| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 11:52:12
I've heard many bad things about the previous attempts at a D&D movie, but they're still going to try again...
Dungeons & Dragons: The Book of Vile Darkness |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 30 Dec 2010 : 05:27:39
Hmm, too bad I returned the rental, lol. Berek's got a straight-edged sword while battling darkmantles, then he dives through the door and is carrying a jaggy-edged blade in the next scene. I suppose this is where the deleted content would've been. Bad piece of work. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 30 Dec 2010 : 04:23:51
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
* Notice that when Ormaline casts her detect magic in the goblin hut the party's (visible) magic items all momentarily glow; Lux's metal armour seems to have an enchantment a bit brighter than Dorian's ridiculously mighty thunder hammer and Berek's vorpal sword. (At least I think it's vorpal - he seems to have two different swords, lol, maybe bad editing?)
Berek receives a Vorpal sword in an edited scene fighting against Drow. The 2-disc set (which I bought) had a "behind the scenes" thing in which a lot of cast/crew were walking around. Low and behold, there was supposed to be this big battle between Drow and what-not but got cut  .
This 2nd disc also shows the actors and such on-set reading the Player's Handbook v3.5 for additional advice and how to "role-play" better, lol. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 23:55:55
Yeah, Dorian was kinda useless. He hit the ground and some trees with his big hammer, he dispelled some of those ghosty undeads. He got turned into a popsicle and eaten by the ice dragon. Kind of odd that in both movies the characters all take turns spacing out their actions, just sort of holding their last pose until it's their turn again. Also funny how they're unable to actually accomplish anything until somebody with a big chin takes charge and orders them to follow some sort of plan. All the D&D I've ever seen has players clamouring at the edge of their seats, instantly ready to blast and hack, and cooperating in combat more by accident and cumulative inflicted damage than anything else. They don't like being told what to do (and what not to do), even when it theoretically grants them game bonuses. |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 23:31:20
By "cleric" I was referring to an actual spell-casting, USEFUL member of the party. (Or at least something better than a dragon-snack, lol!) And I don't even remember the end of that movie. Shows you how "good" itas, I guess. At least the first one had some memorable lines, scenes, etc!! |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 21:55:10
I'm not so sure about Lux's Armor Class - call it studded leather bracers plus a bronze cuirass (front only)*? Those chainmail wisps and shoulder pauldron/spaulder things don't seem to do anything much beyond making her look big and fierce. Of course, Lux is tall (180cm, 5'11" for non-metrics), and wearing heeled boots (and not a lot else), and the camera angles on her are often set slightly below normal eye level, which all makes her look pretty robust and leggy.
* Notice that when Ormaline casts her detect magic in the goblin hut the party's (visible) magic items all momentarily glow; Lux's metal armour seems to have an enchantment a bit brighter than Dorian's ridiculously mighty thunder hammer and Berek's vorpal sword. (At least I think it's vorpal - he seems to have two different swords, lol, maybe bad editing?)
The costumes were good, though the attractiveness of the women (and I suppose the men) in that film is largely due to the excellent skills of the hair/makeup/cosmetics crew; good at emphasizing soft/exotic beauty, not so good at doing "unbeautiful" things like wounds and necrotized flesh (and that wtf green tattoo/mark decoration thing on Dorian's head).
The directing wasn't so great though, the plot seemed a little disjointed and contrived; though nowhere near as badly as in the first film. Domodar's acting was not really as good as in the first movie, which is saying a lot. I approve of the lack of gratuitous dwarfy short jokes, and of the sinister Russian/Slavic-like accent for all the evil baddies (which is probably some kind of Lithuanian cultural artifact).
Some talk about these movies suggests that they were intended to be a trilogy - though I don't know how reliable those rumours might be. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 17:35:28
Yea, Lux was pretty awesome. Loved the costumes of that movie  |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 17:31:14
Ok.
I would be her male servant... |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 15:20:46
Dungeons & Dragons (2000) - awful movie
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (2005) - much better movie, Lux "the barbarian chick" here and here |
| Marc |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 14:18:03
Yes, all that I remember from it is Falazure and a barbarian chick |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 14:06:54
So there was a second D&D movie? |
| Marc |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 13:10:33
I'd be glad there was no dragons for a change, replace them with dragonborn. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 29 Dec 2010 : 00:10:48
The 2nd movie did have a cleric, and he seemed mighty competent ... he just (surprisingly) turned into dragonfood before he had a chance to say more than five lines.
[Edit: the first movie apparently had a higher budget than the second] |
| Alystra Illianniis |
Posted - 28 Dec 2010 : 23:24:47
Y'know. I'll probably take some flak for this, but I actually LIKED the 1st movie. As campy as it was at times, I loved the "in'game" look and feel of it. (Look, a beholder!! Ooh, nice dimension door spell!!) And IIRC, only ONE person actually RODE a dragon- the Emperess with the Gold Rod. the rest of the dragons were just sort of there in the last battle. True the dungeon was a bit simplistic, but it was not a "true" dungeon to begin with- it was a friggin death-trap betting game, for Pelor's sake!
The 2nd movie might have been more serious as an attempt to make a D&D film, but to be honest, I thought the idea of clerical magic being "missing" was kind of silly. And it's been done before- in Krynn. Twice. Bor-ing!!! The darkmantles were a nice touch, but it just seemed too reliant on puzzles and traps, although they were used pretty well. I liked the fights and on-the-run aspect of the first one better. Nothing like an evil wizard who's in charge, with a nasty-looking henchman, to give you incentive to find that darn Rod!! I did like the little link between them through Damodar, though. Nice touch.
The point is, I think a lot of people don't give the first one enough credit. Yes it was sort of low-budget and cheesy in places, but it was a decent introduction to the worlds of D&D for most people, and I recall that it got a lot of new players into the game at the time. In fact, three of my cousins started playing partly because they watched my copy of the movie when it was released on VHS! (Gods, was it really THAT long ago?!) If they do a new one, I'd like to see more monsters, (yes, even dragons- they don't call it dungeons and DRAGONS for nothing, folks!) some awesome effects, and a decent story. (At least the story from the first one was fairly original, which was more than I can say for the other one.) |
| Mr_Miscellany |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 22:13:15
So long as not one single Wayans brother is in it, I will be pleased. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 21:53:46
So... just looked at the IMDB site about the movie and the same Director and Writer that did the 2nd movie Dungeons and Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God are doing this one. Looks like another straight to DVD movie.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 21:41:44
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
"Correctly"? - I can already imagine after-movie grumbling, no matter how they "do the drow".
CGI special effects are ultimately limited only by time and money budgets.
I like the iconic named spells idea a lot, we could finally see what they do firsthand.
Sadly this is probably not gonna happen; movie length is designed to accomodate commercial breaks.
No dungeons and no dragons in a D&D movie? Are ye kidding?
In the 2nd movie, there were Drow (as seen on the Behind the Scenes disc), but they edited it out along with the main character gaining a Vorporal Bastardsword . Instead, the only drow we see is a dead body being drained of blood for the main bad guy. I'd like to see more.
About the CGI, yea I sadly see SyFy graphics all over this movie. Shame.
The dungeon in the 1st movie was sooooo stupid. It was like American Gladiators take on the Eliminator (only in this one you could actually die). It was too "arena" style for me to be tasteful. A dungeon shouldn't always try to follow the Indiana Jones feel IMO, which is what the 1st movie did.
Dragons were not only showcased in the 1st movie, but the entire plot was an evil-mad mage attempting to gain a Red Rod that controlls all Red Dragons.....? And of course, the "good" guys all had nice flying Gold Dragon mounts. Yea, NOT showcasing Dragons in this movie would be a good thing. I'm not saying don't have them, but maybe not in such abundance?
quote:
Originally posted by Arik
I'll add more:
I hope they don't make it a big cartoon full of archetype heros/villains. More complex characters and interactions are better than two-dimensional NPCs like Bigdumb the Fighter and Nerdy Potter the wizard.
I hope they remember that D&D is not all about dragonborn paladins, genasi sorcerers, tiefling warlocks, warforged tanks, and other circus freaks. Old school humans, elves, and dwarves, fighters, wizards, and rogues are all still around.
In relation to both the above; I hope they show what the character races and classes are and what they can do in interesting ways, instead of showcasing "invented" or "breaker" characters just to gain movie lulz.
I hope they don't follow the disturbing Hollywood trend of using dwarven fighters for little more than stubborn comic relief.
Well the two previous movies had very little in the way of Fantastic creatures taking up screen time, probably because of the low budget. Simple make-up and ear and "BLAM" elves.
I agree with you about the Dwarven comedic relief, status-quo needs to change with that one. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 18:29:56
quote:
Diffan
They do Drow correctly (ie having them actually IN the movie and not just a prop-body like the last one)
The magical/special effects are better
Use Iconic spells and/or names lilke Bigby, Tenser, etc...
Longer run time. I'd like to see a 2-hr plus movie
For the story-line NOT to shoehorn actual dungeons AND dragons. Yes, I know it's the name of the movie, but that doesn't mean they have to literally be INCORPORATED into the movie
"Correctly"? - I can already imagine after-movie grumbling, no matter how they "do the drow".
CGI special effects are ultimately limited only by time and money budgets.
I like the iconic named spells idea a lot, we could finally see what they do firsthand.
Sadly this is probably not gonna happen; movie length is designed to accomodate commercial breaks.
No dungeons and no dragons in a D&D movie? Are ye kidding?
I'll add more:
I hope they don't make it a big cartoon full of archetype heros/villains. More complex characters and interactions are better than two-dimensional NPCs like Bigdumb the Fighter and Nerdy Potter the wizard.
I hope they remember that D&D is not all about dragonborn paladins, genasi sorcerers, tiefling warlocks, warforged tanks, and other circus freaks. Old school humans, elves, and dwarves, fighters, wizards, and rogues are all still around.
In relation to both the above; I hope they show what the character races and classes are and what they can do in interesting ways, instead of showcasing "invented" or "breaker" characters just to gain movie lulz.
I hope they don't follow the disturbing Hollywood trend of using dwarven fighters for little more than stubborn comic relief. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 18:08:11
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Kazandra
I'm not one for dismissing a film "before" its release, but I am curious about what notion was driving the writers/producers/directors into thinking of trying this again.
I don't rightly know. It's not like there was a huge cry for another one after the 1st debacle. And even though the 2nd movie went straight to DVD and was a Syfy "original", it still was better than the first, and boy that's sad.
My hopes for this one:
- They do Drow correctly (ie having them actually IN the movie and not just a prop-body like the last one)
- The magical/special effects are better
- Use Iconic spells and/or names lilke Bigby, Tenser, etc...
- Longer run time. I'd like to see a 2-hr plus movie
- For the story-line NOT to shoehorn actual dungeons AND dragons. Yes, I know it's the name of the movie, but that doesn't mean they have to literally be INCORPORATED into the movie
Get these right and I'm fine with a straight to DVD release. I'll buy it anyways. |
| Lady Kazandra |
Posted - 26 Dec 2010 : 02:38:28
I'm not one for dismissing a film "before" its release, but I am curious about what notion was driving the writers/producers/directors into thinking of trying this again. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 23:58:30
quote:
Originally posted by Fellfire
The Book of Vile Darkness?!? PG-13???? The book had an explicit/mature readers only sticker on it! I shan't get my hopes up.
As did DRAGON #300. I recall how much controversy that particular issue caused, due to the sealed content. |
| Fellfire |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 22:08:40
The Book of Vile Darkness?!? PG-13???? The book had an explicit/mature readers only sticker on it! I shan't get my hopes up.
I'm with you there Diffan, personally, I'd love to see the Homelands trilogy, but It'd have to be BIG budget. Lots of faerie fire, and some BA thermal imaging/infravision. And of course, fight choreography.
And not, for the love of Ao, PG-13!!!! |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 18:13:04
quote:
Originally posted by Alisttair
Could they just have someone knock on George Lucas' door (or any other big name director) with an FR novel and say FILM THIS PLEASE!!!!
Enough of this generic crap. Film something based off a New York Times bestseller instead.
You know, I think alot of people here would be upset, but I think a Drizzt movie is probably the best bet of getting the D&D name out to the general public and making it a staple point in the film industry. LotR already has a massive following not to mentions decades of notoriety, even in public schools as many students were required to read "The Hobbit" for example. |
| arry |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 18:04:04
The triumph of hope over experience. |
| Alisttair |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 17:54:54
Could they just have someone knock on George Lucas' door (or any other big name director) with an FR novel and say FILM THIS PLEASE!!!!
Enough of this generic crap. Film something based off a New York Times bestseller instead. |
| Synthalus |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 17:48:32
the only way a D&D movie is goin to be done well is if they give it a huge buget like that of lord of the rings. They would need to try to match or out do the scope of and feel of the lord of the rings by making the dungeon amazing. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 17:35:40
To be fair I sorta liked the 2nd movie. Sure the production was bad but the story wasnt horrible and the was acting barable. At least they added the finer points like somatic gestures and spell components. |
| Enwy |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 16:27:57
I am absolutely terrified right now. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 16:17:41
Holy Moly, and they're filming it in New Orleans. I need to tell my buds down there to find out where. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 12:38:27
Arik: "Outta my way, Akordia! Gimme an axe an' lemme show ye how ta be good at bein' evil. I smell heroes what needs some killin'." |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Dec 2010 : 11:56:34
...And you can be in it!
Cast Your Role Movie Contest
|
|
|
