dbartman wrote:Okay, I'm going to throw out a recent low-budget movie: Bloodrayne

The movie was pretty bad, but could have been a good movie with the right director.

The end is almost comical when they reflect back on the notable battle scenes.  Gallons of fake blood and gore spurting everywhere!

What is it with the director Uwe Boll and his horrific video game-to-big screen failures?  I dont see why production companies keep green lighting his movies?

House of the Dead made a bit over $10 million and cost $7 million to make.  Alone in the Dark made a bit over $5 million and cost almost $20 million to make.  Bloodrayne made around $3 million and cost over $25 million to make.  I didnt see Bloodrayne or House of the Dead but I heard both were awful.  And the reason I didnt see them was because I did watch Alone in the Dark and it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.  It is also one of the worst rated movies on IMDB.  Kinda makes you wonder why this guy is allowed to keep making movies?

Now he is either producing or directing six more movies including Bloodrayne 2 and Alone in the Dark 2 for release in 2008 and 2009.  More evidence that there are a lot of stupid people in Hollywood running the show.  

I did watch Underworld and Underworld: Evolution a couple of weeks ago.  Not the greatest movies mind you but fun.  And Kate Beckinsale in tight leather is never a bad thing.  

killjoy32 wrote:personally, i thought Bloodrayne was ok. mind you it was prb because the lead actress was super-hot

Al

Is this the actress that you are referring to? I must say that I agree with your assessment!

http://www.cinemovie.info/Kristanna_Lok ... oken35.jpg

Kingofpain89 wrote:What is it with the director Uwe Boll and his horrific video game-to-big screen failures?  I dont see why production companies keep green lighting his movies?

Because he owns the production company, if I recall correctly.

Kingofpain89 wrote:Now he is either producing or directing six more movies including Bloodrayne 2 and Alone in the Dark 2 for release in 2008 and 2009.  More evidence that there are a lot of stupid people in Hollywood running the show.  

He claims he's never lost money on movies.  There's apparently some German tax law for films made by German companies that makes it possible, but I can't recall exactly how it works.

(I'd do a search for the exact details, but I know the results are full of people complaining about how he's "abusing loopholes".  I may not like the man or his movies, but the one decent description of the law that I saw made it quite obvious that he's one of the few people using it in the way it was designed.  Now, that well known "German" company, New Line Cinema, on the other hand...   )

I'm sorry to say but I always thought the TV series Wizards and Warriors was rather hilarious for a D&D type show. I always thought it funny how the strong man strangles the green slime. Funny

 

That's the one!  Thanks Keith for the links.  

I don't remember much about the show but it felt very much like D&D.  I've thought about it for years.

HermitFromPluto wrote:Only one mention of Jeremy Irons' Dungeons and Dragons

Don't the intrepid adventurers have to get past some flaoting rubber beholders in this movie? It has orcs, mages, dragons - what else could you ask for?

We try to avoid mentioning that one.

silver_beetle wrote:We try to avoid mentioning that one.

Quote from a gamer in fall 2000, after 3.0 but before we realized what quality level the film would have: "They must have put this stuff out to promote the movie."

HermitFromPluto wrote:Only one mention of Jeremy Irons' Dungeons and Dragons

Don't the intrepid adventurers have to get past some flaoting rubber beholders in this movie? It has orcs, mages, dragons - what else could you ask for?

A nice example of the disrespect Hollywood and television have for the fantasy audience.   

I swear, sometimes it seems like if you are too big of an asshole, even for a reporter, then they hire you for Hollywood.

As soon as I read about a Wayans brother being in the movie...well...I knew.  

Back at the time, a friend of ours who was new to D&D suggested that we all go see the movie together.  She couldn't figure out why no one in our group was even planning to see it at all.  We knew what was coming.

A good movie about D&D themes would not focus on a struggle about taking over or saving the world.  

Instead, it would be a much smaller story, told about a set of characters on some sort of personal quest...for treasure or some sort of personal destiny.  

In the end...after the Temple of Gubbins collapses...as the characters run for their lives...and the Great Gubbins falls to dust in their hands...the characters are left with a bit more gold, a few experiences and the determination to set out on yet another journey/quest.  The conflicts and triumphs would have more emotional impact than yet another impossibly stupid evil overlord overthrown by the power of Gubbins X.

There would be no comedy character.  Instead, there would be humorous situations and a small amount of romance.

The writers and director would understand that the ability to make an animated dragon look impressive (Reign of Fire) is not the same thing as a believable story built around that dragon (Dragonslayer).

And...by the way...I may have mentioned this before but did anyone else notice that the movie Eragon was basically Star Wars told with essentially all the same characters and situations in a slightly different setting?

Mark  

The problem with the D&D movie is that it's too accurate. It's like the experience of sitting through an actual grueling six-hour gaming session. Although the film itself is much shorter than that, the dramatic flair of the actors is such that you really feel like you've spent all day waiting for it to end.

In fact it might even inspire a bit of nostalgia for that time in your past, perhaps ripe with young adulthood, when you decided to abandon gaming for the first time. Was it that special girl, or a favorite rock 'n roll combo, or just the realization that you were hanging out with a bunch of losers?

Whatever the reason, Jeremy Irons' masterful 2000 performance is guaranteed to remind you of that feeling again. There's a whole big wide world out there- surely you must have something better to do.

Kingofpain89 wrote:First Knight

First Knight was a low-quality film made to appeal to a very limited 13-year-old audience. It was historically significant however in that it marked the return of medieval fantasy to pop culture.

Another milestone of this period: finding Thomas Keightly's Fairy Mythology in the 'Hot Topic' outlet of a suburban mall in late 2001, as merchants rushed to fill their stores with anything related to the new decade's fashions.

Throughout most of the 90s, kids didn't read Tolkien much & were only vaguely aware that D&D had ever been something other than a video game. When Jerry Seinfeld wore a pirate shirt, the audience is supposed to know right away that it signifies out-of-style.

sauromatian wrote:In fact it might even inspire a bit of nostalgia for that time in your past, perhaps ripe with young adulthood, when you decided to abandon gaming for the first time. Was it that special girl, or a favorite rock 'n roll combo, or just the realization that you were hanging out with a bunch of losers?

Whatever the reason, Jeremy Irons' masterful 2000 performance is guaranteed to remind you of that feeling again. There's a whole big wide world out there- surely you must have something better to do.

What are you doing here then, sauromatian?

I'll have to call all the engineers, officers, executives and professionals I played D&D with and let them know I won't be at this year's party because they are losers.

Don't blame everyone else just cause you couldn't get a girlfriend.