New Dungeons & Dragons movie
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 1:19 pm 
 

Plaag wrote:Doing the same, DVR, becaause SciFi channel shows the same damn commercials over and over again..figure can cut out a good 1/2 hour or more that way.

ShaneG.


well if its any good, can someone stick it on a DVD-R for me and send one over for me to watch?

Al



  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1295
Joined: Nov 24, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 07, 2021
Location: Brescia, Italy

Post Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:27 pm 
 

I saw the D&D movie a couple of times  8O  and I liked it. Not very much, but I still consider it a decent B movie. I have seen a lot of movies which, in my eyes, really really really suck. Alone in the Dark was my biggest recent disappointment  :x

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 pm 
 

Scourge of Worlds was decent, considering it was CGI, and 3E. I remember many years ago discussing with some friends why the film industry didn't make interactive theaters, and then a few years later, out comes the movie.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 772
Joined: Feb 21, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 22, 2018
Location: Spokane, WA

Post Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:50 am 
 

Once again the SciFi channel bombs another movie.  What a piece of crap and a waist of two and a half hours :x   Crappy CGI and even crappier acting. The only bonus was the actual D&D comercials, at least I got a chuckle out of those :D !


"Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song."

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

  


Collector

Posts: 2
Joined: Oct 09, 2005
Last Visit: Sep 21, 2013

Post Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:46 am 
 

Kosh Vorlontay wrote:Once again the SciFi channel bombs another movie.


I fail to see how Sci-Fi bombed the movie.  A large amount of original movies you see on cable channels weren't made for the specific channel.  They bought the rights and part of the deal is labeling the movie as their creation or their original content.

This new movie is far better than the first and is still a "bad good" movie in my mind.

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1709
Joined: Feb 04, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 23, 2016
Location: Chandler, AZ

Post Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:00 am 
 

Kosh Vorlontay wrote:Once again the SciFi channel bombs another movie. What a piece of crap and a waist of two and a half hours :x  Crappy CGI and even crappier acting. The only bonus was the actual D&D comercials, at least I got a chuckle out of those :D !


I thought the Battlestar Galactica movie was pretty well done (for a TV movie).  Lots of death and destruction and "Number Six" was absolutely gorgeous.

(Still haven't seen any regular season episodes as I dropped cable shortly thereafter and I haven't had time to try and get the season on DVD.)  :cry:


"Gleemonex makes it feel like it's seventy-two degrees in your head... all... the... time! "

  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Subweb Admin
JG Valuation Board

Posts: 4504
Joined: Nov 08, 2002
Last Visit: Oct 22, 2021
Location: Land of 10,000 ponds

Post Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:10 am 
 

beyondthebreach wrote:I thought the Battlestar Galactica movie was pretty well done (for a TV movie). Lots of death and destruction and "Number Six" was absolutely gorgeous.

(Still haven't seen any regular season episodes as I dropped cable shortly thereafter and I haven't had time to try and get the season on DVD.) :cry:


Battlestar Galactica is good..I've heard its not exactly like the original series, but many have taken that into account saying the new show holds up.

(now back to the D&D movie...)

ShaneG.

 WWW  

User avatar

Prolific Collector

Posts: 772
Joined: Feb 21, 2003
Last Visit: Jun 22, 2018
Location: Spokane, WA

Post Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:28 am 
 

Moloch wrote:

I fail to see how Sci-Fi bombed the movie.  A large amount of original movies you see on cable channels weren't made for the specific channel.  They bought the rights and part of the deal is labeling the movie as their creation or their original content.

This new movie is far better than the first and is still a "bad good" movie in my mind.


They bought the rights......SciFi channels responsibility.
They put their label on it as their creation/original content.......low standards.

Thinking this movie is better than the first(not that the first was any good).......delusional.


"Ah, you seek meaning? Then listen to the music, not the song."

"I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1230
Joined: Mar 08, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 21, 2021
Location: Close to GenCon

Post Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:01 pm 
 

Moloch wrote:
Kosh Vorlontay wrote:Once again the SciFi channel bombs another movie.


I fail to see how Sci-Fi bombed the movie. A large amount of original movies you see on cable channels weren't made for the specific channel. They bought the rights and part of the deal is labeling the movie as their creation or their original content.

This new movie is far better than the first and is still a "bad good" movie in my mind.


We have to agree that the Sci-Fi Channel made a better movie than the 1st. Obviously without a $100 million+ budget it will never be a great movie. At least this one seemed more serious and actually used several references to 1st edition D&D(Barrier Peaks, Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, Juiblex, etc..).

BTW: We also bought some props from the 1st movie; several swords, 2 wood shields, 2 crossbows, a bow, 2 quivers, Ridleys dagger and sheath, and Damodar's sword blade. We mainly bought them to decorate our D&D room whenever we can remodel it.

  


Prolific Collector
Subweb Admin
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 199
Joined: Feb 06, 2005
Last Visit: Aug 12, 2017
Location: The Outlands

Post Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:13 pm 
 

I hope the new movie was at least watchable, as curiosity will likely make me buy the DVD when/if it's released. Though network premiers and straight-to-dvd always makes me nervous.

I went with a large group of friends (coincidentally my D&D group) to go see the first movie, and when we came out, we randomly started making conversation with a woman who turned out to be the sister of one of the big people at the production company who made the movie. She was so excited about the whole thing. She actually had us all line up, and she whipped out her video camera to have us all say hi to the company. She even had us say what kind of character we played, say how we liked the movie, and give a message to those involved, etc.

As bad as the movie was, it was kind of neat to see someone so excited about something. She seemed proud of it in the "Wow! Our first movie!" kind of way. It's just sad that no larger companies tackled D&D first, or at least better writers. ;)

That being said, anyone like Scourge of Worlds? (I've had it since it came out, but you know, I've never watched it.)


Waterdeep? Never heard of it.

               -Factol Pentar, Doomguard

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:18 pm 
 

I mentioned Scourge a few days ago. I thought it was awesome, not so much the movie, but the ability to select actions.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  


Active Collector

Posts: 87
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Last Visit: Aug 28, 2019

Post Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:29 pm 
 

Seeing both of the D&D movies... just makes me sad & annoyed at the missed opportunities.

Is it too much to ask that a D&D movie gets the same treatment that the Lord of the Rings trilogy received?

This isn't just about budget -- Babylon 5 was produced on a shoestring, as opposed to the various goliath Star Trek series -- it's about vision.

Christ, people, this is a D&D movie with a massive potential audience for a well-scripted, acted, directed, produced, and marketed film. Instead, we get this monkey dung movie & sequel, only confirming casual viewers' worst ideas about D&D... Campy, low-quality, and boring.

It would have been better if they'd never been made!

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 2:33 pm 
 

red_dawn wrote:It would have been better if they'd never been made!


i agree.

it still amazes me with these things.

any of them who KNOW anything about D&D stuff, shit they only have to look at the adventures that were released. any number of them would and could have been turned into a cool as f*ck film.

imagine a film of Q1 or G1-2-3 or something like that. it would have beaten the 2 films hands down many times over.

incredible.

Al



  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 5648
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Last Visit: Oct 19, 2021
Location: New Hampsha

Post Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:36 pm 
 

Hollywood is only interested in making the immediate buck. Producers are so shortsighted that they can't even think for themselves, they can only follow the models of past producers. It is a proven fact that movies spanned over multiple shootings, with GOOD plot lines, makes billions, but they can only manage the Vin Diesel/Rock-style movies or variations of supernatural thrillers.
The insane potential of the D&D series would be in that it doesn't EVER have to end. If an intelligent writer put something like Saltmarsh together, you could have endless sequels, all relatively cheap to produce, and chock full of the special effects that the idiot moviegoers crave nowadays. Thirteen movies later, they could be doing the giant/drow series. The viewers get to watch the characters gain in power and prestige. And you could easily replace or remove actors that want too much money by killing off their characters. If Weeners of the Coast had any issues with it, you could just remove the D&D tag and bill them as generic fantasy movies.
Heck, as long as there was a nude shot of Jaime Bergman as a druidess, even I'D go, and I hate movie theaters.


If you hit a Rowsdower, you get to keep it.

 WWW  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:05 pm 
 

totally agree!

hell, if i won the lottery, i would just do the feckin film myself :)



  

User avatar

Long-Winded Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 3861
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Last Visit: Jul 20, 2021
Location: Milford, Michigan

Post Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 11:49 pm 
 

To make a compelling D&D movie you have to do the exact opposite of what the last two films have standardized: jam everything powerful into a movie. Marvel Comics had the same problem with all their moview prior to Spider-man a few years ago. Even avid Marvel readers could not relate to the characters. That goes double for these D&D piece of shit movies. How could anyone relate to those characters - I had an instant revulsion to all of them.

Both films took the approach of using high level characters and or situation/events. Big mistake. Power D&D is boring D&D - as far as story-telling goes for movies.

A far more compelling movie would feature novice characters 1st level that gather and hit their first adventure. Movie goers can relate to characters/heroes that have flaws, weakness and problems. Simply put, I don't need a D&D movie where the story is about saving the universe from the ultimate demon, wizard, dragon lord of infinite darkness.

Give me low level adventurers against a mysterious villian or group of villians and nonlinear adventure and I am going to be interested and compelled to watch. Give me the lich dragon and I am going to be bored to tears because the end result is going to be obvious and suck.


And I could've bought these damn modules off the 1$ rack!!!

New modules for your Old School game http://pacesettergames.com/

Everything Pacesetter at http://pacesettergames.blog.com/

 WWW  

User avatar

Verbose Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 1253
Joined: Jan 01, 2003
Last Visit: Sep 20, 2021

Post Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:46 am 
 

bbarsh wrote:Both films took the approach of using high level characters and or situation/events. Big mistake. Power D&D is boring D&D - as far as story-telling goes for movies.

A far more compelling movie would feature novice characters 1st level that gather and hit their first adventure. Movie goers can relate to characters/heroes that have flaws, weakness and problems. Simply put, I don't need a D&D movie where the story is about saving the universe from the ultimate demon, wizard, dragon lord of infinite darkness.

Give me low level adventurers against a mysterious villian or group of villians and nonlinear adventure and I am going to be interested and compelled to watch. Give me the lich dragon and I am going to be bored to tears because the end result is going to be obvious and suck.


Amen!  While most of us probably agree that this second D&D movie was better than the first one, that would be just a backhanded compliment of very feint praise.  
I'd love to see a group of low level adventurers take on a Hommlet, In Search of the Unknown, Saltmarsh type adventure.  And then the sequels could build them up.  But I doubt it will ever happen as the conventional wisdom seems to demand a "save the world from the ultimate badass" script.  Oh well...

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector
Acaeum Donor

Posts: 6720
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Last Visit: Feb 02, 2021

Post Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:55 am 
 

Well, anything with a Wayans brother in it cannot be all bad, can it?   :x

    What the makers of fantasy films never seem to be able to do is add any emotional appeal to their products.

    The Lord of the Rings succeeded as movies because the movies managed to be about characters rather than goofy costumes and special effects.  The only exception was Gimli, who was consciously chosen as the film's honorary Wayans brother.

    (Still...as a miniatures painter I would like to have helped them fix up their models...especially Isengard...I wanted to reach up to the movie screen and help them with a bit of better drybrushing and maybe some color besides gray.  "Let me help you a bit there, boys!" 8) )

    But the key to a D&D movie would be HORROR.  Rather than focus on WONDER (and everything else stupid) the movie ought to focus on the fact that the characters are confronted with horrifying creatures which they must face alone in the dark.  Scare the hell out of the audience and you will have a movie with emotional impact.

    Also...producers should note that the Lord of the Rings movie managed to handle the tired cliche of a woman warrior with considerably more grace than the genre usually gets.  I would dearly love to see a D&D movie where the gorgeous female smartass-in-a-thong makes her first smartass remark...and then is ripped apart by an umber hulk as her companions flee screaming...and then we get on with the rest of the movie without this particularly stupid cliche.    :lol:  :lol:


"But I have watched the dragons come, fire-eyed, across the world."

  

User avatar

Grandstanding Collector

Posts: 8219
Joined: Jan 21, 2005
Last Visit: Jun 12, 2017
Location: Wallasey, Merseyside, UK

Post Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 2:55 am 
 

so if you were given the funds to make a low budget D&D film, with possibly a follow up, what would you base it on and who would you have as characters and who would play them.....

bear in mind its low budget so you couldnt have mega-stars

Al



  

User avatar

Verbose Collector

Posts: 1271
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Last Visit: Nov 17, 2020
Location: Azeroth

Post Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 6:43 am 
 

The idea of the low levels starting out and then building up in a series of sequels would be great. They could all be interconnected with a villian that starts off considerably stronger than them but grows as well.

The other route would be too make one shots like they have but not been the save the world. There are some great modules that could be adapted to movies for this if they wanted to pay homage. UK1, X2 U1 (as mentioned earlier), or almost any of the B series. The idea is to keep the plot small but perhaps build on the underlying story and add character developement. Something akin to the Joel Rosenberg (spelling) books.

The only other real comment I can think of at this time is that even though it is called Dungeons & Dragons not every movie needs a dragon...perhaps a passing shot of one or something...but tying them into the plot forces the heroes to be top shelf as it were.


Information Superhighway - A Rough Whimper of Insanity - Scott Hansen

  
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 51, 2, 3, 4, 5