# Dungeons & Dragons III?!?



## nikolai (Jan 7, 2005)

This is old news, but I haven't seem it discussed here. Possibly because of stunned silence.

Dungeons & Dragons III has been greenlit. Yes, I know, I can't think why either? Dungeons & Dragons II is in still post production. And for some reason they're keeping very quite about the details. The third film stars Bruce Payne as the baddie who we now know doesn't die at the end of the second film (sorry to spoil it for you all).

http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/newsstory.asp?news_id=16336


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 7, 2005)

nikolai said:
			
		

> This is old news, but I haven't seem it discussed here. Possibly because of stunned silence.
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons III has been greenlit. Yes, I know, I can't think why either? Dungeons & Dragons II is in still post production. And for some reason they're keeping very quite about the details. The third film stars Bruce Payne as the baddie who we now know doesn't die at the end of the second film (sorry to spoil it for you all).
> 
> http://www.empireonline.co.uk/site/news/newsstory.asp?news_id=16336



There is no hope for this franchise...no hope....no hope....*walks away with the gloom overhead*


----------



## Krug (Jan 7, 2005)

They're probably shotting it at the same time. I think they want to make the actors commit before they see the movie..


----------



## nikolai (Jan 7, 2005)

They're not shooting it at the same time (shooting's finished on II, and hasn't started on III). D&DII is slated for a cinema release next year, this is a serious attempt at a franchise. Surely they must be aware of the universal derision the first film, and anouncement of the second film was met with? They are calling the actors back, you may well be on to something with regards to them getting the actors to sign the contracts before they could see the second film.


----------



## Zulithe (Jan 7, 2005)

I really hope the creative people behind these films (II and III) at least TRY to find out what D&D fans think of the franchise. The way it's going, this will end up being the worst fantasy trilogy of all time unless significant changes are made. Just because it is low-budget doesn't mean it has to be crap (look at all the excellent indie movies out there).


----------



## thalmin (Jan 7, 2005)

I saw the first movie because I felt it my professional duty to see it. I sat through it. Once. I have no intention of doing it again. Ever.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 7, 2005)

thalmin said:
			
		

> I saw the first movie because I felt it my professional duty to see it. I sat through it. Once. I have no intention of doing it again. Ever.




Holey!!! Hey, we have a vet here, give him/her a solider's pay


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 7, 2005)

Zulithe said:
			
		

> I really hope the creative people behind these films (II and III) at least TRY to find out what D&D fans think of the franchise. The way it's going, this will end up being the worst fantasy trilogy of all time unless significant changes are made. Just because it is low-budget doesn't mean it has to be crap (look at all the excellent indie movies out there).




Search for Knight Fall 1972, he ran an entire thread dealing with D&D2 production.

As for creative people, I believe it was reported that some Wotc people were there on the set for D&D2, but nothing more came of it(besides the fact, they were to help in whatever capacity).

As for the worst...hmmmm, how to put it, yes...it is, and has been from the first, to the fact now, that D&D3 is pre-production, with D&D2 done in production, there has been no release of film shots, no staff interviews...nothing, and nothing.

That does not bode well from the start.

Budget was small, under 20 mil. last heard.

And now to the point why, the D&D movie has a problem in choosing a setting...there is just too much out there, I will not named them all, I believe that everyone is quitely aware of what is out there.

I know, everyone has their favorite, but it is a hassle in the selection, and if it was possible from me, I would sell the rights of each one to different studios. Who are interested of course.

But again, that will not happen, cause the brand is under one title only, and mercy, unless someone here, who is well to do...turns around and buy back the rights...don't expect a miracle to happen...wait...unless PJ and New Line Cinema happen by chance....NAAAAAhhhhh.

A fool's dream...and a nightmare to the true fans, who must suffer at the failings of those, who cannot go pass the borders of their limited imagination.

I saw the first one, with a opened mind...guess who closed it?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 7, 2005)

Though I'm a fan of _Forgotten Realms,_ I'd like to see _Greyhawk_ in motion picture. That setting is gettting a bum rap these days. They should have gone with that instead of Courtney Solomon's homebrewed setting.

More importantly, put them in a real dungeon this time around. I'm not asking for something as grand as Moria, but at least shouldn't be a mini-dungeon inside a thieves guild.


----------



## Eternalknight (Jan 7, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Though I'm a fan of _Forgotten Realms,_ I'd like to see _Greyhawk_ in motion picture. That setting is gettting a bum rap these days. They should have gone with that instead of Courtney Solomon's homebrewed setting.




I'm still hoping to see a Dragonlance movie one of these days.


----------



## ssampier (Jan 8, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Though I'm a fan of _Forgotten Realms,_ I'd like to see _Greyhawk_ in motion picture. That setting is gettting a bum rap these days. They should have gone with that instead of Courtney Solomon's homebrewed setting.
> 
> More importantly, put them in a real dungeon this time around. I'm not asking for something as grand as Moria, but at least shouldn't be a mini-dungeon inside a thieves guild.





I agree! Forgotten Realms has too many fans for a FR movie to work. No matter how good, you're going to disappoint someone ("Drizzt doesn't look like that", "Elminister wouldn't do/say that"). Greyhawk would be good since it is default D&D.

Yes, a dungeon would be great. I'm thinking Castle Greyhawk or parts of the Temple of Elemental Evil (moathouse maybe?).


----------



## haiiro (Jan 8, 2005)

ssampier said:
			
		

> I agree! Forgotten Realms has too many fans for a FR movie to work. No matter how good, you're going to disappoint someone ("Drizzt doesn't look like that", "Elminister wouldn't do/say that"). Greyhawk would be good since it is default D&D.




I'm not sure this is true -- look at the LotR films: it may not look the way you imagined it (although for me, it does), but they're still damned good films. I don't know many people who liked the books who didn't also like the movies.

Granted, doing the same thing with the Realms would require a good director -- something I don't see happening to the D&D movie franchise anytime soon.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 8, 2005)

It's more than a director, though he or she is the showrunner. You need good screenwriters. The story and character has to matter more than just visual effects. Also, do not put things in the movies that may be blatantly gratuitous like those beholders.

And try to spend more on a decent dungeon this time around, will you?


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Jan 8, 2005)

When I think of the phrase 'throwing good money after bad' these films will come to mind.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 9, 2005)

ONe of the things that killed D&D movie was that, to me, it wasn't even finished when they released it.  If you watch the DVD and deleted scenes, each and every single scene is a key plot element that NEEDED to be in the final movie.  Had they had those scenes it would have at least been a more coherent movie, to me, and it would have gotten a 4 star instead of a 1.

At least Bruce Payne won't be wearing blue lipstick in the second movie.    And hopefully no purple skinned races that we don't care about.  

As for Dragonlance and FR...they need to do the first three in the Chronicles series and they should focus on the Icewind Dale Trilogy story for FR...at least to start.


----------



## Goodsport (Jan 9, 2005)

Will Zoe McLellan 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 be returning in Parts II and III? 


-G


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 9, 2005)

Keeper of Secrets said:
			
		

> When I think of the phrase 'throwing good money after bad' these films will come to mind.



The same could be said of numerous Dracula movies.  

It's more than just money. You need qualified creative people. It's not like I'm asking for epic-style _LOTR_ type films. It can be as enjoyable as _Pirates of the Caribbean._


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 10, 2005)

So long as, after the fact, _Dragon_ gives us stats for the relevant characters and new magic from the movies, it won't be a total loss (IMHO, since I love official stat-conversions).


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 10, 2005)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Will Zoe McLellan
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah...yes, she was quite cute.

How to say this...after a while, the only thing I watched, instead of mugging my friend for his Game Boy, was the female cast.

Brad


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2005)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Will Zoe McLellan
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only if she wants to wreck her acting career. Then again, just anyone is entitled to make one mistake, she's entitled to be in one bad movie.

Oh, wait, she already did.


----------



## Errant (Jan 10, 2005)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> I'm still hoping to see a Dragonlance movie one of these days.




Me too! If there's any D&D adventure/storyline out there capable of being represented as an epic fantasy saga its Dragonlance.


----------



## Zappo (Jan 10, 2005)

Plus, the first Tracy/Hickman Dragonlance books have some following outside the RPG audience.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 10, 2005)

I had managed to avoid the first movie until a few weeks back.  My wife and I could not go with the rest of our gaming group the night they all went, and after they came back I decided to save the $$.  Unfortunately a few weeks back my wife, having completely forgetten that everyone in our group hated the movie, saw it at the library and brought it home.  I decided to stay up with her after getting the kids to bed and watch it.  When my son woke up crying I told my wife to keep watching and volunteered to get him back to sleep.  WhenI came back my wife had paused the movie for me so I would not miss anything.  I think that by itself could be grounds for divorce   

In the end I had no choice but to agree that it was a pathetically bad movie.  Had it just been some generic fantasy film I would have been able to accept it as a bad "B" film that had a few fun and interesting elements, but because they put that D&D label on it, I could not but help to expect more and be sorely disappointed.

I look to the second (and now third as well) film with dread that a great game will again be associated with something cheap, silly and poorly written.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 10, 2005)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Will Zoe McLellan
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, she elected not to be a part of this franchise...word did get back to her probably...people were not pleased with the film.

*oh, once again, Ranger Reg, ye have a Community Supporter Account*


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 10, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> No, she elected not to be a part of this franchise...word did get back to her probably...people were not pleased with the film.




Also, per IMDB, she's now a cast member on JAG (apparently the Admiral's yeoman).  So, that's probably a much better thing to do than to do another BAD movie.

Brad


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 10, 2005)

Well, I didn't have to go to IMdB to find that out. Been watching _JAG_ since it first appeared on NBC and moved to CBS.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 10, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I had managed to avoid the first movie until a few weeks back. My wife and I could not go with the rest of our gaming group the night they all went, and after they came back I decided to save the $$. Unfortunately a few weeks back my wife, having completely forgetten that everyone in our group hated the movie, saw it at the library and brought it home. I decided to stay up with her after getting the kids to bed and watch it. When my son woke up crying I told my wife to keep watching and volunteered to get him back to sleep. WhenI came back my wife had paused the movie for me so I would not miss anything. I think that by itself could be grounds for divorce
> 
> In the end I had no choice but to agree that it was a pathetically bad movie. Had it just been some generic fantasy film I would have been able to accept it as a bad "B" film that had a few fun and interesting elements, but because they put that D&D label on it, I could not but help to expect more and be sorely disappointed.
> 
> I look to the second (and now third as well) film with dread that a great game will again be associated with something cheap, silly and poorly written.




Kudos to the bravery of what you should...if ever anyone in my family/friend brought that as a gift to me(and nobody*family wise* knows I detest it greatly), the garbage it will go, and the shocked looks from them, will give the impression that I hate it, when they know I played the game.  They just...will not understand the complexity of it.

Brrrrrr....a day I will dread.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 11, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Well, I didn't have to go to IMdB to find that out. Been watching _JAG_ since it first appeared on NBC and moved to CBS.




It'd probably help if I watched broadcast TV at all.  As is, the only time I've watched broadcast since Buffy/Angel went off is at the gym.

Brad


----------



## Blue_Kryptonite (Jan 11, 2005)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. I liked the D&D movie, and so did my entire group. It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.


----------



## reanjr (Jan 11, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> And now to the point why, the D&D movie has a problem in choosing a setting...there is just too much out there, I will not named them all, I believe that everyone is quitely aware of what is out there.




It wouldn't make business sense to use one of the preexisting settings.  You would fracture an already small audience ("I would have gone to see a Greyhawk movie, but this Forgotten Realms stuff is crap...").  Also, if they truly want to make a franchise out of the movies, they are sure to license the characters to a dozen other companies.  I doubt they would want to give that kind of control to a another company with an established line.  Also, if successful, they can harness some synergy by creating a new setting based on the movie.


----------



## reanjr (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr. Anomalous said:
			
		

> I've said it before, I'll say it again. I liked the D&D movie, and so did my entire group. It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.




I noticed that as well.  It didn't make me like the movie, though.  It just made it worth it to me to go see.  Once.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr. Anomalous said:
			
		

> I've said it before, I'll say it again. I liked the D&D movie, and so did my entire group. It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.



More power to you. Now can I interest you in a piece of real estate in Hawaii? You get a close scenic view of an active volcano, literally in your backyard. And think of the geothermal radiant heating, you could roast a turkey right in your living room.


----------



## Zappo (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr. Anomalous said:
			
		

> It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.



That's what I thought to - any number of real campaign arcs from when I was 13.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr. Anomalous said:
			
		

> I've said it before, I'll say it again. I liked the D&D movie, and so did my entire group. It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.



Not in any of my campaigns.

I still think back to one of my local movie reviewer's comments in the newspaper (slight paraphrase): "Surely what happens at the tables of D&D players must be better than what goes on in this movie."

Yes indeed. Yes indeed.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 11, 2005)

*Commentary*

Well, the only way I see anything coming to the screen in the future, will have to be in anime form...it is the logical course.

The scenes could be much better, some liberties could be taken(hopefully not much) but, any gaming world could be be easily fitted into this format(too many _coulds' _ ).

Doing it live action, will not bring it justice, but that is my _dollar_ on that view. And also, since I acquired a copy of _Lady Death_, anime from Taiwan or Japan will be best choice to do these worlds.

And if, by some flipping miracle(don't hold your breath on that one), if someone(s) ever get the licenses to do this...I would say, start from the beginning of each world...a simply reason, reeducate or educate the _next generation_ that comes after us...maybe with a more expansive view(stuff not mentioned before) for enticement.

But as usual, it comes down to profit, profit...marketable profit and fees, the sad equation in all this.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, the field too wide, too diverse, D&D has become indirectly, a victim of their own success.

Would I love to see something based on it...faithfully, of course.

But look at it from a investor's POV....which will bring me back my investment?

And lastily, it has come to my understanding, that the money made back from the first one(in DVD, VHS), was done overseas, not in the States, so guess where the ad market will be hitting again.

If anyone knows the game player (of D&D) popualtion ratio to the US vs Europe ratio, lay it on me, it would be a interesting analysis to see.

Now, I have answer my own question to why, there hasn't been news leaks on the film, set, cast interviews or pics...because they know, that the US crowd is too tough to please...well the majority that is...so why bother sharing anything about it. Or from the look of it...has the news buffs, hunters, shown any interest in it?

*Compare this to Batman and the like*

And finally, is there a salvation point, yes...go anime, do the genre with love and dedication(yeah...good luck on that), and we will see.

I will be surprised at all...if someone thinks of this...and do something about it, but wait, it is not their fault either....the fans are including as well. I haven't seen yet, anything of fans protesting the treatment/quality of this beloved game*correction: done so for the first in reviews and forums, but not seen for the current, yet, in major ways. e.g. like news ads, etc. etc.*

Fans did for Farscape.
Displeasure was voiced for Green Latern, the first concept.
The same done for Iron Man, a timberlake fall 
They doing it for B5.

If there has been current protest, point me towards the direction of it, please. But to be fair, none of us knew of what to expect from the first film, but now that fact has now passed...again, we the fans, _the current buying power_, has not voiced a stronger word of defiance.

Why?


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 12, 2005)

Dr. Anomalous said:
			
		

> I've said it before, I'll say it again. I liked the D&D movie, and so did my entire group. It genuinely felt like the real transcription of the events of any number of real campaign arcs.




Me too! But everyone who took the time to read through my D&D II: The Elemental Might thread already knows that. (Hi Truth Seeker.)   

Anyway, I can tell you that the only actor who came back for D&D II was Bruce Payne. His character, Damodar, is the BBEG and is now suppose to be undead (from what I've heard). I don't know if he's going to be in D&D III.

Regardless, the people with the rights are seeing these movies as a low-budget franchise that might get more money if D&D II does well overseas. [The first D&D movie was a bust in North America but it went over big in Europe (can you say France) and sold enough videos and DVDs to end up in the black.] I don't know what kind of budget D&D III will have but I'll do some reseach and see what I can dig up. (See below.)

Cheers!

KF72


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 12, 2005)

Found this little tidbit over on FilmForce. It's from early November but sheds some light on D&D II regarding being in theaters. (See highlighted end section.) - KF72



> *A Third Dungeons & Dragons?*
> _Fantasy flop gets a second sequel._
> 
> November 03, 2004 - Who knew, after the lackluster performance of the original *Dungeons & Dragons* movie, that it'd spawn two sequels?  The second film in the franchise, *Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might*, has recently wrapped production.  Now, according to today's Variety, a third film is in the works at Zinc Entertainment, a division of Joel Silver's Silver Pictures.  There are no further details available at this time, but just the news that there will be another sequel is shocking enough.
> ...




* Mark Dymond was not in the first one. I wish people would do their research before speaking/writing. Oh well, just a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2005)

Knightfall1972 said:
			
		

> Regardless, the people with the rights are seeing these movies as a low-budget franchise that might get more money if D&D II does well overseas. [The first D&D movie was a bust in North America but it went over big in Europe (can you say France) and sold enough videos and DVDs to end up in the black.] I don't know what kind of budget D&D III will have but I'll do some reseach and see what I can dig up. (See below.)



And yet I'm not surprised by your statement. I mean, look at Germany. They considered David Hasselhoff a pop music icon. I mean, WTF?

And Merry Ole England, you can have Madonna. France can have Molly Ringwald.

But I admit, America have its own faults. We have J-Lo. Blame it on the mainstream.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And yet I'm not surprised by your statement. I mean, look at Germany. They considered David Hasselhoff a pop music icon. I mean, WTF?
> 
> And Merry Ole England, you can have Madonna. France can have Molly Ringwald.
> 
> But I admit, America have its own faults. We have J-Lo. Blame it on the mainstream.




So true.

BTW, the old D&D II thread has been resurrected (I just can't help myself) and the last post includes a small image of what looks to be the first movie poster for the film. - KF72


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> And yet I'm not surprised by your statement. I mean, look at Germany. They considered David Hasselhoff a pop music icon. I mean, WTF?
> 
> And Merry Ole England, you can have Madonna. France can have Molly Ringwald.
> 
> But I admit, America have its own faults. We have J-Lo. Blame it on the mainstream.




RR, we all know, that everyone has their own taste to liking who, wherever they are...shucks, there are some overseas stars I like, that don't get enough recognition here in the States...so, it is a give and take.

No Jlo...Paris Hilton *ducking*


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 12, 2005)

Either that, or the world gamers like _D&D: The Movie_ to spite the American gamers who absolutely abhors it.  

If Paris Hilton's album is popular in France... I'd go there and jump off the Eiffel Tower.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 12, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Either that, or the world gamers like _D&D: The Movie_ to spite the American gamers who absolutely abhors it.
> 
> If Paris Hilton's album is popular in France... I'd go there and jump off the Eiffel Tower.



No RR, don't ever think that...she is not worth it, her and the ablum. In fact, let me drop that subject, that was poor taste on my part, poor taste indeed .


----------



## Klaus (Jan 13, 2005)

Just popping in to let everyone know that the D&D movie was generally despised down here in Bikiniland. Not only was the movie atrocious, the local distributor preceded it with a scrolling text over the movie logo that practically explained the entire plot!!!

Bah!


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 13, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Just popping in to let everyone know that the D&D movie was generally despised down here in Bikiniland. Not only was the movie atrocious, the local distributor preceded it with a scrolling text over the movie logo that practically explained the entire plot!!!
> 
> Bah!




ROFL!!!!!!.....wow!!!!!!.....ROFL!!!!!!!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 13, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> No RR, don't ever think that...she is not worth it, her and the ablum. In fact, let me drop that subject, that was poor taste on my part, poor taste indeed .



I'm not doing this for her. I'm doing this for France.   

"High Fashion Capital of the World." Bah!


----------



## Zappo (Jan 13, 2005)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Just popping in to let everyone know that the D&D movie was generally despised down here in Bikiniland. Not only was the movie atrocious, the local distributor preceded it with a scrolling text over the movie logo that practically explained the entire plot!!!
> 
> Bah!



Eh, not that there was much to spoil. Hey, if it explained why the good guys had to go looking for the red rod, when they already had the golden one and the BBEG had none, then this may actually be a good idea. Did it tell why the dwarf joined the party?


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 13, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm not doing this for her. I'm doing this for France.
> 
> "High Fashion Capital of the World." Bah!




ROFL


----------



## der_kluge (Jan 13, 2005)

Capitol.
Countries have a capitol.
Banks have capital.


Acid_crash is right.  I have the D&D movie on D&D.  Wal-Mart has it cheap. I watched some of the deleted scenes, and the movie would have made a lot more sense if they had included those scenes. Like, it one scene they get sucked into the scroll, and this wraith tells Ridley some clues regarding something, and he also explains why he hates wizards so much, and they develop the dwarf character a lot more in another scene. But, without them all, it falls flat. I don't think it's a horrible movie, but it could have been a lot better, obviously.

And they needed to get rid of the fanboy director. That guy just got on my nerves. In the interviews on the DVD, he's all like, "and I approached them [WoTC] about doing a movie, and they said yes! I was so excited, it'd been a dream of mine for a long time". As far as I know this guy had never done anything else, so why WoTC chose to use an unproven director for their movie is beyond me.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 13, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Capitol.
> Countries have a capitol.
> Banks have capital.



Eh, not quite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capital



> *Usage Note:* The term for a town or city that serves as a seat of government is spelled *capital*. The term for the building in which a legislative assembly meets is spelled *capitol*.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 13, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Capitol.
> Countries have a capitol.
> Banks have capital.



Eh, not quite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=capital



> *Usage Note:* The term for a town or city that serves as a seat of government is spelled *capital*. The term for the building in which a legislative assembly meets is spelled *capitol*.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Capitol.
> Countries have a capitol.
> Banks have capital.



Oh, gee, thank you. Up until now, this boards lack a spellchecker.




			
				die_kluge said:
			
		

> Acid_crash is right.  I have the D&D movie on D&D.



Then again, this boards still lack a spellchecker.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jan 14, 2005)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Capitol.
> Countries have a capitol.
> Banks have capital.



Only if you speak "American", d00d. Are you next going to tell us that "armour" is spelled wrong, too?


----------



## velm (Jan 14, 2005)

While DnD2 might have a low budget, it does not mean disaster.  Evil Dead 2: Dead by dawn, was made with a slim budget, and it is a great movie, for what it is.  Cabin Fever, another low budget movie (which I thought was written INCREDIBLY bad, but still had potential) had a some good qualities.  28 Days Later, was another low budget movie, but a good quality one, very good script, and acting.  

The bad thing is that the above examples are only the brightest of the bunch of 'low budget' out there.  For each Evil Dead2, there are 50 pieces of flop showing.  Just go to SomethingAwful.com and see some of the winners there. 

The sad and disturbing thing is that DND (the original one) was HORRIBLE.  I could not even see the whole thing, it was JUST that bad.  I have NO idea what they were trying to do with it.  They had a DECENT enough cast, but everything just fell to pieces.  It is my firm belief that it will happen with the rest of the DND films.

Peter Jackson did a GREAT job with the LoTR movies.  Yes, there will be people saying on how he did not follow certain parts of the books, but in the end, I think he captured the 'feel' of the setting.  When I can sit through a 3+ hour movie without moving ONCE for any reason, that tells me something or I do not want to move for not wanting to miss anything.  DND NEEDS the same kind of treatment that LoTR got.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 14, 2005)

I'm not worried about the budget, unless it actually shows on picture or in sound. I'm just worried that now that the first _D&D_ movie bombed, they got a very deep hole to climb out of, and they're going to need the most creative people to bring them out of that hole. Can they find such creative people on a shoestring budget, kudos for them. But we the audience still remain skeptical.


----------



## velm (Jan 15, 2005)

I think they already stated the budget was in the 20 mil mark.  In holywood terms, it is kinda low.  Conversly, a big budget does not mean it will be a good movie either.  
the first one was bad, the rest, i feel will follow in its footsteps.  I do not to be a negative thinker, but with how bad the first one was, it showed to me that now one in TSR/WOTC really cared.  Dont remember if WOTC had DND then.  Been a while, plus I tried to forcefully forget all images from that movie out of my brain.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 15, 2005)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I'm not worried about the budget, unless it actually shows on picture or in sound. I'm just worried that now that the first _D&D_ movie bombed, they got a very deep hole to climb out of, and they're going to need the most creative people to bring them out of that hole. Can they find such creative people on a shoestring budget, kudos for them. But we the audience still remain skeptical.




If you are talking about the deep hole in the finance gain, they made that back, in the overseas market.

If you are talking about the deep hole...in reputation.....*picture a BLACK hole*, oh yes...most definitely.

If you are talking about swaying us, in the US, to have some feeling for this...this...*censored*, they have a lonnnnnnng way to go.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jan 15, 2005)

velm said:
			
		

> While DnD2 might have a low budget, it does not mean disaster. Evil Dead 2: Dead by dawn, was made with a slim budget, and it is a great movie, for what it is. Cabin Fever, another low budget movie (which I thought was written INCREDIBLY bad, but still had potential) had a some good qualities. 28 Days Later, was another low budget movie, but a good quality one, very good script, and acting.
> 
> The bad thing is that the above examples are only the brightest of the bunch of 'low budget' out there. For each Evil Dead2, there are 50 pieces of flop showing. Just go to SomethingAwful.com and see some of the winners there.
> 
> ...




Major difference with Evil Dead 2 and D&D 1...ED has a cult following, with Bruce Campbell as the icon...where does the D&D movie 1 has that?(wait...don't answer).

Treatment, yes...good treatment is possible, but it will come down to flavor and style from which gaming world used to represent the genre...in that, the choices are extremely hard to choose.*everyone has a favorite*


----------



## velm (Jan 15, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Major difference with Evil Dead 2 and D&D 1...ED has a cult following, with Bruce Payne as the icon...where does the D&D movie 1 has that?(wait...don't answer).
> 
> Treatment, yes...good treatment is possible, but it will come down to flavor and style from which gaming world used to represent the genre...in that, the choices are extremely hard to choose.*everyone has a favorite*




Why, yes, indeed, ED does have a cult following.  However, where did it get that following? some from ED1, and others like me from ED2 alone.  Why? great budget? no. great acting? no. Great script? no.  For a lead character, it had an unkown by the name of Bruce Campbell.  It has a certain 'chemstry.'  

It is that very same 'chemisty' that some movies have, and others do not.  The same 'cult following' could be said of the other examples of 'good' low budget movies i mentioned.  Granted, they might be so large, but people still do watch them.  

The flavor and style is a not so much of a hard isssue.

 What was the style of DND1? bad is my answer.  
  What was the style of Conan? good is my answer.
   What was the style of LotR? good is my answer.

Those are three examples of fantasy movies that come to mind.  Two are good and one is not.  Did Conan follow the books? No.  Was it good movie? I would say, the majority would say yes.  Same goes with LotR.  It is not a difficult thing to do.  DND1 failed on many many many accounts.  Purple lipstick?  the Star Wars Cantina feel of some of the scenes?  Dialoge? Action scenes, the one action scene that i cannot forget reminds me of the Power Rangers.  
If the studio were to have taken the movie seriously, it would have been much better.  I liked Ladyhawke.  That is a fantasy movie.  Doubt it had a huge budget, but it was done good.  So DND1 COULD have.  Again, it is NOT difficult to make a decent fantasy movie.  Does it HAVE to be an EPIC on the scale of LotR? no.  But, it can still be good, which I doubt DND2 and 3 will.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jan 15, 2005)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> If you are talking about the deep hole in the finance gain, they made that back, in the overseas market.
> 
> If you are talking about the deep hole...in reputation.....*picture a BLACK hole*, oh yes...most definitely.
> 
> If you are talking about swaying us, in the US, to have some feeling for this...this...*censored*, they have a lonnnnnnng way to go.



Hmm. That could only mean one thing. They're making the _D&D_ sequel appealing for the overseas audience. Absurdly pathetic but true.


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (Jan 27, 2005)

Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might is based upon the highly successful role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons. An evil Sorcerer (Bruce Payne) steals a magical orb which controls a powerful sleeping black dragon. In response, an aspiring Mage and a decorated Warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom and solve the mystery of an enigmatic tome as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil. The film captures the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons by creating a role-playing, event-based adventure comprising of magical paraphernalia, hand to hand combat, and incredible creatures including Magmin, Dragons, Harpies and a Lich. The production has been working closely with TSR and Wizards of the Coast (divisions of Hasbro Entertainment), the creators of the role-playing game, to ensure the project adheres to the strict guidelines of the property.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 27, 2005)

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might is based...




Just thought I'd let you know, Greyhawk_DM, that D&D 2 has it's own thread. See here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=94479


----------

