# New D&D Movie Announced



## Emirikol (Jun 2, 2003)

Here's the link:

http://www.icv2.com/articles/news/2791.html


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 2, 2003)

Here's the variety link:

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?la...&nebdate=2/5/2003&display=dungeons&starting=1


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 2, 2003)

From the article:

"Tentatively titled 'Raistlin Must Die', Silver is currently pitching the D&D sequel to Jet Li and Tom Arnold; DMX is contractually obligated to play the role of dual crossbow wielding bard, which will provide much of the sequel's soundtrack.  Other players TBA."

Oh brother.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 2, 2003)

Would it be impossible of them to use XXX's D&D character?

Em


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 2, 2003)

From the first link:


> Dungeons & Dragons Sequel in '04
> Joel Silver Will Produce
> 
> May 22, 2003
> ...




I will see this, because I am a tool.


----------



## alsih2o (Jun 2, 2003)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> *From the first link:
> 
> 
> I will see this, because I am a tool. *




 i will second this. because i am an epic tool.


----------



## Scion of Vyshaan (Jun 2, 2003)

I'll see it, but I'm afraid I'll have to shower afterwards.

The last movie was so horrible my wife revoked my movie-choosing rights after I took her to see it.


----------



## beta-ray (Jun 2, 2003)

Scion of Vyshaan said:
			
		

> *I'll see it, but I'm afraid I'll have to shower afterwards.
> 
> The last movie was so horrible my wife revoked my movie-choosing rights after I took her to see it. *




That's all she did? Count your lucky stars you are still married!


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 2, 2003)

I'm just now recovering my sight and senses after the last D&D movie.  When I heard news of this new D&D movie, one thing went through my mind:

"OH GOD!  THE PAINAGE!!!!"


----------



## Sejs (Jun 2, 2003)

I will watch serveral episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000 beforehand.



Then I will go watch it with a group of friends, and my sarcastic movie-quipping guns will be loaded for bear.  Burn me once - shame on you, burn me twice - shame on me.  I will not be blindsided by another D&D movie again.


----------



## Moleculo (Jun 2, 2003)

Oh man, that movie was a complete riot, what a joke. Am i the only person who almost fell out of their chair laughing when Marlon Wayans died? Holy Crap, that movie was so bad, that i almost liked it in the MST3000 kind of liking a movie. I am gonna see it, i just hope they dont make it "mediocre", as opposed to "terribly" or "well."


----------



## Nephet (Jun 2, 2003)

Maybe it'll be good. They have to know that the D&D fans who saw the first one and got burned won't go see the new one without some decent reviews.


----------



## Walter_J (Jun 2, 2003)

Laughing?  OH, man, that doesn't even begin to cover my reaction.  I went to the theater to see IT.  I'll admit, I was a little learly, especially after Dragon mag felt the need to compare the IT to the cartoon and bash the cartoon.  That's pretty bad.  But, I figured, hey with modern technology, some decent actors and actual money behind it, it might not be that bad.   I came home from the theater angry and I rarely get angry, especially from something as trivial as a movie, but I was ticked.  The whole ride home I kept wishing I had a copy of IT on video so I could force other people to experience just how bad IT was.  Even the score was horrible.  IMO, you really shouldn't notice the score if the movie is good--you note it if the score is bad, overdone, or the best thing about the flick.  That thing doesn't even rate MST3000.

What really sucks, is if there is a sequel, I'll probably watch it.  It might be a payperview deal or a video rental, but I'll have to see it.


----------



## William Ronald (Jun 2, 2003)

I count myself lucky in having only seeing bits and pieces of the film on cable.  The production values seemed comparable to the 1980s TV show Wizards and Warriors.  The acting seemed lame, and the  plot confusing.  I have had some friends call it unintentionally funny and a time waster.  (Why was that fighter running around with blue lipstick, anyways?)

I think WotC and Hasbro should try to gain some control over the project.  Have a good director, good script, and decent actors  (give some unknowns a break).  Maybe set in one of the campaign settings, Greyhawk or the Realms.  Create characters and a story line that people care about, and maybe throw in a few surprises.

Honestly, I think that a good Dungeons and Dragons movie is possible. Just ignore the previous ones.


----------



## pogre (Jun 2, 2003)

I skipped the first one after I saw Marlon Wayans on Letterman. As I recall he said he did not know what the movie was about and that it would not win any Oscars. He was making the rounds to _publicize_ the film at the time!

Now, after so many people have told me how terrible it is I'm drawn to it. Perhaps a double feature with _Cabin Boy_ is in order.


----------



## EarthsShadow (Jun 2, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> *Perhaps a double feature with Cabin Boy is in order. *




Oh the agonizing torture!!!  God man, if you are upset with a group of players make them watch these two movies back to back and tell them that if they upset you again they'll watch them again.


----------



## EarthsShadow (Jun 2, 2003)

If the title of the movie is D&D: The Sequel then it's gotta be a spoof, right?  Oh, wait a minute, the first one was a spoof of fantasy movies...


----------



## Mark (Jun 2, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> *I skipped the first one after I saw Marlon Wayans on Letterman. As I recall he said he did not know what the movie was about and that it would not win any Oscars. He was making the rounds to publicize the film at the time!
> 
> Now, after so many people have told me how terrible it is I'm drawn to it. Perhaps a double feature with Cabin Boy is in order. *




If you rent the movie, some of that money gets back to the people who made it.  Please don't do that.  For just, or nearly as cheap you can buy the DVD used from a used DVD/CD shop and no money will return to the makers of it.  Don't add to the limited success, if any, of the first D&D film by adding to their coffers...


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 2, 2003)

I look at it this way. The catastrophe that was the D&D movie is the final legacy of the bad business decisions made by T$R. On the other hand, the quality of the movie is a self evident mockery of the guy behind it. The only people that could possibly enjoy it are the ones that don't know the first thing about D&D or taste in movies.

Of course, after having said that, I should mention that I own it on DVD. What can I say? I'm both a tool and a completionist.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 2, 2003)

Sometime, I'm gonna have to post my in-depth review of the D&D movie, even if I'm the only one that'll read it, most likely. Basically, the film probably would have been much better had it been released post-Fellowship of the Ring. For one thing, Jeremy Irons would've seen major actors like Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee actually take their roles seriously, and elevate them into Shakespearean territory, rather than into the awful scenery-chewing dementia of Irons' performance. Plus, the dialogue probably would've been recognized for how bad it was, and been put through another few rewrites. 

There were a few decent things about the film, mostly some of the actors - the lead actor, who played Ridley, actually had screen presence and knew how to look at ease on camera. The actor who played the dwarf deserved more screen time also. Zoe McLellan was also charismatic.


----------



## Goodsport (Jun 2, 2003)

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp I'm probably the only one here who sorta enjoyed _Dungeon & Dragons: The Movie_... in a MST3K sort of way, of course (I saw it on DVD... never saw it in the theater).  

&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp And that Zoe McLellan (a.k.a. Marina) is _cute!_






&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp Regarding the upcoming film's producer: Is it the same Joel Silver that produced _The Matrix_ movies?   


-G


----------



## Grand_Director (Jun 2, 2003)

D&D2:  Snail's Revenge



			
				William Ronald said:
			
		

> *
> I think WotC and Hasbro should try to gain some control over the project.   *




GAAA!  That's the last thing that should happen.

Producer: "So, you want to gain control of this movie and have the final say throughout the entire process.  And what makes you think you are qualified to do this?"

Hasbro: "We make 'My Little Pony' and 'Twister'."

WotC: "I think we learned a lot from that GE commercial."

Producer: "All right, I'm sold."


----------



## Darrin Drader (Jun 2, 2003)

Grand_Director said:
			
		

> *GAAA!  That's the last thing that should happen.
> *




Good or bad, I think it is the last thing that will happen.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 2, 2003)

Did anyone else notice the other press release, two items down.

Fireworks Television bought the TV rights to the "Forgotten Realms" novels. The company is already filming "A Wrinkle in Time" for ABC.

Depending on which novels they film, if any, this could be bigger news than a new D&D movie.


----------



## Olive (Jun 2, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *Fireworks Television bought the TV rights to the "Forgotten Realms" novels. The company is already filming "A Wrinkle in Time" for ABC.
> 
> Depending on which novels they film, if any, this could be bigger news than a new D&D movie. *




This is old news from over a year ago (check the date on it...) Last we heard, the rights had expired... unfortunately.


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 2, 2003)

D'oh!

I thought it said it was posted in '03. My bad.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jun 2, 2003)

I rate the D&D movie as the worst film I have seen (and remember). Nothing redeemable in it.


----------



## KnowTheToe (Jun 2, 2003)

pogre said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Now, after so many people have told me how terrible it is I'm drawn to it. Perhaps a double feature with Cabin Boy is in order. *




I don't think the human mind could survive this.


----------



## Zhure (Jun 2, 2003)

Ok, I'm going down in flames here, but I sort of liked the D&D movie. It wasn't high comedy or drama, but there aren't nearly enough quality sword & sorcery type fantasy movies out there to compare it with. All of them suck rocks. The best is probably Ladyhawke, and that was what, 20 years ago?

If you list the top 20 fantasy S&S movies out there, that aren't sci-fi-based (no Star Wars), I'd be hard pressed not to include "Dungeons & Dragons." I too thought it was abysmal, but it was better than "Hawk the Slayer" and a host of other mediocre examples. Some of it's personal taste, but I hate Willow, even though I like everyone involved in it. Ron Howard once said about Willow, "No one sets out to make a bad movie..." I think the same could be said of "Dungeons & Dragons." The movie-makers misjudged their target audience, tried to include enough flashy kiddy stuff to satisfy a larger segment and wound up alienating many of the hobbyists.

Production values need to go up and writing needs to get better. Hopefully LoTR will help both of those by showing Hollywood there's money to be made in this genre.

In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy my VHS copy of "Dungeons & Dragons" as much as before and hope things get better for fantasy movies, but not mock those who at least tried to make a decent movie.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (Jun 2, 2003)

Oh boy. We all know the 1st Axiom of Movies: The sequel's worse than the first Movie. Look at the drop in Matrix. And now think about a Sequel of D&D - The Movie. *shudder*

My opinion about the 1st Movie: What a trash. Apart from the title of the Movie, that one hasn't got anything in common with the Game: The creatures didn't behave like D&D beasts in the least, that "magic powder" was a half-hearted attempt to get material components into play... The story also seemed like a bad rip-off of Star Wars Episode 1 and had many of the plot parts that distinguish an unoriginal story. Only the dwarf had some funny moments, but that's hardly worth an hour and a half of cinematic torture.


----------



## Enceladus (Jun 2, 2003)

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Number47 (Jun 2, 2003)

We all knew that a sequel was inevitable. Remember that the movie had made a profit even before it was released? Very savvy sales.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jun 2, 2003)

Number47 said:
			
		

> *We all knew that a sequel was inevitable. Remember that the movie had made a profit even before it was released? Very savvy sales. *




That, and a general lack of creativity in Hollywood. Nearly every movie out, it seems, is either a remake or sequel. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but:

Matrix Reloaded: Sequel
X2: Sequel
The In-Laws: Remake
The Italian Job: Remake
Down With Love: Very nearly a remake
Wrong Turn: So formulaic it is a virtual remake

Later this year: T3 (sequel possibly so derivative it is a remake), Jason Vs. Freddy (sequel/formulaic remake), 2 Fast 2 Furious (sequel), Bad Boys 2  (yet another sequel), Dumb and Dumberer, et cetera, et cetera.


----------



## Thresher (Jun 2, 2003)

Having ruined myself watching the 1'st one on cable a few months ago Im hardly going to be inflicting unessary pain on myself a second time.

Sure, since LotR the bar may have been raised. Problem is, some fool gets a budget, forgets the bar and goes onto make a crock of utter crap regardless of their contempories efforts.


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2003)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *There were a few decent things about the film, mostly some of the actors - the lead actor, who played Ridley, actually had screen presence and knew how to look at ease on camera. The actor who played the dwarf deserved more screen time also. Zoe McLellan was also charismatic. *




I think most people put the blame in one spot: the director.


----------



## Sixchan (Jun 2, 2003)

Enceladus said:
			
		

> *nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????? *




I'll second that.

I don't think that D&D really makes a good movie.  The only way I can see a decent D&D film is if everyone sends in a Story Hour of their campaign.  The producers (who should be an equal mix of Fantasy fans, Roleplayers, other geeks and normal people, of course) then pick the best one, and invites that person to be the head script writer.  Or even director.

Say, didn't Jonrog (sp?) write "The CORE"?  If we could get an ENWorlder writing it, it shouldn't fail in the script department.


----------



## talien (Jun 2, 2003)

*Just How Much the Movie Made*

The results are here:

http://us.imdb.com/Business?0190374

As you can see, Hollywood isn't concerned about "good" movies.  It's concerned about movies that make more money than they cost to film.

The movie's budget: $35,000,000 (USA)
The movie's worldwide gross: $50,000,000 (Worldwide)
The movie's USA gross: $15,185,241 (USA) (28 January 2001)
$65,000,000+.  That's almost double what the movie cost to make!

In short...the U.S. hated it but apparently the rest of the world thought it was great.


----------



## Sanackranib (Jun 2, 2003)

*1st D&D movie*

What got me was the fact thaty when it came out on DVD idt was $20.00, if you were one of us that sat through the movie in the theatre then you MIGHT actually buy it on DVD to skip to the parts that you actually liked. but for $20.00? I don't own it yet and I have over 120 DVD's.

as to the top 20 fantasy movies, you have got to include Connan, and Connan the Distroyer, Willow, Ladyhawk and of course The Princess Bride


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 2, 2003)

Sigh ... think anyone told the director his movie sucked?  Think he believed it?

It's nice to know there are some directors (like PJ) that actually believe in the integrity of their work in addition to making a buck.  I have a feeling the D&D2 movie will be a "wait until you can rent it" movie.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 2, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *Oh boy. We all know the 1st Axiom of Movies: The sequel's worse than the first Movie. Look at the drop in Matrix. And now think about a Sequel of D&D - The Movie. *shudder**



I honestly don't think it is possible to make a sequel worst than D&D: The Movie. The only possible way this could happen is if they make it a straight-to-TV film, so that it lacks funds too. D&D the movie is just about the bottom of what a modern fantasy movie can be.







> _From the Variety page, talking about the D&D movie:_
> *Targeted at undiscriminating international auds and genre aficionados, film would probably play better dubbed into a foreign tongue*



The funny part is that it _does_. The Italian dubber managed to substantially reduce Irons' overacting.


----------



## MojoGM (Jun 2, 2003)

Although I only saw it once in the theatres and still have vivid nightmares about how horrible it was, there is no doubt in my mind that I will eventually see this when it comes out.

Now, depending on the stuff I hear before, and the reviews, I may not see it until it comes out on DVD, but I will see it.

And I'll continue to have high hopes for it, such as they drop the word "sequel" and pretend the first one never happened.

I'm an eternal optimist.


----------



## Henry (Jun 2, 2003)

I have a question: Is the thing in production NOW?

If it isn't then early 2004 (even by March 2004) is a darned ambitious date. 

I honestly hope against my common sense that the sequel is better, and takes a totally different direction. However, if The writers of the original screenplay, and Courtney Solomon, are still attached, I do not have good hopes, unless he can coax a better script out of the writers, and can coax better performances out of the actors. I thought Justin Whalin did a pretty good job, but the rest of the cast were somewhat lifeless in their parts, and the CGI had problems of its own (like the original CGI company stiffing them on the job).


----------



## Psion (Jun 2, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *Oh boy. We all know the 1st Axiom of Movies: The sequel's worse than the first Movie. Look at the drop in Matrix.*




Ad hoc ergo proptor hoc.

I know plenty of movies in which the sequel outshines the original, a.k.a., the "Cameron Effect."

Aliens, one of my favorite movies of all time, is a sequel. As was T2.


----------



## Lhorgrim (Jun 2, 2003)

I was suckered into watching this movie in the theater.  That's 2 hours I'll want back when I'm on my deathbed.  I don't hold out much hope for the next D&D movie, but I guess I'll make my decision based on previews and reviewer comments.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 2, 2003)

I dunno...

With DMX and Jet Li slated for it, it sounds like it'll try much more to be "Awesome action and kick-ass explosions" than "Fantasy-Drama-Comedy."

I have the feeling it's going to be darker, grittier, and involve more fight scenes and less scholock, just by the names involved.


----------



## Mark (Jun 2, 2003)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ad hoc ergo proptor hoc.
> 
> ...




I preferred _Predator 2_...even though the first wasn't a bad movie (as far as action films go).  I think it's a case in point of how to approach a sequel.  Keeping some of the elements that made the first decent (the antagonist), basically writing a whole new story that merely shares a universe but also changes the location are what made the sequel a better movie, IMO.  I also think that making the hero in the second movie more fallible, and not as "larger than life" then in the first movie, raised the stakes in a way that allowed me to invest more personally and emotionally in the character and the plot.


----------



## Enceladus (Jun 2, 2003)

*the sound of a whole bunch of air being sucked in*






nnnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNNOOO--- *cough* *cough*

Oh hell.

This is a fun read Tandem DnD the movie Rant


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 2, 2003)

*Re: Just How Much the Movie Made*



			
				talien said:
			
		

> *The movie's budget: $35,000,000 (USA)
> The movie's worldwide gross: $50,000,000 (Worldwide)
> The movie's USA gross: $15,185,241 (USA) (28 January 2001)
> $65,000,000+.  That's almost double what the movie cost to make! *




Because of the way that Corey went about raising the money for it, it was paid for by the time it was in the can so _any_ money it made was profit, rather than having to make back the cost of production plus.

And, too, it's not a 'Hollywood' film; it's an independent film distributed by New Line. They wanted a few changes done (which resulted in the hokey ending - watch the DVD alternate ending, which is much better), but it was mostly done by the time they went looking for a distributor. 

I wish the original web site for the film was still up -- it had a number of things on it that addressed some of the reasons it turned out to be less than what was intended --  but it's been taken down and wasn't archived; at least the Wayback Machine can't get it. Nor can I find anything about Don Whetsell, the former webmaster for www.dndmovie.com (dead site). 

An interview with Corey Solomon 

Largest still-extant interviews I can find


----------



## Airwolf (Jun 2, 2003)

Yes, I will see this movie...when I can download an illegal copy for free.  Then I will watch it on my computer and probably have to reformat the hard drive afterward.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jun 2, 2003)

I wouldn`t call the D&D movie a good movie, but I liked it, in some ways. 
There are probably thousands things that could have been made better, but it really seemed to use the D&D rule system, and I liked it, because this somehow gives the system life. (What is Uncanny Dodge and Evasion? Just whatch the scene in the "dungeon"...)

Mustrum Ridcully


----------



## NewJeffCT (Jun 2, 2003)

it was a fun movie in the campy/MST3K type of way.  Other than that, not much redeemed it.  I remember I went to an early showing of it the day it came out, and called one of the guys in my group afterwards... when he asked me what was the worst part of the movie, I kept changing to something else... "this was the worst part... on 2nd thought, this part was worse, or maybe that was even worse..."


----------



## Shadowdancer (Jun 2, 2003)

I still find it amusing that most gamers hated the D&D movie, but most movie critics liked it. They didn't proclaim it to be the best movie ever, but the reviews were generally favorable.


----------



## talien (Jun 2, 2003)

> I still find it amusing that most gamers hated the D&D movie, but most movie critics liked it. They didn't proclaim it to be the best movie ever, but the reviews were generally favorable.




The 10% rating and large amount of green splats at Rotten Tomatoes say otherwise:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/DungeonsDragons-1103052/

I read many of the reviews.  What's most irritating?  Conflating gamers with the movie -- i.e., "this movie sucks because people who play D&D suck."  Saw a lot of those backhanded slaps in the reviews.

Mundanes. Bah.


----------



## jdavis (Jun 2, 2003)

*Re: Just How Much the Movie Made*



			
				talien said:
			
		

> *The results are here:
> 
> http://us.imdb.com/Business?0190374
> 
> ...




USA is part of worldwide, the $50,000 is what it made. ($15,185,241 (USA)+($34,815,000 (Non-USA)=$50,000,000 The point remains the same but you also had to take into account that the film was 10 years getting made and nobody in the industry wanted to touch it. It was profitable but it was considered so bad that even the actors bad mouthed it before it was released. 

As far a critics go: 







> If the reviews for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon are almost universally enthusiastic, reviews for another "dragon" movie Dungeons & Dragons are almost universally the opposite. Lou Lumenick in the New York Post grumbles, "If I had actually paid to see Dungeons & Dragons, I would not only ask for my money back, but I would demand triple reparations." Gary Thompson puns in the Philadelphia Daily News, "I felt like I was in a dungeon, and things sure were draggin'" and adds "Dungeons & Dragons is one of the worst movies released in a year already notorious for bad movies." Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times comments: "Dungeons & Dragons looks like they threw away the game and photographed the box it came in. It's an amusing movie to look at, in its own odd way, but close your eyes and the dialogue sounds like an overwrought junior high school play." And Loren King in the Boston Globe observes: "Jeremy Irons, one of cinema's most talented actors, delivers such a laugh-out-loud bad performance in Dungeons & Dragons that it serves as a metaphor for the entire movie." Likewise John Anderson, writing for the Newsday and the Los Angeles Times, says that Irons "devours huge chunks of scenery with the ferocity of one of those dog-fighting dragons" in the film. Most critics agree that the Dungeons & Dragons will probably attract fans of the game. But Eleanor Ringel Gillespie, writing in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, figures there's another audience for the film. She writes: "My guess is if you've got an 11-to-14-year-old who's already seen the Grinch movie three times and the Dalmatians movie once, Dungeons & Dragons might be a welcome change of pace."



http://us.imdb.com/SB?20001208#2

Now if this new movie is going to be a Tom Arnold/Jet Li/DMX, vehicle then it will probably be completly different than the last movie, not to say it's going to be good, but it will probably more of a Romeo Must Die/Exit Wounds/Cradle 2 the Grave type of movie, in other words not for kids (lets face it the first one was a very bad movie made for children).


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Just How Much the Movie Made*



			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> *Now if this new movie is going to be a Tom Arnold/Jet Li/DMX, vehicle then it will probably be completly different than the last movie*



I can see it now.  Tom Arnold will play the gnome bard (filling the comic relief (Snails) role), Jet Li is cast as the contemplative Cleric who finally lets loose at the end and suddenly converts all cleric levels to Monk and kicks ass, and DMX will be Dribbles (or whatever that annoying Drow Ranger is named).





			
				jdavis said:
			
		

> *not to say it's going to be good, *



Oh, wait, you already knew it wouldn't be good, no matter who was in it.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jun 3, 2003)

KaeYoss said:
			
		

> *Oh boy. We all know the 1st Axiom of Movies: The sequel's worse than the first Movie. Look at the drop in Matrix. And now think about a Sequel of D&D - The Movie. *shudder**




More terrible sequels...  Caddyshack 2, Batman and Robin, City Slickers 2, Scary Movie 2, Speed 2: Cruise Control, The Lost World, The Godfather Part III, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, and Robocop 2.

The very worst sequel I've ever seen, though, is Highlander 2.  Highlander 2 would have already been one of the worst films of all time, but the fact that it's a sequel to such a great film only adds salt to the wound.



> _Originally posted by Psion_
> *I know plenty of movies in which the sequel outshines the original, a.k.a., the "Cameron Effect."*




More examples of the Cameron effect...  Aliens, the Godfather Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, X2, The Road Warrior (better than Mad Max, and Mad Max is one of the best action movies ever), Terminator 2, Evil Dead II, and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Sequels are definately a mixed bag.  Hopefully the D&D sequel will be better than the original.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 3, 2003)

*rESponse.....*

This was posted a couple of years back in a group web site, my response after seeing this, this.......movie


{Date:  Sat Dec 9, 2000  1:31 am

Subject:  The (D&D) Movie....

 As promise....the movie.......I .....it's need... someone with a 
working idea how the system is played....but also, this a first...in 
a long time. Made Better...yes, mabye with a better director....or 
script or both. The generic symbolic....passing of the movie...50-
50..but you make your own mind up.}

As you can see, my mind was mush at that point.  Please, I don't want to go back there again.....plleasseeeeee


----------



## Delgar (Jun 3, 2003)

> Sequels are definately a mixed bag. Hopefully the D&D sequel will be better than the original.




Can it get worse!

Delgar


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 4, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *
> I still find it amusing that most gamers hated the D&D movie, but most movie critics liked it. They didn't proclaim it to be the best movie ever, but the reviews were generally favorable. *



I usually think most movie critics are above the mainstream audience, or like to think so. So they're basically out of touch or more "Hollywood."

Some of the regular moviegoers I talked to (my other friends who do not play RPG) don't think the movie is that great. Even one of them stated, "Dude, if you want to convince me to play _D&D,_ don't use this movie."

I can't help but to agree and comply.


----------



## Endur (Jun 5, 2003)

The problem is the script.

If they based the movie on a best seller like Dragonlance or on the Crystal Shard, it would be a major blockbuster.

Instead they come up with some crap script that is worse than what a six year old could put together.


----------



## Silaqui (Jun 5, 2003)

I didn't think the first movie was so bad. But then again I am partial to rogues since that seems to be the character I play the most. I hope they do come out with the second movie soon, it may be interesting.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jun 5, 2003)

Shadowdancer said:
			
		

> *I still find it amusing that most gamers hated the D&D movie, but most movie critics liked it. They didn't proclaim it to be the best movie ever, but the reviews were generally favorable. *




Where did you see favorable reviews of it? I never saw one review of it that didn't paint it as a bomb. Gamers and critics alike hated it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 6, 2003)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where did you see favorable reviews of it? I never saw one review of it that didn't paint it as a bomb. Gamers and critics alike hated it. *




"Growing up on such fantasy classics as Hawk the Slayer and Sorceress, Dungeon and Dragons blows them away"

"Jeremy Irons wasn't content to just give it 100% he gave it 150%"


----------



## jdavis (Jun 6, 2003)

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where did you see favorable reviews of it? I never saw one review of it that didn't paint it as a bomb. Gamers and critics alike hated it. *




Didn't I post quotes of critics dogging the movie already?.....yes above. I never saw a actual good review of it, heck I never saw a a actual ok review of it.



> "Jeremy Irons wasn't content to just give it 100% he gave it 150%"




Truly the inspired acting of a man getting paid a lot of money to do something he didn't want to do. I wonder if he made them pay him in advance?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 7, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *
> Truly the inspired acting of a man getting paid a lot of money to do something he didn't want to do. I wonder if he made them pay him in advance? *



I thought it was Thora Birch that does not want to be on the set. She thought of it as a vacation after shooting the _American Beauty_ film.


----------



## Knightfall (Jun 29, 2003)

Hi all,

Just thought I'd post this here for any of you closest D&D: The movie fans who are interested in talking about the movie on a positive note.

Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DungeonsAndDragons-the-Movie/

*NOTE:* This yahoo group is not a place to come and start bashing the D&D Movie or those that liked the movie and want to see the sequel. Thus, if you don't have anything nice/civil to say on the yahoo group then don't bother joining.

I'm sure a lot of you won't want to, and I know the movie is a touchy subject for a lot of D&D fans and movie fans. The simple rule is, if you wouldn't say it on EN World then you can't say it on the yahoo group.

Also, like I said it's a place for positive feedback and positive suggestions for D&D: The Sequel. Also, if you have any verified news about the movie, from an official source then feel free to either post it to this thread on EN World or at the yahoo group, if you decide you want to join.

Anyway, here's hoping the second movie has a bigger budget. 

Cheers!

Robert Blezard, a.k.a. Knightfall1972
D&D: The Movie Yahoo Group Co-Moderator

p.s. If you make trouble on the group, I'll ban your buttocks off it and tell Eric's Grandma you're the rude & surly sort!


----------



## zug_zug (Jun 30, 2003)

Well considering Joel Silvers company is on board, it can only be a good thing. As for it being a sequel, that doesnt mean that that will be the title, or that the movie will have any continuity with the first.

Depending how the whole fantasy wave pans out after RotK, will probably influence if this thing gets made and  who will actually be brought in to do it.

And given this has just been announced methinks it'll be a while before we see anything useful to grok off of.


----------



## Green Knight (Jul 2, 2003)

> I dunno...
> 
> With DMX and Jet Li slated for it, it sounds like it'll try much more to be "Awesome action and kick-ass explosions" than "Fantasy-Drama-Comedy."




Every Jet Li movie I've seen so far I've hated. And I don't know much about DMX, so no thanks. 

But anyway, they didn't sucker me the first time, and they won't sucker me this time. On opening night I plan to be sitting at home watching my Lord of the Rings DVD's.


----------



## jdavis (Jul 3, 2003)

zug_zug said:
			
		

> *Well considering Joel Silvers company is on board, it can only be a good thing. As for it being a sequel, that doesnt mean that that will be the title, or that the movie will have any continuity with the first.
> 
> Depending how the whole fantasy wave pans out after RotK, will probably influence if this thing gets made and  who will actually be brought in to do it.
> 
> And given this has just been announced methinks it'll be a while before we see anything useful to grok off of. *



Joel Silver's company made the first one too. Here's hoping they learned their lesson the first time around.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 3, 2003)

jdavis said:
			
		

> *Joel Silver's company made the first one too. Here's hoping they learned their lesson the first time around. *




Made might be too generous, vomited is probably more appropriate.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 4, 2003)

Zappo said:
			
		

> *I honestly don't think it is possible to make a sequel worst than D&D: The Movie.*



The only way the sequel could be worse is if the movie consists of the D&D logo projected onto the screen for 90 minutes with a soundtrack that mixes crashing cymbals and the sound of crying babies.  Also, someone comes around the theater and repeatedly kicks you in the crotch while you're watching it.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 4, 2003)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> *
> The only way the sequel could be worse is if the movie consists of the D&D logo projected onto the screen for 90 minutes with a soundtrack that mixes crashing cymbals and the sound of crying babies.  Also, someone comes around the theater and repeatedly kicks you in the crotch while you're watching it. *




As long as it's not Jeremy Irons doing the kicking I think that might hurt less then the first D&D movie.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 4, 2004)

Hey, anyone got any new about this?


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 4, 2004)

I had the good sense to stay far, FAR away from the original, and I'll likely be doing the same for the sequel. It'd take some MIGHTILY good reviews to make me even consider watching a sequel. Nevermind that they're calling it a SEQUEL! For cripes sake, just make a new movie. DON'T make a sequel to that flying turd of a film!


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 4, 2004)

Wait. Did you see the first film, or not? If you didn't see it, why are you calling it a flying turd? Just because lots of people hated it? Huh.

I really liked the first one. I don't for a second think it was made as a cheap grab for cash or by people who didn't care. I just think it was made by people who didn't really know what they were doing. I think Courtney Solomon really WANTED to make a cool fantasy film, and I think it stands up well enough against, say _Beastmaster_ or _The Sword And the Sorcerer_. Yeah, it's bad, but it sure tries. They made a bad film, but they were trying to make a cool one.

And I give lots of points for trying.


----------



## Zelgadas (Mar 4, 2004)

Has anyone else checked out the interactive D&D DVD referred to in the first link?  It's pretty campy and not really worth repeat viewings, but it's certainly better than the 'official' movie.  

As for the D&D movie, I think my favorite part was when those tentacle things came out of Damodar's ears.  I just kept looking at the screen, slack-jawed, thinking, "What the hell?"  Anyway, as long as the sequel has absolutely nothing to do with the first movie, it might be OK.  I won't hold my breath, though.


----------



## Green Knight (Mar 5, 2004)

Wow. Didn't realize I had already posted on this thread.   I read my previous post without realizing it was me. Whoops. 



> Wait. Did you see the first film, or not? If you didn't see it, why are you calling it a flying turd? Just because lots of people hated it? Huh.




I certainly didn't PAY to see it. I tried watching it a couple of times when they were showing it on Encore, and I nearly coughed up a lung doing so. Couldn't bear to watch the thing for more then 5 minutes at a time. I'd flip the channels then after about 10 minutes I'd come back, again, and would have the same response. I have the same reaction to Batman & Robin, which I have never seen in its entirety due to how utterly disgusted I get every time I actually sit down and try to watch it. 

That having been said, in a lot of cases, second-hand information IS good enough to tell you whether something's good or not. Especially when a movie is as insufferably bad as Batman Forever (Which is a situation in which I ignored my intuition, and actually paid to see) or the D&D movie.


----------



## Ace (Mar 5, 2004)

I actually liked the D&D movie

I went to see it with my gaming buddy and well hey It was about what I expected


----------



## s/LaSH (Mar 6, 2004)

Dragons in the cinema suck.

That's the disappointing conclusion I've come to. You'd think it would be the other way around - I'm a dracophile, and I'll see movies simply because they have scaly wings in 'em. But out of the three recent movies I've seen featuring prominent dragons (Dragonheart, D&D, Reign of Fire) only one of them has lived up to the promise, and that was Dragonheart (say what you will, I liked it). The other two movies portrayed them as dumb beasts. (I don't care what the ads for RoF said, they weren't smarter than me.) That was the big disappointment for me. It's like going to see King Kong and getting a guy in a gorilla suit saying 'ook ook' for 90 minutes while stomping on paper models of Tokyo - it's just not on.

Part of what makes dragons so awesome is their cunning and intellect. Why haven't they given that to us? Why didn't the D&D scripters look at a stat block and go 'huh, this thing's smarter than all members of the film crew put together'? Maybe that was the problem - maybe they just looked at all the purty pictures, and that's why they had bleeping beholder watchdogs.

Will it take PJ doing The Hobbit to make people realise how cool dragons can be? I hope not... but he'll do it right. I have faith.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 6, 2004)

So noone knows any new? I still believe that whatever they do it can't be worse.







			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't for a second think it was made as a cheap grab for cash or by people who didn't care. I just think it was made by people who didn't really know what they were doing.



That's certain; Courtney Solomon had been working for something like twenty years towards a D&D movie. The man loves D&D and wanted to see it on the big screen. It's a pity that he had no experience or talent, but he didn't lack passion.


----------



## Alcareru (Mar 6, 2004)

s/LaSH said:
			
		

> Dragons in the cinema suck.



What about Dragonslayer? The 80's rule!


----------



## s/LaSH (Mar 7, 2004)

Alcareru said:
			
		

> What about Dragonslayer? The 80's rule!



Before my time. I must therefore seek out this 'Dragonslayer' and observe it, for I am indeed a slave to dragons.


----------



## ssampier (Mar 7, 2004)

dragonslayer is neat film. Sure the special-effects aren't modern, but the acting is good. It's one of the few fantasy films I can stomach.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Mar 7, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> dragonslayer is neat film. Sure the special-effects aren't modern, but the acting is good. It's one of the few fantasy films I can stomach.



I think the effects hold up rather well.  The dragon, IIRC, is pretty well done.  Some matte shots might seem a bit rough (because they didn't have CGI then), but the stop-action and puppetry are fantastic.  I really like this movie.  It's much better than any recent dragon-based movie has been.


----------



## Alcareru (Mar 7, 2004)

To get slightly back on topic about the proposed movie, I dont think a DnD movie or TV show is necessarily doomed to failure. I mean DnD is based on classic fantasy tropes-with a good story and a minimum of corporate interference it could work. Two biggg ifs, those.

Look back to the 90's and computer rpgs. After years of terrible games,TSR got Black Isle and Bioware to do games. The result was the Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale series, some of the better DnD games if not rpgs ever made. And they were set in the Forgotten Realms, a setting that many think of as a munchkin paradise, and the devs took the best parts of the setting and gave the player an epic tour of the Realms.

What I mean is, in the hands of a good team the material could work.Using an established setting and characters (like Raitslin or FR) with a fanbase instead of doing a generic movie like the first debacle is a good start. 

Anyway, Im just hoping the first DnD movie was a result of the corporate leagcy of TSR's final years. Hopefully now in the wake of LOTR, studios will see that some modicum of quality is needed and a movie just can't have graphics and a recognizable logo.

I hope, but am not really holding my breath.


----------



## jester47 (Mar 7, 2004)

ssampier said:
			
		

> dragonslayer is neat film. Sure the special-effects aren't modern, but the acting is good. It's one of the few fantasy films I can stomach.




Best Dragon Movie Ever.  Hands down.  Get the DVD.  The film is restored and as a result you don't get the deterioration that makes the special effects stand out like a sore thumb.  Also, in letterbox format you actually get to see the scenery in the film which really changes the impact of the film (its frikkin gorgeous) 

Top fantasy movies IMO (excluding Myth and Legend movies and modern stuff like Highlander and just sort of weird or quasi period stuff like Time Bandits):

1: Lord of the Rings (I count it as one movie... probably will never be unseated in my lifetime)
2: Dragonslayer
3: The Princess Bride
4: Conan the Barbarian
5: Willow
6: Ladyhawke (may tie with willow)

It will be interesting to see The Hobbit and The Last Unicorn.

Every time I see the end of _Brotherhood of the Wolf_ I keep thinking "Wow, THIS GUY should play Drizzt."

Though I still need to see The Gamers.  

Aaron.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 8, 2004)

Alcareru said:
			
		

> Look back to the 90's and computer rpgs. After years of terrible games,TSR got Black Isle and Bioware to do games.



Huh? The SSI games weren't all perfect, but many of the early 90s ones are considered classics. _Eye of the Beholder_ is literally the one thing that got me into tabletop RPGs that many years ago.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 8, 2004)

Yeah _Dragonslayer_ rocks. Fatally hampered by an incredibly annoying lead, but the girl is awful dishy and the dragon is AWESOME.

It's an interesting story, the effects work in that movie. Dragonslayer was one of ILM's first non-Lucas projects, I believe, and they built the dragon effect around a technique that was called "Go-Motion" (in contrast to "Stop-Motion", natch) -- in which tiny stepping motors pulled the model an infinitesimal amount WHILE each frame was exposed, thus creating an image ever so slightly blurred and eliminating the "jerky" look stop-motion always has. The scenes of the dragon crawling up from its lair are eerie in the realism they portray.

Go-Motion was, I think, used with the initial version of the Rancor in _Jedi_, and also the bicycling kids in _E.T._ but by that time CGI-based effects were taking over, and they were so much cheaper and quicker to do that Go-Motion pretty much fell by the wayside.

This is all based on my now-twenty-years-old-and-never-very-reliable-in-the-first-place memory, so I've probably got some dates and stuff mixed up, but I remember the stuff on Go-Motion in _Fangoria_ or whereever it was we got this sort of information before the Internet...


----------



## Kai Lord (Mar 8, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah _Dragonslayer_ rocks...the dragon is AWESOME.



True dat.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> It's an interesting story, the effects work in that movie. Dragonslayer was one of ILM's first non-Lucas projects, I believe, and they built the dragon effect around a technique that was called "Go-Motion" (in contrast to "Stop-Motion", natch) -- in which tiny stepping motors pulled the model an infinitesimal amount WHILE each frame was exposed, thus creating an image ever so slightly blurred and eliminating the "jerky" look stop-motion always has. The scenes of the dragon crawling up from its lair are eerie in the realism they portray.
> 
> Go-Motion was, I think, used with the initial version of the Rancor in _Jedi_, and also the bicycling kids in _E.T._ but by that time CGI-based effects were taking over, and they were so much cheaper and quicker to do that Go-Motion pretty much fell by the wayside.



You're pretty close, except for the CG effects.  Go-motion was first developed in 1979 by Phil Tippett for the tauntauns in The Empire Strikes Back but CG creatures weren't done until 1993's Jurassic Park, unless you count the water tentacle in 1989's The Abyss.  The first morphing effects were seen in Willow in 1987, but creatures were all guys-in-suits, composited puppets or stop/go-motion until Jurassic's dinos.


----------



## reapersaurus (Mar 8, 2004)

The Black Cauldron (85, if memory serves) was one of the first films to use CG.

And Young Sherlock Holmes (year?) used CGI for the knight that jumps out of the stained glass window.

I'm interested in a sequel to D&D.
ANY heroic adventure movie is worth seeing to me, especially in the fantasy genre.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 8, 2004)

Any fantasy genre film is okay, if you want that.

But I prefer a well-produced, better quality film to carry the _D&D_ label. I don't want to throw up like the last _D&D_-labeled film.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 8, 2004)

Making the mext DnD movie should be like making a 3.5 monster (where you start with the CR): know your budget and what you can do with it. The DnD movie had too low a budget to feature a fully-rendered magical empire with tons of spellcasters, a fully-rendered elven treetop village, a fully-rendered battle with hundreds of gold and red dragons and a beholder, to boot...

A DnD movie might follow a group of 6 mercenaries hired to root out a nest of evil (ruined temple or somesuch): a knight (fighter), a wizened sage (wizard), a pious templar (cleric), a smart-aleck thief (rogue), a dwarf and an elf. Cast the kid who played Peter Pan to be the elf and a short beared guy to be the dwarf and you avoid the need for altering people's sizes (a reason why a halfling would be a bad idea, unless you add a 10-year-old to the cast to play one).

Get the make-up artists from Buffy and Angel to reproduce hallmark DnD races, like orcs, bugbears and hobgoblins. Throw in a troll or two. And end up with hints of a larger conspiracy involving the return of a beast of legend: a fire-breathing red dragon. Oh, and add familiar names to the movie to please the fans, like having the evil temple follow Vecna or Tiamat, having the wizard cast magic missile (and call it that) and having the cleric turn undead using a Pelor symbol.


----------



## Zappo (Mar 8, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Making the mext DnD movie should be like making a 3.5 monster (where you start with the CR): know your budget and what you can do with it. The DnD movie had too low a budget to feature a fully-rendered magical empire with tons of spellcasters, a fully-rendered elven treetop village, a fully-rendered battle with hundreds of gold and red dragons and a beholder, to boot...



The D&D movie's budget was the least of its problem. The CGI was ok, it was everything else that sucked.


----------



## The_Universe (Mar 8, 2004)

Why are we talking about this?  I thought that it was almost certain that the license for both the Forgotten Realms show, and the potential sequel for that abysmal piece of trash had expired...?


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 8, 2004)

Fireworks Entertainment's _FR_ option (who claimed they were to make a TV series) have expired and is put back in the market. That means it's up for grab.

Courtney Solomon still hold the _D&D_ film rights, unfortunately. Joel Silver's production company (you may know his name is attached to the _Matrix_ films) is now interested in doing a _D&D_ film.

Now you know why.


----------



## WanderingMonster (Mar 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Fireworks Entertainment's _FR_ option (who claimed they were to make a TV series) have expired and is put back in the market. That means it's up for grab.
> 
> Courtney Solomon still hold the _D&D_ film rights, unfortunately. Joel Silver's production company (you may know his name is attached to the _Matrix_ films) is now interested in doing a _D&D_ film.
> 
> Now you know why.



Because the sequels to _The Matrix_ were so much better than the original? History's not supporting your point there, RR.  

I think this discussion has more to do with the human tendency to pick at scabs.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 9, 2004)

Sequels are usually never better than the original, except maybe for _LOTR_, but even I know there are still criticisms.

Still, the rights do not end once the movie is made.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Mar 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sequels are usually never better than the original, except maybe for _LOTR_, but even I know there are still criticisms.




Lets not forget Godfather II as well, but then if you could get a cast and director of that quality I don't think anyone would be complaining.


----------



## Trainz (Mar 16, 2004)

Last christmas, my wife gave me the Dragonslayer VHS tape. I could have kissed her...

... wait... I did.

That movie is awesome. When the dragon inhales right before breathing fire... *shudder*... it's just awesome. Just to show that special effects are just a small portion of a movie. WHAT you do with these effects is the key. You can either use them properly (LOTR) or not properly (EP 1, EP 2). You have to use these effects to create scenes that will be memorable.

Back on topic, the second D&D movie will be better, quite simply because I do not think it's humanly possible to do worse. IMHO.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Mar 19, 2004)

oh god,

You know, when I first read the thread title, I thought this was a joke. Then I continued to read the article and thought it was something I've read before in the Onion. I mean, come on, DMX? Jet Lee? Tom Arnold? I'm starting to think their is some ANTI-D&D studio producer who is creating these films in order to prove to the world that D&D is lame. 

I won't pay any money to see this and I wouldn't be suprise if Ashton Kutcher not only starred in this flim, but half way through it, turned to the camera and said "You just got Punk'd".

All I want to know is, what brand of glue where they sniffing when somebody said, "You know what would be totaly cool? A D&D Movie SEQUEL. But this time, we'll cast DMX, Jet Lee and Tom Arnold, because they will totaly make this movie."

Please let me know when the joke is over.


----------



## Stone Angel (Mar 19, 2004)

Joke or no Joke. This thread alone has been worth it. I mean I hate telling people that I play D&D because they say oh I saw that movie. Then I get a funny taste in my mouth and cringe. But I went to see it in the theatre twenty minutes into it I walked across the street bought a six pack of beer and then snuck it into the theatre just to entertain myself.

ME: What did I miss?
Friend: something about the bad guys, Marlyn trying to be a pimp, and a lot of really bad dialouge.
ME: *Cracks open a beer* Yeah.....Yeah

Seriously don't they know if they make it and it sucks no matter who they have in it they will all be lynched over and over again. Jeez if I go to hell Satan will tear my ticket and say enjoy just as the beging starts "Front row" says Satan. I would rather see Rocky 6. Sorry about the rant.

The Seraph of Earth and Stone


----------



## Truth Seeker (Mar 19, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> oh god,
> 
> You know, when I first read the thread title, I thought this was a joke. Then I continued to read the article and thought it was something I've read before in the Onion. I mean, come on, DMX? Jet Lee? Tom Arnold? I'm starting to think their is some ANTI-D&D studio producer who is creating these films in order to prove to the world that D&D is lame.
> 
> ...



You forgot to add the word "farce" to the statement....


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 21, 2004)

I keep hearing about FR TV series live action and a second D&D movie, but now it all seems to have evaporated.  That's too bad - we need to get the first one washed down the drain.  Though admittedly, there still was a certain level of perverse enjoyment in watching it.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 21, 2004)

I'm afraid that a good _D&D_ movie will be made after two great founders (Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson) have passed.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2004)

Stone Angel said:
			
		

> Seriously don't they know if they make it and it sucks no matter who they have in it they will all be lynched over and over again.



Right. Using "lynched" in that peculiar way that means, "paid plenty of cash bucks".

Of all the things that I liked about the D&D movie, the fact that Mr Solomon was intelligent enough to make a profit on it is one of the things I liked best about it. I hope he's reading this thread, and listening to people call him names, and looking at his bank account and chuckling. Good for him.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 22, 2004)

Now why you gotta say that? Now I'm depressed he's getting rich by gullibles out there.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 22, 2004)

What I wish he WOULD do is reach out to the D&D community. Start posting in places like this, telling us what he's doing and why, and listening to feedback and sharing his vision (such as it may be).

If we felt like he was one of us, I think the level of vitriol would subside.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 22, 2004)

Yeah, but you made it sound like he shouldn't listen to the community, only to his bank account. I just hope he lose big in terms of $$$.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2004)

I don't wish misfortune on anyone.

I don't think he shouldn't listen to the community. I was just pointing out that threatening him with the "lynching" he got from the last film is unlikely to sway him much.

I hope he makes big $$$. He's worked hard for them, and taken chances, and been smart. I also hope he's learned a lot about directing films in the meantime.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 23, 2004)

Until he learned from his first attempt at _D&D_ movie, I'd hold back on calling him "smart." Maybe he should gain more experience making indie films.


----------



## Altalazar (Mar 23, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Until he learned from his first attempt at _D&D_ movie, I'd hold back on calling him "smart." Maybe he should gain more experience making indie films.




For a first-time directory with no real experience, I thought he did fairly well.  I guess what is sad is that no experienced directors or studios ever showed enough interest to make such a movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Maybe he should gain more experience making indie films.



Now who's smart? He's getting PAID to learn how to direct. How is making LESS money doing the same thing smarter?

MAYBE he should ride the gravy train he had the initiative to jump onto for as long as he can. MAYBE he should parlay his clever acquisition of the most important trademark in RPGs into as much personal gain as he can, while having as much fun (and learning as much) as he can in the process. I like to think that's what I'd be smart enough to do.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Mar 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Now who's smart? He's getting PAID to learn how to direct. How is making LESS money doing the same thing smarter?
> 
> MAYBE he should ride the gravy train he had the initiative to jump onto for as long as he can. MAYBE he should parlay his clever acquisition of the most important trademark in RPGs into as much personal gain as he can, while having as much fun (and learning as much) as he can in the process. I like to think that's what I'd be smart enough to do.




You know Basoomcore, I usually see your point and I do see what your saying, but I'm gonna have to step in here.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't wish anybody any unsuccess, but if your gonna bite off more than you can chew, than don't complain when you get heart burn an hour or two later.

He shouldn't be envolved with the D&D name. Make a film, any film that isn't D&D related until you can prove that you can make a good film. That's right, not profitable, but good. You and I both know that making a good film and making a profitable film are going to take you in two different directions. One is going to be long term, and the other is going to be short. I would rather have no D&D film than one that blows and the last one regardless of the profit, blows chunks. 

A car salesmen tend to make a profit when they sale a car. Some make the experience enjoyable and you tend to buy from them again and relay that experience via word of mouth. But if the experience sucked, well, we all know that experience... 

DMX? JET LEE? TOM ARNOLD? *hangs head*


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 23, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> If your gonna bite off more than you can chew, than don't complain when you get heart burn an hour or two later.



I don't hear Mr. Solomon complaining. Not sure what you're getting at here.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> He shouldn't be envolved with the D&D name.



 Yes, he should, because he PAID for the right to be. You wanna be annoyed with somebody, be annoyed with whoever sold the film rights to this yahoo with no talent. But don't say he doesn't deserve what he had the brass to grab hold of. You don't like it, do what he did: pony up the cash and talk a good enough talk and get him to sell YOU the rights.

I certainly wish that TSR had valued its properties a little more highly at times. I wish that company had acted with a little more foresight -- and selling the film rights to Courtney Solomon stands out as a pretty bone-headed decision.

But I'm not going to blame HIM for THEIR stupidity. On the contrary, I'm delighted for him. I wish I was him -- what a hoot to have the ability to make *DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS* movies! Frankly, I'd rather have the name in the hands of a devoted (if unskilled) fan than with a bunch of soulless Hollywood hacks. It seems so fitting, somehow. It seems so... D&D.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 24, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> DMX? JET LEE? TOM ARNOLD? *hangs head*



 I'm reasonably certain that's Kai Lord demonstrating humour. There's so little information out on this project -- I can't even tell if Solomon is actually attached to direct or not. I thought somebody had claimed so, but I haven't seen any sources confirm it. But I'm fairly certain that DMX, Jet Li and Tom Arnold are NOT attached to it. But I could be wrong...


----------



## Bass Puppet (Mar 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I don't hear Mr. Solomon complaining. Not sure what you're getting at here.
> 
> Yes, he should, because he PAID for the right to be. You wanna be annoyed with somebody, be annoyed with whoever sold the film rights to this yahoo with no talent. But don't say he doesn't deserve what he had the brass to grab hold of. You don't like it, do what he did: pony up the cash and talk a good enough talk and get him to sell YOU the rights.
> 
> ...




First of all, I never said that I wanted to take up this cause and out do somebody. If I remember correctly, I said I would rather have NO movie than one he has put out already. Especially a 2nd one. 

So basically your saying that it was stupid for him to make the movie but brass? I agree with you there.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Mar 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I'm reasonably certain that's Kai Lord demonstrating humour. There's so little information out on this project -- I can't even tell if Solomon is actually attached to direct or not. I thought somebody had claimed so, but I haven't seen any sources confirm it. But I'm fairly certain that DMX, Jet Li and Tom Arnold are NOT attached to it. But I could be wrong...




I agree, it sounds odd, and I hope your right.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 24, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> So basically your saying that it was stupid for him to make the movie but brass?



No, I'm saying you're wrong. 

You said, "He shouldn't be involved with the D&D movie." That is incorrect. He owns the film rights to the trademark, so he SHOULD be involved. He's the one who bought them, so he gets to make the movie.

I don't think it was stupid of him to make the movie. I think it was stupid of TSR to sell the film rights to someone with no track record, but that says nothing about HIS intelligence. I think it was brilliant of him to make the movie. I bet he had a ball and learned a lot. Good for him.

I should be so lucky.


----------



## Ranger REG (Mar 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yes, he should, because he PAID for the right to be. You wanna be annoyed with somebody, be annoyed with whoever sold the film rights to this yahoo with no talent. But don't say he doesn't deserve what he had the brass to grab hold of. You don't like it, do what he did: pony up the cash and talk a good enough talk and get him to sell YOU the rights.



AFAIK, no one owned the film right since TSR sold it out in the option market. Solomon picked it up like you pick up a carton of eggs at Safeway.




			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I'm not going to blame HIM for THEIR stupidity. On the contrary, I'm delighted for him. I wish I was him -- what a hoot to have the ability to make *DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS* movies! Frankly, I'd rather have the name in the hands of a devoted (if unskilled) fan than with a bunch of soulless Hollywood hacks. It seems so fitting, somehow. It seems so... D&D.



Ugh! A statement like that makes me want to stop playing _D&D_ from here on in. If that is the case, it should have been a direct-to-video film, or a B-type Troma Production film.  :\ 

And if you don't mind, I'd have preferred a devoted but also SKILLED filmmaking fan. Now, if I had the right to such film, I may feel all giddy and orgasmic inside for acquiring the right, but after the celebratory euporia even I know myself well enough that I'm not a professional filmmaker, so I'd scope out for the best (not barely) qualified people to put my vision into the silver screen.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Mar 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying you're wrong.
> 
> You said, "He shouldn't be involved with the D&D movie." That is incorrect. He owns the film rights to the trademark, so he SHOULD be involved. He's the one who bought them, so he gets to make the movie.




Your right, if he owns the trademark than yes, legaly he should be involved. 

You know, I think we are going in circles here, so I'm going to end my point here. Regardless if he owns the rights to the D&D trademark, he made a bad film. Regardless if his brass was a shiney as the day was long, still doesn't make him qualified (to me) to continue to make another film about D&D. Yeah, good for him, he's taken on this project. But to what expense? To make the D&D core happy (we know that answer to that)? To line his pockets full of money (you think he's sitting back smiling, but who really knows how he feels)? To get more "experience" in the film industry? Because he "Owns" the rights? Because he purchased the rights before anybody else thought of taking on the project? 

If he was passionate about making films, then I would be able to see through that, like I was able to see through a lot of the cornyness that Peter Jackson had in LOTR (B.T.W, I love the LOTR films). But I don't see it and I disagree with your reasoning...but then again, I'm entitled to my opinion just like you are entitled to yours.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 25, 2004)

Gonna take down two birds on one stone here...


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> AFAIK, no one owned the film right since TSR sold it out in the option market. Solomon picked it up like you pick up a carton of eggs at Safeway.



Rights always belong to somebody, even if it's everybody. Since the rights weren't public domain (else they'd still be public domain) SOMEBODY owned them, and that somebody (if it wasn't TSR) had to have originally purchased them from TSR.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And if you don't mind, I'd have preferred a devoted but also SKILLED filmmaking fan.



Well, me too, but oh well. At least it wasn't Michael Bay.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Regardless if he owns the rights to the D&D trademark, he made a bad film.



No argument from me here. I LIKE the film, but it's definitely a BAD film.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Yeah, good for him, he's taken on this project. But to what expense? To make the D&D core happy (we know that answer to that)? To line his pockets full of money (you think he's sitting back smiling, but who really knows how he feels)? To get more "experience" in the film industry? Because he "Owns" the rights? Because he purchased the rights before anybody else thought of taking on the project?



Why do you care what his motives are? You can make up any answer you like to those questions. And why do you put "owns" in quotes? It's not a matter open for debate. Or, rather it is, since I don't actually KNOW that he owns the rights, but SOMEBODY does, and whoever does has every right to do whatever the heck they want to do with them. You can complain about what they do, you can say they aren't talented, but saying they don't have the right to do so is simply untrue.


----------



## rowport (Mar 27, 2004)

Barsoom, with respect, I think that in defending your principle point you are losing track of other totally valid points.

You are essentially saying, Solomon saw a business opportunity to make lots of money with a D&D movie, and props to him for taking it and doing it.  You also acknowledge that TSR made (yet another) stupid business decision in trusting him with the rights.

Fine.  I doubt seriously that anybody will argue with that, because it is clearly factual.

What I believe that you are missing in the counterpoints, is not whether he had the LEGAL RIGHTS to do the D&D movie, just whether he SHOULD have done it.  Any rational person- especially a D&D fan- MUST AGREE THAT HE MADE A LOUSY MOVIE!  Right??  Right??  I mean, come on, it was terrible, awful, and frankly even if he did it for pure profit motive everybody (fans and the rest of the tiny viewing audiences...) would have been better off if he bought the rights, and HIRED A DECENT DIRECTOR!!  With the possible exception of Wayans, the principle actors were actually decent.  With a decent writer and director, this movie would have moved from a joke to at least passable, or better.  The notion that the Sequel might be more of the same tripe is laughable for fans at best, and infuriating at worst.  Seriously, if you do not agree with that, I have to wonder if you actually suffered through watching the first debacle..?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Mar 29, 2004)

The mage girl wasn't a very good actress, but she didn't have much to work with.  I mean, she apparently loses her magic powers for half the film so she can be rescued by the hero.  A friend of mine gave a great review from a non-gamers perspective (even though she did take a swipe at me):  http://www.jabootu.com/d&d.htm

I don't know about LEGAL rights.  But the D&D movie was a total failure even as a story.  Solomon was over his head and shouldn't have been trusted with this much money or responsibility.


----------



## Henry (Mar 29, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I'm fairly certain that DMX, Jet Li and Tom Arnold are NOT attached to it. But I could be wrong...




Also keep in mind that when Kai Lord made that joke, the movie "Cradle 2 the Grave" had recently debuted... This is the case of a joke outliving it's timing. 

So far, it's "early 2004" and we haven't seen anything on a D&D movie. It could be that funding fell through, or any of a hundred other possible disasters that keep a movie from being made. If it IS done, I'd like to see a jam-up plot, MUCH better and more cohesive than the one the first one had. I personally don't find fault with the actors, but more with special effects, plot, and some writing that fell flatter than a pancake. Wherever you are, whatever you're doing, Mr. Solomon, good luck... 'cause you're gonna need it to overcome the negative inertia the first movie generated with viewers.


----------



## barsoomcore (Mar 29, 2004)

rowport said:
			
		

> Any rational person- especially a D&D fan- MUST AGREE THAT HE MADE A LOUSY MOVIE!  Right??  Right??



Well of course it's a terrible movie. I've never said otherwise. I mean, I love it, but I'm a sucker for well-intentioned failures. But I'm not arguing for or against its (ahem) artistic virtues. I'm just saying that any statement to the effect of what Solomon is entitled to do is either correct or incorrect. Opinion doesn't enter into it.


			
				rowport said:
			
		

> The notion that the Sequel might be more of the same tripe is laughable for fans at best, and infuriating at worst.



Or a gleeful ray of hope. More bad movies made earnestly, by people who are actually trying to make something that matters to them, is better than more slick movies made by people who think I'm stupid.


----------



## Felikeries (Mar 31, 2004)

getting the 'foozy shod' into the screen and tale is about what is expected
but i personaly see that sword violence and imaging that displaces the
mentality that 'magic' is sort of fake assed,should be in the next one

the tell tail signs of romance and an evil character that's 'stupid' is ok but lets take this into mode al'la mogue and see some slash and crash that makes bleeding wounds and 'austeire' smiles on the main characters faces any more featured

the city was nifty in the first,so keep the idea,easily,but now that there is more gore,as i suggested,let's see if a bad assasin etc,really snoops about,while the bad is portrayed in angst and summery of all that's evil within this film,aside from the main bad dude

anybody 'i can say' that my last campaign showed a 'stupid assed' bad dude
but also several evil'ites' in the act,easily this could be made into real epic material or at least portrayel

and the golden dm goes to....

"Zeffuaxiuth" the dark troll that uses acid blood from the eyes


----------

