# Dungeons and Dragons 2



## Taelorn76 (Apr 7, 2004)

This is from Dark Horizons 

Dungeons & Dragons 2: "Studio Hamburg's international production arm WorldWide Pictures (WWP) is partnering with Joel Silver's Silver Pictures on the sequel. Warner Bros. has picked up "Dungeons and Dragons 2" for distribution Stateside and in selected international territories. Gerry Lively is helming the pic, which is to be shot in Europe this year.."


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 7, 2004)

From first time director Gerry Lively, cinematographer of "Friday" and "Hellraiser III".  Where does the line start?   :\


----------



## Taelorn76 (Apr 7, 2004)

"Friday" was a funny movie.

Chris Tucker "You got knocked the F**K out." That line still puts a smile on my face.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 7, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> "Friday" was a funny movie.



Because of the cinematography?  At that translates well to D&D2 how?


----------



## Taelorn76 (Apr 7, 2004)

point taken


----------



## KenM (Apr 7, 2004)

The first DnD movie had a first time director as well.


----------



## Storminator (Apr 7, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> The first DnD movie had a first time director as well.



And that worked out fine...

PS


----------



## Templetroll (Apr 7, 2004)

From the IMDB listing for Gerry Lively

Director - filmography 
(2000s) (1990s) 
Shattered Lies (2002) 
Windfall (2001) 
Guardian, The (1999) 
Darkness Falls (1999) 
Hot steps - passi caldi (1990) 


Not a lot of films but not a "first time director" either.

Now, the films he directed rated 5 out 10 for two of them and 3 out of 10 for another two with no votes ever cast for "Hot Steps".  Not exactly steller.


----------



## Kai Lord (Apr 7, 2004)

You're right.  I also ran his name through imdb.com but only noticed his cinematographer credits.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 7, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> This is from Dark Horizons
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons 2: "Studio Hamburg's international production arm WorldWide Pictures (WWP) is partnering with Joel Silver's Silver Pictures on the sequel. Warner Bros. has picked up "Dungeons and Dragons 2" for distribution Stateside and in selected international territories. Gerry Lively is helming the pic, which is to be shot in Europe this year.."



*sweat running down the face*

"N-o....no....not again....pleaseeeeee*******"

[Faints]


----------



## Wombat (Apr 7, 2004)

All I can say is ...

**twitch twitch**

I mean, look at the first film.  Jeremy Irons is known as a highly restrained actor, yet in this film he was chewing the scenery worse than William Shatner

Will the second be any better?

I sincerely doubt it


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 7, 2004)

I, for one, enjoy watching a good train wreck.  This should be fuuuun.  We ripped the first one apart in the theater and I plan on doing it one better this time.


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Apr 7, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> I, for one, enjoy watching a good train wreck.  This should be fuuuun.  We ripped the first one apart in the theater and I plan on doing it one better this time.



I think we should organize "EN D&D2 parties" throughout the land, and all go see the movie on opening night.  Well, maybe during the opening week--which will probably be its only week in the theaters.

I don't know if "train wreck" is adequte to describe what we will end up seeing.  But, with a former cinematographer for a director, hopefully the film will at least *look* nice.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 7, 2004)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> I don't know if "train wreck" is adequte to describe what we will end up seeing. But, with a former cinematographer for a director, hopefully the film will at least *look* nice.



Well, if it is anything like the first I think it is being generous.  Usually a train wreck is so bad that you can't help but look away.  I wish the D&D movie was that captivating.  Hey, at least no one died filming it.  

This post sponsored by the Tongue Firmly in the Cheek Inc.


----------



## Henry (Apr 7, 2004)

I hate to be the optimist in the group, but let's not count our "Plan 9" parties just yet. I want to see the budget neighborhood, and I definitely want to know if someone's got a darned script that will actually get filmed like it was written.

The first movie was not good, but then again to hear the cast and crew talk, it sounds like the picture was cursed from the beginning and was a miracle to be made at all.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 7, 2004)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> Where does the line start?   :\




At the door to the suicide booth.


----------



## babomb (Apr 7, 2004)

They could've at least called it _Dungeons & Dragons Second Edition_. Man.


----------



## Welverin (Apr 7, 2004)

No, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would be the right title for the sequel.


----------



## NiTessine (Apr 7, 2004)

Well, for once we'll be getting a sequel that cannot help but be better than the first part.

Apparently, it's hardly even a sequel. From what I've heard, they're trying to distance themselves from the first movie in terms of story, characters, events... probably the setting as well. Who knows, they might end up making something watchable. Me, I am optimistic.


----------



## Branduil (Apr 7, 2004)

The director of Darkness Falls? For the love of all that is vorpal, please no!


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Apr 7, 2004)

we all know full well we'll all watch it.
out of curiosity if nothing else.


----------



## johnsemlak (Apr 7, 2004)

Welverin said:
			
		

> No, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would be the right title for the sequel.



 They could make a prequal called Basic D&D.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 7, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> we all know full well we'll all watch it.
> out of curiosity if nothing else.



 Not all of us. I still haven't seen the first one. Saw 5 minutes here and there on cable, and that's it.


----------



## NeuroZombie (Apr 7, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Not all of us. I still haven't seen the first one. Saw 5 minutes here and there on cable, and that's it.



Com'on...go rent it.  It is not one of the best movies ever made, but I can tell ya its not possible to be one of the worst, just go rent Evil Alien Conquerers for that distinction, bleeh!  Its worth it just to see the beholder for all of a second.


----------



## Ferret (Apr 7, 2004)

This might be their (the directors) break. I think this is Speilbergs first film it was rated 8.2

See how well he did.


----------



## Chaldfont (Apr 7, 2004)

With the apparent success of internet mobs influencing the resurrection of canceled shows (Family Guy, Farscape, Firefly), we should go the opposite route. Lets start an internet petition begging them NOT to produce this movie.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 7, 2004)

Naw, the entertainment value of ripping apart a film with friends and people I don't even know is priceless.    Besides, what if it's halfway decent?  Then what?

My expectations couldn't be lower for this film.  I will be there opening night.


----------



## Dimwhit (Apr 7, 2004)

Branduil said:
			
		

> The director of Darkness Falls? For the love of all that is vorpal, please no!




I kind of liked Darkness Falls...

Me, I enjoyed the first movie, in an MST3K kind of way. It was fun. Bad, but fun. That's all I'll be hoping for with the sequel. If it turns out to be a quality movie, even better.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 7, 2004)

Well, the good news is that there really _is_ enough booze in the world to get me to watch this flick.

I'll be there opening weekend.  But I refuse to see it without taking appropriate mind-altering precautions with the assistance of a Mr. Samuel Adams.


----------



## KChagga (Apr 7, 2004)

I wish they would just make this a straight to video movie.  I don't really have a problem with renting crap.  I can turn a video off, but when I go to the theatre I feel like I have to watch.  I feel that I went to the effort of going to the theatre and paying their exhorbitant prices I have to watch.


----------



## DaveMage (Apr 7, 2004)

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> Well, the good news is that there really _is_ enough booze in the world to get me to watch this flick.




LOL!

I really did like seeing the beholder in the first movie...except for the fact that it didn't SEE the people hiding behind it...  

Otherwise, man that movie was disappointing.  

Still, I'm ever the optimist and hope that movie #2 will be something I could sit through more than once.  (And hopefully the mage in the film will be able to cast more than just "dimension door".)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 7, 2004)

Somehow I fear that even though most of us have the absolute lowest expectations for this movie...it'll still fall below them.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 7, 2004)

Actually I did see the beholder scene and cracked up at it. And one with Jeremy Irons raving and ranting. And a few others. I have no doubt it's not the worst movie ever made. I just don't think it would be worth wasting my time on. I'll wait till the 2nd movie comes out, catch a few reviews, watch the trailer and decide if it's worth it too.


----------



## Kesh (Apr 7, 2004)

_Hellraiser III_ does not exist.

At all.

Nuh-uh.

Not gonna believe it.

*shudder*


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 7, 2004)

I just hope the people making it are fans. Hopefully their hat of d02 knows limits.


----------



## SemperJase (Apr 7, 2004)

I hope WotC has script approval. Enough damage was done to the D&D brand with the first movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 7, 2004)

I don't see anything to suggest that anyone at WotC is good at writing movies. I just hope it's a movie with some heart to it, that looks like it was made with love (a modicum of talent would be welcome, but of lesser priority to me).


----------



## KenM (Apr 7, 2004)

I heard the main plot of DnD 2 will be 4 kids get on a Dungeons and Dragons amusment park ride and get transported to a fantasy world, and they have to get back home.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Apr 7, 2004)

I think we all know the movie won't be good, but just imagine our shock if it is. 

Good or bad my freinds and I will be there to see it.


----------



## RangerWickett (Apr 7, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Hey, at least no one died filming it.




I recall watching on the DVD a bluescreen shot of Jeremy Irons acting.  When the director said cut, Mr. Irons stalked off the stage, glaring at the director with an expression that said, "I'm going to my trailer to polish my gun."


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Apr 7, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> I heard the main plot of DnD 2 will be 4 kids get on a Dungeons and Dragons amusment park ride and get transported to a fantasy world, and they have to get back home.




woo hoo!!!!!!!

oh, damn, you were making that up, huh?    so, uh which two kids were you leaving out?

I think that modern kids/teens/college students thrust into a fantasy realm and imbued with appropriate powers is a good trope, and would readily pay to see a D&D movie with the same basic plot at the old cartoon series.Then again, I'm a child of the 80's so what can you expect...   

Kahuna Burger


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 7, 2004)

*Looking at everyone...with tear filled red bloated *eyes**

"S----topppp.....pleaseeeee....stoppppppp...this...is killin' me"


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 7, 2004)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I recall watching on the DVD a bluescreen shot of Jeremy Irons acting.  When the director said cut, Mr. Irons stalked off the stage, glaring at the director with an expression that said, "I'm going to my trailer to polish my gun."



 Fair enough.  So the movie nearly caused one of its stars to commit suicide.

Can you smell the irony? (No pun intended)  The headlines would be great:  Jeremy Irons ritually kills himself playing D&D.  More on page 2...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  So the movie nearly caused one of its stars to commit suicide.
> 
> Can you smell the irony? (No pun intended)  The headlines would be great:  Jeremy Irons ritually kills himself playing D&D.  More on page 2...



 Heheheh. Though that may have been the final blow to D&D, proving once and for all that we D&D players really ARE evil...wait, we are, aren't we? Um...crap. I missed the last Meeting o' Evil D&D Players, what's our new stance on things?


----------



## barsoomcore (Apr 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Um...crap. I missed the last Meeting o' Evil D&D Players, what's our new stance on things?



 Uh, let me check the meeting minutes...

...Piratecat's house, toilet paper, thirty peacocks, no, that's not it...

...Morrus and those transexual flamenco dancers, nope....

...here we are:  "Still Evil." That's it.

Oh, and you have to bring the donuts next meeting.


----------



## John Crichton (Apr 8, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> ...here we are: "Still Evil." That's it.
> 
> Oh, and you have to bring the donuts next meeting.



*taps barsoomcore on the shoulder and whispers*

Dude, those are the minutes from April 7, *1983*.  No wonder why we keep getting the same shmoes in here all the time.  And man, are these donuts crunchy...


----------



## Pants (Apr 8, 2004)

John Crichton said:
			
		

> *taps barsoomcore on the shoulder and whispers*
> 
> Dude, those are the minutes from April 7, *1983*.  No wonder why we keep getting the same shmoes in here all the time.  And man, are these donuts crunchy...



My friends, you should have invested in Twinkies*, they last as long as the sun.

*Now with Evil creme filling.


----------



## Len (Apr 8, 2004)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> we all know full well we'll all watch it.



Don't I get a saving throw?


----------



## Trainz (Apr 8, 2004)

LOTR placed the bar SO HIGH for Heroic Fantasy, I can't imagine someone making such a movie with the goal of turning out a second piece of trash. That's a career killer if there ever was one. It just HAS to be at least enjoyable.

What was that you say ?

Yeah... one MUST take into account the Human Stupidity factor.

STOP HURTING MY HOBBY !


----------



## David Howery (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh God. Oh, the horror.  Another D&D movie?!  Who is fool enough to put up money for that?
Do you think this one might actually have a dungeon worthy of the name in it?  Please tell me that anyone involved in the first movie will be forbidden upon pain of death to approach within 50 miles of the making of the second one....


----------



## Truth Seeker (Apr 8, 2004)

*BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppppppp*

"CODE RED, CODE RED!!"


----------



## Mark (Apr 8, 2004)

When the first D&D movie came out, I went to see it right away.  I was very disappointed.

For the second D&D movie, I will wait until the reviews start coming in and decide whether or not to see it at the theatre based largely on how the reviews compare it to the first.  I believe that the D&D brand has the potential to foster a long string of movie, more akin to Star Trek, than to LotR, the Matrix, or Star Wars.  I'd like to support the efforts of whoever has the rights to that franchise but only if they're going to make some serious adjustments away from the myriad of problems that plagued the first film.

Mind you, I'll see it even if it sucks big time, but I'll wait until the DVD has been out long enough for some unfortunate soul to dump it on a secondhand DVD store.  If it is as bad as the first, I won't see it in a theatre or even rent the movie, lest some of that money work its way back to the owner of the rights and give them the false signal that I'm interested in supporting them in any way if they continue to peddle crap.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 8, 2004)

_Star Trek_ is more popular than _James Bond 007_?

So... you're expecting even-numbered _D&D_ films will do better than odd-numbered films, at least up until the tenth film. Hehehe.


----------



## Mark (Apr 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> _Star Trek_ is more popular than _James Bond 007_?




Who said that?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 9, 2004)

Sorry. I know you did not say _James Bond 007_ which is the most succesful film franchise.

I just questioned why you would say the _Star Trek_ franchise is better than the others you've mentioned.


----------



## Mark (Apr 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Sorry. I know you did not say _James Bond 007_ which is the most succesful film franchise.
> 
> I just questioned why you would say the _Star Trek_ franchise is better than the others you've mentioned.




I didn't say ST was better than those others, either, but am saying it is more akin to the series of movies I'd like to see under a D&D banner.

My thinking is that a series of movies could be made under a D&D banner that follow a group through a number of adventures.  Once the characters have grown to a point, either beyond the writers or the story or have accomplished so much that they seem to be "played out", then a new group of characters could be brought in for the audience to follow for a few more movies.

That would seem to follow a Star Trek formula more closely than the others that I mentioned.  It also, coincidentally, is less like the James Bond in that it wouldn't (in my suggested plan) follow only a single character.  Nor do I think it would be a good idea to base the bulk of it on the work of a single writer (and, yes, I realize that it has been some time since the JB movies have been based on books by Fleming).


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 9, 2004)

Okay, but if you are referring the models of the first 6 _Trek_ films, that would mean they have to continue the storyline with the same characters (except the dead ones ... please no _resurrection_ scene for gimmick).

I feel strongly opposed to continuing that storyline with the same cast of characters that do not impressed me in a gawd-knows-where is this fantasy world Solomon put on the silver screen.


----------



## Mark (Apr 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Okay, but if you are referring the models of the first 6 _Trek_ films, that would mean...




No, that's not what "akin" means.  It means in a similar vein, not slavishly following the exact details of such a thing.  Try to ease up, pal.  Where's that "hang loose" attittude?  I'm not interested in an argument, I'm just tossing in a loose idea as my preference for how to build a franchise of films under a D&D banner.  I certainly wouldn't suggest it would be a good idea to maintain any of the less desirable elements from the first fiasco.  About the only thing I felt was good from the first movie was some of the effects work, such as the dragons.  Aside from that, I'd much prefer they start fresh and consider the first film as nothing more than a reference point for what NOT to do...


----------



## Dark Jezter (Apr 9, 2004)

You know, I thought that the first D&D movie actually did a good job of capturing the D&D feel:  The D&D movie was full of corny dialogue and overacting, and so is the typical D&D campaign.


----------



## Taelorn76 (Apr 9, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> (except the dead ones ... please no _resurrection_ scene for gimmick).




So if they do a Salvatore movie Wulfgar has to stay dead? that would not work. And what about the chosen have some of them died and come back because of their powers,


----------



## BASTON!!! (Apr 9, 2004)

*D&D Movie 2*

AAAARRRGGHH!!!!

"Help me Obe-wan Kenobi, your our only hope!" 

Oups, wrong movie! But my only hope this time, is that they don't re-try to produce another medieval fantasy Star Wars. 

If it's the case, our only hope will be the destruction of the Earth before the release of that crap!

Ah damn! For real, my only hope is that i won't be to much desapointed when i get out of the theater, because i will go see it anyway... This sucks!!!

BASTON!!!


----------



## WanderingMonster (Apr 9, 2004)

Dark Jezter said:
			
		

> You know, I thought that the first D&D movie actually did a good job of capturing the D&D feel: The D&D movie was full of corny dialogue and overacting, and so is the typical D&D campaign.



This is why *The Gamers* works.  But they tried on purpose.  Camp isn't something you stumble upon, it's a stylistic choice.

I agree with Mark.  Start with good characters.  Move on to good plot.  Once you have those, then you can have kewl effects and nods to the subculture.  It's also worth noting that getting "star power" by attracting big Hollywood names to your film, is not assurance of success.  I know what I'm saying is obvious, but why is it that we-who-are-not-film-makers see it, and the professionals don't?


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 9, 2004)

Taelorn76 said:
			
		

> So if they do a Salvatore movie Wulfgar has to stay dead? that would not work. And what about the chosen have some of them died and come back because of their powers,



I don't recall if Wulfgar was dead in the first book of the _Icewind Dale Trilogy_ upon first meeting Bruenor.

One resurrection is okay. Two and you're pushing it. I guess I just don't like to see magic being all too common. It seems to "gamey" (for lack of a better adjective) and not very subtle (which I prefer).

But if it must be flashy or common, at least there should be a good story to back all that special effects up. Of course, writing a story for the sole purpose of displaying these effects is more likely to be ... unappealing. But please, creative writers, prove me wrong.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Apr 9, 2004)

WanderingMonster said:
			
		

> I know what I'm saying is obvious, but why is it that we-who-are-not-film-makers see it, and the professionals don't?




For various reasons there is a cultural dislike of writers within Hollywood.  Sort of like making fun of the drummer in a rock band.  Yes, there are exceptions.  Those exceptions are few.

Consider, Joss Wheaton, the man who wrote _Buffy_ and _Angel_ (_Firefly_ was not produced at the time) was flown out to Hollywood to do a re-write of the X-men movie.  According to an interview I read (in the AV section of Onion) He was treated in a patronizing manner and generally snubbed.    The sum total of what was kept of he re-write isn't long, so I'll write it out in totum:

Cyclops: How do I know it's really you?
Wolverine: You're a dick.
Cyclops: OK, let's go.

... hey, it got a laugh.

But roll that one around a bit.  Tens of thousands of dollars must have been spent on Wheaton and all they kept was a dick joke.  Hollywood just doesn't like writers.  There's some fascinating stuff on the topic by Joe M. Strysinski and, I believe, Terry Gilliam.  I guess that's why some people call it "Hollyweird".


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 9, 2004)

It's Whedon. Wheaton was that former kid actor who played "the boy who saved Enterprise-D many times."


----------



## Taelorn76 (Apr 10, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> I don't recall if Wulfgar was dead in the first book of the _Icewind Dale Trilogy_ upon first meeting Bruenor.



I think it might have been in the trilogy after the _The DarkElf Trilogy_.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> One resurrection is okay. Two and you're pushing it. I guess I just don't like to see magic being all too common. It seems to "gamey" (for lack of a better adjective) and not very subtle (which I prefer).
> 
> But if it must be flashy or common, at least there should be a good story to back all that special effects up. Of course, writing a story for the sole purpose of displaying these effects is more likely to be ... unappealing. But please, creative writers, prove me wrong.




I wasn't completly disagreeing with you either though. I think if you use resurection as a way to keep the story moving or you kill someone off and the fans hate then ressurect them in the next movie. That is bad, my point was that sometimes it is part of the story.


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 10, 2004)

If it is *needed* in the story, unless you're referring to making a screenplay adaptation of one of the books.

And you're right. It all boils down to having a very, VERY good story ... but can we do that without recycling the characters from the first film?


----------



## Trainz (Apr 10, 2004)

Hell, there are hundreads of very good D&D stories lying around just waiting to see the silver screens.

Just take our story hours. Take Piratecat's.

I'm not saying to film them word for word, but it sure as hell is a good reference, at least for ideas, if not dialogue.

Hollywood is going south, calling New Zealand...


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Apr 10, 2004)

Mark said:
			
		

> I certainly wouldn't suggest it would be a good idea to maintain any of the less desirable elements from the first fiasco.  About the only thing I felt was good from the first movie was some of the effects work, such as the dragons.  Aside from that, I'd much prefer they start fresh and consider the first film as nothing more than a reference point for what NOT to do...



And tricking beholders by throwing a rock.  They gotta have more of that--works every time!


----------



## Dirigible (Apr 10, 2004)

> Hollywood is going south, calling New Zealand...




Doable. We've got some nice forests to stand in Cormanthor, a couple of mountains that'd pass for the Spine of the World, a desert that'd make a tolerable Athas, given enough filters... [local]and if Gore isn's the spitting image of Sigil, I don't know what is.[/local]


----------



## Altalazar (Apr 10, 2004)

I think those who slam D&D the first movie are just way overstating it.  

Sure, it was disappointing, but most movies are.

I'll give this film a chance, like I give ALL films a chance.  It peeves me to see something slammed that isn't even out of the larval stage yet.  It is just petty posturing and band-wagon jumping, plus the typical cliched attempts by people to seem cool and superior by saying something sucks.  

This film neither sucks nor is it good.  It does not yet exist.  Maybe it will be great, maybe not.  Time will tell.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Apr 11, 2004)

How can they make a D&D 2nd movie when they never made a first one?

and I'll say it again, THERE IS NO D&D MOVIE, NO! NO! NO!


----------



## reapersaurus (Apr 11, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I think those who slam D&D the first movie are just way overstating it.



Duh.


It's all part of the "victimized gamer" approach many like to take.


----------



## Mark (Apr 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> It's all part of the "victimized gamer" approach many like to take.




Feeling left out, again?  You'll get no sympathy from me, weepersaurus...


----------



## Ranger REG (Apr 11, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I think those who slam D&D the first movie are just way overstating it.
> 
> Sure, it was disappointing, but most movies are.



But who'd want to pay admission ticket to see a disappointing movie? (Well, the first time when after watching it you realized you just wasted nearly two hours of your life that could be better spent on better films ... like _LOTR._)

Who'd want to buy the DVD of a disappointing movie?




			
				Altalazar said:
			
		

> I'll give this film a chance, like I give ALL films a chance.  It peeves me to see something slammed that isn't even out of the larval stage yet.  It is just petty posturing and band-wagon jumping, plus the typical cliched attempts by people to seem cool and superior by saying something sucks.
> 
> This film neither sucks nor is it good.  It does not yet exist.  Maybe it will be great, maybe not.  Time will tell.



Hey, what I'm trying to tell whoever is going to produce the second _D&D_ film is don't make the same mistake and disappoint us again. After all, those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. So, yeah, I'll give the second film a chance but I'm going in with skepticism and a "you better impress me this time around or else" attitude.


----------



## Pants (Apr 11, 2004)

reapersaurus said:
			
		

> Duh.
> 
> 
> It's all part of the "victimized gamer" approach many like to take.



Or maybe it was just a bad, stupid movie?
Funny idea, I know...


----------



## Tewligan (Apr 16, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> The first movie was not good, but then again to hear the cast and crew talk, it sounds like the picture was cursed from the beginning and was a miracle to be made at all.



"Miracle" is a generous word to use when talking about the first movie. That's like saying "My, it certainly was miraculous when Hitler rose from the grave to devour babies, rape puppies, and set the elderly on fire."


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> I think those who slam D&D the first movie are just way overstating it.
> 
> Sure, it was disappointing, but most movies are.




Overstating it? I thought D&D was the worst movie I had seen since Highlander 2. That's well beyond disappointing.
It was a colossal waste of time for everyone involved. Why would you try to build a sequel, or even more shocking, a movie franchise off of that? Don't reinforce failure. Better to start afresh with a whole new idea divorced of everyone involved in the original.


----------



## qstor (Apr 17, 2004)

Altalazar said:
			
		

> This film neither sucks nor is it good.  It does not yet exist.  Maybe it will be great, maybe not.  Time will tell.




I agreed. A fellow Lansingite said it well.

Mike


----------



## Grue (Apr 19, 2004)

I think there is very little chance they'll start fresh with this one but hopefully they'll use a non-rubber axe this time around and maybe they can add some random ninja attacks to the film.

Or if only they could attract Vin Diesel to the project but I'm sure he'd want to play his character Riddick or maybe Melkor (?) I believe.  Or I'd like to see Orlando Bloom revisit Legolas in the flick as a classic example of why elves before 3e were so much fun to hate.


----------



## nikolai (May 8, 2004)

Some Random D&D II links:



> *A D&D Sequel?*
> 
> Despite the first film's lackluster performance at the box office, there's been talk of a sequel to Dungeons & Dragons for some time now – maybe they feel guilty about how the first film turned out...
> 
> http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/504/504476p1.html






> *Dungeons & Dragons Dares a Second Quest*
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons came out in 2000, after a long fantasy drought at the cinema. It was to be a sort of appetizer for The Lord of the Rings, but the movie unfortunately fell far short of expectations... ...Solomon's own Sweetpea Entertainment will be involved with production. Solomon has made no other films since Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/410/410032p1.html


----------



## Zappo (May 9, 2004)

I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm afraid that if they made a muppets movie and called it "D&D" I would still look forward to it. Hopefully, though, this is going to be better than the first (if anything, because I don't know how it could be worse).


----------



## Chimera (May 9, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm afraid that if they made a muppets movie and called it "D&D" I would still look forward to it. Hopefully, though, this is going to be better than the first (if anything, because I don't know how it could be worse).




  Kermit the Paladin, Miss Piggie the Monk ("Haiiiiyaaah!"), Gonzo the Thief...

Gotta fit the Swedish Chef...er, Cleric in there somewhere.

And a sure sign of the times that, buried in this thread, were the hints of an argument over whether including _Raise Dead_ in the movie would be cheapening the character deaths...  Yeah, yeah, can't have that.


----------



## WanderingMonster (May 9, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> I'm actually looking forward to it. I'm afraid that if they made a muppets movie and called it "D&D" I would still look forward to it.



They called it The Dark Crystal.  Rent it.  It's cool.


----------



## Zappo (May 10, 2004)

WanderingMonster said:
			
		

> They called it The Dark Crystal.  Rent it.  It's cool.



Did so. It is. 

 Though I was mostly referring to an unsatiable desire to see the D&D brand on something, _anything_, that reaches the mainstream. I hope this movie doesn't suck too hard.


----------



## Mercule (May 10, 2004)

Grue said:
			
		

> I think there is very little chance they'll start fresh with this one but hopefully they'll use a non-rubber axe this time around and maybe they can add some random ninja attacks to the film.



That makes me think that they'd do okay if they turned it into a live-action 8-bit Theatre.  At least that way, we'd know it was supposed to be silly.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 11, 2004)

Zappo said:
			
		

> Though I was mostly referring to an unsatiable desire to see the D&D brand on something, _anything_, that reaches the mainstream. I hope this movie doesn't suck too hard.



Well, it's a good thing I came to the point in my life where I really do not care if the mainstream give a fig. Either they cross over to our side or they can go take a flying leap -- along with those plastic-coated pop girls and shrink-wrapped boy bands -- into the cultural abyss.


----------



## Salcor (May 11, 2004)

I believe that if they are going to do another DnD movie they need to do either the Crystal Shard or the some of the Dragonlance books.  Those stories are have a lot of support from nongamers.  Just get with Salvatore or Weis and Hickman have them write the screenplay to do it right.  I think it could be a good movie, but if you need a good director.  Hopefully they will do something like this.


Salcor


----------



## Ranger REG (May 12, 2004)

Actually, it would be nice if they do a _Greyhawk_ movie. (_The Temple of Elemental Evil_?) As long there is an actual dungeon with a "party" (cast of characters) that is composed of the more known PC race.


----------



## johnsemlak (May 12, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Actually, it would be nice if they do a _Greyhawk_ movie. (_The Temple of Elemental Evil_?) As long there is an actual dungeon with a "party" (cast of characters) that is composed of the more known PC race.



 I'd love to see that myself, but I'm afraid that many classic modules have poor possibliitys for a movie storyline.  The very confined location is the main problem.  ToEE is laregly a dungeon crawl through the, well, ToEE.  Similar story with Against the Giants.  I'd love to see a movie based on it, but really, a movie taking place at the three giant lairs would be very hard to develop.  Now, the D1-3 series has more possibilites I think...


----------



## AFGNCAAP (May 12, 2004)

Y'know, I'd prefer that, if there ever truly is a sequel, that it isn't a "true" sequel, picking up shortly after the 1st movie.  Personally, I'd prefer that it either be a completely different movie--different setting, characters, plot, quality, etc.  However, if it is going to be set in the same setting as the first, I'd prefer it that the sequel would be set _several generations_ since the last movie, when the people & events of the first film are all but myth/legend/ancient history.  Maybe there could be an allusion to the 1st film, but that's it--trying to build something solid upon such a weak & cracked foundation is doomed to collapse.


----------



## Ranger REG (May 13, 2004)

johnsemlak said:
			
		

> I'd love to see that myself, but I'm afraid that many classic modules have poor possibliitys for a movie storyline.  The very confined location is the main problem.  ToEE is laregly a dungeon crawl through the, well, ToEE.  Similar story with Against the Giants.  I'd love to see a movie based on it, but really, a movie taking place at the three giant lairs would be very hard to develop.  Now, the D1-3 series has more possibilites I think...



Personally, whoever is the screenwriter should try to take creative license to conjure up a script and storyboard that won't take more than 2-and-a-half hours. As long they retain as much elements from _ToEE_ as well as the feel, it wouldn't be that bad. Plus, we have an _actual_ dungeon, not that wimpy Ridley's test in that gawd-awful first film.

On a lighter note, don't you think it's time they do a _Nodwick_ animated series?


----------



## Klaus (May 13, 2004)

A movie set in a big Dungeon _can_ be done. Just look at Alien or Aliens, for instance. It's just a big dungeon crawl! Put those ships or bases underground and there you have it!


----------



## johnsemlak (May 13, 2004)

Klaus said:
			
		

> A movie set in a big Dungeon _can_ be done. Just look at Alien or Aliens, for instance. It's just a big dungeon crawl! Put those ships or bases underground and there you have it!



 Hmm, very good point.

I suppose a lot of  'escape' or similar movies work that way.


----------



## nikolai (May 14, 2004)

The film has a $15,000,000 budget (anyone know how much that can get you?) and an IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/



> *Plot Summary*
> 
> DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: THE SEQUEL is based upon the highly successful role playing game, DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. The sequel's adventure tells the story of an evil wizard who steals a black orb which controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0406728/plotsummary




Ah, the old "dragon control" routine... it's neat that they decided upon a black dragon though.


----------



## Zappo (May 15, 2004)

15 millions? Uhm... that's... very, very little... the first movie had, like, 40 millions. 

 Then again, the cost of CGI always goes down. You can probably get decent effects nowadays for 15 million, though not exceptional ones.

   Oh, boys... you _can_ make a wonderful movie with little money. You can... but if you don't, there won't be as much eye candy to shore up weaknesses. I'm getting the feeling that this just might be worse than the first. -_-;

   Doesn't mean that I won't go and watch it on opening night, though. I'm so weak. 

 edit: I was forgetting to mention that the plot outline isn't really exciting either. There must be more possible D&D plots than stars in the universe, and they have to use the same one twice?! -_-;


----------



## Droogie (May 15, 2004)

Whats with the fetish for "epic" storylines? So far it sounds like way to much than 15 mil can handle. Not to mention that it sounds pretty similar to the concept of the first flik.


----------



## Klaus (May 15, 2004)

Droogie -> I totally agree. I'd rather see a movie with less special effects and more atmosphere. Maybe a classic Dungeon Crawl, where a party of 5 or 6 characters (no halflings or gnomes, for budget's sake) infiltrate an underground ruined temple to prevent a necromancer, his undead creations and an allied tribe of hobgoblins or bugbears or some other DnD staple, from unleashing a plague upon the countryside. Or maybe they just want the treasure...


----------



## Ranger REG (May 16, 2004)

You mean something simple like the _Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearl_? Nothing epic about the story nor the adventure but it is pretty good to watch, especially Johnny Depp doing a Keith Richard impersonation. (Rumor has it Depp wanted the _Rolling Stones_ guitarist to portray Jack Sparrow's father in the next sequel.)

But more importantly, the pirate movie has every elements that is easily recognizable by the audience, such as pirates, sailing ships, cannons, cutlasses, and treasure bounties. If you're going to do a _D&D_ movie, have every elements that is easily recognized by the audience, like a real dungeon ... savvy?


----------



## Klaus (May 16, 2004)

Savvy...


----------



## tecnowraith (May 22, 2004)

> Plot Summary
> 
> DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: THE SEQUEL is based upon the highly successful role playing game, DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. The sequel's adventure tells the story of an evil wizard who steals a black orb which controls a sleeping black dragon. An aspiring sorceress and a decorated warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil.




Ok so it is basicly the same plot as the first one. Magic artufact to control a creature or dragon. Um why repeat the first film plot for a sequeal? Please lets hope they change the plot for better or traditional dungeon crawl that someone mentioned.


----------



## nikolai (May 22, 2004)

tecnowraith said:
			
		

> Ok so it is basicly the same plot as the first one. Magic artufact to control a creature or dragon. Um why repeat the first film plot for a sequeal? Please lets hope they change the plot for better or traditional dungeon crawl that someone mentioned.




I think from the writer's perspective, that given the film's title, the movie has to have (1) a dungeon and (2) a dragon, in order to meet expectations. If you're a screenwriter who hasn't a great amount of familiarity with fantasy, the "villain has a magic artifact which controls a dragon" routine is probably a natural plot choice. It lets you check the tickboxes for Quest, Powerful Artifact, Evil Wizard, Threat to the Kingdom, Dragon, etc.

I'm not that dispondent about the concept, given there's a *black dragon*, which is very D&Desque, and an *orb of dragonkind*. I'm not as familiar with D&D history as some, but this seems very old-school to me. It's the idea _Dragonlance_ was based upon, *orbs of dragonkind* are one of the orginal artifacts. It may not seem all that people like us, but if you're just getting into fantasy, it probably seems quite cool.


----------



## RavenProject (May 25, 2004)

Great, another year of "Ohh, you are playing Dungeons&Dragons, aren't you? Yeah, I know about that stuff. I saw the movie."


----------



## Bass Puppet (May 26, 2004)

The only thing that can make this movie worse is if you get Lucas to write, produce, and direct it.   

I vote that they just continue the story from "Scourging of the World". 

I'm sure it'll be 100% better than this 15 million dollar trainwreck of an idea.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 26, 2004)

They should just do a live-action version of _Record of Lodoss War_.  it's got dungeons. It's got dragons. It's got epic quests, paladins, antipaladins, wise sages, mysterious witches, elves, dark elves, and a cool dwarf.  

 And most importantly, it doesn't suck.

 J


----------



## xanthiss (May 26, 2004)

*Homeland D&D movie*

I think they should just do the Homeland series, Drizzit would be perfect, for a main character, and has the weight and substance to carry an entire film. The secondary characters are interesting and plentiful enough. They don't need to have the typical party atmosphere to have a D&D movie. Why not go with the best character they have? A whole movie of dark elves, raids on the surface and main character tension, leading to the inevitable betrayal of his race. I smell a hit. Just my thoughts.
xanthiss


----------



## LeapingShark (May 27, 2004)

Yep Xanthiss, WOTC & RASalvatore thought the same thing.  Two years ago they made a deal with the Fireworks Entertainment (Andromeda/MutantX/AdventureInc/RelicHunter) to make a D&D TV series called "Forgotten Realms", followed by one or more theatrical movies called "Dark Elf" .  Apparently all of those deals collapsed.


----------



## Steverooo (May 31, 2004)

*Ick!*

From the plot synopsis at the top of the page, it sounds like Iron's character, and the young Magette, minus the dead Snails and Queen's Elf, will be back, from film one...  This does not bode well, IMHO, even if new actors reprise the "older" PCs!


----------



## Ranger REG (May 31, 2004)

LeapingShark said:
			
		

> Two years ago they made a deal with the Fireworks Entertainment (Andromeda/MutantX/AdventureInc/RelicHunter) to make a D&D TV series called "Forgotten Realms", followed by one or more theatrical movies called "Dark Elf" .  Apparently all of those deals collapsed.



It's probably a good thing. I recently heard that Firework Entertainment have shut down.


----------



## Green Knight (May 31, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It's probably a good thing. I recently heard that Firework Entertainment have shut down.




Yep. For those wondering what kind of job Fireworks could've done on the Forgotten Realms tv show, just check the Andromeda thread in this same forum. Andromeda was done by Fireworks, as well, and it was royally gimped by them.


----------



## Chimera (May 31, 2004)

*Muppet D&D, by Quentin Tarentino* 

Yeah, that's what I want to see.  (riffing on my earlier post)

Kermit as the young Paladin.  Miss Piggie as the Monk.  Fozzie the inept Wizard, Gonzo the Rogue.

Special appearance by the Swedish Cleric.

Of course, since it's a QT film, it will be bloody as all hell.  Definitely not for children.  Muppet blood and fur everywhere.  Everyone dies.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2004)

Chimera said:
			
		

> *Muppet D&D, by Quentin Tarentino*
> 
> Yeah, that's what I want to see.  (riffing on my earlier post)
> 
> ...



Sounds like a great idea. I would watch it. I think Muppets are underused. (Farscape and the Angel episode where he turned into a muppet clearly show this)


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 1, 2004)

*Off-topic*



			
				Green Knight said:
			
		

> Yep. For those wondering what kind of job Fireworks could've done on the Forgotten Realms tv show, just check the Andromeda thread in this same forum. Andromeda was done by Fireworks, as well, and it was royally gimped by them.



Mmm. From what I hear, Fireworks was mainly a distribution outlet for _Andromeda._ SCI-FI, I believe, has taken the role of distributor.

But if you're referring to the quality of the show that prompted Robert Hewitt Wolfe to depart, that would have to be Mrs. Roddenberry's production company with Kevin Sorbo as the show's executive producer.


----------



## Yraen (Jun 1, 2004)

*D&D 2*

Having just seen Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Return of the King, any D&D movie now has no excuse for the...erm...rather dodgy looking special effects of the first.  The hippogriff in HPTPA was great, while as everyone knows, the various creatures brought to life in The Lord of the Rings were spectacular.

I just pray that D&D 2 can do justcie to whatever monsters it features.


----------



## tecnowraith (Jun 1, 2004)

Yraen said:
			
		

> Having just seen Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Return of the King, any D&D movie now has no excuse for the...erm...rather dodgy looking special effects of the first.  The hippogriff in HPTPA was great, while as everyone knows, the various creatures brought to life in The Lord of the Rings were spectacular.
> 
> I just pray that D&D 2 can do justcie to whatever monsters it features.





Ahh you got to go to the premiere didn't you? Lucky dog!


----------



## Zappo (Jun 1, 2004)

According to imdb.com:

 Harry Potter and tPoA had a budget of 130 million dollars.

 D&D had a budget of 35 million dollars.

 D&D2 has a budget of 15 million dollars.

 Still hoping for good effects?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 2, 2004)

Yraen said:
			
		

> Having just seen Harry Potter & The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Return of the King, any D&D movie now has no excuse for the...erm...rather dodgy looking special effects of the first.



You forgot to mention _Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl._ The film have some good effect, and a good story that is full of romps.

Of course, that doesn't mean we should cast Keith Richard* as Blackstaff.   

*Johnny Depp based his Jack Sparrow character after the Rolling Stones guitarist.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 2, 2004)

RavenProject said:
			
		

> Great, another year of "Ohh, you are playing Dungeons&Dragons, aren't you? Yeah, I know about that stuff. I saw the movie."



Well, that'd be change from, "Dungeons and Dragons? Wasn't there a movie about that? Or something?" At least you're suggesting that people will actually SEE this one.

$15 million is a pretty silly amount of money to make a movie with. It can be done, but not the Hollywood way. In a way, I'm intrigued. Lower resources CAN encourage more creativity. Or ensure a complete failure to get anything done very well.

But then I really like the first movie. Much better than _Pirates of the Carribean_, says I.

Lots can happen in Hollywood. I'll believe it when it's in the can. Or at least when they start shooting. Or at least have a cast member. Or a writer. There's a lot of roadblocks to overcome before this picture gets made. THEN we can start panicking.

My number one concern is that they get a new costume designer. Did you see what that elf ranger was wearing? What the hell was that? I remember she came on screen and I turned to my friend and said, "What the F%*K is she wearing?" It's now become shorthand for us to refer to any confusingly bad aspect of a movie. Seriously, what the heck was that thing she was wearing?

That was WAY WORSE than the beholder. What was that thing?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 2, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But then I really like the first movie. Much better than _Pirates of the Carribean_, says I.



To each his or her own. For me, I enjoyed _Pirates_ more than _D&D_ simply because I can watch it without having a gag reflex come up every 5 minutes or so.

So, you pretty much know which one ended up in my DVD collections.  

As for the wardrobe, they should take notes from Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor. I don't mean to copy their works, just understand how they go about designing such elaborate and functioning costumes.

I wonder if Peter Jackson got some kind of film production classes in New Zealand.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 2, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> $15 million is a pretty silly amount of money to make a movie with. It can be done, but not the Hollywood way. In a way, I'm intrigued. Lower resources CAN encourage more creativity. Or ensure a complete failure to get anything done very well.



My feelings exactly. With such a low budget, this movie is treading on a razorblade.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 3, 2004)

Hmm. Let me guess, they're toning down magic and CGI monsters. Let's hope their special effects studio is as good as those who made _LOTR_ or _Harry Potter._


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jun 3, 2004)

I'm hoping that with that budget, they'll keep the special effects to a minimum and focus instead on character and story.

Yeah, yeah, I know. No chance. But I can hope.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 3, 2004)

Just a fool's hope.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 3, 2004)

Just kill it already, it has suffered enough.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 3, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Just kill it already, it has suffered enough.



If you mean the sequel, which continues the storyline from the first film, yes.

But I would not object to another _D&D_ film (totally different, new script, new director, etc.).


----------



## CarlZog (Jun 4, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you mean the sequel, which continues the storyline from the first film, yes.
> 
> But I would not object to another _D&D_ film (totally different, new script, new director, etc.).



I'd totally be up for seeing a well-made Forgotten Realms movie.

Or maybe a good movie that ties together the players at the table and the characters in the adventure. "The Gamers" was a hysterical take on this, but a larger budget, more serious treatment of the idea could be great.

zog


----------



## nikolai (Jun 4, 2004)

Has there been any confirmation that the "sequel" continues the storyline from the first film? They could just be taking the brand name and doing a second movie based on it (like Starship Trooper 2).


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 4, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Has there been any confirmation that the "sequel" continues the storyline from the first film?



There's not even any confirmation that there will be a sequel, other than the fact that Joel  Silver is willing to spend $15 million and that they've convinced somebody to direct it. No cast, no writer, nothing, means right now whether or not the movie will ever happen is anybody's guess.


----------



## Kaledor (Jun 4, 2004)

*"The gamers"*



			
				CarlZog said:
			
		

> "The Gamers" was a hysterical take on this, but a larger budget, more serious treatment of the idea could be great.
> zog




Speaking of "The Gamers," does anybody know anything about their sequel?  I thought I remembered hearing that it was in production a little bit ago, does anybody know if it will soon be out??  The first one was great!


----------



## Jhamin (Jun 5, 2004)

Kaledor said:
			
		

> Speaking of "The Gamers," does anybody know anything about their sequel?  I thought I remembered hearing that it was in production a little bit ago, does anybody know if it will soon be out??  The first one was great!




As far as I have heard production continues.

The press releases I have read talked about mid-late 2005 as a release date.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 7, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> The film has a $15,000,000 budget (anyone know how much that can get you?)




I believe Pitch Black was made on $20 million. Having just watched it last night, all of the effects still look good 4 years later -- partly because they were good to start with, and partly because they were _used well_. Actually, I think Pitch Black is a pretty good example of what could be done with a D&D movie overall: it's quietly good, and there's a lot more depth to it than you'd find in a lot of its peers.

I'd love to see a D&D movie that made intelligent use of effects, rather than throwing them in my face throughout the movie (particularly when they suck, as they did in the D&D movie).

Whatever they do, I can't imagine it'll be worse than having the really big guy playing the dwarf _crouch down occasionally_ so that he looks dwarf-sized.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 7, 2004)

I think they should make the movie really dark, so that you can't tell the monsters are guys in rubber suits.  In a dungeon lit with only torchlight, that shouldn't be too hard.

I think they should do a standard dungeon-crawl.  Like Keep on the Borderlands.  But the main focus should be the interactions between the characters.  And there should be some betrayal.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 7, 2004)

Another vote for Dungeon Crawl.

And, on a limited budget, steer clear of halflings, gnomes and dwarves as mais characters. Unless you cast 6'+ tall actors to be humans, 5'7" as elves and 4' tall actors as halflings or dwarves.

Pitch Black and 13th Warrior could be meshed together to form the basics of a D&D movie that'd actually be _good_.


----------



## qstor (Jun 11, 2004)

Ick....15 million...I don't think it's on a razorblade. I think its fallen over!  

Let's take up a collection! 


Mike


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 11, 2004)

They'll collect my money ... at the movie theater.


----------

