| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Zimeros |
Posted - 08 Mar 2005 : 20:58:42
Well my friends, I come back to forum, after a long time without any post, and in this time I've heard about the creation of a new movie about D&D, something like D&D II, someone can tell me if is it true? I hope it isn't because I hate D&D movie, it is terrible.
And, for the people that still didn't forgot me, I'm creating more things like "the capoerist" and I'll post here in a short time(or I hope to do it )... |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 14 Oct 2005 : 02:34:13
Well, it was also kind of a Dracolich/Dragon God... so I have no idea what was going on. I did like how the Black Dragon was easily recognizable... but then why was the White Dragon looking completely different?
I don't know, but I do think they went in the right direction with this movie and will pick up the DVD when it comes out, and it will sit next to my original D&D movie DVD.
C-Fb |
| Tifus Artwin |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 19:37:02
As Long as the 3rd movie has good acting and storyline in it Ill watch it, from what I saw the only thing the 2nd movie was lacking is good acting skills and a budget, what the first movie had to much of. The Story line, as I said before was very good, something the 1st movie didnt have much of, and something the 3rd will need if its going to survive long.
As for a Movie following the Rules of the game, Yes I would expect them to and I am disapionted when they dont, I mean they are called Dungeons and Dragons after all, they should atleast conform to the rules, and novels, a black dragon has Acid, not Fire as a breathweapon. If they are changing something somewhere in the movie, it should hold true for the ENTIRE movie, not that parts that would be "cooler" if it was fire instead of acid breath comeing from the dragon.
~Tifus |
| khorne |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 18:18:57
I have no idea when it will be out, but I hope number 3 is better than this one. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 02:23:06
You know what else is extremely bad? Anime subtitles from the back market in Hong Kong - just as bad.
Anyway, does anyone know when the 3rd movie will be out?
C-Fb |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Oct 2005 : 01:18:16
quote:
Originally posted by CarolinaPaladin
Probably the third movie will bring back the lich. I noticed something odd about the second movie. I had accidently left the captions on, and I noticed that they had litch instead of lich.
A lot of times, you can find all sorts of typos and spelling errors in closed captioning. My grandfather is deaf, so I've noticed the same thing while watching TV with him. |
| CarolinaPaladin |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 23:42:56
Probably the third movie will bring back the lich. I noticed something odd about the second movie. I had accidently left the captions on, and I noticed that they had litch instead of lich. |
| Iliphar1 |
Posted - 12 Oct 2005 : 23:20:09
well, all in all the first D&D movie was the worst movie I have ever seen. I suppose the writer must have never ever played D&D
After a friend of mine gave me the DVD for the 2nd movie (He bought it in China for 0.50 Dollar) I was very very reluctant to watch it, but I have to admit, I was surprised. The elven plastic bra-armor is gone, the ridiculous blue lips as well, as are the funny 1st level Characters who defeat 20th level Characters in tests of will. Even the storie somehow made sense.
Wonder how the 3rd movie will be |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 22:27:14
I did see the movie, but first let me say that I was dead tired from doing home repairs from Hurricane Katrina. Therefore, I was kinda in and out. However, what I saw I liked. I hated the first movie. I have 2 co-workers who also watched it and who also loved it and had even recorded it (they play the game with me, but they are players not devoted lovers of the game who buy every product, btw).
I see this and I say to myself, ok, the first time they were learning, the second time they improved. Let's face it, this is undiscovered country for D&D. I know over the years we've always heard people say they'd love to see a dragonlance movie. Prior to this, I always thought they were nuts (after the first movie, I "knew" it would never happen). Now, I'm kind of wondering.... would sci fi be willing to do it as a one season stint thing like they did with Battlestar Galactica? There's no way they could do dragonlance as 3 3-hour flicks at the box office (I don't think anyway), but I'm betting they could easily do it as a mini-series with say 20 episodes.... and with the advertising bucks to go with it it could get funded that way.
Anyway, I'm going to watch the movie again on Thursday. I did like how they had Damodar multi-class into wizard. Its what I do with most of my characters, so why shouldn't he. I just wish they'd have stuck a sword on him to clarify, but I'm guessing they were trying to keep it simple for folk to follow. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 21:40:10
After reading many of the posts regarding the movie, my impression is that people who wanted to see the D&D rules system referenced in a clear and obvious way, and who wanted the film to convey the feel of an RPG session, tended to enjoy the flick. People who disliked the movie were often disappointed precisely because it operated in this way. They felt the approach got in the way of effective storytelling, and would have preferred that the film evoke the game in a more subtle, implicit kind of way.
I don't know that either group is right or wrong. It just comes down to a question of what you hoped a D&D movie would be. |
| Thelonius |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 21:08:08
Yes this is starting to get.... unfunny... relax!! |
| Kuje |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 17:00:00
Hey guys,
It looks like you all decided to come to an agreement but I'm just asking anyhow, please tone it down. Even I can feel the anger, or frustration, rolling out of some of your replies.
Thanks. |
| Tifus Artwin |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 05:49:54
Just thought I would comment on the Movie in question as I watched it over the weekend on Sci-Fi.
The movie as a whole was pretty good, atleast the plot and story was good. The acting was sub-par, I had to laugh at parts that was just funny when I think it should have been serious, and gamers WILL know where mistakes was made or atleast deviated from the books (such as a certain dragon with the wrong type of breath).
There was other parts that could have been done better, such as makeup and costums, but for a low budget movie over all it wasnt as bad as say some of the older movies (think dawn of the living dead). Others such as the Dragons and spectors look magnificent and couldnt have been done better.
Anyway, thats all I wanted to say and I do recomend seeing the movie if for nothing else it has a good story line even if it was poorly executed.
~Tifus |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:58:56
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
Because to get that talent for something like a movie, you would need something that is going to draw people to write it, act in it, direct it, etc. And unfortunately, D&D is not a money-collecting franchise. Look how many people, even in this forum, talk about how D&D is not going to survive...
Really? I haven't seen that. Not saying I don't believe you, I just haven't seen that...
quote:
It's that feeling that permeates through, causing many people, who could do a damn good job to pass up that project and move on to something else. Believe me, I agree that it probably could have been better, could have been a lot of things - but I refuse to not watch it - just because it could have been done better. At least there is a movie I can watch and be happy. :)
And no, I'm not angry or upset, just trying to have a discussion, just like you.
I'm glad. I'll try to catch this movie myself and see if it's worthwhile. Trust me, I'm not angry that bad movies exist, I'm just saying I don't think they deserve excuses either. Maybe someday D&D will be more mainstream and respected, but there is potential there anyway. No, it's not brain surgery (which might not make such a great movie anyway?), but plenty of things we appreciate today weren't taken that seriously in the past--heck, not too long ago fantasy wasn't taken seriously, even though imagination is an important part of the human experience. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:53:06
Because to get that talent for something like a movie, you would need something that is going to draw people to write it, act in it, direct it, etc. And unfortunately, D&D is not a money-collecting franchise. Look how many people, even in this forum, talk about how D&D is not going to survive...
It's that feeling that permeates through, causing many people, who could do a damn good job to pass up that project and move on to something else. Believe me, I agree that it probably could have been better, could have been a lot of things - but I refuse to not watch it - just because it could have been done better. At least there is a movie I can watch and be happy. :)
And no, I'm not angry or upset, just trying to have a discussion, just like you.
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:46:51
My words in that post very a bit vague...I meant to say that not just any movie (even a laughable one) will necessarily be a "good thing", either for the game itself, or simply for the person watching the movie.
Really, I'm not trying to get people angry or step on people's toes, but I firmly believe that it's not what it is, it's how it's done. D&D may seem like a laughable thing to many people, but I don't see how that precludes it from greatness in any aspect. Some people dismiss D&D based novels as "pure garbage", but I disagree with them--I've read some awesome writing in "mere D&D books". If it can work for books, why not movies? |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:42:07
Well - not to disagree - but a good D&D movie would make the game more popular. It is the marketing engine that drives the economy and the way the majority of people live their lives. If you need an example - research the effects the comic book movies have had on their product. Spider-Man and X-Men basically brought Marvel to levels of sales they hadn't seen in a very long time.
A good movie is always a way to make a product more popular and wanted. Why else would all of the major franchises look for popular deals in licensing? Why do you think fans poored out and bought tons of merchandise from the very first Star Wars movie? Good movie (marketing device) - Good sales (end result).
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:41:10
quote:
Originally posted by CrennenFaerieBane
It wasn't deliberately corny - people have to work within the budgets they have and within the producer's budget.
Again, just because they can't afford to hire A-list actors doesn't mean (and this is my opinion) that whomever else they have to work with will perform poorly. And I get your point that the movie was made just to be fun, I just feel that if the people involved REALLY love D&D (as Kianna said they do), than why couldn't they try harder? A movie can be fun without being "amusingly bad".
quote:
I think you will have to see it to appreciate the coolness of it.
Yes, I'll see about that. |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 11 Oct 2005 : 04:36:45
quote:
Originally posted by Kianna
I think we are taking this thing too seriously.
And really, where did everyone's sense of humor go? People are acting like they are super offended instead of being happy that at least someone somewhere is trying to make a D&D movie and bring the name to the common man. Instead of bickering we should be standing together because let's face it, there are not a whole lot of us table-toppers in the world these days.
Hmm, did I strike a nerve here?
I'm not taking this too seriously, getting angry at anyone, or bickering. Nor am I offended. I am just giving my opinion, if that's OK. I don't buy for a minute that a D&D movie must necessarily be sub-par, corny, or the simulation of a bad roleplaying session as a matter of course. Nor do I believe that any D&D movie, no matter what the quality, is a "good thing" and will make the game more popular or well known. It's not a "bad thing", either, but that doesn't mean I need to applaud it.
If a movie is poorly made, it's poorly made, nor matter how much its creators intensely love the material or whether or not they intended the movie to be a tribute. Another point: you don't necessarily have to have a huge budget to make a worthwhile or interesting picture. A small-budget, well-made D&D movie might well become a cult hit.
A side note: When I bought and played the Temple of Elemental Evil, I was overall disappointed and none too happy with the game's presentation. A few people said they liked the poorer parts of the game anyway (esp. the laughable voice-acting in parts) because it reminded them of bad acting at the gaming table. Good and well, but was that what I paid $50 for? |
| Kianna |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 23:10:58
I think we are taking this thing too seriously.
It's a movie, based on a game. A game we are all proud to play. But seriously, its not like its brain surgery. And it's not like this is a hobby that's well respected in most (I said most, don't look at me like that) circles. So undertaking a serious D&D movie is not something people will do. Why? Because it takes money to make. And it's not guaranteed to make money. Why? Because the majority of gamers are poor, young, geeky, and live with their parents. Which is not what I believe but its what the stereotype is.
So ask yourself. Would you front the money for something that is most likely not going to turn a profit?
And really, where did everyone's sense of humor go? People are acting like they are super offended instead of being happy that at least someone somewhere is trying to make a D&D movie and bring the name to the common man. Instead of bickering we should be standing together because let's face it, there are not a whole lot of us table-toppers in the world these days.
And let's not forget that whole thing back in the day where it was considered evil to play and all the parents and groups got together for huge D&D bashing sessins. Its taboo. And its a business risk as far as Oscar quarlity is concerned.
So, let's agree to disagree and instead of arguing over the darn thing enjoy it and move on. |
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 22:52:41
It wasn't deliberately corny - people have to work within the budgets they have and within the producer's budget. They are meant to be fun - I think that is the main point. I rather enjoyed it - heck they even made the Black Dragon after the standard one in the MM.
I think you will have to see it to appreciate the coolness of it. And I can step back and see it as a film - been doing such things for a long time now.
C-Fb |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 18:39:35
quote:
Originally posted by Malarick
I wish people would just step back and look at it as a film, and not a LRPG!
That's a bit blunt, but as a movie lover I basically agree with your sentiments. Just because a movie is based on D&D doesn't mean it needs to be deliberately (or unintentionally?) corny, or remind people of silly roleplaying sessions. Are these movies meant to be comedies or parodies? I'd hope the makers of such a movie would at least try to make it good, rather than "review proof". |
| Malarick |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 18:04:02
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee ByersThis, I believe, was the case with D&D2: Wrath of etc.
Aye indeed.
This film was not produced by Sci-Fi channel. It was produced by Silver Pictures (Joel Silver) hence getting the 'Made by the producers of the Matrix' tagline.
It was, and still is set for a DVD Release:-
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B7QCG8/002-5960270-1867203?v=glance&n=130&n=507846&s=dvd&v=glance
|
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 17:06:47
Just because a movie is a "Sci-Fi Channel Original" does not, I believe, necessarily mean that the Sci-Fo Channel actually made the darn thing. Sometimes movie-makers will do a film in the fond hope that it will find a distributor and be a theatrical release. If it doesn't find a distributor, then it's basically going to be direct-to-video. But sometimes the Sci-Fi Channel picks up one of these projects to air before the DVD comes out and bills it as one of their "Originals" even though they had nothing to do with the making of it.
This, I believe, was the case with D&D2: Wrath of etc. |
| ShadowJack |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 15:22:31
Most Learned Sages and Friends,
I must say that, I, for one, thought that they did a much better job with this movie than the last! I enjoyed it! Even looking at it as a movie I was not dissappointed! It was fun! No, it will not win an Oscar, but the movie was not intended to be a work of art. The acting was credible, the characters were good, and it had all the traits of a good heroic fantasy story! They did a great job of giving the movie a D & D world feel! I salute Sci-Fi for one of their best jobs making their own flick! I did not want the movie to mimic the game, just the feel of the numerous D & D worlds. Sci-Fi achieved this and I have to agree with Kianna, It is a Sci-Fi original, for all that it was very well done! |
| Kianna |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 15:08:38
quote:
Originally posted by Malarick
Because that makes sense. A Wizards hencman suddenly becomes and all powerful sorcerer!
Did we all of a sudden forget that: 1. people can multiclass and 2. the story says it had been a thousand years since the last movie?
What's up with all the hate going on? Yes, the movie is not going to win any Oscars. In fact good movies rarely do so that point is moot anyway. I think the only good fantasy movie that did win anything was LotR.
Its a SciFi Channel original. Cut it some slack. At least someone out there is trying to make more fantasy films. Was Conan Oscar worthy? Red Sonja? I definately know LadyHawk wasn't. But for the fantasy fan its something at least.
|
| Crennen FaerieBane |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 14:57:02
Whoa - seriously - they should have made a movie like that for the general public the first time around. But the second movie, being on Sci-Fi and all, well, I am glad they threw in all of those treats. I hope they release a DVD of it - good times ahead!
C-Fb |
| Malarick |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 11:34:04
quote:
Originally posted by TylerXKJYou could tell what classes the characters were and what archetypes they represented.
Well it's not hard to tell what they are especially with dialogue like
"Barbarian......STOP!!"
quote:
Nim the rogue is very clever and the movie has him disarming lots of traps.
And setting them off too!
quote:
They show several spells being cast and mention several by name too.
This is the problem. These things should be invisible in a movie. We shouldn't have to know what spell they are casting, it is not important to the story.
quote:
Damodar cures himself of the unlife that he was cursed with
Because that makes sense. A Wizards hencman suddenly becomes and all powerful sorcerer!
quote:
The movie has low budget cgi and makeup but it is dnd to the core!
It may be D&D to the core, but you don't have to make a film that is blatantly a direct representation of the game. They should make a film that appeals to NON D&D fans, with only a few subtle treats thrown in for the fans.
I can see why you, or anyone on here might enjoy this film, as you are big fans of the game. But as a movie fan this rates right down at the bottom.
I wish people would just step back and look at it as a film, and not a LRPG! |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 04:31:32
I missed it Saturday (though I don't regret it), so I'll try to catch Thursday. It may be good for a few laughs. |
| TylerXKJ |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 02:44:21
I saw this movie saturday and I loved it! I stayed up late to watch it again at 1:30 AM. It's a low budget flick but it did more and is better than the origional film and was done with far less money!
The movie actually feels like dungeons and dragons! Unlike the first movie I could actually tell what magic items the characters were using and what spells they were casting! No more generic glowey swords or magic powder based spells! You could tell what classes the characters were and what archetypes they represented.
The acting was pretty good in my opinion. The guy who played Nim the Rogue stole almost every scene he was in and the banter betweeen him and the barbarian woman was hilarious!
The characters had a bit of depth to them aswell. Berrek, the main character is a semi-retired swordsman looking to get back to the glory days and his wife is a fledgling sorcerer looking to get on the mage's council by harnessing divine magic! Lux the barbarian is looking to reclaim her familiy's honor after her brother went berserk on a mission and Berrek was forced to kill him. Nim the rogue is very clever and the movie has him disarming lots of traps. There is an elf wizard looking to test her skill and she sure shows it! The cleric of Obadhai is insightful and very powerful also.
Monsters straight from the monster manual were every where! You see a white dragon, darkmantles, harpies, Lich, magmin, a black dragon dracolich, an air elemental, and even two dead drow!
They show several spells being cast and mention several by name too. Gust of Wind, Detect Magic, Lightning Bolt, Vision, Discern Location, Fireball, trueseeing, dispel magic, illusory terrain, hold person, and disintigrate are all used. The elven wizard clearly uses a ring of the ram twice in the movie aswell as a staff of thunderbolts and a figurine of wonderous power. Berrek has a keen longsword and Nim finds a gem of true seeing.
Here's the basic plot:
Damodar cures himself of the unlife that he was cursed with after he failed Profein in the first movie. Now it's a hundred years later and he wants to destroy all of Ismir with the powerful black orb artifact. He plans to awaken the avatar of Falazure, dragon god of Decay! A party is assembled to try and sneak into his lair and get the orb so that Falazure will remain asleep. The movie has low budget cgi and makeup but it is dnd to the core! |
| warlockco |
Posted - 10 Oct 2005 : 01:08:19
Thanks both of you.
Thursday... ugh, need to see if that conflicts with my normal shows
Why couldn't it have been on Tuesday, that is about the only day of the week, besides the weekends that is devoid of programming that I like to watch on a regular basis. |
|
|
