| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dennis |
Posted - 31 May 2012 : 00:09:47
What live-action fantasy (or fantasy-sci-fi) film or series of films made you say, “If ever they make a Realms movie, I'd like it to be done this way.” It could because of how well-written the story is; or how interesting the characters are; or how wonderfully rendered the setting is; or all of the above. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 31 Jan 2013 : 14:10:18
Oooo. I love The Chronicles of Riddick series. And I'm happy they'd be making a third one. True, Pitch Black is a relatively small-budget film. [It's obvious with the CGI, anyway.] A solid plot and a perfect cast basically saved it. Had it been done with bigger budget, (perhaps they'd do a reboot?) it would have been way, way better. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 30 Jan 2013 : 03:31:12
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Victor_ograygor
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the newest remake)
I think that might be jumping the gun, somewhat. A Realms live-action endeavour needs to start small, and build a following among non-Realms devotees. And, obviously, succeed in the kind of low-budget ways that the Dungeons & Dragons films failed to accomplish.
Come to think of it, a smaller budget film may not be a terrible idea.
Something like Pitch Black was a relatively smaller budget movie that gained a decent following, enough for Chronicles of Riddick, which seemed to increase the scale and production by an order of magnitude. Interestingly the upcoming Riddick seems to have scaled down the story's scope again to match the budget, but that's fine, we're following the character on his adventures around the universe.
A Realms movie, potential start to a series, could start on a smaller, more personal scale to match the budget. It would focus on the characters more. The problem with this is it takes more talent that the current set of D&D movies have shown. Or great luck in striking the right tone and discovering the perfect character/actor combination. |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 28 Jan 2013 : 09:33:20
@ Dennis
Good idea, after all Tolkein had a huge fan base even before the movies which is missing in the case of the Realms.
But in the post LOTR world people are a lot more willing to watch movies with elves and wizards and orcs so I think a well made realms movie might do well even with those people who have never heard of Drizzt or Eliminister. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 27 Jan 2013 : 11:51:13
Hmm. Maybe, Sage. So perhaps somewhere around the production budget of The Sorcerer's Apprentice... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Jan 2013 : 02:12:50
quote:
Originally posted by Victor_ograygor
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the newest remake)
I think that might be jumping the gun, somewhat. A Realms live-action endeavour needs to start small, and build a following among non-Realms devotees. And, obviously, succeed in the kind of low-budget ways that the Dungeons & Dragons films failed to accomplish. |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 26 Jan 2013 : 21:42:09
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the newest remake) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 23:01:04
I'm generally more fond of movies populated with hordes of B-listers, like Mars Attacks! (although perhaps what makes that an entertaining movie, to me, is that about 90% of the B-listers meet violent and gruesome ends). |
| BEAST |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 22:44:01
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
BEAST
I wonder if the hypothetical success of such films would provide enough "collateral" to then champion some other Realms films for other, less-lampooned characters?
To answer this I ask, how often does Hollywood ignore obvious blockbuster sequel possibilities to try something new and original? And how often does Hollywood blow big budgets on films about unpopular content?
The Punisher (twice)
Daredevil
Catwoman
Captain America
Green Lantern
Supposedly a Dr. Strange film is in the works, too.
They keep trying to see if they can catch-comic-book-adaptation lighting in a bottle.
Waterworld
The Postman
Battle: L.A.
John Carter
Battleship
I seem to recall a lot of big failure movies this past year, with big-name actors, too. Hollywood tries all the time, if they can get an A-lister attached to a project. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 22:34:19
quote:
BEAST
The etymology of the word "fantasy" reveals that the concept thrives on fanciful, unrealistic, imaginative imagery. Low budgets are not conducive to that.
Clearly, you've never seen Deathstalker films (especially DS2 and DS3). They are fanciful, unrealistic, "imaginative" in campy ways, and very definitely low budget. And not an elf to be seen anywhere within them! |
| Dennis |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 20:48:37
It's not Game of Thrones if it has more magic. The very reason that assassination plots aren't done so conveniently and almost artlessly is because of the lack of "proper" magic. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 21 Jan 2013 : 20:31:28
Game of throne, but with alot more magic. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 19:33:05
quote:
BEAST
I wonder if the hypothetical success of such films would provide enough "collateral" to then champion some other Realms films for other, less-lampooned characters?
To answer this I ask, how often does Hollywood ignore obvious blockbuster sequel possibilities to try something new and original? And how often does Hollywood blow big budgets on films about unpopular content?
Sure, every now and then a real movie sneaks onto the top of the heap, but with increasing rarity in this age of endless remakes and sequels and adaptions, giving people the eye candy they want, that is, what the producers think people will pay to see. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 19:21:15
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
And the only way they could make a "proper" film is if it's produced by a big time studios. Fantasy film needs a bigger budget to be rendered well.
Yep; if they're gonna do it, then do it right. Don't do it at all unless they're gonna do it right.
The etymology of the word "fantasy" reveals that the concept thrives on fanciful, unrealistic, imaginative imagery. Low budgets are not conducive to that.
Good fantasy requires good preemptive marketing in order to round up the necessary sponsors. Don't proceed with a project unless you've got good PR folks to get the $$, first.
That probably means that the best bet is to focus on offering projects that will have the widest appeal, in order to have the greatest chances of raising the most $$. And whether you like it or not, that probably means something like Drizzt.
I wonder if the hypothetical success of such films would provide enough "collateral" to then champion some other Realms films for other, less-lampooned characters? |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 17:44:35
Personally I'd like to see any further D&D films, Realms included, to be done by a high quality animation studio or with the motion capture style of Beowulf or Avatar. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 18 Jan 2013 : 11:55:27
Full agreement, Dark Wizard.
The film doesn't have to be gritty to sell. And the only way they could make a "proper" film is if it's produced by a big time studios. Fantasy film needs a bigger budget to be rendered well. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Jan 2013 : 01:11:36
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
I guess the main take away, what we both agree on, is for future D&D-based films projects to continue to receive consideration for production.
Indeed. There is a worthwhile franchise that can be readily expanded upon. It would be a shame to see it fall away into obscurity and potential "what-could-have-beens."
quote:
And don't get me wrong, I think these projects should continue, but on a larger, more professional scale, as much as possible.
I just feel these past films haven't come close to reaching the full potential of the material or their budget in some cases, shoe-string level as they may be.
If we were to learn of a new D&D-related film being produced by one of the big time studios, then that would already be a step in the right direction. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 23:35:05
Never argued that the realms offer complexity and ambiguity for stories of fantasy subgenres. No realy need to get into an argument over catering for the masses as a pro or con, just keeping the story in mind and how to best portray it with means that do it justice. The economic side of the coin is a whole differant matter which i did not intend to bring up because it tends to always sour the mood with demands on large financial income etc. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 21:32:46
Telling it how it is one thing, but we've also seen when "mature and gritty and realistic" leads to violence and sex for the sake of it.
That sort of grasp towards marketing catch words (mature, gritty, realistic) is the sort of thing I wouldn't want to see. We've recent examples where a movie follows the latest blockbuster that found success, copying their styling and look, offering nothing original in its own take. The trend follower usually ends up a bland, forgettable film compared to the trend setter. Ultimately, this is Hasbro we're talking about here: Tranaformers, GI Joe, Battleship.
Aiming a film towards a wider age range should not be equated with catering to the masses. In some cases it is, but keep in mind most of the Realms novels don't go into the same amount of details or the topics of Game of Thrones/ASOIAF and similar series.
Not to say the Realms don't touch on such topics at times or the Realms as a setting are not suited for such stories if authors or scriptwriters put their efforts into it. We've seen that it can, and from some examples of Ed's work and other like-minded authors, the Realms does have that complexity and ambiguity for stories in any fantasy subgenre, intrigue, dark, etc. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 20:29:14
Catering for the massess to appease them is not always a way to create good work. If you want to bring a point across with the portrayal of something, then you show how it is and not do it "hush-hush" with a "bees and flower" synonym of some sort. Atleast that is my opinion on it. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 19:12:06
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
I respect your opinions on too many other topics to debate this further with you, Dark Wizard, so I'll simply nod, consider your points, and smile as we continue to agree to disagree.
I'll just move on. 
I guess the main take away, what we both agree on, is for future D&D-based films projects to continue to receive consideration for production.
And don't get me wrong, I think these projects should continue, but on a larger, more professional scale, as much as possible.
I just feel these past films haven't come close to reaching the full potential of the material or their budget in some cases, shoe-string level as they may be.
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Bane
I´d actually go for a Game of Thrones approach (more mature themed) mixed with the budget of Lord of the Rings trilogy.
I could take it or leave it with the mature themed trend we see nowadays. It's great if it's done well, but often times it can devolve into gratuitous scenes tagged on to the narrative for the sake of it.
Existing examples of wider age group material, such as Pixar films and shows like Avatar the Last Airbender, where relevant themes are dealt with but still maintain age appropriate ratings, shows a mature film is less about visceral displays or controversial or taboo subjects, but can also just be a willingness to portray and tackle non-trivial, real world relevant topics in a meaningful way.
The additional bonus being that a wider rating means more ticket sales, generally. This also means studios are more willing to fund a decent budget, generally. |
| Lord Bane |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 09:28:10
I´d actually go for a Game of Thrones approach (more mature themed) mixed with the budget of Lord of the Rings trilogy. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 09:06:22
Sloppy climax? I didn't think so. As for the slow start, keep in mind they were transitioning between old and new characters, and there was a lot of backstory to fill in on the new kid. There was also several hundred years of history in Narnia itself between the first film and the other two, which meant that much had changed. All that had to be covered in the beginning of a two-hour movie, as well as explaining the current situation of the prince and the reason for the voyage of the ship in the first place. That's a LOT of story to try to condense into a movie! And the relationships between the four (down to two still of age to visit Narnia in VotDT) original siblings and their obnoxious cousin was a part of that, too. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 03:41:34
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
Voyage of the Dawn Treader was actually the best Narnia movie thus far, IMHO.
I disagree. It started slow, had a sloppy climax, and I couldn't bear to finish it. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 03:26:04
I respect your opinions on too many other topics to debate this further with you, Dark Wizard, so I'll simply nod, consider your points, and smile as we continue to agree to disagree.
I'll just move on. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 02:56:10
In regards to viewers, reviews, and fans and newcomers being turned off by the movie, we'll have to agree to disagree. You've obviously had a more positive experience with it.
Every where I turn, I see the film poorly rated. That was my reaction upon first watching it. In disbelief at how amateurish the end result turned out, I showed it to friends and people in my group, no one liked it. Some were DL fans since high school, we read the same set of books traded between us. It did not rekindle the nostalgia we had for the books. Some distantly knew of DL through discussions between above mentioned group, most weren't big on sword & sorcery type fantasy (mostly sci-fi, comics, anime) but could sit through epics like LotR and come away with an appreciation, that group hated the DL movie. They felt was a bland derivative (I believe there were pacing issues that didn't help in this area). They ripped the animation to shreds, and these were people who could sit through filler episodes of long running anime series, often with their own stilted animation (but not to the extend of the DL film) and poor stories.
I don't feel the dislike of the Dragonlance movie is based on or linked to the dislike of the D&D movies. If the DL film was of sufficient quality, it would be reflected in reviews and word of mouth. Audiences are capable of separating the two film branches, especially as the Dragonlance movie did not emphasis the D&D brand. It is much better than any of the D&D movies, that's a positive. And I'm not going to throw in the line about it not being hard to exceed those three live-action films. The DL film was significantly better.
As for your statements about the lack of budget, I don't feel that's a good excuse. Not sure I agree with that attitude to jump into a project knowing the budget was limited and the result could be weaker than hoped for. It's like those sad SyFy channel movies that try too hard to be campy monster flicks, but fail miserably and end up boring wastes of time. As a fan I expect a bit more, especially from a franchise with some past history of success. I want the property to succeed, not make desperate attempts to break into a new medium when it is obviously not ready for it.
I'm also dubious as to whether such a strategy works. We can cite the animated Hobbit or LotR, but that was a different era and the gap between projects was three decades. Are we sure it was the animated versions that compelled the live-action version to be made, rather the popularity of the books and probably a production team that believed in their project and went out of their way to earn the financial backing by convincing investors and studios. I think the latter is the more influential factor to getting a good project off the ground.
If they did not have the equivalent budget of three or four episodes of a regular TV animated show (I see this as a minimum, plus some setup cost), then they should not have gone through with the project that would result in an obvious sub-par project. They could have tried to present the project proposal to more investors or studios to obtain more funding.
Working with what they did have, they could have skipped the celebrity actors for the voices and went with professional voice actors to save money. They could have streamlined production by not using CGI for the few scenes of dragons and draconians. That probably would have saved money. They could have chosen a style that had fewer animation frames, some anime does this to save production money. I don't feel they made very canny decisions with the movie even given the resources they had available.
Heck, even one of the animation companies involved went on to do better animated work. Toonz Animation did some of the DL movie, they went on to animate Wolverine and the X-Men TV series. You can recognize the animation style between the two projects, but the latter is miles ahead in consistency. Perhaps the DL project only had funds for a certain commitment from Toonz and the other animation studios. Or the DL project placed a bad bet on a newer company. This later example of their work could show improved proficiency after they had their practice, DL paid for their learning curve perhaps. That would be unfortunate for DL, not so much for the studio.
It seemed wiser choices could have been made throughout and that's a shame because Dragonlance deserved a good start, not a stumble. As I said before, it seems from past examples a stumble in the film market is much harder to overcome than starting from a "fresh" best-selling series.
Don't like that Dragonlance "settled" for any project they could get together. I'm sure it was more complex than that, but it's what it seems like. As a best-selling series, not too much separates it from the other numerous films based on best-selling novel series. If anything D&D based novels perform better than the game. Yet, even the novels get weak treatments for film projects. I wouldn't want to see a similar treatment for a Realms movie based on past examples. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 01:26:55
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Wizard
Then the whole "good" first step purpose of the Dragonlance animated project was a grand folly. It was a serious misstep. By releasing an inferior product they've done harm to the Dragonlance brand.
I don't see it as a grand folly. That's a little harsh. For someone who has been with DRAGONLANCE since the beginning, I see the film, more, as a stumble, on the road to something better.
quote:
Take note of the reviews and comments of this film. Every where I've seen, the reviews and comments are generally negative and not within a margin that could slip this film into the watchable pile in the face of all the media people have access to today.
Eh. I don't place all that much stock in reviews posted online. I'm always curious about just how many of them are actually genuine and how many are just "jumping on the bandwagon of hate" that seems to permeate almost every lot of reviews I read about anything. I think some folk are just a little too afraid to say that they might have actually liked the film, but thought it could've been much better, and then be branded "not true DL fans" by those with a fanatical bent toward decrying almost everything in a franchise that isn't one-hundred percent up to their personal expectations.
quote:
If they were hoping to create a cult classic, they failed. Cult classics, despite being bad, have many redeeming and watchable qualities, this film does fall into the "so bad it's good" category. It's forgettable at best, and I'd bet some people involved in it hope everyone forgot this one existed.
Considering that I and my fellow DL fans continually re-watch the film almost every year, I'd say this is something of an overstatement. We consider it a cult-classic because of it's stumble status I spoke of earlier. We're looking at it in light of what, potentially, could come later.
quote:
They burned bridges not only with fans and newcomers to the story, ...
Again, I think you're stretching things here. I have handed my copy of the film to newcomers of the setting, and while they're comments haven't been glowing, it's prompted them to look further into the world and pick up both the novels and gaming books.
quote:
... but also future investors for DL film projects. If they hoped to use this to generate revenue to reinvest in a bigger project, they definitely failed. Everything is about risk mitigation nowadays. Why are the big movies each summer usually sequels or adaptations of existing franchises? Because investors want to put their money on a "winner", who wouldn't.
I do believe there's some truth to this. But it also doesn't help that the project didn't have much in the way of funds when it got started either.
quote:
This film brands the Dragonlance franchise as a cinematic "loser", this is it's record of performance. If this didn't exist, perhaps they could bank on the Dragonlance novel's bestseller status to organize a more competent film project off the ground. Once a film under-performs, no matter the novel sales, future films don't get the backing they need. Similar and even stronger franchises and more respected works have faced the same situation, especially in the fantasy genre, recall Golden Compass, Eragon, even Narnia, etc.
I don't think you can lay this all at the feet of how poorly the DRAGONLANCE film did among audiences. That was a boat that was already sailing the minute the first live-action Dungeons & Dragons film was released. The DL film just really didn't do anything to halt that downward spiral of dislike.
quote:
Say what you will about the Marvel film rights held by Fox (or Sony), at least they put a decent budget behind them and actually want to make money off those characters.
Yes, because they can afford it. I wouldn't consider Wizards of the Coast to occupy the same place, financially, as either Fox Studios or Sony Entertainment. There's a significant difference there.
|
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 00:49:59
True, Narnia shouldn't be grouped with those other movies, but I recall despite a good box office performance, there was some wrangling between the producers and studios involved on the sequels. For a time, those sequels were far from a sure thing. That was a time coinciding with those other franchises I mentioned, and it looked like there was going to be a bust of fantasy films to the boom started by LotR and Harry Potter. It shows even with a famous, beloved book series and a good first movie there are still hurdles to overcome.
As I understand it now, the rights to the later books in the series are the issue holding up the next movies, but that's another matter.
Now consider Dragonlance is a less famous book series with a flop of a poorly animated movie to its credit. |
| GRYPHON |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 00:34:04
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the newest remake)... |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 15 Jan 2013 : 00:29:53
I wouldn't group Narnia in that category, at all. It has already had two sequels, and AFAIK, there are plans to complete the other books in the series as movies. Voyage of the Dawn Treader was actually the best Narnia movie thus far, IMHO. |
| Dark Wizard |
Posted - 14 Jan 2013 : 23:43:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
Then I'm sorry to say, but you're missing the point of the entire project and development of the DL animated film saga.
It was never meant to be an "modern-developmental" take on the founding story of the saga. It was designed to be a "good first step" into the future [hopeful] production of additional film-adaptations of the original three books in the Chronicles trilogy.
Looking at the Dragons of Autumn Twilight animated film... and expecting something like the high quality of the lot of DC animated films that have been released over the last 5+ years, for example, isn't all that realistic. The WB/DC Animated Studios has an extraordinary budget, and a great development/production staff to draw from. The folk that produced the DL film, didn't. It's the best they could offer with the resources they had at hand.
Then the whole "good" first step purpose of the Dragonlance animated project was a grand folly. It was a serious misstep. By releasing an inferior product they've done harm to the Dragonlance brand.
Take note of the reviews and comments of this film. Every where I've seen, the reviews and comments are generally negative and not within a margin that could slip this film into the watchable pile in the face of all the media people have access to today.
If they were hoping to create a cult classic, they failed. Cult classics, despite being bad, have many redeeming and watchable qualities, this film does fall into the "so bad it's good" category. It's forgettable at best, and I'd bet some people involved in it hope everyone forgot this one existed.
They burned bridges not only with fans and newcomers to the story, but also future investors for DL film projects. If they hoped to use this to generate revenue to reinvest in a bigger project, they definitely failed. Everything is about risk mitigation nowadays. Why are the big movies each summer usually sequels or adaptations of existing franchises? Because investors want to put their money on a "winner", who wouldn't.
This film brands the Dragonlance franchise as a cinematic "loser", this is it's record of performance. If this didn't exist, perhaps they could bank on the Dragonlance novel's bestseller status to organize a more competent film project off the ground. Once a film under-performs, no matter the novel sales, future films don't get the backing they need. Similar and even stronger franchises and more respected works have faced the same situation, especially in the fantasy genre, recall Golden Compass, Eragon, even Narnia, etc.
It doesn't help that WotC licensed the D&D movie rights to an amateur, now partnered with companies who seem to put out bland filler films periodically only so they can hold on to the license in the hopes WotC or more likely Hasbro buys it back for a good sum.
Say what you will about the Marvel film rights held by Fox (or Sony), at least they put a decent budget behind them and actually want to make money off those characters.
I'm actually afraid for the Forgotten Realms. With both the D&D and the Dragonlance names tainted by poor films, which franchise does WotC/Hasbro have left in their repertoire, which is their other big name. Yup. With the current care given D&D based films, an FR film, whether live-action, CGI, or traditional animation, is going to be medieval torture levels of pain.
|
|
|
