# Rate Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of the Dragon God (DVD Release Status: In Flux)



## Knightfall (Oct 9, 2005)

It premieres tonight on SciFi Channel. Everyone vote.

KF72


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 9, 2005)

It would have been better with Bruce Campbell in it.  

(Not that I've seen it. But that applies to most movies)


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

For some reason you saying that I had a picture of Bruce Campbell as Frodo.......


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 9, 2005)

He would make a great Tom Bombadil


----------



## Templetroll (Oct 9, 2005)

The first 15 minutes were better than the first D&D movie.


----------



## Templetroll (Oct 9, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> He would make a great Tom Bombadil




Think he would work an Elvis reference in?


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

I gave DnD 2 a 7. Alot better then the first. A decent fantasy movie with DnD stuff in for the fans.


----------



## Evil Ujio (Oct 9, 2005)

It was better, it needs lots of polish but much better then before.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 9, 2005)

Didn't completely suck....

Many MST moments, but much better than the first.

Actually, the little D&D ads were my favorite part.


----------



## Skrit (Oct 9, 2005)

I will admit is was better then the First D&D by leaps and bounds, but it was still terrible. However I didn't have my hopes up for it since I expect every movie on Scifi is bad unless it's an older good movie they llicensed for awhile..


----------



## KingOfChaos (Oct 9, 2005)

Personally, I gave the movie an 8.  I thought it was very well done and was better than the first movie that went to the big screen.  I am hoping for a third movie and perhaps an actual series like we saw SciFi do with Battlestar Galactica.


----------



## Wereserpent (Oct 9, 2005)

I liked it a lot too!  I gave it an 8!


----------



## Michael Morris (Oct 9, 2005)

My Statler & Waldorf review, posted over at NTL

*Statler:* Recently we were subjected to the torture of watching the second Dungeons & Dragons
*Waldorf:* Torture? I wouldn't go that far. Torture would be the first film. This one is more like cruel and unusual punishment.
*Statler:* Yes, on the second go around the franchise has definitely improved.
*Waldorf:* It went from worst movie ever to almost the worst movie ever.
*Statler:* The basic plot will be no surprise to anyone who's played the game for which the movie is based. Five heroes are assembled into a party and go on a quest to save the world.
*Waldorf:* Yeah, name your favorite fantasy cliche and you'll find it here. Sexy barbarian chick in chainmail - check
*Statler:* Dissappointingly though it wasn't very revealing.
*Waldorf:* Well, considering the low budget I'm not surprised. It takes some serious special effects to design gravity defying erotic armor.
*Statler:*  Still dissapointing.
*Waldorf:* Next cliche is the lazy halfling thief.
*Statler:* The Pious priest
*Waldorf:* The elven wizard.
*Statler:* And so on. If you've played D&D, you've seen this line up before. The authors went to some pain to work in multiple monsters and magic items from the game into the plot without being painfully obvious - a wand of lightning bolts, ring of the ram, gem of seeing and a magic sword of some type make obvious appearances, and the references to Greyhawk's deities and locations are far more numerous this time.
*Waldorf:* All feel good stuff for the gamers, but likely to fly over the general population's head.  All kidding aside, this movie is about average for Hollywood these days.
*Statler:* Which is to say it was terrible.
*Waldorf:* But in a better than horrible way.


----------



## AelyaShade (Oct 9, 2005)

Gave it a 7. Better than the original. Miss Damodar's blue lips  Disappointed that there was no dwarf in the adventuring party.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Oct 9, 2005)

Why does everyone seem to assume the rogue was a halfling? There was nothing said about him being a halfling, he didn't act like a halfling, and while he was short, he wasn't remotely short enough to be a halfling.

I figured he was just a shorter-than-average human.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 9, 2005)

Nim the Rogue was not a halfling (not unless halflings top 5 feet these days)


----------



## Knightfall (Oct 9, 2005)

For those that missed it, and are now willing to give it a "look see", D&D; WotDG re-airs on SciFi Channel on Thursday, October 13th at 9pm EST and then again on November 6th at 9pm EST.

Of course, dates & times are subject to the whims of the powers-that-be at SciFi Channel. 

After that, you can pick up the DVD, which comes out on November 8th. Here is the link to Amazon's listing: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000B7QCG8/104-1451119-0443149?v=glance&n=130

*Current Price:* $18.73 US

*DVD Features:*
Audio Commentary
DVD ROM Features
_Documentary:_ ROLLING THE DICE: Adopting the Game to the Screen
_Interviews:_ Conversation with Gary Gygax, creator of Dungeons & Dragons

KF72


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 9, 2005)

I gave it an 8. For people who aren't into D&D, it's probably a lot lower. Since a lot of stuff they will miss, and a lot won't make sense.   I thought some things were a bit rushed, but this may be due it being edited for TV.



The rogue was human. Just shortish. Like the Grey Mouser or dare I say it, Gord the Rogue.  Having a halfling/dwarf would be too expensive to do, since it requires a lot of CGI and special effects and large scale sets....


----------



## Dark Jezter (Oct 9, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> The rogue was human. Just shortish. Like the Grey Mouser or dare I say it, Gord the Rogue.  Having a halfling/dwarf would be too expensive to do, since it requires a lot of CGI and special effects and large scale sets....




Like yourself, I'm pretty sure that cost is the reason why we didn't see any of the smaller D&D races in the movie.  If the movie had been a major motion picture with a larger budget, I'm guessing that we would have seen a more iconic D&D party with a dwarf fighter and a halfling rogue.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Oct 9, 2005)

Gave it a six. The first one did a much better job at keeping my attention. I did like the DnD commercials.


----------



## Bran Blackbyrd (Oct 9, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> After that, you can pick up the DVD, which comes out on November 8th.



Coming out on my birthday... Is that a good sign or a bad one? 

It definitely wasn't as bad as the first one. The unidentified ring that turned out to be a ring of the ram made me grin. How does it feel to be flattened by the Dodge logo? Is it like being hit by a Ram truck?


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

November 8, same day A Feast for Crows hits the bookstore.


----------



## Thanee (Oct 9, 2005)

AelyaShade said:
			
		

> Disappointed that there was no dwarf in the adventuring party.




After the first movie, that seems like a rather smart decision. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

Accully one of the deleted scenes in the first DnD movie had the dwarf fighting like a dwarf, acting like a dwarf. It was one of the only bits that had one of the other characters doing something then the main PC. I can't understand why it was cut.


----------



## Pseudonym (Oct 9, 2005)

I gave it a 7.  With the history of the first film behind it, I didn't go in expecting much, but was happily surprised.  It was as advertised a D&D movie that felt like D&D. I enjoyed it.

There were some bits that seemed off, like the trap in the shaman's hut, but I'm hoping that the DVD will expand on things, like more about the dungeon.  Anyhow, it was orders of magnitude better than the first, which was good.


----------



## LeaderDesslok (Oct 9, 2005)

I gave it an 8. As a D&D geek it had a lot of details that only gamers would recognize, right down to spell components. Early on the blonde wizard chick is going to cast a Vision spell and asks for incense and ivory. During the commercials I loked it up and sure enough, those are the spell components. Huge leaps forward over the previous film.

BTW, there were halflings in the film. They were played by midgets and were just extras you saw wandering about in the fields and city streets.

Worst thing about the movie: it's a 90 minute film Sci-Fi turned into 2.5 hours! I actually timed it at one point; there were 9 minutes of movie followed by 7 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of movie and another 7 minutes of commercials. Despicable.


----------



## Michael Morris (Oct 9, 2005)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Worst thing about the movie: it's a 90 minute film Sci-Fi turned into 2.5 hours! I actually timed it at one point; there were 9 minutes of movie followed by 7 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of movie and another 7 minutes of commercials. Despicable.




That's par for the course these days.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 9, 2005)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Worst thing about the movie: it's a 90 minute film Sci-Fi turned into 2.5 hours! I actually timed it at one point; there were 9 minutes of movie followed by 7 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of movie and another 7 minutes of commercials. Despicable.




Yeah, I was recording it and my VCR timed out several times while I attempted to edit out the commercials.  

Very sad.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 9, 2005)

This level of quality (or _a little_ better) was what I had expected/hoped to see from the first movie, so I'm not disappointed.  I'd also hoped that we'd be seeing a regular release schedule of D&D movies, maybe once every couple of years.  It doesn't concern me whether they are released through theatres or not, just as long as they do what they can to make enough revenue to support continuing the franchise.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

I read in another thread that there is 15 more minutes in the DVD.


----------



## KenM (Oct 9, 2005)

EDIT: Double post.


----------



## Rel (Oct 9, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> This level of quality (or _a little_ better) was what I had expected/hoped to see from the first movie, so I'm not disappointed.  I'd also hoped that we'd be seeing a regular release schedule of D&D movies, maybe once every couple of years.  It doesn't concern me whether they are released through theatres or not, just as long as they do what they can to make enough revenue to support continuing the franchise.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.




It probably won't ever happen, but I think that the ideal medium for filmed D&D entertainment would be a weekly, 1-hour TV series that follows a starting party of 1st level characters as they rise through the levels to attain greater power, wealth and importance.  It would (hopefully) solve a major weakness in the films, which is that I feel no connection or empathy for the characters.  It could be liberally sprinkled with D&Disms and they could also make a companion "Adventure Path" of books to release to let DM's and players try their hand at some of the adventures the characters on the show partake in.


----------



## DrkLrdK (Oct 9, 2005)

That actually sounds like a good idea, especially the getting to know the main characters, which works alot better in the TV medium.  The  'Adventure Path' serise of books that would follow the shows, would also be a killer idea.  But, like you said, probably won't ever happen.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 9, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> It probably won't ever happen, but I think that the ideal medium for filmed D&D entertainment would be a weekly, 1-hour TV series that follows a starting party of 1st level characters as they rise through the levels to attain greater power, wealth and importance.  It would (hopefully) solve a major weakness in the films, which is that I feel no connection or empathy for the characters.  It could be liberally sprinkled with D&Disms and they could also make a companion "Adventure Path" of books to release to let DM's and players try their hand at some of the adventures the characters on the show partake in.





That might be so if your conception of the "ideal medium" includes the same characters being used from tale to tale, and having the adventures progressively leveled.  I prefer seeing new groups each time with out-of-sequence adventures.  I'm happy with a high-level adventure one year followed by a low-level adventure with totally different characters a couple years later, followed by yet another group in a medium-level adventure.  I'm not interested in seeing Herc an Iolaus , or Xena and Gabby, wandering from town to town, finding love and adventure around each bend.  Not that that was bad but it's been done.  I prefer the longer form stories with a larger variety of characters.


----------



## Rel (Oct 9, 2005)

DrkLrdK said:
			
		

> That actually sounds like a good idea, especially the getting to know the main characters, which works alot better in the TV medium.  The  'Adventure Path' serise of books that would follow the shows, would also be a killer idea.  But, like you said, probably won't ever happen.




Welcome to ENWorld.  I guess I'm honored that your first post was to comment on something I posted.


----------



## Rel (Oct 9, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> That might be so if your conception of the "ideal medium" includes the same characters being used from tale to tale, and having the adventures progressively leveled.  I prefer seeing new groups each time with out-of-sequence adventures.  I'm happy with a high-level adventure one year followed by a low-level adventure with totally different characters a couple years later, followed by yet another group in a medium-level adventure.  I'm not interested in seeing Herc an Iolaus , or Xena and Gabby, wandering from town to town, finding love and adventure around each bend.  Not that that was bad but it's been done.  I prefer the longer form stories with a larger variety of characters.




An advantage of the ongoing series rather than the "one off" is that much of your character development is already done.  The movies thus far have spent a considerable amount of time setting up the personality and motivations of the characters in ways that were not terribly compelling IMHO.  To some extent this is the same with the plotline that they must start and finish during the course of the movie.

Obviously characterization and introduction of the central conflict can be done well in a two hour movie (it happens all the time) but most big films these days have at most 2-3 main characters that the story focuses on.  For a D&D movie you've got a party of at least 4 and apparently they like to go with 5-6.  The net result is that I don't have a good feel for any of them really and don't care what happens to them.  I wind up looking only for the D&Disms in the movie, watching for how crappy the cheap visual effects are done and seeking holes in the plot.

Contrast this with something like Firefly where the character personalities and the situations and coversations generated from them make for very enjoyable viewing.  You can spend a lot less on flashy visual effects and sets if you throw in a few more minutes of witty banter between characters who the audience actually cares about.

That's just my perspective though and I certainly contend that it isn't the "one true way" to make visual D&D entertainment.  But so far I've seen what they've done with the movie format and I think it's at best "ok".


----------



## Menexenus (Oct 9, 2005)

It probably deserved a "7", but I gave it an "8" anyway because I'll probably watch it again.  (Not because it was entertaining enough to deserve a second viewing, but rather because I'm an unrepentant D&D geek and want to make sure I caught every reference.)  

It was definitely better than the first movie.

And I agree with those who have said that the ideal mass-media forum for D&D would be a weekly TV series where you can follow the exploits of an adventuring party and really begin to care about them (ala Firefly).  Xena and Hercules show that this model isn't completely outside the realm of reality/marketability.


----------



## KingOfChaos (Oct 9, 2005)

Menexenus said:
			
		

> And I agree with those who have said that the ideal mass-media forum for D&D would be a weekly TV series where you can follow the exploits of an adventuring party and really begin to care about them (ala Firefly).  Xena and Hercules show that this model isn't completely outside the realm of reality/marketability.




Could give some of us with story hours a chance at becoming script writers


----------



## Hand of Evil (Oct 9, 2005)

Clevage, could have had more clevage.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 9, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Clevage, could have had more clevage.




 I did notice that...but it is not, what tells a story.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 9, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> It probably won't ever happen, but I think that the ideal medium for filmed D&D entertainment would be a weekly, 1-hour TV series  that follows a starting party of 1st level characters as they rise through the levels to attain greater power, wealth and importance.  It would (hopefully) solve a major weakness in the films, which is that I feel no connection or empathy for the characters.  It could be liberally sprinkled with D&Disms and they could also make a companion "Adventure Path" of books to release to let DM's and players try their hand at some of the adventures the characters on the show partake in.




That attempt was tried on several fronts, a irish/scottish based hero...during the times of the Druids. Which lasted two seasons. And there another one, which lasted four or six showings. Theme was a Aurthur-like time. Name for both escape me for the moment.


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 9, 2005)

The first one you speak of is _Roar_, I believe. The fact that it has succeeded sometimes and failed others certainly doesn't rule it out as a possibility, imo.


----------



## Rel (Oct 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> That attempt was tried on several fronts, a irish/scottish based hero...during the times of the Druids. Which lasted two seasons. And there another one, which lasted four or six showings. Theme was a Aurthur-like time. Name for both escape me for the moment.




I'm not talking about just some fantasy series.  I'm talking about something distinctly D&D with all its tropes.  The regular, weekly session is how campaigns tend to be run and so I think it would transfer well to television in terms of capturing the feel of D&D.  Whether that distinct feel would attract enough of an audience to keep itself afloat, I don't know.  But there isn't another weekly serial fantasy show on TV right now is there?


----------



## haakon1 (Oct 9, 2005)

Surprisingly not bad.  I am not ashamed of the game being associated with this movie, unlike with the first one.

One thing I like is that they kept the "Basil Exposition" moments to a minimum.  For our little audience (2 neophyte gamers, 2 veterans, and 1 non-gamer), there were surprises and revelations in the action, but it all hung together.  I like it that, as in Star Wars, they didn't explain the technology, they just did it, as with the repeated use of the "Gust of Wind" spell, and the Gem of True Seeing only being named the second time it was used.

So what level were these guys?  I'd say about 8th.


----------



## maggot (Oct 9, 2005)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> So what level were these guys?  I'd say about 8th.




Considering the teleport spells, someone was at least 9th.


----------



## Templetroll (Oct 9, 2005)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Clevage, could have had more clevage.




"Elminster's Angels" anyone?  Or convince Andy Sidaris (sp?) that Sword & Sorcery can make for a great action pic with babes and explosions!


----------



## maggot (Oct 9, 2005)

LeaderDesslok said:
			
		

> Worst thing about the movie: it's a 90 minute film Sci-Fi turned into 2.5 hours! I actually timed it at one point; there were 9 minutes of movie followed by 7 minutes of commercials, followed by 10 minutes of movie and another 7 minutes of commercials. Despicable.




The worst thing is I recorded the whole thing while I was at work and watched it late into the night, and dang if the tape didn't cut out at the two-hour point.  (I desperately need TiVo.)  Luckily I got to fastforward through the commersials, and there is a replay Thursday so I can catch the end.

I would say it is a solid 4 or maybe even 5 (I'll decide when I see the end).  Nothing to tell your friends about, but not a complete waste of time.


----------



## maggot (Oct 9, 2005)

I think a D&D TV series could be very cool.  I wouldn't want an entirely episodic show like Hercules, but you could follow the characters through their adventures and have the series build to a spectacular conclusion: Think B5, DS9, or the new BSG done in a fantasy style.

The writers might have to play with the time line to make it believable in a story context.  None of this gain twenty-levels in two year stuff.  Wait, I guess they would have to do that, because otherwise it wouldn't be D&D.

So at what character level would D&D cease to be understandable as fantasy to the general public?  (I figure once everyone teleports and flies, it would seem more like superheroes than fantasy.)


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Oct 9, 2005)

I gave it an '8', it was imensly better than the first film (that seems to be a pretty much unanimous opinion  )  It did feel a bit rushed at times, but I think that comes from trying to fit a whole adventure into a 90 minute movie.  The geek in me loved the Greyhawk references.  I'm not sure what the budget was, but I'm guessing quite a bit less than the first moive had.  I think if it would've had a larger budget it would have been visually a lot better.  The only thing that kind of bugged me was that the black dragon was breathing fire.  I was looking forward to see an acidic breath weapon.  I though the white dragon was very cool.  I'll definatly be buying the DVD when it's released.


----------



## JVisgaitis (Oct 9, 2005)

Menexenus said:
			
		

> It was definitely better than the first movie.




Watching paint dry was better then the first movie. I was presently surprised, but it still wasn't good.



			
				Menexenus said:
			
		

> And I agree with those who have said that the ideal mass-media forum for D&D would be a weekly TV series where you can follow the exploits of an adventuring party and really begin to care about them (ala Firefly).




Agreed. I still think its pretty funny that the old cartoon series was better then these movies. Oh well, hopefully it does well enough so that they can make a sequel. They're bound to release a good one sooner or later...


----------



## Fast Learner (Oct 10, 2005)

JVisgaitis said:
			
		

> I still think its pretty funny that the old cartoon series was better then these movies.



Whoof. Well, definitely a matter of opinion. I gave this movie a 6 out of 10 (with a point or two for all the named references), but there wasn't a single episode of the D&D cartoon that I'd rate above a 3.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about just some fantasy series.  I'm talking about something distinctly D&D with all its tropes.  The regular, weekly session is how campaigns tend to be run and so I think it would transfer well to television in terms of capturing the feel of D&D.  Whether that distinct feel would attract enough of an audience to keep itself afloat, I don't know.  But there isn't another weekly serial fantasy show on TV right now is there?




Here is a decent question for you. Considering all the geekiness and campy feel (as a example) that has been projected about the 2 films...now in the can.

What would be the presentation, how you would like it to be, to the non-D&D masses?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Surprisingly not bad.  I am not ashamed of the game being associated with this movie, unlike with the first one.
> One thing I like is that they kept the "Basil Exposition" moments to a minimum.  For our little audience (2 neophyte gamers, 2 veterans, and 1 non-gamer), there were surprises and revelations in the action, but it all hung together.  I like it that, as in Star Wars, they didn't explain the technology, they just did it, as with the repeated use of the "Gust of Wind" spell, and the Gem of True Seeing only being named the second time it was used.
> 
> So what level were these guys?  I'd say about 8th.




No one here, is questioning your guilt


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> For those that missed it, and are now willing to give it a "look see", D&D; WotDG re-airs on SciFi Channel on Thursday, October 13th at 9pm EST  and then again on November 6th at 9pm EST.
> 
> Of course, dates & times are subject to the whims of the powers-that-be at SciFi Channel.
> 
> ...




I hope you are getting a percentage from this...free advertising is an old luxury of the past.


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 10, 2005)

I was very pleasantly surprised. I only watched about 40 minutes of it (which is to say, about 19 minutes of actual film!), but it was good enough that I'll pick up the DVD when it comes out. 

While the effects were cheesy and the dialog was occasionally wincing, the actors for the most part were really trying to sell it. I especailly noted the archmage character (wearing a robe of eyes straight out of the DMG).

Plus, it was really a lot of fun to see game tropes in action - seeing the rogue disabe traps, seeing a detect magic go off, etc...

And I think that a weekly TV series would work with this level of effects. Just get Kevin, or Dorian, or one of our other exemplary story hour writers to write for the series, and we'd really be able to show off what you can do using D&D as a structure.

I thought it was pretty good, all in all. Leaving LotR aside, what other sword and sorcery movie is really top-notch? This was certainly better, acting and effects-wise than the S&S films I saw in my gaming youth (cf. BEASTMASTER, LADYHAWKE, etc.)

Let's hope they make a third, perhaps straight-to-video again, and that the improvement will be just as much as the improvement from 1 to 2.


----------



## Wormwood (Oct 10, 2005)

The best D&D movie remains "Record of the Lodoss Wars"

"Wrath of the Dragon God" is a close second.

/guiltiest pleasure since miller lite


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Oct 10, 2005)

*D&D2: 666 Thumbs Down*

This movie was so thoroughly horrid, it was actually enjoyable. I had a ton of fun dogging it.

For a more detailed breakdown of my gripes, check out this link:

Lame D&Disms in D&D2​


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

Tone down the red, it burns!!! It burns my eyes!!!!


----------



## silentspace (Oct 10, 2005)

It wasn't so much bad as it was really, really boring.  OK, I don't know what that means.  Alright, it was bad.  Really, really bad.  I tried watching, I really did, but everything else on TV was just so much more interesting.


----------



## Just_Hal (Oct 10, 2005)

I DVR'd it and me and Dagger75 watched it, only saving grace was we FF through commercials and could make fun of it together.

It was like bad porn, just wanted to see the fighting and action, the writing while truer to gaming was not good and besides the lich and the ghosts he summoned during the "Indiana Jones sequence" it was fairly lame.

BUT waaaaaay better than the original.  Would I watch it again?  NO.
Would I watch a 3rd if they did it?  YES.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Oct 10, 2005)

It had two things that made it far superior to the first.

1) a plot
2) acting

I liked it, I also thought the D&D ad about the rules was placed appropriately, as they broke both 1 & 2 in the movie right after they aired it.  The references to the "Ghost Tower of Iverness" and "The Shrine of the Kuo Toa" were kind of nice.  A little corny yes, but it actually made me feel like the people that filmed the movie were actual players.  If they aren't they obviously did their homework, unlike the last time.

A couple of "interesting" takes on a couple things, but, overall, I thought it was done very well!  I enjoyed this one, which I cannot say about the first one.


----------



## ddvmor (Oct 10, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> It probably won't ever happen, but I think that the ideal medium for filmed D&D entertainment would be a weekly, 1-hour TV series ...




I vaguely recall something about the guys that made Farscape toying with the idea of a Sword & Sorcery type show around the time that Farscape got cancelled.  Shouldn't think they'd stick to D&D rules though.

Whatever happened to that idea, anyway?


----------



## qstor (Oct 10, 2005)

I gave it a 7, but I'll probably buy the DVD anyways 

Mike


----------



## Rel (Oct 10, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> What would be the presentation, how you would like it to be, to the non-D&D masses?




The way I see it, the D&D aspects of it are simply background material for the story being told.  If the story is good and the characters are interesting then the show will be good regardless of any D&D trappings.  Yes, we like it when we see the Wizard cast Shield or Magic Missile or Burning Hands.  And we like it when the Rogue disarms a trap.  And we like it when the Barbarian goes into a Rage.  I don't see why any of those things would be difficult for the non-gamer public to consume.

So long as it is internally consistant, the game oriented aspects of the show needn't be intrusive.  And built from the ground up (i.e. starting from 1st level characters), the non-gamers will be introduced to those elements when they are easiest to comprehend anyway.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

*Handing a pen and paper, followed by a Word proccesor program, followed by all current WOtc material available on hand.*

Then it can be said, to see such things, will require a individual who has been there and back.

I await your screenplay.  



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> The way I see it, the D&D aspects of it are simply background material for the story being told.  If the story is good and the characters are interesting then the show will be good regardless of any D&D trappings.  Yes, we like it when we see the Wizard cast Shield or Magic Missile or Burning Hands.  And we like it when the Rogue disarms a trap.  And we like it when the Barbarian goes into a Rage.   I don't see why any of those things would be difficult for the non-gamer public to consume.
> 
> So long as it is internally consistant, the game oriented aspects of the show needn't be intrusive.  And built from the ground up (i.e. starting from 1st level characters), the non-gamers will be introduced to those elements when they are easiest to comprehend anyway.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

A 5 it got from me...and I am very happy...I don't and will not get the DVDs  

And two other friends, who use to rib me about the movie, well...they are up chucking on it now. Ah...the *terribel*medicine you dispense, should be fine for your own intaking.  



			
				qstor said:
			
		

> I gave it a 7, but I'll probably buy the DVD anyways
> 
> Mike


----------



## Rel (Oct 10, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> I await your screenplay.




HERE YOU GO.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

LOL...LOL   Sayeth the word, and it is *there*.



			
				Rel said:
			
		

> HERE YOU GO.


----------



## werk (Oct 10, 2005)

Definitely better than the first movie.

I thought this movie was very true to D&D, to a fault.  Too simple, too cliche.  It fulfills every outsider's stereotype.

I think they are heading in the right direction, product support, but they should have someone who can write a good adventure involved from the beginning.  This can be the biggest commercial for D&D ever or it can just be a laugable aside.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Oct 10, 2005)

I summon my plot device to defeat you, well I summon my plot device to defeat your plot device who will win!!!   Um it was terrible.


----------



## Jdvn1 (Oct 10, 2005)

Doesn't "1. Wretched. That was worse than the first one!" imply that the first one was at least a 2?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 10, 2005)

Ya!! What a plot this is, a plot trying to plot against another plot....Woes plot me...  



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> I summon my plot device to defeat you, well I summon my plot device to defeat your plot device who will win!!!   Um it was terrible.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 10, 2005)

I gave it an 8. It was a pretty good movie, IMO. Nice to see some of the game mechanics in action. The lich could've used better makeup or a redesign. I'm not sure what a lich would look like but I doubt that was it.... The characters were ok. Nothing spectacular but made a good, well-rounded party. At least until we don't have the cleric anymore... and now we're totally screwed! Damodar was a bit better in this one. The guys in the group thought the barbarian, Lux, was hot. But there wasn't anyone for us ladies to fawn over... Barek was eh. And the preist would've been better without that racing tattoo he had. "I take out my mighty hammer and fell this tree in the name of Obad-Hai!!"   (not what I'd call a quote but paraphrasing what happened....)

I liked the cute little D&D commercials. They were funny!


----------



## Rel (Oct 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> But there wasn't anyone for us ladies to fawn over... Barek was eh. And the preist would've been better without that racing tattoo he had. "I take out my mighty hammer and fell this tree in the name of Obad-Hai!!"




No love for the Rogue, huh?


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Oct 11, 2005)

Gave it a 5.  It was pretty hilarious, but kinda the same way Manos is hilarious.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 11, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> No love for the Rogue, huh?



You can tell, when they keep calling him by the  profession name, and not his own.


----------



## Rel (Oct 11, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> You can tell, when they keep calling him by the  profession name, and not his own.




I was just pointing up the fact that chicks talk a good game about what's important in a mate.  But then along comes a guy like Nim who has good career prospects and a nice sense of humor and he's not even mentioned because he doesn't look like prince charming.

Hell, he's probably even a good dancer.


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 11, 2005)

Rel said:
			
		

> I was just pointing up the fact that chicks talk a good game about what's important in a mate.  But then along comes a guy like Nim who has good career prospects and a nice sense of humor and he's not even mentioned because he doesn't look like prince charming.
> 
> Hell, he's probably even a good dancer.





And judging by two of his former associates (in his first scene), he knows just when to act the wallflower, as well.


----------



## jasper (Oct 11, 2005)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> This movie was so thoroughly horrid, it was actually enjoyable. I had a ton of fun dogging it.
> 
> For a more detailed breakdown of my gripes, check out this link:
> 
> Lame D&Disms in D&D2​



I gave a 9. Armour was not bad or over done fantasy armour. Costumes look like they were actual clothing most of time. and the cleric was KILLED!

in reply of menace post.
What really bugged me about this movie was its blatant use of so-called "D&Disms" that were horribly inaccurate; for example:

1. The hero's wife mentions that no one in the kingdom is skilled with divine magic, ..no she mention no mages were skilled in divine. So no dual class mage,clerics.

2. .., but they also retreat from an onslaught of darkmantles.. it fitted the scene they need to get to other side and they time was running.

3. Jubliex ...? He has no item creation feats, nor does he have arms to build with.... You reaching here. Just because he made does not mean he actually laid mortar to brick.

4. Damodar [an undead Fighter who has been around for over 100 years] absolutely sucks in combat.... Good point but did you want to wait another 10 minutes of commericals to see the combat.

5. Black dracoliches do not breathe fire. Was a draco lich or dragon god? Gods can do what they want.


----------



## Odhanan (Oct 11, 2005)

From a general public standpoint, it wasn't outstanding but explains what D&D is about, IMO.

From a geek standpoint, I found it surprisingly cool. I loved to see the game itself on screen. It wasn't just a story using some D&D icons. It was actually a movie showing D&D. With the characters' complementarity, the spells, the magic items, etc.


----------



## Kelek72 (Oct 11, 2005)

I thought Damodar should have done more than ..say...NOTHING?
He stole the orb, sat on his butt waiting for the right phase of the moon, and got beat in every encounter he had with the heroes. The Lich walked up to his throne and became his most effective weapon otherwise he wouldn't have had any success at all in the entire movie!

I thought the movie was pretty good though!


----------



## Knightfall (Oct 13, 2005)

Just thought I'd post this link for those that liked "Wrath of the Dragon God".

*Dungeons & Dragons Movies Yahoo Group*
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/DungeonsAndDragons-the-Movie/

The group now has a new look and has over 200 members. We're always looking for new blood to stir the pot and discuss either "D&D: The Movie" or "Wrath of the Dragon God". I've posted a few new polls and I'll continue to make the group the place to be for the latest news and rumors related to the Dungeons & Dragons movie series.

Our only rule is that starting flame wars is a definite "no no". However, I expect the group to become "heated: as fans of the first movie clash with fans of the second movie.  

Feel free to join.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Oct 13, 2005)

*Rating: 9-8=?*

Me and my roommate are making time to watch it on Thursday; we could use a good laugh.


----------



## Droogie (Oct 14, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> That might be so if your conception of the "ideal medium" includes the same characters being used from tale to tale, and having the adventures progressively leveled.  I prefer seeing new groups each time with out-of-sequence adventures.  I'm happy with a high-level adventure one year followed by a low-level adventure with totally different characters a couple years later, followed by yet another group in a medium-level adventure.  I'm not interested in seeing Herc an Iolaus , or Xena and Gabby, wandering from town to town, finding love and adventure around each bend.  Not that that was bad but it's been done.  I prefer the longer form stories with a larger variety of characters.




That might be your personal preference in gaming or literature, but I don't think it would work for a TV series. Most people tune in to a show to see how things are panning out with characters they know and enjoy. Not to say that there was never a successful anthology series, but most TV shows follow the old tried-and-true formula because it works.


----------



## Knightfall (Oct 17, 2005)

bumpage.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Oct 17, 2005)

I gave it a 5.   It's not bad, but it's not good...it's just there.   A lot better than the first one.  At least it had a lot of obvious D&D'isms going on.


----------



## Altalazar (Oct 18, 2005)

Good in theory.  Bad in execution.  I gave it a four.  I wanted to give it a three, but I give them a star up for being so true to the game mechanics and making them an interesting part of the story.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 1, 2005)

Just under one week before it's shown again on SciFi Channel. (Sun., Nov 6th, 9/8c.) Then two days later it comes out on DVD!

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## KenM (Nov 1, 2005)

I heard that the DVD has like another 15 minutes or so that Sci Fi cut. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 1, 2005)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard that the DVD has like another 15 minutes or so that Sci Fi cut. Can anyone confirm?




Some say the SciFi Channel version was cut, some say it wasn't, that there were just a lot of commercials. The only way we'll know is when the DVD comes out and those that saw it on SciFi Channel can compare the two.

I guess it's wait and see.

KF72


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Nov 1, 2005)

I've discovered that with high-grade mary jane the movie moves up to a 6.5 or 7 out of 10.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 1, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I've discovered that with high-grade mary jane the movie moves up to a 6.5 or 7 out of 10.




ROTFL!  

Anything that improves its overall rating is good.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 4, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I've discovered that with high-grade mary jane the movie moves up to a 6.5 or 7 out of 10.




ROFL

Not my cup of tea. Enjoyed it well enough without the mary jane.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 4, 2005)

When does the DVD come out again? Netflix says Feb, while I thought it was sooner...


----------



## devilbat (Nov 4, 2005)

According to Knightfall1972, in post #88, November 8th.


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 5, 2005)

Yeah, but like I said, Netflix says Feb.

" Releases on DVD Feb 07, 2006"

http://www.netflix.com/MovieDisplay?movieid=70040324

I thought perhaps it got changed since that post that said the 8th...


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 5, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Yeah, but like I said, Netflix says Feb.
> 
> " Releases on DVD Feb 07, 2006"
> 
> ...




The release date seems to be in question.

IMDB and Amazon have said that the DVDs release date is Nov 8th, 2005. However, someone else noticed, the other day, that Wrath of the Dragon God has two release dates listed on Amazon, now. one for the original rlease date and the second for February 7th, 2006. I cannot find any evidence of the second release date on Amazon.

Perhaps its an International release date. I can't say for certain.

KF72


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 5, 2005)

Okay, after looking on Amazon.ca I found the following link...

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/AS...67658/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/701-1506850-3474722

It appears that Feb 7, 2006 is the Canadian release date. CDN Price is $20.99.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 6, 2005)

Wrath of the Dragon, Tonight, Sunday November 6th, 9/8C, on SciFi Channel. DVD comes out on Tuesday for those in the states (or able to order from online companies such as Amazon.com). Canadian release date, as noted in my last post, is February 7th, 2006, as per Amazon.ca.

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 6, 2005)

I initially wasn't going to get the DVD release, but since it has some actual D&D material that ties-in to the movie (which, IIRC, the first one didn't), then I think I'll take the plunge. Especially considering the other tie-in in _Dungeon_ #129.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

Wow, you are easy to hook...LOL  



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I initially wasn't going to get the DVD release, but since it has some actual D&D material that ties-in to the movie (which, IIRC, the first one didn't), then I think I'll take the plunge. Especially considering the other tie-in in _Dungeon_ #129.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 7, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Wow, you are easy to hook...LOL




Yeah, offer me new official D&D material, and I'm a whore.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

...mercy, must remind myself to hide my goodies from you.  


			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Yeah, offer me new official D&D material, and I'm a whore.


----------



## Alzrius (Nov 7, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> ...mercy, must remind myself to hide my goodies from you.




Why? Are you going to offer me some products?


----------



## Endur (Nov 7, 2005)

Not sure about the acting, but the story seemed appropriate to D&D.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

Given the statement you made about yourself...for the safety and sanity of the world at large.

NO COMMENT!!!  



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> Why? Are you going to offer me some products?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

Well, after seeing for a 2nd time. There were the moments of being funny. But...it is hard for actors and even directors to try to emulate material like this. I understand that this film is being _used_ to _educate_ the next generation on what the game is. *Could have done it better...but that is how it is*

The majority of the characters were being called by their names, except for *Nim*, aka rogue. Heh, once again, pushing a Icon above everyone else, why? Cause the rogue gets more skill points than other character class. So, being a rogue is cool...*sigh*

And wait, when does a barbarian wears highlighted makeup  



			
				Endur said:
			
		

> Not sure about the acting, but the story seemed appropriate to D&D.


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 7, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And wait, when does a barbarian wears highlighted makeup




Quibble. Quibble.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 7, 2005)

Seeing it for the first time last night, I was actually suprised that it was that good. After the let down of the first theatrical release and this one beong made for TV, I was afraid it would be worse. There was enough qality moments and references to D&D that I'll spend $20 on Tuesday


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

Well, keeping my vow...it will not be placed into my collection.  



			
				Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> Seeing it for the first time last night, I was actually suprised that it was that good. After the let down of the first theatrical release and this one beong made for TV, I was afraid it would be worse. There was enough qality moments and references to D&D that I'll spend $20 on Tuesday


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 7, 2005)

The Elf I can understand, the fighter and Nim had the face of what their profession do to them. But Lux??
I can quibble...  


			
				Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Quibble. Quibble.


----------



## takasi (Nov 8, 2005)

Anyone picking up the DVD today?  Has anyone seen it in stores?

Is the US date today or in February?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 8, 2005)

Today's date for US, February for Canada(?) and possible overseas.


			
				takasi said:
			
		

> Anyone picking up the DVD today?  Has anyone seen it in stores?
> 
> Is the US date today or in February?


----------



## KenM (Nov 8, 2005)

takasi said:
			
		

> Anyone picking up the DVD today?  Has anyone seen it in stores?
> 
> Is the US date today or in February?




  I just got back from Best Buy, they said they moved it to sometime in Jan.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 9, 2005)

Whoa!! Why???


			
				KenM said:
			
		

> I just got back from Best Buy, they said they moved it to sometime in Jan.


----------



## Arnwyn (Nov 9, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Today's date for US, February for Canada(?)



Wow. I've never seen this before.

Canada always gets DVD (and all other) releases day and date as the US.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Nov 9, 2005)

Amazon has the  DVD  on sale.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 9, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Wow. I've never seen this before.
> 
> Canada always gets DVD (and all other) releases day and date as the US.




Or could they be referring to the European release date? Which doesn't make sense either... to wait that long for overseas release... Either that or Amazon being stupid and the person who wrote that page was confuzzled and no one came back to edit it...


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 10, 2005)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Or could they be referring to the European release date? Which doesn't make sense either... to wait that long for overseas release... Either that or Amazon being stupid and the person who wrote that page was confuzzled and no one came back to edit it...




At this point, anything is possible. However, it is Amazon.ca that has the February 7th release date. As for Best Buy (and maybe Walmart), they might have told to push back the release date. Who knows.  

KF72


----------



## Knightfall (Nov 10, 2005)

*Interesting!?!*

Okay, Best Buy's (American) website lists the DVDs release date as February 7th, 2006.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7543928&type=product&id=1490814

Strange.

Hmm, perhaps the Amazon.com release is an exclusive. :\


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 11, 2005)

Judging from my account at Amazon, it is just a regular selling item.



			
				Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Okay, Best Buy's (American) website lists the DVDs release date as February 7th, 2006.
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7543928&type=product&id=1490814
> 
> ...


----------



## MKMcArtor (Nov 15, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I initially wasn't going to get the DVD release, but since it has some actual D&D material that ties-in to the movie (which, IIRC, the first one didn't), then I think I'll take the plunge. Especially considering the other tie-in in _Dungeon_ #129.




Yeah, I wish they'd hurry up and release this. I want an IMDB page, darnit!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 16, 2005)

Robert...I posted a finding to why the DVD is not fully out on the shelves, yet...check the Yahoo site.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 18, 2005)

I've got it. Bought it last Thurs at Best Buy. It cost $23. Ouch.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 18, 2005)

Sounds like a rip?   



			
				Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> I've got it. Bought it last Thurs at Best Buy. It cost $23. Ouch.


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 10, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Robert...I posted a finding to why the DVD is not fully out on the shelves, yet...check the Yahoo site.




Thanks for the info, Truth Seeker. I must have missed that message (#231) while reading through the yahoo group. I'm reposting it here as a FYI for everyone.



> From: "The Humble Olven", a.k.a. Truth Seeker
> Date: Wed Nov 16, 2005  12:16 am
> Subject: Why No DVD sale...
> 
> ...




Also...

Here's an interesting fact that I gleaned off the WotDG messageboard over at IMDb. The message is a few weeks old, but it's still interesting.



> *D&D 2 opens in Russia*
> by - bjderr1972 (Wed Nov 23 2005 12:32:40)
> 
> I was checking out boxofficemojo and D&D 2 WOTDG opened at #10 with 157,000 dollars.




So, it does appear that WotDG is getting some screen time in International markets, as well as being shown on SciFi Channel in the US.

Here's another interesting little fact, FirstLook International did another screening of WotDG at *Broadway Mann Criterion #5* (1313 Third Street Promenade) on 11/2 and 11/8. That sounds like it could be somewhere in New York, but since I really don't know anything about NY that I don't learn on Law & Order, it could be anywhere, I guess.

Anyone know for certain?

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 10, 2005)

BTW, the DVDs price & availablity has changed slightly on Amazon.com.

*List Price:* $24.98
*Price:* *$16.99*
*Availability:* Usually ships within 6 to 10 days. To ensure delivery by December 23, choose Standard Shipping. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.

Hmm...


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 10, 2005)

BTW, here are the current "official" release dates listed on IMDb.

Country (Date)
Thailand (September 2005) - bootleg Elemental Might version, I believe
Russia (6 October 2005)
USA (8 October 2005) - TV premiere
Philippines (12 October 2005) - Manila
Philippines (2 November 2005) - Davao
France (1 February 2006)

Also, I looked through the entire December and January schedules at SciFi Channel's website, and found no indication that WotDG is going to be on again. It's not in the schedule anywhere that I can find it.

That seems strange, if SciFi wants to keep the rights because rating have been great. You'd think they'd have it as a focal point for a Saturday or Sunday movie night with other fantasy movies.

Anyway, just my opinion.

KF72


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 10, 2005)

NOOOOOOO!!!, My Elvish secret now given away....


----------



## Knightfall (Dec 10, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> NOOOOOOO!!!, My Elvish secret now given away....




Um, was it really suppose to be a secret?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Dec 10, 2005)

Too late now....  its okay.



			
				Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Um, was it really suppose to be a secret?


----------

