was a goblin.
Well, I agree.
There is no defending this movie. No matter whose name is attached or what company is paying you, this thing was painful.
They blew a tremendous opportunity to make a good name for the game. The new edition is coming out this year. How awesome would it be if the movie was great? Wouldn't that make it a huge marketing and "recruitment" tool?
Wasn't the Players Handbook 4.0 supposed to come out this month? Is this why it was rushed? Were they trying for some sort of tie in? Don't the books come out in June now?
Dragonlance has a huge built in audience. DoAT could have been the beginning of a great movie franchise. Two trilogies.
They could have developed it for TV. With all of the material they could easily have the 100 episodes for syndication. Syndication money would be sweet.
Now it's radioactive.
Or they will have approach networks and studios, hat in hand, and tell them how great a thing they have. They can show them the movie and say "just don't it it like this."
On another message board someone said something along the lines of "look how bad the Bakshi films were and look what it got us. The Lord of The Rings."
Does anyone want to wait 25 years for them to make this thing right?
I simply don't understand why they would allow this to occur. Was there no oversight? And why release it? Are they that desperate for cash?
They seem to have taken it for granted that we would buy it anyway.
Don't apologize for them. By screwing this up this badly they have not only ruined this movie but the possibilities for other projects for a very long time.
It's terrible.
There must have been offers from studios. Must have been. And if there weren't, how hard is it to contact a studio. "Hi, I'm Mr./Ms. Wizards of the Coast. I have a property that can print money. Would you like to work on it with me?"
"What would that be?"
"A little thing called Dragonlance. Over a hundred books out. Millions and millions of copies sold. New York Times Bestseller. Huge built in audience. Almost fanatic really. It's a great story. Action, romance, great villains."
"No. We don't like franchises. Or money. And frankly nobody is making fantasy movies. They're just not popular. Even bad ones."
But it doesn't go like that.
You make a good movie. You make a bunch of money. Then you put out the DVD. You make a bunch of money. You put out the special edition. You make a bunch of money. You make the second movie. Repeat. The third movie. Repeat. Boxed set.
Second trilogy. Repeat.
Income stream for let's say 12 years. From the movies alone. Coinciding with this people are buying books. New edition 4.0. And of course 5.0.
More players, more acceptance for your product, and then you sell more product.
I'm not sure about this. But I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Did anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the first AD&D Live-Action movie think that anything better was possible? These were the people who brought you the "Snails" character and Jeremy Irons in blue mascara.
No, truly horrific garbage like this is inevitable because:
1) The people who hold the purse strings don't view movies as "art" they use the word "product".
2) Horrible writing is cheaper to find than good writing, and if it's just "product" then, nobody can tell the difference, right? So I'll pay my 15-year-old cousin who writes Caramon and Tasslehoff slasher fanfic to do the script.
3) Horrible animation is cheaper than good animation. And one of the marketing people has a cousin who does slasher Caramon and Tasslehoff drawings. Thus the issues with proportion and scale.
4) Even the people who know better, like the game designers, keep quiet because they have a vested interest in the status quo. Even the best designers turn out 75% crap and 25% good stuff, it's just the nature of art. And while that may be a much better ratio than a mediocre designer might manage, they do not want to work four times as hard to finish a project. And you can usually tell where they put in their effort and where they slacked off.
It's not that they set out to make a gigantic bomb that sucked harder than black holes, it's that they have a mindset that prevents them from recognizing one when they are making it. They don't see a movie so bad it is a waste of a perfectly-good blank DVD. They see ninety-seven minutes of "product" aimed at a specific market demographic with an established trademark and "iconic" characters that establish it as salable.
In other words, they're business twonks who don't appreciate the setting, and don't recognize that you NEED to appreciate the setting as art in order to do it justice.
The voice acting was the strongest part of the production and it was marginal. The big name "stars" parts felt phoned in. No real investment.
The animation sucked. Mixed CGI and 2D cell can work (see Titan AE for an example) but this looked like WOW Machinima mixed with the old D&D cartoon.
The story? Dargonlance for the short bus. They managed to rip all the soul out of the story.
My roommate and fellow gamer who is the real Dragonlance fan in the house having read nearly ALL of the novels has since seeing this movie refused to even speak of it. I think she is still looking for the brain bleach to get this stain out.
this movie should have been made live action,
Up until this point, I agree with you.
i have heard and read all the excuses that it would cost too much money to do all the things required. THIRD EDITION BOOKS FOR DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS COST $30 A PIECE. Wizards of the Coast is making money on this lifestyle hand over fist. I read the books so many times that I can pretty much quote the story verbatum, a lot of the people I know are the same way. So when the goblins attack flint and tanis and tas shows up later i started screaming, and i kept screaming through the whole movie. Shorten the story, i get it.
Okay, why would the price tag of WotC's product be an issue for the making of the current film? WotC is not in the film producing industry. They don't have a film studio like Marvel or WWE.
All they did is license out the film right. Whoever bought the film right have to find the money to make the film.
Let get this part straight.
but the hobbit is getting two movies why not these books.
Well, if LOTR had bombed in the box office, history might have been different, now would they?
Remember, many thought this adaptation was unfilmable. Even purists today don't think the films live up to the interpretation of Tolkien's greatest works.
Besides, you're comparing to the granddaddy of modern fantasy literature to a role-playing game (spun off from wargames) we 80's folks played in our parents' basement.
if there gonna be straight to dvd animated pieces than it shouldn't be too difficult to make them better.
Aside from the Olsen Twins video series and Marvel animated Avenger films, makes you wonder why they forego theatrical release, like that other D&D movie (the first one with "boring" Thora Birch).
KILL THE CG! No one cares if the animation is all contemporary, we wanted to see DRAGONLANCE.
Must take their cue from Michael Bay when he made a film revolving around a Japanese bomb falling and hitting the deck of a WWII battleship. :evillaugh
AFAIC, only Disney and Pixar can do CG right (and Dreamworks who recently did Beowulf after the lackluster Polar Express).
Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman both worked on the project with the animators and the actors from what i have read, WERE THEY HIGH?
I don't know what capacity is their role in the making of the film. I would think that their writing is limited to literature, not screenplay. If they're just story consultants, then they don't have much of their fingerprints all over the film's production.
with as popular as this series of books was and is it feels like a betrayal to those of us who fund the Wizards machine.
Again, you assume WotC is directly involved. They're a game company, not a film studio. It's like blaming WotC/TSR for the making of D&D: The Movie when all of the fault is placed on Courtney Solomon who currently owns the film right (the D&D brand film, not the DL brand films).
Hehehe. :evillaugh
I guess by not seeing the film, I can still look forward to the day when they will make a live-action version. Just hope someone in the film industry (not necessarily in Hollywood) is as serious about DL as Peter Jackson is serious about LOTR/Hobbit.
The cast and voice acting was alright, and the soundtrack was good. But seriously, who is Will Menegot, and why did anyone think he would be good? What kind of monkey thought an Indian animation studio that no one's ever heard of would produce anything but schlock? Didn't they SEE the initial 3d models and notice how a college student with MAYA could vomit forth something better?
It seems to me that they rushed this thing out as some kind of experiment, testing the Dragonlance name to look at statistics and see what kind of return they could get on pure schlock. My bet is that another DL movie won't get made until someone with lots of money and lots of guts puts up for it on his own budget. There are certainly 'stars' willing to toss in their hat for charity (and who have surrepticiously been fans of D&D) but really, they need to beef up the technical strengths and get with the program.
The D&D people know how to get a semi-competant movie made, I mean even the original movie and the direct to video release show a degree of technical competance that goes beyond this mess. I can't see how they actually expected to make any money off of this even with the starting credentials. Had they handed the task to the idiots who made those D&D flash cartoons and kept the audio track, I think this would have been a better movie.
The D&D people know how to get a semi-competant movie made,...
"The D&D people"???
The only D&D folks that were directly involved with the first live-action D&D film was technical consultant Dave Arneson (co-creator of D&D).
*turns off his hearing aids* WotC do not have a film studio!!!
Okay, why would the price tag of WotC's product be an issue for the making of the current film? WotC is not in the film producing industry. They don't have a film studio like Marvel or WWE.
The price tag of wotc's products is only an issue because of the amount of funds that they have at their disposal to make what people consider a good movie. Whether or not they own a studio or not is largely irrelevant. If they were willing to rely on someone who sucks enough to get the kinds of posts that have been made in this thread, they should also be willing to help out that studio in order to have the name of their product in good hands. If they didn't want to have to spend money making someone elses studio better, they should have chosen a better studio to licence or made their own. As I read it, that is what people have meant.
Well, if LOTR had bombed in the box office, history might have been different, now would they?
History would indeed be different, but the quality of Fellowship would be exactly the same. Just as if this movie was of decent quality, the people here would be praising it, except for the die hards who will not appreciate any book-film conversion who are present in every fan-dom.
Must take their cue from Michael Bay when he made a film revolving around a Japanese bomb falling and hitting the deck of a WWII battleship.
If that is the quality of this movie, it must be sub-par.
Again, you assume WotC is directly involved. They're a game company, not a film studio. It's like blaming WotC/TSR for the making of D&D: The Movie when all of the fault is placed on Courtney Solomon who currently owns the film right (the D&D brand film, not the DL brand films).
As above, if Wizards are not involved, then the people who disagree with the presentation of this movie are most certainly of the position that wizards should have had some part in production, either through the particular licencing or through simply picking someone who would work with those who own the franchise in order to make a decent movie. Wizards either has not had a part in production, in which case they should have, or they have played a part in the creation of a movie which the majority of the 'established fan-base' declares sucky, in which case they should be condemned for the creation of a piece of suck.
Do you disagree? Or is it just that you want to defend Wizards so much(and so irrationally) you will not even read the posts of those who disagree with its marketing decisions?
I guess by not seeing the film, I can still look forward to the day when they will make a live-action version. Just hope someone in the film industry (not necessarily in Hollywood) is as serious about DL as Peter Jackson is serious about LOTR/Hobbit.
Much truth to be quoted for.
"The D&D people"???
The only D&D folks that were directly involved with the first live-action D&D film was technical consultant Dave Arneson (co-creator of D&D).
The original said:
The D&D people know how to get a semi-competant movie made, I mean even the original movie and the direct to video release show a degree of technical competance that goes beyond this mess.
From this I gather that the post you quoted was refering to the people who made the original D&D movie, you know, 'the D&D people'. As far as I could tell, there was no mention of wotc, so there is no reason to suspect that they were the ones refered to.
*turns off his hearing aids* WotC do not have a film studio!!!
If the only way you can respond to comments you do not like is by 'turning of your hearing aids' you must surely be childish. If you were able to read the posts given, you will realise the objections you made are not valid. Defending Wizards is good as long as they are worth defending. You seem to be a wizards-fanboi who hates anything bad being said about his favorite company.
In future, please read what people have said properly before objecting to a bad comment about Wizards.
REG, while I have not seen the movie, and am therefore not competent as regards its worth, I do think you are misunderstanding other's posts.
And I think you're placing blame on the WRONG folks.
The price tag of wotc's products is only an issue because of the amount of funds that they have at their disposal to make what people consider a good movie.
What is at their disposal (after expenses and profit) is to invest in the next new book project, not use it to hire folks to find a better studio.
Whether or not they own a studio or not is largely irrelevant. If they were willing to rely on someone who sucks enough to get the kinds of posts that have been made in this thread, they should also be willing to help out that studio in order to have the name of their product in good hands.
In what capacity? They've already got the original authors of the Dragonlance Chronicles. WotC is only good at making games, not movies. It's like sending a Tyson Chicken President to White Castle to make a better burger.
If they didn't want to have to spend money making someone elses studio better, they should have chosen a better studio to licence or made their own. As I read it, that is what people have meant.
They don't have the luxury. They also don't have PJ knocking on their door.
History would indeed be different, but the quality of Fellowship would be exactly the same. Just as if this movie was of decent quality, the people here would be praising it, except for the die hards who will not appreciate any book-film conversion who are present in every fan-dom.
Meh. Before there was a live-action LOTR, there was an animated version. Yet even that is not enough to turn people away from hoping for a live-action film seris. As I have stated in a long ago post, perhaps this is something DL have to follow.
As above, if Wizards are not involved, then the people who disagree with the presentation of this movie are most certainly of the position that wizards should have had some part in production, either through the particular licencing or through simply picking someone who would work with those who own the franchise in order to make a decent movie. Wizards either has not had a part in production, in which case they should have, or they have played a part in the creation of a movie which the majority of the 'established fan-base' declares sucky, in which case they should be condemned for the creation of a piece of suck.
Do you disagree? Or is it just that you want to defend Wizards so much(and so irrationally) you will not even read the posts of those who disagree with its marketing decisions?
Meh. The D&D film right have been in the market just before Gygax was let go of TSR.
Still, as much as both D&D films suck, I hope that one day Courtney Solomon is relinquished of the film right and put in the hands of a more qualified person.
Why am I not ranting like a lunatic -- not naming names -- about the ruining of D&D films? Probably because I've wasted my fanatic energy toward the Brannon & Braga leadership of Star Trek franchise.
The original said:
From this I gather that the post you quoted was refering to the people who made the original D&D movie, you know, 'the D&D people'. As far as I could tell, there was no mention of wotc, so there is no reason to suspect that they were the ones refered to.
No direct specific mention but the term "D&D People" is a big enough hint.
If the only way you can respond to comments you do not like is by 'turning of your hearing aids' you must surely be childish. If you were able to read the posts given, you will realise the objections you made are not valid. Defending Wizards is good as long as they are worth defending. You seem to be a wizards-fanboi who hates anything bad being said about his favorite company.
In future, please read what people have said properly before objecting to a bad comment about Wizards.
Hey, they made a bad decision with what they're given. Just be glad Uwe Boll didn't come knocking on their doors. (His latest installment, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale is the worst one I've seen that made watching Jeremy Iron in D&D: The Movie more watchable.)
Considering this my last response to you.
The character designs, while I suppose they came directly from cover illustrations, they LOOK like they came from cover illustrations, and while some love it, there's a reason those exact illustrations have fallen out of favor in the popular eye. (Not to disparage the original cover artist, but at the very least, these were poor adaptations of the character designs for an animated medium.) There was little dynamism in the designs, everything was overly rounded shapes, and altogether too much dull everything except Raistlin's red robes. It felt washed out, IMO.
I would have use a tone or two of shading, myself, or at least less obvious lines. I've studied Disney and its derivatives, I've studied Bruce Timm, I've studied several anime styles, and I can say that the rendering they used, even for simple objects, felt like crap.
To be quite honest, unless computer animation is entirely integrated into the style, as in Futurama, or very carefully controlled, it tends to look horrible when contrasted with cel animation. This did. The dragons were not (very) badly done, but the simple style they used for them, the could have just as easily used for the characters as well, or just said to heck with it, and done cel-tracing on the dragons to make them fit the animated style. Either way, it really didn't work here. (From the roughs on the special features, it's like they had a different company do the dragons, 3 months later and after everything else had been finished and composited.)
I'm also highly disappointed with the general editing of the animation. I noticed, even on my sole once-through watching the film itself, there were numerous layering errors, and in a few places, characters that hadn't been in the spotlight for a few scenes seemed to vanish entirely, until needed again. (right around when Fizban was used in the slave carts, where the heck did Raistlin go? There was no cue, no sign of him, not even an apparent scene where he got shoved into a different cart to explain his absense.
I'll also say the music on this movie really suffered. Or caused me to suffer. Something like that.. There was no breaks, no low-points, everything felt full-thrust any chance came to experience the music, it was always at full boom.
Alright, enough of my ranting. I'm REALLY disappointed with this. If this is anywhere near the level of expectation for a new project, I'm gonna have a much easier time jumping into the business than I anticipated.
(And maybe it's just that I've not actually READ the source novel yet, but what was with all the dragon bashing? Where is the mention of even a single good dragon, or the concept of the counterpoint? Even Paladine was never related as being draconic, aside from the unexplained shape of his constellation when it went missing.)
Where is the mention of even a single good dragon, or the concept of the counterpoint?
There's a reason for their absence. You should read the novels. The text on their pages is more visually pleasing than the movie.
May whomever at Wizards understand that we take our Realms and stories seriously and with respect, don't spend any money on another 80's production of another Realm, what were you thinking?!
See how the other popular animated movies work, follow their lead. How could you not be ashamed of this effort? This was a cartoon, how could you mess this up? Live-action.. ok... too expensive but a cartoon.. come on.
what the
Wizards!EK
My roommate and fellow gamer who is the real Dragonlance fan in the house having read nearly ALL of the novels has since seeing this movie refused to even speak of it. I think she is still looking for the brain bleach to get this stain out.
I hope you're happy WotC, you've given us the same response prompted by Highlander II and now this poor girl will suffer for years to come.
I hope you're happy WotC, you've given us the same response prompted by Highlander II and now this poor girl will suffer for years to come.
Highlander 2 is a masterpiece in comparison...
I finally got a copy from Netflix, and I fully expected the Dragonlance movie to be terrible based on what I'd seen, but it exceeded those expectations.
The first problem is that there are three different styles in the movie that all clash with each other. You have the relatively detailed painted bakcgrounds, and then the badly drawn people, and then the stiff computer animated dragons and draconians.
The second problem is the sense of scale - or lack thereof. The characters are constantly changing relative size in the movie. In one scene Flint will appear to be 3.5 feet tall, and in another he'll appear as tall as Tanis and wider than Caramon.
The third problem is the animation itself (or, again, the lack thereof). There are many scenes, especially close-ups, where the two or three frames of animation are slowed down in order to fill the alotted time. So you'll have a floating chunk of hair for a second, and then it will slightly move and hang in that spot for another second. Any given Flash animation on the internet has better animation than this movie. The original D&D cartoon was better animated (and had more consistent art).
The fourth problem is the art style itself. I think they were trying to emulate Elmore, but they did it very poorly. One of the scenes where this becomes apparent is with the Forest Guardian. In some of the close ups the thing has a vertical eye and a horizontal one. The only place they did a decent job of emulating Elmore was when the gully dwarves first show up. But then, Elmore's dwarves tend to be cartoonish anyway.
The fifth problem is the black dragon's breath weapon. If you can call that little dribble of acid a breath weapon.
And that's not even getting into all the cuts that were made, or the fact that some of the transitions were abrupt as if something were missing between them. It almost looks like they didn't have time to finish and just rushed it out with some scenes missing and stretched out the already scant frames of animation to help fill time.
And it's not like I was ever expecting a masterpiece with the story wholly intact. I would have been happy with Rankin-Bass or Bakshi level animation. Heck, I would have been happy with decent 80s-Saturday-morning-cartoon quality animation. What we got was a tragic failure of an adaptation for what was a fun series.
Worst of all, the voice acting was decent and the soundtrack was good (the sound effects, on the other hand, bordered on cheesy with every sword hit making *thwack* sounds). Why is that bad? Because it just makes the horrible-ness of the visuals seem that much more horrible.
I wish I could like this movie. I wish it left me wanting a sequel. I hope Weis and Hickman were truly hoodwinked into believing this was decent quality while it was in production rather than seeing it in its full lack of glory and thinking it was actually good. And most of all, I wish Netflix had sent me Manos: Hands of Fate the Extended Edition instead.
Highlander 2 is a masterpiece in comparison...
OFF-TOPIC...
The original theatrical version or the other one? The former is intolerable, the latter is tolerable yet still not favorable. In fact, any Highlander films after the first are to be ignored at best.
OFF-TOPIC...
The original theatrical version or the other one? The former is intolerable, the latter is tolerable yet still not favorable. In fact, any Highlander films after the first are to be ignored at best.
Either.
Also, the relatively recent Highlander anime was fairly watchable. And the movie where Duncan kills Connor would have been okay if Connor had instead killed Duncan. But que sera, sera.
Crossing Fantasy over to SCI-fi
Honestly Making Immortals Transdeminsional Aliens from Another World.
The Trouble with Converting any book into a Movie is For Book lovers, we already know the Outcome and Sequences of Events. So we already have a predetermined Knowledge of the outcome. Any departure from that changes our outlook. I remember reading the Threads about what should be included. Some People almost wanted each chapter to be made into a Movie. Others wanted a Whole series to be rolled into a Short timeframe movie, not just the Original 3 Books
It sounds like the Movie was designed to almost be a One shot deal to begin with, introducing Character information to soon or leaving out stuff. Time Constraints also Effects the Details included.
I still ain't seen it yet, but its still available for $1.00 Rental at Wally-world in the redbox Vending Machine. It may never make it into my DVD Collection but neither will the Original Animation Versions of The Hobbit and LOTR.
The bit with the Forest Master unicorn thing for example, or the obligatory love interest triangles (the love that cannot be) that flood all the books and threaten to make it a sword and sorcery mills and boon.
The trouble with DragonLance is most of it has been stolen (yes - not inspired by, but stolen) from LOTR. They take a part of LOTR and slot it in somewhere. The part that hasn't is the Raistlin and Caramon part which I hope they will focus more on than the rest. That is the good part and the part I think most people liked the most and became the focus of the second trilogy.
I just hope they don't ham it up and make it childish and cheesy (and awful)like, Labyrinth, Never Ending Story 1 - 600, D&D 1, D&D 2, there are too many to mention (including Legend, but there were some elements of that that were good - Tim Curry? How did he manage to pull that off?)
(Though Beastmaster, Conans, Red Sonia, Sword And The Sorcerer, LOTRs, they are all okay in their own ways or bits IMO.)
All taste is subjective, but crap is crap and I hope to God this isn't - even if it means changing some non-crucial parts.
EDIT - Damn is it already out?
The problem seems to be one that is endemic to the entertainment industry.
Did anyone who was unfortunate enough to see the first AD&D Live-Action movie think that anything better was possible? These were the people who brought you the "Snails" character and Jeremy Irons in blue mascara.
No, truly horrific garbage like this is inevitable because:
1) The people who hold the purse strings don't view movies as "art" they use the word "product".
2) Horrible writing is cheaper to find than good writing, and if it's just "product" then, nobody can tell the difference, right? So I'll pay my 15-year-old cousin who writes Caramon and Tasslehoff slasher fanfic to do the script.
3) Horrible animation is cheaper than good animation. And one of the marketing people has a cousin who does slasher Caramon and Tasslehoff drawings. Thus the issues with proportion and scale.
4) Even the people who know better, like the game designers, keep quiet because they have a vested interest in the status quo. Even the best designers turn out 75% crap and 25% good stuff, it's just the nature of art. And while that may be a much better ratio than a mediocre designer might manage, they do not want to work four times as hard to finish a project. And you can usually tell where they put in their effort and where they slacked off.
It's not that they set out to make a gigantic bomb that sucked harder than black holes, it's that they have a mindset that prevents them from recognizing one when they are making it. They don't see a movie so bad it is a waste of a perfectly-good blank DVD. They see ninety-seven minutes of "product" aimed at a specific market demographic with an established trademark and "iconic" characters that establish it as salable.
In other words, they're business twonks who don't appreciate the setting, and don't recognize that you NEED to appreciate the setting as art in order to do it justice.
I liked both live action movies. They captured the feel of a D&D adventure, and the first one was the most fun I've had watching a Wayans brother sense In Liveing Color.
That said, when did this turn into Movie Poopshoot.Com?
I liked both live action movies. They captured the feel of a D&D adventure,
Oh, yeah, they captured it alright (from Courtney Solomon's own RPG campaign). The kind of adventures you don't turn them into films.
It could be worse, but I don't think they have a name for the small measurement that would be required to measure how much.
Why do fantasy fans have such low expectations (or poor taste?)
LOTR really raised the bar of what is required of fantasy and showed just how profitable it could be so why are we still being fed dross.
(I think they ran out of money and tried to make the best of it.)
I would have been fine with the movie's cut up and shortened plot if the animation had not been so utterly horrible. If they had done cell animation it wouldn't have been so bad, but the sore-thumb CGI was jerky as hell and did not fit smoothly with regular animation at all. Coupled with the fact half the time it was difficult to hear the actors over the overly loud music, this thing was just bad. The voice acting was pretty good overall, though I wasn't fond of Tasslehoff's voice - thought it should have a bit squeakier. They should have gotten a real 14-year-old to do the voice.
I don't see how Wizards or the animation studio is going to recoup their money from this stinker. Personally, I'd rather watch the 80's D&D cartoon show that what this Uwle Boll wannabe.
P.S.: The scene in the Inn of the Last Home with Tika's swaying goods was unfortunately some of the best animation in the video. Unfortunately, the whole scene wanted to make me crawl in a hole and puke.
Why do fantasy fans have such low expectations (or poor taste?)
LOTR really raised the bar of what is required of fantasy and showed just how profitable it could be so why are we still being fed dross.
(I think they ran out of money and tried to make the best of it.)
Define "low expectations."
If a fantasy movie is as decent and enjoyable as Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearl, I'm willing to go that low.
Define "low expectations."
If a fantasy movie is as decent and enjoyable as Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearl, I'm willing to go that low.
I'd call that "reasonable-high expectations."
For my part, if a fantasy movie is as good as, say, Krull, or The Sword and the Sorceror, that's acceptable to me, though I'd obviously prefer better quality.
Utter crap.
This was horrible. Normally I'm not one to ***** about things, especially if I like what its about. This was terrible though. I don't know how it managed to look bad and be borring, but congrats. I am baffled how this got made. Who saw this and thought "Ok, this looks good - let's sell it." I feel bad saying this, because personally I doubt I could have done better on my own, but I am certain that they could have just given the project to some dedicated fans and got a better result.
As already mentioned the movie was terrible. I bought it the first day it was released because I had read the DL movie sites saying the move was going to be good.
What utter crap. There is nothing in this film that I would want to watch again, as a matter of fact I almost want my money back.
I can't draw for anything, I could have done better. Why was Lauranna wearing the "elvin chain" straight from the DMG? And what is with Verminaard making out with Kirsanith? I do not recall anything in the books even implying that they had ever spoken face to face.
I've spoken about my total disdain for this film elsewhere, but I have to talk about something that I just found totally unforgivable (not that any of it truly was, but still).
In the final scene of the movie, as Tanis watches, Laurana kisses Elistan. Not on the cheek, but right on the lips! WHAT!?!?!
One of the most critical storylines in the Chronicles, that followed them the rest of both of their lives, was Laurana's total commitment to Tanis. She never had a relationship with Elistan. While it appeared something was happening to Tanis, nothing did.
There was so much in the film I was disappointed with. The fact that it wasn't live-action bothered me to begin with, but when I heard about the actors who would be lending their voice talent, I was okay with it. What we got was a totally emotionless performance from all of them. The animation was poor at its best points. The draconians looked awesome, but totally out of place. The silly "camera effects" were ridiculous.
There were so many changes to the actual story, it was like a totally new story, rather than a modified retelling.
I watched it once. I'll never even open the box again. Sad, just sad.
Examples of animation that would've been better:
Titan A.E. (as mentioned above)
Pirates of Darkwater
Disney-esque animation (like in Anastasia)
Masters of the Universe (2000 cartoon series)
Doctor Strange (marvel comics)
Gargoyles (and DC Comics animation, like Batman/Superman)
Hell, even american-japanese hybrid cartoons like the Jackie Chan Adventures.
But this?!?!?!?!?!?
I wonder if the whole movie was just a way to get public feedback on their new D&D digital game table animation for characters...hence all the apparel lifted right from the books? Just my conspiracy theory thoughts....
I'd call that "reasonable-high expectations."
For my part, if a fantasy movie is as good as, say, Krull, or The Sword and the Sorceror, that's acceptable to me, though I'd obviously prefer better quality.
The issue is that if this movie came out, say, 20-25 years ago it would have been acceptable: Animation techniques weren't as advanced as they are now, it was more difficult (if you aren't Disney) to get high quality actors for an animated film (since they are paid less as a rule), and it was much harder to get funding for an animated movie due to them being viewed as "kiddy."
However now: Animation has advanced to the point where you can make a movie that has the same style as the old cel-shaded ones at a fraction of the cost. Also if you want to do something more detailed then cel-shading (neither a good or bad thing if either is done right) it isn't that difficult or expensive. With the release of movies such as Finding Nemo (and other pixar movies) and Spirited Away (and other Miyazaki films), animated films aren't viewed as being so "kiddy" anymore (they still are somewhat though) and thus studios can attract higher quality artists and actors as well as investors.
I am in Digital Arts: When I started out learning 3D animation, I saw some amazing things done by teams of 4-5 people doing a 3 minute animation. Granted movies are 30-40 times longer but they also have a longer production time, a larger budget, and far more people working on it. Heck, first year 3D animation students have made better 3D dragons then what were in that movie. As for the non-CG animation: I personally have nothing against the cel-shaded (style) of animation in general. However, if you are going to use an antiquated style of animation you should at least do it well. The animation is too simplistic (you can do some surprisingly good things with simple animation, they didn't though), and the art itself isn't that impressive either.
The voice acting was ok. It wasn't brilliant, expecially considering that they had some VERY good actors doing the voices (Michael Rosenbaum who plays Lex Luthor on Smallville did Tanis, for example. He has a good list of voice acting experience). However it wasn't exactly bad either. You'd think they would have attempted for something better considering how bad the reviews of the other two Dungeons and Dragons movies were.
The music was quite good. Karl Preusser, the composer, should stay as far away from the production company who did the DL movie as possible. The music itself probably could have been used better.
As for content, the movie was too short for the book. Fellowship of the Ring was a long movie (even the cut version was a little over 2 hours) and its book was about as long as Dragons of Autumn Twilight. The DL movie was, in comparison, only about an hour and a half. In their defense, they most likely had a smaller budget then Newline Cinema but that doesn't excuse the cuts and changes they made. The movie contains little to no character development (I personally missed the scene when Riverwind gets hit by the black dragons acid breath) and Laurana felt like her character was tacked on. They also cut out the vast majority of the Xak Tsaroth.
Long Rant Short: It was a hack job.
The issue is that if this movie came out, say, 20-25 years ago it would have been acceptable:
I disagree - it would have sucked as much back then. Bakshi and Rankin-Bass set the non-Disney bar for acceptable animation back then. And as you say, it should be even easier to produce animation of at least that quality now. Heck, in some parts of the movie, old Hanna-Barbera cartoons were better animated.
The voice acting was average, but well below average with the 4-star names lining up the leads.
The most horrible part of the whole movie which defamed the name of the whole novel was the whole Tika TnA sequence. 90%* of the people who may read this novel read it at early teens when the novel was published. That would make us mid 30's we don't (shouldn't) need such a blatant insult to our maturity.
Now this is assuming that one is thirty-something and purchased the movie as a reminiscence of old times and novels. It was pretty accurate for a novel-to-screen adaptation of the story, and quite a few of the key lines did come back when I heard them.
Luckily my son loved it, but I was disappointed. I should have gone in with lowered expectations.
*remember that 90% of all statistics are made up!!! :D
The most horrible part of the whole movie which defamed the name of the whole novel was the whole Tika TnA sequence.
Oh great, I skimmed through 2 pages of bashing the movie to the ground, and then you just had to point out a reason to actually watch it.
Oh great, I skimmed through 2 pages of bashing the movie to the ground, and then you just had to point out a reason to actually watch it.
All apologies, there may be an age disparity on our opinions. Please don't let my opinion dissuade you from your purchase! I'd love to see more attempts, I just wanted to open provide feedback for future DVD releases!
Maybe I am at a loss and out of the loop. With that said, is the movie already out? Is it only in video stores? Was it in theatres? Where can you see the movie?
It was straight to video. You should be able to pick it up at your friendly local dvd retailer (I got mine at Wal-Mart).
(to be fair, so do a lot of Anime movies. The only animation to do well in theatres is either straight-up Disney-level, or kiddie-Anime like pokemon, because they have the fandom numbers to do it. Studio Ghibli material has tried, and while critically well-liked, hasn't done well in numbers.)
DL, as non-kiddie material (Blood & T&A, while a hearty attempt, still doesn't quite make this a *mature* production) had no chance in theatres.
I haven't seen it yet, but I did see the trailer on enworld. The only thing I could think of after it was over is "god, why didn't they make it anime".
Which style anime? Because I don't want Charizard dragons.
:P
Which style anime? Because I don't want Charizard dragons.
Verminaard: "Ember, I CHOOSE YOU!"
The music and voice acting are the strong points. I read somewhere that they recorded each actor's part individually. If true, this saved them lots of money, but incurred the possiblility of all inter-character dialogue sounding stilted and un-even. Fortunately, there were relatively few scenes where that was a problem. Credit where credit is due (to the composer and the voice director).
I think they did a decent job on the screenplay, despite the gutting of key scenes, and the addition of several ones contradictory to the book (like how Khisanth was somehow Lord V.'s faithful sex-pet, remember that?? :noway
. But maybe I'm just ok with the plot because I've recently sat through 3 LotR and 5 Harry Potter movies, in all of which the plot deviates from the book. It annoys, but its nothing new, right? 
Can't call the plot a strength, though.I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch the movie. If you're a fan, you should give it a look, if only to commiserate with the rest of us.
I didn't have Lord of the Rings expectation for the movie but I thought it would hopefully be the level of Record of Lodoss War or maybe the new Avatar the Last Airbender or perhaps even the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.
In my opinion the movie was flawed by the mix of CGI and traditional animation. The two styles did not mix well.
This was the stone that sunk the ship for me as well.
Changes between novel and movie are forgivable (because translation between mediums is not a 1:1 process). The voices were good, but not excellent. The music was appealing. The pacing was a little hurried (and jam-packed with dialog), but most of the relevant and necessary events of the book take place.
I didn't have Lord of the Rings expectation for the movie but I thought it would hopefully be the level of Record of Lodoss War or maybe the new Avatar the Last Airbender or perhaps even the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon series.
Last I checked, they stated it was going to be an animated film, not specifically anime.
Last I checked, they stated it was going to be an animated film, not specifically anime.
Yeah and the last I checked Lord of the Rings, Avatar the Last Airbender and the original Dungeons and Dragons cartoon were not anime either.
Just so happens I feel everything I mentioned is superior in quality to the Dragonlance movie production regardless of origin, actually I feel the original Hobbit movie is superior to Dragonlance LOL.
Our kids watch such cartoons as W.I.T.C.H, Totally Spies, X-Men Evolution, Avatar the Last Airbender and Justice League but wouldn't have a bar of Dragonlance due to poor animation and the lack luster voice acting. One comment from the eldest daughter who I actually convinced to read the first book in the trilogy "they didn't even put the part where Riverwind was melted or the wicker dragon, actually it didn't have any funny parts in it."
I am utterly convinced that it would have been much better to give the Dragonlance movie rights lock stock and barrel to a known Japanese anime production company that has already proved themselves rather than have this thing that is an utter waste of money.
What really annoys me is not the wasted money at my end but the fact that I will probably never now see in my lifetime a decent quality Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron or Greyhawk production.
I am amazed that such an experienced cartoon professional that Will Meugniot is (lets face it the dude worked on such brilliant things as all three X-Men cartoons in some capacity, Biker Mice from Mars, TMNT etc) would have allowed this monstrosity through to being pressed onto a DVD.
Yeah and the last I checked Lord of the Rings, Avatar the Last Airbender and the original Dungeons and Dragons cartoon were not anime either.
I thought Avatar is anime.
What really annoys me is not the wasted money at my end but the fact that I will probably never now see in my lifetime a decent quality Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, Eberron or Greyhawk production.
Yeah, but I'm hoping that I'll see one before I go blind from future diabetes.
I thought Avatar is anime.
Nope. American-produced. Animated elsewhere, but specifically written and created for Nickelodeon.
Nope. American-produced. Animated elsewhere, but specifically written and created for Nickelodeon.
Yep that's correct so why couldn't Dragonlance have been even half as good as a single episode of Avatar?
Yep that's correct so why couldn't Dragonlance have been even half as good as a single episode of Avatar?
Okay, imagine that I don't have cable, because I don't.
Who is the US-based animation studio that worked on Avatar?
Okay, imagine that I don't have cable, because I don't.
Who is the US-based animation studio that worked on Avatar?
Actually, it's american-written, designed here, but as I recall, the animation itself is shipped overseas. Everything is. (even the Simpsons was done overseas, as I recall. That's what made it so cheap.)
Actually, it's american-written, designed here, but as I recall, the animation itself is shipped overseas. Everything is. (even the Simpsons was done overseas, as I recall. That's what made it so cheap.)
Yeah, Matt Groening should be ashamed of outsourcing jobs before "outsourcing" have become a corporate and political buzzword.
Are American-based [anime] artists that mediocre?
Yeah, Matt Groening should be ashamed of outsourcing jobs before "outsourcing" have become a corporate and political buzzword.
Are American-based [anime] artists that mediocre?
Actually it's generally a matter of the gruntwork. According to my animation prof, the big design work, the actual original character, and in some cases the keyframes, the main points along an animation, are drawn in the US, but the tweening is what's done overseas. (Look at an old (5+ years old) disney movie's credits sometime. They often have one lead animator, but then a team of 5-30 inbetweeners listed, who do the extra stuff that is basically drawing the tiny differences between each and every frame.
Actually it's generally a matter of the gruntwork. According to my animation prof, the big design work, the actual original character, and in some cases the keyframes, the main points along an animation, are drawn in the US, but the tweening is what's done overseas. (Look at an old (5+ years old) disney movie's credits sometime. They often have one lead animator, but then a team of 5-30 inbetweeners listed, who do the extra stuff that is basically drawing the tiny differences between each and every frame.
So, basically American companies won't fork the extra bucks out of their own pockets and help our economy, but rather keep the few extra bucks and hire cheap in-betweeners. :rolleye2:
I'm just tired of D&D 'movies' being so bad. D&D (almost) invented the genre, yet it can't put out a single decent movie? And the more crappy ones they put out, the harder its going to be to attract the 'good' funding/direction/cast for future projects.
Didn't even know there was a DragonLance Movie until I found this thread... sounds like a good thing I didn't see it.
I'm just tired of D&D 'movies' being so bad. D&D (almost) invented the genre,
Not "invented" but rather "perpetuate" our love of the modern fantasy genre, started with Tolkien (who was inspired by traditional fantasy literature, legends, myths, and folklore).
yet it can't put out a single decent movie?
Because WotC is a game company, so has to rely on Hollywood to make the films.
And the more crappy ones they put out, the harder its going to be to attract the 'good' funding/direction/cast for future projects.
I don't know if that's going to happen. I've seen my share of terrible vampire movies to last ten lifetimes, but once in a while someone managed to put together a good one.
Then again, D&D is not the kind of brand that can be filmable. Even though Steven Spielberg have been known to play D&D (to entertain the kid actors while making E.T.), just don't think he's interested in putting his name behind this kind of project.
So, basically American companies won't fork the extra bucks out of their own pockets and help our economy, but rather keep the few extra bucks and hire cheap in-betweeners. :rolleye2:
Yeah, pretty much.
Because WotC is a game company, so has to rely on Hollywood to make the films.
Last time I checked, Marvel is a comic book company, but yet they put out some high-budget good films.
Here is what makes me sad...Lord of the Rings opened the doorway for Fantasy films to be made, and for the most part, every attempt has been squandered. DnD,DnD2, and the Dragonlance movie were all not up to par (although the script for Dragonlance wasn't terrible, the animation was...just...so..bad...it just looked like a cheap 1970's cartoon). For every bad fantasy movie that is made, it makes it that much tougher for a good one to be made someday.
These stories could easily get the LOTR treatment and have a 6 movie franchise at least. What a waste of film and time. so sad.
Last time I checked, Marvel is a comic book company, but yet they put out some high-budget good films.
True, but then I don't see Jon Favreau knocking on WotC's door anytime soon.
OBTW, last time I checked, Marvel is a comic-book company that tried PnP RPG venture (remember Marvel Universe RPG?) and failed miserably.
If they really want to bring Dragonlance to life they need to make a TV series, not a movie.
Why? LOTR did well as a trilogy of films. Granted, the popularity gap between LOTR and DL is lopsided, but it can still be done.
If it's done for TV it has to be a mini-series or limited run (i.e., telenovela). The network has to buy with the promise to air the entire episodes regardless of rating changes.
If they really want to bring Dragonlance to life they need to make a TV series, not a movie.
IMHO, fantasy series are *very* tough to make for TV because of the budget constraints. If they did do a TV series though, I'd prefer it to be good CGI. Maybe it wouldn't be as good as Beowulf CGI, but look at all of the great intro movies for video games. I would totally watch that every week for a half hour show.
The way they did the animation for the DL movie just perpetuated the sterotype of 'cheesey cheap' fantasy films.
Okay, why would the price tag of WotC's product be an issue for the making of the current film? WotC is not in the film producing industry. They don't have a film studio like Marvel or WWE.
The movie was crap, plain and simple, and everyone knows it. Everyone and their uncle dad hoped for better, and those hopes got squashed (except maybe the music in it, and background paintings).
But no one from WOTC, or MWP should be blamed.
Like Ranger said, WOTC are not in the film producing industry. They licensed it out.
Have you ever seen the first Fantastic Four film? I mean the ORIGINAL first one. The one you can only get at a convention or over the internet in bootleg form. Far before Jessica Alba decided to sport spandex for us geeks to swoon over.
It was horrible.
They even went as far as putting a while glove on a painted broomstick to portray Reed's arm stretching (I swear to God!) The problem wasn't Marvel's fault. It was the company doing the film. They did a bad job. Not Marvel.
The movie was nice because we DL fans at least got a movie. Better than nothing and the DVD will fit right in with the novels on the bookshelf. But other than that, it sucked. But that is by no means WOTC or MWP's fault.
IMHO, fantasy series are *very* tough to make for TV because of the budget constraints. If they did do a TV series though, I'd prefer it to be good CGI. Maybe it wouldn't be as good as Beowulf CGI, but look at all of the great intro movies for video games. I would totally watch that every week for a half hour show.
Hey if Nickelodeon can do an amazing job with Jimmy Neutron and make it a series, why not?
IMHO, fantasy series are *very* tough to make for TV because of the budget constraints. If they did do a TV series though, I'd prefer it to be good CGI. Maybe it wouldn't be as good as Beowulf CGI, but look at all of the great intro movies for video games. I would totally watch that every week for a half hour show.
The way they did the animation for the DL movie just perpetuated the sterotype of 'cheesey cheap' fantasy films.
Dragonlance could be done with a lower budget and look good. I am sure there are plenty of people out there who could do it on a smaller budget. The problem is finding those people, getting the studio to leave their 'safety' makeup and CGI companies and try them out. Have you seen what people can do on home computers these days? The quality that can be shot on an average quality HD camera?
I have seen so many smaller budget films with CGI, costume and makeup effects that look better than big budget blockbusters (even without working in the overly bloated actor salaries).
My personal preference for the possible future adaptations of Dragonlance would be as follows.
- #1: Multiple Mini Series:
- Higher mostly unknown actors and lock them into a contract for the possibility of several more mini series later (not up on my Hollywood contracting, not sure if this type of contract still works). Get a couple well known actors to fill in some medium or smaller size roles to draw new people into the series and hook them.
- #2: Anime: Originally I would have been against anime but after seeing various American animation companies continuously butcher cartoons and animated series I am fed up. Hire a well known animation company. Not sure offhand who did Air Gear but I love the animation in that. These people are artists and I am sure they could adapt their style and merge it with the Dragonlance style in a way that would satisfy both fans of Dragonlance and general Anime fans.
- #3: CGI: I would settle for a CGI series if it was done better than that horrid CGI we got in the animated film (I enjoyed that film but everytime that CGI hit I groaned.) Higher a handful of well known actors who have PROVEN themselves good at doing voice work (God get David Keith please!) and then higher the rest from a pool of none hollywood fame voice actors, pulling people from anime would work.
- #4: Movies: Live Action movie. This would have been my first choice but after seeing Hollywood fumble and fumble and fumble again on pretty much everything fantasy since LotR its my last choice.
- #5 Animated Movie or Series: See #2
Live Action movie. This would have been my first choice but after seeing Hollywood fumble and fumble and fumble again on pretty much everything fantasy since LotR its my last choice.
To be fair, had LotR came out after all of the other ones, none of them would have come off as bad. Not all of them have sucked. But LotR pretty much spoiled fantasy fans and caused them to except nothing less than the quality those films delivered.
Which is what confuses me the most about the DL film. Those producers should have known people were gonna be up in arms over such poor quality, after being spoiled by quality flicks.
But I still stand by the background paintings and music.
1) They should have made it all cartoon with no CGI. That would have made it a million times better.
2) They should have made it live action and let Peter Jackson make it. Or someone who loves Dragonlance and is a great producer/director. Spend atleast 100 million per film. If anything character driven, high budget, quality films can be successful no matter the genre. Lord of the Rings proved that.
Other than that... I don't have anything else to say.
Did anyone else notice that in the fight with the Hobgoblins at the beginning of the movie, Flint punches one of the Hobgoblin's shield's and shatters it into a hundred pieces? What the hell was that about?
Visuals: This movie, visually, was lacking in most every sense of the word. Cheap, mostly unoriginal, and overall poorly done. The movie looks like it was drawn by an overworked saturday morning cartoon artist with a budget of four dollars and 35 seconds to draw each minute of movie frames. The framerate was so horribly low that I actually thought my DVD player was skipping. Not kidding. The backgrounds were lacking for the most part, often bland or in the case of the evil citadel incredibly unimpressive. The movie had a budget (I heard) of $1.5 million. It showed here most of all. Not all the movie was horrific animation, some scenes rose up to the level of mediocre in visual quality. The Dragon CGI was actually.... not that bad. Simple, but not bad. The dragon demihumans though, bad.
Music and sounds: Not bad. Definitly not truly mood enhancing, but it was adequate and not offensive. Not good, but not bad. The sound effects were kind of cheap and sounded like stock sounds, but its not like they dropped a coin and a car horn came out.
Voice acting: Ill have the break this down by character.
Tanis: Michael Rosenbaum did a pretty good job. A few times he sounded a bit flat, but on the whole, he did an okay job. I don't know Tanis well enough to truly judge.
Goldmoon: Thank You Xena. Lucy Lawless did a fine performance and was PERFECT for the role. Her voice was strong at times, vulnerable at others, and definitly set the right mood for such an empathetic character.
Raistlin: They got Keifer Sutherland. How, I have NO idea, but I am damn glad they did. Next to POSSIBLY Lucy, he fulfilled his character the best. His voice was raspy and sneaky, perhaps a bit exaggerated but definitly not over the top. Apparantly Sutherland was very careful in his pronounciantion and did several takes of his magic spells. Well done Mr. Sutherland.
Flint: If the actor was going for a silly dwarf, he nailed it. Flint is blustery and sort of lovable, but unfortunatly his more serious moments are hard to take seriously because of it. Still, pretty good.
Tasselhoff: Perfect voice. Horrible dialog for the most part. "Monks! Monks! Moooonks!" Like thats supposed to instill panic?
More later.
I watched this movie the day it came out, but today, I find this buried thread to post on....:raincloud WotC is really reaching now...
They didn't even have the green gemstone man in the movie. I'm fairly sure he's an intricate part of the overall plot of the story.
Berem Everstone, yeah, he was integral... Takhissis sought him out for that stone in his chest. They fit 3 full sized novels that covered a year's time into an hour, it should've been broken up into 3 movies like LotR. 1 movie per book could satisfactorily cover the story, though at the price of bad animation.
They planned it as a trilogy supposedly or maybe 6 movies with the 3 other books. Maybe more of teh books after as well.
I hope the big word there was "Planned", as in past tense. I hope they don't do any more sequals because if it's anything like this one I just might puke.
You do realize that the movie WAS only the first book, correct? They planned it as a trilogy supposedly or maybe 6 movies with the 3 other books. Maybe more of teh books after as well.
They sure skirted a lot of one book then (I was thinking modules, not novels..my bad). Personally I hope it it the last movie they make if they're going to be like the first one, you cannot "un-see" something....
"What's that?"
"Let's take a beloved book series and make a movie out of the first one."
"Hey, that doesn't sound half bad."
"Wait wait, I'm not done. Let's make it absolutely terrible."
"Are you sure that's a good idea?"
"Oh yeah, I'm banking on the fact that people will see it even if it's bad, because they love it so much. Let's really crush thier spirits!"
This is what I assume went on during the pitch meeting.
This movie was just horrible. It's one of those movies where you feel ashamed of yourself after watching it. The animation was an atrocity, the story was hardly the same, and let's talk about spoilers.
"Wow, this movie really is bad."
"Yeah, we really outdid ourselves. Just in case no one wants to see another one, let's completely spoil the fact that Fizban is Paladine and Kitiara is a highlord."
"Anything else we want to do to destroy thousands of fans hopes and dreams?"
"Well, we've already made the animation as horrible as humanly possible, we've changed up the story as much as we can without getting sued, we've skimped out as much as we could on animation with several close up eye shots, we've remained inconsistent with Flint and Tasselhoff's proportions, and we've maintained an equilibrium of good and bad voice actors."
"Oh yeah, I like Sturm's voice, but your best idea was to make the deep, booming Caramon sound like a girl."
"I can't really think of anything else."
"I got something."
"What's that?"
"Let's have Elistan and Laurana kiss."
"You, my friend, are a genius."
This has to be, by far, the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. And the bitter irony is that it's based off of my favorite book series. In my opinion, the only good thing about it is the music.
