# Could the "Warcraft" movie completely over-shadow the "D&D" movie?



## Corpsetaker (Aug 4, 2015)

Apparently the World of Warcraft movie will be out before the D&D movie so I am speculating that the Warcraft movie will just over-shadow the D&D one. Warcraft is a juggernaut to the point where the D&D could become the "Warcraft rip-off" even though D&D obviously came first. 

I don't have high hopes for the movie.


----------



## Zaran (Aug 4, 2015)

I'll probably watch them both.  I happen to like the genre.  It's why I play the game.


----------



## TheCosmicKid (Aug 4, 2015)

They're both going to be seen as _Lord of the Rings_ rip-offs.

And, let's face it, they are.


----------



## Mirtek (Aug 4, 2015)

I don't think so, too much time between them. The WarCraft movie is well into production while the D&D movie has not even the casting done yet.

There will be 2-3 years between them


----------



## Joker (Aug 4, 2015)

Mirtek said:


> I don't think so, too much time between them. The WarCraft movie is well into production while the D&D movie has not even the casting done yet.
> 
> There will be 2-3 years between them




Yeah, the D&D movie will come around when Warcraft 2 hits the silver screen.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 4, 2015)

It all comes down to choosing the writer and director.  

IMNSHO in this day and age, the D&D brand offers nothing compelling to the movie going audience, and WoW has the edge in buzz.  It does offer Hasbro a running start to make a cash cow out of a movie success.

But the genre is broad enough and fun enough, that a good writer could build a great movie franchise here.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 4, 2015)

TheCosmicKid said:


> They're both going to be seen as _Lord of the Rings_ rip-offs.
> 
> And, let's face it, they are.




We, yes, there is that.  But the genre does not require it.

Regarding the first movie, you can see they felt trapped into sitting dragons and dungeons front and center, and save the princess with lots more dragons at the climax.  In spite of a talented enough cast and a decent budget, the sidekick (see my icon) was the only non-terrible thing in it.

It would have worked better if they just re-made the Magnificent Seven (The Seven Samurai) in a D&D world.  Ripping off samurai movies could work out.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 4, 2015)

I think that it depends on which world they go with. The D&D movie could change the game (pardon the pun) by going for a Spelljammer or Planescape movie.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I think that it depends on which world they go with. The D&D movie could change the game (pardon the pun) by going for a Spelljammer or Planescape movie.




It's FR.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 4, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It's FR.




Then the answer becomes, "Yes, absolutely."

I need to go back and read the posts I missed on that.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Then the answer becomes, "Yes, absolutely."
> 
> I need to go back and read the posts I missed on that.




Here's the announcement post:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...-To-Go-Ahead-Produced-By-Lego-Movie-s-Roy-Lee


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Here's the announcement post:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/conten...-To-Go-Ahead-Produced-By-Lego-Movie-s-Roy-Lee




Many thanks


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Aug 5, 2015)

Ridley's Cohort said:


> It would have worked better if they just re-made the Magnificent Seven (The Seven Samurai) in a D&D world.  Ripping off samurai movies could work out.




"Yojimbo starring Drizzt Do'Urden"


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 5, 2015)

.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 5, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Apparently the World of Warcraft movie will be out before the D&D movie so I am speculating that the Warcraft movie will just over-shadow the D&D one. Warcraft is a juggernaut to the point where the D&D could become the "Warcraft rip-off" even though D&D obviously came first.



Like no one wanted to see a Star Trek movie after Star Wars came out?

I'm not sure this is a real problem.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 5, 2015)

The D&D movie would be years after the Warcraft movie.

I don't think the Warcraft movie will be seen as derivative of The Lord of the Rings.  Warcraft is a much different approach to the genre.  And, while very much lesser as literature, I would say that Warcraft is more nuanced.  LOTR villains are very thin, and I'm surprised at how well the whole "rule by divine inheritance" theme flies anymore.

For the D&D movie, what the put in the movie, and how well it is made, will make a huge difference.  I guess folks are predicting use of Forgotten Realms as the setting.

I'm rather undecided about what actually deserves to be in a D&D movie.  The brand covers such a huge scope.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Joker (Aug 5, 2015)

Personally, I think the D&D brand is better served with a series a la Twilight Zone.  i.e. Every episode is more or less unrelated to the other ones but in the same universe.  That way you can explore the Forgotten Realms thoroughly, showing all the various tropes better than you could in a two hour flick.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm quite sure WoW movies will overshadow D&D movies. D&D itself doesn't mean much, unless you're looking at a particular setting for it. Otherwise it would be just like a movie about 'Monopoly' or 'Battleship', i.e. not really sharing anything with its source.

Considering that FR is the most popular setting for D&D is FR, it's almost a given that it's going to be used as the setting for a movie. Unfortunately, it's also the most vanilla, generic, and derivative of all settings.
Personally, I feel if D&D wanted to make an impact and leave a mark, they'd have to choose a setting that is distinctive, and exclusive to D&D, e.g. Eberron or maybe Planescape. Anything else will be considered a weak rip-off of established Fantasy movies/series.
Of course, they'd never get the funding for such an undertaking because there's a very real risk the chosen, exotic setting won't appeal to the masses.


----------



## delericho (Aug 5, 2015)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Like no one wanted to see a Star Trek movie after Star Wars came out?




I was going to go with "Batman v Superman" following "Avengers: Age of Ultron", but otherwise make the same point.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm quite sure WoW movies will overshadow D&D movies. D&D itself doesn't mean much, unless you're looking at a particular setting for it. Otherwise it would be just like a movie about 'Monopoly' or 'Battleship', i.e. not really sharing anything with its source.
> 
> Considering that FR is the most popular setting for D&D is FR, it's almost a given that it's going to be used as the setting for a movie. Unfortunately, it's also the most vanilla, generic, and derivative of all settings.
> Personally, I feel if D&D wanted to make an impact and leave a mark, they'd have to choose a setting that is distinctive, and exclusive to D&D, e.g. Eberron or maybe Planescape. Anything else will be considered a weak rip-off of established Fantasy movies/series.
> Of course, they'd never get the funding for such an undertaking because there's a very real risk the chosen, exotic setting won't appeal to the masses.




A Planescape or Spelljammer movie could be done almost completely in green screen, which could actually serve to greatly reduce costs.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 5, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> A Planescape or Spelljammer movie could be done almost completely in green screen, which could actually serve to greatly reduce costs.




And emotional impact.  Moviemakers are finding that the more they use CGI backgrounds, the less the audience invests in the movie.  It sounds weird, but apparently while we are willing to accept a little unreality in a fantastic foreground character, when you make the background world CGI, we notice and suspend our disbelief less.  This may explain why, over the past decade or so, as expenditure on CGI effects has gone up, our enjoyment of the movies has generally dropped.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 5, 2015)

Umbran said:


> And emotional impact.  Moviemakers are finding that the more they use CGI backgrounds, the less the audience invests in the movie.  It sounds weird, but apparently while we are willing to accept a little unreality in a fantastic foreground character, when you make the background world CGI, we notice and suspend our disbelief less.  This may explain why, over the past decade or so, as expenditure on CGI effects has gone up, our enjoyment of the movies has generally dropped.




It's not that weird, since the more unreal something reflects our own experience the less we can immerse ourselves in it, but there are ways to mitigate against that. Science fiction movies seem to do pretty well with green screen, because they aren't a reflection of our real world experience.

There are other reasons why our enjoyment of CGI has gone down. A big one is the higher the resolution of the image, the more we notice the flaws. We're also expecting more, since every stinking movie seems to need to one-up what came before. We've become jaded over things that would have had our parents drooling in the theatres.


----------



## amerigoV (Aug 5, 2015)

On the emotional impact - I think the Red Letter Media review of the Star Wars Prequels hit the nail on the head - if the background is all fake, its hard for the actors to really "interact" in that scene. Since they have few points of references, they do not react "naturally" to the environment that gets painted onto them.

For example, the chestburster scene in Alien worked wonderfully because the actors did not know exactly what was going to happen and it was a physical scene. The splashing of (fake, I hope) blood resulted in real reactions, including the scream and disgust of the actors. You could easily replicate that scene in CGI these days, but odds are the reactions would be stiff and we would pick up on it. 

Star Wars Ep1-3 had a lot of walking and talking through scenery that was stiff. The actors were not interacting with the scene and it showed.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 5, 2015)

While I might rather like a Planescape based movie, I can't see such a movie being made.

Actually, a semi-episodic show based on Sigil (The City of Doors) could be awesome.

As could a serialization of GDQ (the Giants, Drow, Demonweb modules).  Or a horror based series that involved Illithid.  Brain eating tentacle monsters which can be created by implantating a parasite in your friend's brain seems ideal for horror.

Something combining Drow, Drittzt, and Faerun seems most likely.  Although, I have a hard time seeing how that would work in comparison to what is being done nowadays, because the tropes seem too adolescent, and the characters too thinly defined.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## collin (Aug 5, 2015)

As already mentioned here, there should not be a problem with Warcraft and the new D&D movie competing against each other since they will probably come out 2-3 years apart.  However, if Warcraft is bad, then that will likely affect the D&D film since it will not be long enough between release dates to get the bad-taste out of the mouths of the general movie-going audience.  So if you want people to go see the D&D film, you first better hope they go see and like the Warcraft film.


----------



## Tonguez (Aug 5, 2015)

delericho said:


> I was going to go with "Batman v Superman" following "Avengers: Age of Ultron", but otherwise make the same point.




In both the case of Star Trek vs Star Wars and these superhero outings they don't really compare as they are entirely different genres and are established as different in the general public. Star Trek is Sci Fi whereas people know Star Wars has as much "science" as Mad Max. In the Avengers you have the Ensemble of Enhanced Heroes whereas Batman/Supes features Stand alone "Gods" - I have no doubt that the next Avengers movie will be compared to Justice League however.

Warcraft as a war between humans and orcs will be compared to LoTR, although having a focus on the Orcs side of things could be interesting. DnD is big enough in scope to not overlap too - so lets hope they don't focus on Orcs with a War setting.


----------



## Jester David (Aug 5, 2015)

Joker said:


> Yeah, the D&D movie will come around when Warcraft 2 hits the silver screen.




That'd certainly be a worry. It takes a couple years to get a movie going so D&D would be 2018 at the earliest, which would be about the time of a Warcraft sequel, IF that movie ends up doing well.

But, really, for this to be an issue the D&D movie still has to be made and not sit in development hell _and_ not be terrible.


----------



## delericho (Aug 6, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> Star Trek is Sci Fi whereas people know Star Wars has as much "science" as Mad Max.




In fairness, the recent Star Trek films have had as much "science" as Mad Max, too.



> In the Avengers you have the Ensemble of Enhanced Heroes whereas Batman/Supes features Stand alone "Gods" - I have no doubt that the next Avengers movie will be compared to Justice League however.




Okay, Batman/Superman and "Captain America: Civil War", then - in both cases you've got the idealized American hero up against a genius billionaire philanthropist in a tech-heavy suit.


----------



## evilbob (Aug 6, 2015)

The OP has a fair point.

Marvel is already fatiguing audiences on _its own brand_, so of course the DC Johnny-come-lately movies are going to do poorly by contrast and people are going to be tired of them before they even come out.  I think that's why DC is trying to do movies that are much more serious / darker - to differentiate them from the no-one-outside-of-comics-knows-the-difference Marvel movies that people are already getting tired of.

Similarly the Hobbit movies were TERRIBLE - but they were also coming on the not-to-distant heels of LotR, which was already a bit overwrought and overdone by the time it was finished, so to do the exact same thing again but worse just really torpedoed the genre.  Movies typically take forever to make, so the WoW movie was probably in talks and getting started about the time the first Hobbit movie came out (and before people saw that they would ruin the series).  So yeah, it's definitely going to be seen as a derivative humans vs. orcs story - which, as someone already pointed out, is 100% fair since WoW blatantly ripped off Tolkien to begin with - that audiences may be pretty tired of before it even gets shown thanks to the Hobbit debacle.  Given that there's also no chance it will be a _good _movie, this sets the stage for an even weaker stomach for any D&D offering.  And this is still all before we all realize that it will _also _be a horrible movie (Wrath of the Titans?  BLEH - currently 25% at Rotten Tomatoes, btw).

Both of these movies will ultimately go down as what they are:  cash-grabs trying to piggy-back off the success of LotR before the "fantasy" genre goes down in flames again, mostly thanks to these exact movies.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 6, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> While I might rather like a Planescape based movie, I can't see such a movie being made.
> 
> Actually, a semi-episodic show based on Sigil (The City of Doors) could be awesome.
> 
> ...




I missed your Sigil comment. It certainly worked for "Stargate: SG1."


----------



## Umbran (Aug 6, 2015)

evilbob said:


> Given that there's also no chance it will be a _good _movie, this sets the stage for an even weaker stomach for any D&D offering.




It seems to me that "not be seen as a WoW movie" is a not-terribly-difficult marketing problem. I strongly expect the public will see Warcraft as less a "generic fantasy movie" and more a "CG movie", such that differentiation won't be difficult.  

More difficult will be differentiating from LotR - and you might do that by having no orcs to speak of, and settings that don't look like New Zealand.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 6, 2015)

delericho said:


> Okay, Batman/Superman and "Captain America: Civil War", then - in both cases you've got the idealized American hero up against a genius billionaire philanthropist in a tech-heavy suit.




It's funny that you say it that way, because I've always seen Batman as more of an idealized American hero than Superman.  Sure, Supes had the whole "truth, justice, and the American way" thing, but Batman has always been self-made (not in the wealth sense, but in the hero sense).  Superman just inherited his power, but Batman had to work hard for many years to become a master detective, a master of disguise, a master of stealth, and a master martial artist.  Through hard work and determination he became a man who could stand among and against gods.  That sounds very much like an American ideal to me.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 6, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> It's funny that you say it that way, because I've always seen Batman as more of an idealized American hero than Superman.  Sure, Supes had the whole "truth, justice, and the American way" thing, but Batman has always been self-made (not in the wealth sense, but in the hero sense).  Superman just inherited his power, but Batman had to work hard for many years to become a master detective, a master of disguise, a master of stealth, and a master martial artist.  Through hard work and determination he became a man who could stand among and against gods.  That sounds very much like an American ideal to me.




Two sides of the same coin. Superman is the idea of "truth, justice, and the American way." He's the unobtainable goal to strive for. Batman represents one 'ordinary' man making a difference; also a very American ideal.


----------



## was (Aug 7, 2015)

I probably will not see either in the theater. I do rent a lot though.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 7, 2015)

.


----------



## was (Aug 7, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> I don't rent, but purchase my movies on DVD.
> 
> I still support the movie industry that way, but not the theaters.
> 
> ...




...You might want to try renting first to see if the movie is worth buying for your collection.  It has saved me a lot of money on movies I thought would be great when watching the previews.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 7, 2015)

I go to theaters, but I avoid the concession stand entirely.  I also go as early in the morning as possible so I can get the matinee price and I can avoid children and crowds as much as possible.  I never go to see a movie more than once though.  If I really like it, I will buy it the day it comes out on DVD so I can watch it as much as I want.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> I was going to go with "Batman v Superman" following "Avengers: Age of Ultron", but otherwise make the same point.



Given what a mess "Man of Steel" was, I'm not sure I want to see "Batman v Superman." ("Age of Ultron" was a mess, too, of course.)


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 9, 2015)

.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 9, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> With there no longer being any type of BlockBuster Video store anymore, the option of renting is ZERO were I live.
> 
> I just wait a few months after the movies release, and it is out on DVD.  Then wait a few more months for it to go on sale for under $15.00




They don't have the redbox machines where you live?

Also, couldn't you rent it on netflix first?  I don't have netflix, so I don't know, but it seems like you could (if you have netflix).


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 10, 2015)

.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 12, 2015)

I think the Warcraft movie will over-shadow the D&D movie, because Warcraft (or at least World of Warcraft) is a much stronger known brand with a lot bigger active fanbase (e.g. people that pla ythe game).

But I suspect that if the D&D movie fails, it will fail on its own merits (or lack thereof), just as the last ones.



delericho said:


> In fairness, the recent Star Trek films have had as much "science" as Mad Max, too.



With recent, you mean the last... 12?


----------



## delericho (Aug 12, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> With recent, you mean the last... 12?




11, I think. I've not watched the first one in a long time, but I don't think it was too bad on that front - certainly much more a science fiction film than the more recent action fare.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Aug 12, 2015)

.


----------



## Deathstrike (Aug 13, 2015)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> Star Trek: The Motion Picture
> 
> The whole story about what happens if one of Earth's space probes (Voyager 6) gets intercepted by an alien race and is sent back to Earth (on steroids!)
> 
> ...



No..not really.  
The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.
Trek is notorious for ignoring the laws of physics. It was never about the science- Trek is a morality play. Its about the journey and what the journey tells us about ourselves. It fails in almost every way as science fiction- you could call it sci-fi, though.
It successfully presented an interesting worldview and a philosophy of acceptance and better living through science, but the science wasn't exactly a science.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 13, 2015)

Deathstrike said:


> No..not really.
> The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.
> Trek is notorious for ignoring the laws of physics. It was never about the science- Trek is a morality play. Its about the journey and what the journey tells us about ourselves. It fails in almost every way as science fiction- you could call it sci-fi, though.
> It successfully presented an interesting worldview and a philosophy of acceptance and better living through science, but the science wasn't exactly a science.




Massive? It was designed pretty much to the scale of the American aircraft carrier of the same name. That vessel doesn't generally surf a tsunami.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 13, 2015)

Deathstrike said:


> No..not really.
> The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.




The Enterprise D, which was larger than all the previous ones, is 642.5 meters long and weighs 4.5 million metric tons (according to Wikipedia, and that's likely drawn from the info in the Star Trek tech manual that was released).  By contrast, the moon is 3.675 x10^19 metric tons; 8.167 x10^12 times more massive than the Enterprise D.

It's alwo worth noting that geosynchronous orbit is not necessarily standard procedure.  Several instances exist of a ship entering into "standard orbit" around a planet.  Standard orbit is never particularly defined as to distance from the planet (though it clearly is within transporter range) or the planetary latitude it corresponds to.  Plus, geosynchronous orbit simply means that the ship remains directly above a specific point on the planet.  It makes no mention of the distance from the planet.




Deathstrike said:


> Trek is a morality play.




That is very true.


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 13, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> The Enterprise D, which was larger than all the previous ones, is 642.5 meters long and weighs 4.5 million metric tons (according to Wikipedia, and that's likely drawn from the info in the Star Trek tech manual that was released).  By contrast, the moon is 3.675 x10^19 metric tons; 8.167 x10^12 times more massive than the Enterprise D.
> 
> It's alwo worth noting that geosynchronous orbit is not necessarily standard procedure.  Several instances exist of a ship entering into "standard orbit" around a planet.  Standard orbit is never particularly defined as to distance from the planet (though it clearly is within transporter range) or the planetary latitude it corresponds to.  Plus, geosynchronous orbit simply means that the ship remains directly above a specific point on the planet.  It makes no mention of the distance from the planet.




The Wikipedia entry matches the information at this site:

http://www.ussenterprise.co.uk/enterprise/ente/entetech.htm

It does, however, conflict with this site:

http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm

To give that some sense of scale the CVN-65 USS Enterprise aircraft carrier (Length: 342.29 m, Beam: 40.54 m, Draught 11.89 m) displaces a mass of 85,000 Tonnes.The Enterprise-D should be within a few multiples of that, unless it was supposed to have a neutronium hull. The series suggests either duranium or tritanium, which I wouldn't think has the density of a collapsed star. Even the warp core of a Romulan military vessel, which uses an artificial singularity as its power source, won't have an effect on anything outside of the core unless the systems break down.

Now if anyone wants to discuss the business of "red matter", that's a different thing all together. It's also not from what I would call "Star Trek" anymore


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 14, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Now if anyone wants to discuss the business of "red matter", that's a different thing all together. It's also not from what I would call "Star Trek" anymore



Star Trek is full of pseudo-science stuff like that IMO. Proto-Matter, that can somehow be used to turn a dead planet into a viable ecosphere (at least for a time, because "proto-matter is unstable"). 
Theta Radiation, Subspace. Genetics in Star Trek...

The thing that probably doesn't make Star Trek fantasy is mostly the structure of the stories and their content. It's often examining what these fantastic concepts might do to a society, or how you deal with it, and it's not just a fantastic background where you tell your regular war story or your regular heroic journey. 
I would also almost count the "morality tale" aspect of Star Trek what makes it more science fiction, since a lot of science fiction seems to deal with that, too (but other genres do that, too).


----------



## Umbran (Aug 14, 2015)

Deathstrike said:


> No..not really.
> The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.




Not even close.  The original ship was only 289 meters long.  The Empire state building is taller!  In the new movies, she's 725m long.  The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is taller.

Those buildings aren't causing massive tidal effects, so neither will the Enterprise.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 17, 2015)

Let's face it folks, they are both going to suck - badly....

I have yet to see a movie about a game, toy etc that hasn't been more than over inflated fan fiction and yes I am including Transformers - watched objectively, it's tripe with Megan Fox's cleavage thrown in so you'll forget.


----------



## MechaPilot (Aug 18, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Let's face it folks, they are both going to suck - badly....
> 
> I have yet to see a movie about a game, toy etc that hasn't been more than over inflated fan fiction and yes I am including Transformers - watched objectively, it's tripe with Megan Fox's cleavage thrown in so you'll forget.




I've never seen it, but the LEGO movie has generally been praised as being good.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 18, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I've never seen it, but the LEGO movie has generally been praised as being good.



It's surprisingly excellent and even can easily be read as an anti-corporatist movie, which is interesting for what I think we all assumed was going to be one long commercial of a movie.


----------



## juanlb (Aug 18, 2015)

No. I don't think so.


----------



## scottcoz (Aug 18, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> Apparently the World of Warcraft movie will be out before the D&D movie so I am speculating that the Warcraft movie will just over-shadow the D&D one. Warcraft is a juggernaut to the point where the D&D could become the "Warcraft rip-off" even though D&D obviously came first.



Very likely. Just like I predict there will be many claiming Justice League is a rip-off of Avengers, and Darkseid (assuming he's the villain in it) is a rip-off of Thanos


----------



## Thunderfoot (Aug 18, 2015)

MechaPilot said:


> I've never seen it, but the LEGO movie has generally been praised as being good.




You're right, I stand corrected, I had forgotten that the LEGO movie was actually good, and it was.  The fact that the direction team is from that movie gave me hope for the D&D movie, but as was stated once, "Do not trust to hope, it has abandoned us here." :/


----------



## Ryujin (Aug 18, 2015)

Thunderfoot said:


> Let's face it folks, they are both going to suck - badly....
> 
> I have yet to see a movie about a game, toy etc that hasn't been more than over inflated fan fiction and yes I am including Transformers - watched objectively, it's tripe with Megan Fox's cleavage thrown in so you'll forget.




I think that the big danger is that the D&D movie will either be a parody of the genre, or that they'll rip off the concept of "The Gamers" movies in a big budget way.


----------



## WayneLigon (Aug 19, 2015)

Deathstrike said:


> No..not really.
> The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.




The new movie Enterprise is by far the largest version, and it's only about 2300 feet long (it's around twice the size of the TV show version of the ship). That would be a minuscule amount of mass compared to even a tiny moon, much less an Earth-sized planet. How could you possibly come to that conclusion?


----------

