# Just when I thought there might have been hope for the second D&D movie...



## Mouseferatu (Jun 22, 2004)

The following is taken from the Dark Horizons web site.



> *Paris the Dragon-Slayer*
> 
> The hotel heiress turned megastar Paris Hilton was on radio (plugging "The Simple Life 2: Roadtrip") this morning on Kansas City talk station 710 KCMO and said she might be returning to Australia to do another film, announcing this just weeks after wrapping up a several week stint in the Dark Castle horror flick "House of Wax" currently filming in Queensland.
> 
> ...




I weep for the future.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm confused. In the same paragraph they are saying how in the right hands the D&D sequal could be good and that Paris Hilton will star in it. *head explodes from paradox*


----------



## Berandor (Jun 22, 2004)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!

All right, time to put my D&D knowledge into useful action. Let's plan an assault on the Silver compunds and kill the evil organization trying to bring down D&D once and for all!

(not a death threat)


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> AAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
> NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooo!
> 
> All right, time to put my D&D knowledge into useful action. Let's plan an assault on the Silver compunds and kill the evil organization trying to bring down D&D once and for all!
> ...




Forget Silver, lets just take out Paris Hilton and do the whole world a favor.  

(again, not a death threat)


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 22, 2004)

Isn't that an Oxymoron? Dungeons and Dragons and Paris Hilton...That's just...

Maybe it'll mean more exposure of the genre/games to a wider group of talentless and ditzy hotties that are interested in going Geek.

Not sure if that's a good thing.

I must commune with the Living Force about that subject.


----------



## Mark (Jun 22, 2004)

Paris Hilton?  Bodes well for the DVD sales, I suppose.  Depending on the extras included.  Doesn't she have some old movie footage floating around..?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 22, 2004)

What, does someone know something about Paris Hilton's acting ability that I don't?  I don't see why including her is automatically bad.  Unless it's her starring as herself, of course...  But that would be ridiculous.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 22, 2004)

Perhaps if she plays some kind of monster.

Personally I find her appearance very creepy, like some kind of weird plastic alien or something.


----------



## Wombat (Jun 22, 2004)

Given that you had some good actors in the first film, all of whom turned in abysmal performances, can this be _any _ worse?

I doubt it.

It'll be the same bad with slightly different faces.


----------



## Enforcer (Jun 22, 2004)

I will also abstain from judging Ms. Hilton's acting ability until I've seen her actually act (rather than be an idiot in real life).

The idea that the property will do well in the right hands, however, is nonsense. Joel Silver was the Executive Producer on the last fiasco as well. Granted, Silver has been attached to some good movies (the original Matrix, the Lethal Weapon series, Die Hard 1), but from his list on imdb.com, they seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule.

I would say that the right director makes all the difference, but Gerry Lively's credits are mostly sequels to horror movies that were bad when they were originals.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if Paris played a damsel-in-distress who, sadly, gets eaten by a dragon or some other equally gory and unavoidable fate....That would make the movie much more enjoyable imho.


----------



## Jeremy (Jun 22, 2004)

You can see her act in the Simple Life.   What?  You didn't think Nicole and Paris really felt the need to shower in bikini's together in front of the camera crew...  Reality TV.  Feh.

Or you can catch her on the OC playing a rich party girl.

Or on Las Vegas as a gold digger.

Or on George Lopez.

Or in the Cat in the Hat as a party girl.

Or on Wonderland as a party girl on a yacht.

Or in Zoolander.

Plenty of examples of Paris acting.


----------



## Henry (Jun 22, 2004)

Rent any of the following, if you dare, and check out her acting ability:

Raising Helen (2004) .... Amber 
L.A. Knights (2003) .... Sadie 
Cat in the Hat, The (2003) .... Female Club-Goer
... aka Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat (2003) (USA: complete title) 
Wonderland (2003/I) .... Barbie 
Nine Lives (2002) .... Jo 
QIK2JDG (2002) .... Strung-out Supermodel 
Sweetie Pie (2000) 
Wishman (1991) .... Girl on Beach

Nine Lives was I think a horror movie, so you may get a sense for how good/bad/awful she was there.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Nine Lives was I think a horror movie, so you may get a sense for how good/bad/awful she was there.




It was only a horror because she was in it.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 22, 2004)

I really think that we should boycott this movie if this information is true, If they didn't get the hint the first time around, something serious has to be done. This D&D movie is beginning to make a mockery of D&D and as a D&D hobbiest and a movie whore, this disturbs me.

Oh, and I have seen Paris Hilton act before...     ...and unless she plays a moaning succubus, she's doomed.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Bass Puppet, I just gotta say, that you have the greatest pic of Cartman in existence.  Arguably one of the best episodes of South Park of all time.    A bit of topic, but just letting you know that it made my day.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 22, 2004)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> Bass Puppet, I just gotta say, that you have the greatest pic of Cartman in existence.  Arguably one of the best episodes of South Park of all time.    A bit of topic, but just letting you know that it made my day.




You my friend, have great taste.

Thank you for the compliment, i'm a huge South Park Fan.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> You my friend, have great taste.
> 
> Thank you for the compliment, i'm a huge South Park Fan.




You are so hellacool!


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jun 22, 2004)

I just want to cry...


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 22, 2004)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> You are so hellacool!




"Hella...Hella...Hella."



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Title: "Just when I thought there might have been hope for the second D&D movie.."




Hey Mouse, I don't understand, when was there any hope? Was it Joel Silver returning as the Director?   Or was it the 15 Million dollar budget?


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Paris Hilton is hellalame!


----------



## Mark (Jun 22, 2004)

Oops, bad post...


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 22, 2004)

Two observations:

Agreed on Joel Silver's lackluster track record. There's no reason to think that his presence lends any hope to the proceedings.

There's no point in boycotting the movie. I mean, we're not the target market for this. Nobody cares if we like the film or not, so boycotting it isn't even going to show up as a blip on anyone's radar.

Finally, I just want to say that I really really wish that nobody had gotten interested in this, that the people who did the first one just kinda did another one in more or less the same vein, hopefully having learned a few lessons on story-telling in the interim, and opened up to the fans a little more. It'd be fun if there were this series of low-budget lame fantasy movies that nobody much watched but kept coming out every so often.

I don't want a D&D _Pirates of the Caribbean_. I want my D&D movies like I like my D&D campaigns -- pieced together by enthusiastic amateurs with more passion than talent, with more ideas than sense, not by professionals who'd just as soon be working on a romantic comedy or a searing family drama for all they care.

But I love enthusiastic amateurs. It's one of the things I love about the RPG industry. And the porn industry.

No, wait...


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

Bravo.


----------



## KenM (Jun 22, 2004)

Paris Hilton in the DnD movie sequal? This is a sign the end times are near.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 22, 2004)

KenM said:
			
		

> Paris Hilton in the DnD movie sequal? This is a sign the end times are near.[/QUOTE
> 
> What sad times we are living in.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 22, 2004)

I wonder WotC would be thinking of for option rights to, say, Dark Sun? A low-budget Dark Sun movie could be fun. Could be doable.

*considers...*

You know, you just might be able to turn a profit on something like that. Get Brom to do a poster? Hm.

Suddenly I'm all interested...

I mean, just because the D&D trademark has been optioned off doesn't mean there isn't room for another franchise in the fantasy film market. I bet in the wake of LotR there's lots of producers looking for the right material....


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Two observations:
> 
> Agreed on Joel Silver's lackluster track record. There's no reason to think that his presence lends any hope to the proceedings.
> 
> ...




Your probably right about there being no point in boycotting the movie, the first one was never made for the fans and it was never successful in creating new ones. So for all it's worth, it's a horrible movie that most people laughed at (who saw it) from every corner of the world. We can sit here all day and say "Wow it would be cool if they did it like this.." or "What they need is a dungeon crawl", but what good what that do? It was never made for the D&D fans and it doesn't look like this one is going to either.

But then again, many people on here don't care and are going to see it anyways, just because it has a D&D logo on it.

As for me, I would accept quality over quantity.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jun 23, 2004)

WHA WHA WHAT??

Well, maybe she'll be the one to throw rocks at the beholders and dash by... only to get blasted by a _ray of disintegration_, because unlike Hollywood, the floating eyeballs have learned. 

Or maybe she'll wear blue lipstick and get a funky mindworm thing.

Or... ahh...

Maybe there's a gross skank succubus in this or something.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

She could also serve as a human sacrifice....Though the heathen gods may get confused as of the fact that she is about 40% plastic and may not qualify as fully 'human'.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 23, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> The first one was never made for the fans



How do you know?


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> It was never made for the D&D fans



How do you know?

Reason I ask is because if nothing else, the director and producer of the first film, Courtney Solomon, is certainly a honking big Dungeons and Dragons fan, and certainly made a movie that was lifted straight from his own home campaign. Or at least that's his story on the movie commentary.

I would say most definitely it WAS made for fans, by fans. That's it's biggest problem -- if it had been made by skilled professionals it would have been a very different movie. I possibly would have liked it less, but there you go.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> As for me, I would accept quality over quantity.



Right. Because the rest of us are willing to accept crap, as long as there's lots of it. 

Sheesh. You know, people who like things different than you aren't STUPID. Statements like that serve no purpose other than attempting to insult people whose tastes differ from yours.

You thought the first film was bad, well, good for you. I'm interested in hearing why and what you would do differently. If your only contribution can be "People who don't like what I do are morons who don't understand what crap they're digesting," then we can't have much of a conversation, can we? Unless you'll deign to talk to one of us morons who happens to disagree with you.


----------



## Capellan (Jun 23, 2004)

Whaddya know.  My players are psychic.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2004)

> I'm interested in hearing why and what you would do differently.




Well...

Hire a scriptwriter who can create a plot that isn't boring and dialogue that sounds halfway decent. Hire a director who knows how to position a camera, and how to direct his cast. Hire a cast who can act (or, in some cases, are _willing_ to act). Refuse to release the movie without decent special effects.

In other words, do everything differently than Courtney Solomon.  Enthusiasm is great, but it cannot make up for lack of talent. If he wanted to make an "amateur" D&D movie, it should have gone straight to DVD. If I'm going to the theater, I expect something of theater-level quality, not something that makes me actually sink into my seat at how embarrasing the movie is.

All my opinion, of course. But even if you count Lord of the Rings as only one long movie, rather than three, D&D doesn't even make my list of best 5 fantasy movies. When you consider how recently it was made, how few decent fantasy movies are out there, and how much material they had to work with, that's saying something.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 23, 2004)

Cool.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> You thought the first film was bad, well, good for you. I'm interested in hearing why and what you would do differently. If your only contribution can be "People who don't like what I do are morons who don't understand what crap they're digesting," then we can't have much of a conversation, can we? Unless you'll deign to talk to one of us morons who happens to disagree with you.




Well, we've found what makes your blood pump.  That was quite the passionate speech there.  Please don't take offense, I'm just kind of sitting in awe.


----------



## haiiro (Jun 23, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> In other words, do everything differently than Courtney Solomon.




For a _real_ treat, check out Solomon's IMDB entry:

http://imdb.com/name/nm0813309/

If that's not a perfect example of one truly godawful film torpedoing one's "career," I'm not sure what is. :\


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> All my opinion, of course. But even if you count Lord of the Rings as only one long movie, rather than three, D&D doesn't even make my list of best 5 fantasy movies.QUOTE]
> 
> So....what is on you list of best 5 fantasy movies?


----------



## Corinth (Jun 23, 2004)

Jar-Jar Binks just lost his top spot on the Hit List.  I need my AK.  Today ain't a good day.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> Jar-Jar Binks just lost his top spot on the Hit List.  I need my AK.  Today ain't a good day.




So who took Jar-Jar's place?  The movie creators, or Paris?


----------



## Corinth (Jun 23, 2004)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> So who took Jar-Jar's place?  The movie creators, or Paris?



It's a tie; Jar-Jar is now #3.


----------



## Chimera (Jun 23, 2004)

The only decent role I can see for PH would be lifted directly from the setup from my last campaign.

Woman sitting by campfire with others.  Suddenly, Great Red Wyrm with a Wizard on it's back comes swooping down.  All others run, but she stands up and freezes there, wide eyed in fear.  She opens her mouth to scream just as it breathes, full force, directly at her.  Cut scene to people running and dragon swooping up, then back to woman shaped pile of ashes that then falls to pieces.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> How do you know?
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> ...




Two words, George Lucas. He doesn't make Star Wars Films for loyal Star Wars Fans, he makes them for his children. Maybe Courtney made them for his gaming group. AND Atleast when you look at a Tie fighter, you don't say you've seen one better in Star Trek.



> Right. Because the rest of us are willing to accept crap, as long as there's lots of it.
> 
> Sheesh. You know, people who like things different than you aren't STUPID. Statements like that serve no purpose other than attempting to insult people whose tastes differ from yours.




Your angry and your taking this the wrong way. Many people (I don't know about you) have stated that they would rather have a D&D movie than no movie at all, which I have stated my opinion on a different thread. There was no intended insult there but if you feel insulted, i'm sorry.



> You thought the first film was bad, well, good for you. I'm interested in hearing why and what you would do differently. If your only contribution can be "People who don't like what I do are morons who don't understand what crap they're digesting," then we can't have much of a conversation, can we?  Unless you'll deign to talk to one of us morons who happens to disagree with you.




Your just being mean now, and I'm sorry you feel so strongly about this. I'm not attacking you or anybody else on this board. I'm simply stating the obvious, if you need me to dissect the obvious than look somewhere else, most of us who know, know this was a bad movie and if you liked it, that's great. I'm not saying you can't like a bad movie nor am I saying that if you like it, it's good. Ticket sales and loyal D&D fans reflect the accuracy and success of this film. If you think my only critique is without contribution, than your wrong. I've stated several times that I think they should have abandoned the movie and went in the direction of the Scorging of the Worlds, maybe not in this thread, but in several before this, ones you even contributed. And by the way, this is not about what "I" would do differently, heck, many of the threads in the Story Hour would work better on screen than that movie and it doesn't take a D&D Fan to pick one out. You make it sound like nobody has a right to critique a movie without providing you with a better one. Here's a tip, if your getting heated on a message board, then find something better to get heated about because this is pretty stupid.

If you want to continue this arguement, please message me.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

Corinth said:
			
		

> It's a tie; Jar-Jar is now #3.




Does that mean that there is a #2 that is different than Paris and the movie creators?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I want my D&D movies like I like my D&D campaigns -- pieced together by enthusiastic amateurs with more passion than talent, with more ideas than sense, not by professionals who'd just as soon be working on a romantic comedy or a searing family drama for all they care.



IOW, Courtney Solomon's _Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie._  Plenty passion, zero talent.   




			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> But I love enthusiastic amateurs. It's one of the things I love about the RPG industry. And the porn industry.



Then we have plenty of mediocre-quality _d20_ products for you in the market.

As for porn, there was a time when films have plot, more or less. I miss those kind of movies.  :\


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

Despite the naysayers, I think this is a positive thing.  It shows that someone, at least, is serious about trying to revive a franchise that shouldn't have kicked off so freakin' badly.  

And Henry, although I don't know about most of those movies you listed on her credits, you are missing two deleted scenes from _Win a Date with Tad Hamilton_, which are shown on the DVD.  And her cameo in _The Cat in the Hat_ can hardly be called something that showcases her ability (or lack thereof) to act.

As far as I'm concerned, her ability is a cypher.  I have no idea if she can act or not, but what the hey, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt until I see something to convince me otherwise.

But I mean really, how can the franchise be any worse?  The plot and pacing of the first movie were atrocious, the look of the movie was mostly laughable, the dialogue was painful, the director was completely out of his league in dealing with the actors he had -- in every way I can think of, the movie was a failure.  It's painful to admit that the D&D movie, a hobby about which I, at least, am passionate, is represented by such a poorly concieved and executed movie.  The only cinematic _faux pas_ to perhaps equal it is the _Street Fighter_ movie with Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue, etc.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 23, 2004)

Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Two words, George Lucas.



Three words, different human being.

If you've got any evidence to present to suggest that the movie wasn't made for the fans, bring it up. Like I say, I'm happy to discuss either facts or opinions, but if you can't defend your opinion with a fact then don't expect me to take it for granted.

I'm not claiming definitively one way or the other, but there's at least one bit of evidence AGAINST your statement -- the word of the director himself, who claims to be a fan and made a movie he thought would be cool. Ergo, he made it for the fans.

Maybe not for YOU, but you do not represent all fans. Nobody does. So if he made it for SOME fans, your statement, "It was never made for the fans," is incorrect.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Your angry and your taking this the wrong way.



I'm not the slightest bit angry nor am I heated. I'm just smacking you for making insulting remarks. The statement "I prefer quality" has no meaning -- it only makes sense as an veiled insult towards those who disagree with you.

Because EVERYONE prefers quality, if that's the only variable on the table. EVERYONE will take the higher-quality item, all other things being equal.

The point isn't that you like quality and I like crap. It's that we disagree as to the definition of quality. And it's that very disagreement that is the interesting part of any conversation that you and I might have on this subject. It's that very disagreement that I would want to talk about. What does quality mean to you and why does one movie show it and not the other?


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Ticket sales and loyal D&D fans reflect the accuracy and success of this film.



Here you go again. "Loyal D&D fans"? Come on. What you mean is, "People who agree (don't like the movie) with me agree with me (are loyal D&D fans)." And you're insinuating that people who like this film aren't loyal D&D fans, which is a ridiculous (and again, insulting) thing to say. Say this: "I don't like this movie." Isn't that simpler? Doesn't that feel better? Why do you need to support your opinion with these legions of mythical "Loyal D&D fans"?

I'm interested in YOUR opinion. I don't care HOW many people share it. But if all you've got for me is insults, well, we don't have anything to talk about, do we? And I think that's a shame.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> You make it sound like nobody has a right to critique a movie without providing you with a better one.



I'm not objecting to anyone's critique of any movie. I'm objecting to you calling people who disagree with you stupid or disloyal or any other pejorative thing. And I'm not objecting to it because it makes me angry. Believe me, you're not capable of making me angry. Only IKEA furniture that won't assemble properly is truly capable of making me angry.


			
				Bass Puppet said:
			
		

> Here's a tip, if your getting heated on a message board, then find something better to get heated about because this is pretty stupid.



You think the standards of debate on ENWorld is a stupid topic? Well, it isn't to me, and I'm sorry that once again, the fact that I disagree with you is being taken by you as evidence of my stupidity.

But it isn't stupid to me; it's something I feel passionately about.

I WANT to hear your opinion. I think you're smart. I think you've probably got good ideas, and I want to know what they are, even if I disagree with them. But don't expect me to take insults, veiled, conscious, or otherwise, lying down.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jun 23, 2004)

What?  Paris Hilton and that Ridley guy from the first movie are going to be in the sequel to the D&D movie!?  That's HORRI--_Kai Lord notices the LOTR DVD's sitting on his shelf_--um...what were we talking about again?


----------



## takyris (Jun 23, 2004)

I saw her on Saturday Night Live.  She was trying to act.  It was embarrassing.  I feel capable of judging her acting ability as bad.

My personal feelings about the original movie were that it was definitely a movie made by a fan, but it was put through too many script-wringers to get the movie cliches, and it ended up annoying many fans with those changes.  The beholders, as one example.  My non-gaming wife caught that one.  "Wait, aren't beholders like totally scary and badass and stuff?  And they just turned them into little bouncy guard dogs?"  Its heart was in the right place -- it had the beholders in there -- but somewhere about three rewrites into it, somebody forgot what made beholders cool in the first place.

Same deal on much of the other writing.  They made it into a one-man show, with Destiny Boy, his Love Interest, and all his Sidekicks.  My complete and total guess is that they did that because it's a movie, and movies need heroes (according to the people who handle script revision number four).  The movie had the requisite elf, dwarf, wizard, and rogue, but it was all about the rogue, who got turned into a rogue/fighter, and everyone else got backgrounded... when the fun of general-purpose D&D is in teamwork and camraderie and working together -- and if somebody has a destiny, *everybody* has that destiny.  You're the "Team of the Iron Forge" or whatever, not "Bob the Chosen One, and his sidekicks, the Bob-ettes".  Too many scenes of our hero on his own.  Too many scenes of him winning because he was the movie hero.  It lost enough of the elements of D&D that it had to be judged as an ordinary fantasy movie... and as an ordinary fantasy movie, it was moderately simplistic, fairly low-budget-looking, and poorly acted in a few key areas.

That is solely my opinion, however.

And it was interesting to watch the DVD with the deleted scenes and see what they took out.  Many of the scenes that were deleted were "Other-Character" scenes, developing people who weren't the hero.  (There were also two hero-heavy scenes deleted, but they were effect-heavy set pieces, and it made sense to cut them for budget reasons.)


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 23, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> IOW, Courtney Solomon's _Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie._  Plenty passion, zero talent.



Exactly. And if I have to choose between the two, I'll take the passion every time.

You can learn just about anything if you're determined enough. But if you don't got the passion, who cares how talented you are?


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Then we have plenty of mediocre-quality d20 products for you in the market.



*checks bank account*

Yep, spent plenty of money on those, too. And the only ones I regret buying are the ones that don't feel like they were done with any passion.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But I mean really, how can the franchise be any worse?



Man, did you have to say it out loud? Now we're cursed for sure. 

If Number Two opens and the first thing we all say is, "This is worse than I imagined," we're all coming looking for you. Just so you know.


			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> The only cinematic faux pas to perhaps equal it is the Street Fighter movie with Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue, etc.



I think we've discovered a fault line in our tastes, JD. Cause I'll take _Street Fighter_ over _Mortal Kombat_ any day of the week. It had Sumo wrestlers struggling in a balsa-wood Tokyo! Raul Julia and Ming-Na Wen! Public Enemy, Ice Cube, LL Cool J and Pharcyde!

What did _Mortal Kombat_ have? Christopher Lambert and that Cary-Hiroyuki guy who always plays the bad Asian guy. Oh, and Talisa Soto. No Sumo wrestlers, though.

Tell me I'm crazy.


----------



## Tarrasque Wrangler (Jun 23, 2004)

You're Crazy!


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 23, 2004)

*re*

What lame news. They are not taking this project seriously. They are trying to turn D&D into some kind of pop phenomenon. Damn, so much good material for a great movie wasted because they are popularizing the movie.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Man, did you have to say it out loud? Now we're cursed for sure.
> 
> If Number Two opens and the first thing we all say is, "This is worse than I imagined," we're all coming looking for you. Just so you know.



Won't be the first time I've been in trouble for something I said.  Although that usually happens at home...  


			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I think we've discovered a fault line in our tastes, JD. Cause I'll take _Street Fighter_ over _Mortal Kombat_ any day of the week. It had Sumo wrestlers struggling in a balsa-wood Tokyo! Raul Julia and Ming-Na Wen! Public Enemy, Ice Cube, LL Cool J and Pharcyde!
> 
> What did _Mortal Kombat_ have? Christopher Lambert and that Cary-Hiroyuki guy who always plays the bad Asian guy. Oh, and Talisa Soto. No Sumo wrestlers, though.
> 
> Tell me I'm crazy.



Sorry, you're crazy.  I'm not saying _Mortal Kombat_ was a good movie by any means.  But it did have a much less ludicrous plot than _Street Fighter_.  It was marginally better acted, it had much better effects, and a much better screenplay and dialogue.  And it had Talisa Soto.

Plus _Street Fighter_ wasn't made for the loyal, intelligent fans.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> What lame news. They are not taking this project seriously. They are trying to turn D&D into some kind of pop phenomenon. Damn, so much good material for a great movie wasted because they are popularizing the movie.



I'm not following you Celt-bird.  How is that a bad thing?  Especially next to the alternative: i.e., creating another movie in the same vein as the original?


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jun 23, 2004)

The problem with the first one is that the writers for the movie never played the game.  They just got access to tons of Wizards of the Coast books, looked at the pictures and some of the material and were like: "Let's toss this in because it will look kewl."

Magic dust-- feh!
Subpar Beholders-- bah!
wussy dragons with no intelligence-- aaarrgggh!

The movie would've been somewhat greater if those hacks had at least played a game of DnD to know the limitations and advantages of the character classes, creatures, and to get an adequate understanding of the genre (that being RPG derived movies). Hell, they could've read the Greyhawk setting or something similar to piece together a decent movie.

Freakin' hacks.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 23, 2004)

> What, does someone know something about Paris Hilton's acting ability that I don't?



I think that's pretty clear.


----------



## Endur (Jun 23, 2004)

The problem is that Hollywood doesn't have a clue.

If you want a great fantasy movie, you take a great fantasy book as your source.

i.e. The Lord of the Rings.  Conan.  Tarzan.  etc.

D&D is not a book.  If they want to make a D&D movie, they should pick one of the D&D books to base it on.

DragonLance.  The Crystal Shard (first Drizzt).  One of the other (decent) novels.  It doesn't matter which, but they need a novel to base it on.  Not just the game.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 23, 2004)

Passion, talent and professionalism aren't mutually exclusive. Nor is one the excuse for lack of the others. The D&D franchise is not being taken seriously, despite having an enormous potential; that's irritating to say the least.


----------



## MEG Hal (Jun 23, 2004)

*Other news...*

Another factoid...
Silver is in charge of the new reality TV show _The Last Action Star _ where one male and female star in their own movie that he produces...could we be so blessed to have them get D&D 2------  .

Just more food for thought.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> I think that's pretty clear.



Well, then please elucidate.  I still don't think her off-screen antics, her many movie cameos, or her "performance" on the unscripted reality show that's made her into the celebrity of the week are any indication of whether or not she's got a good acting performance in her or not.  With the exception of takyris, who pointed to a specific performance that he thought was subpar, I haven't seen anybody show in any way, shape or form that we really know anything about Paris Hilton's ability to act.

Now granted, I don't particularly like Paris Hilton.  I don't think she's really all that attractive, and I wouldn't in the least be surprised to find that she can't act at all.  But the Chicken Little-ness of this thread is absolutely astounding.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 23, 2004)

You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.

"Popular = bad"
Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here.  It's been done to death without convincing anyone.

"Our hobby = Great potential for a film"
Despite the substantial evidence to the contrary?  (i.e. a film even we didn't like and a great many cookie-cutter books.)  Besides, what's actually compelling about D&D?  What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters?  Interaction.  We all think our games are incredibly compelling and would make great films.  But we're all coming from the inherently biased point of view of a participant in those stories.  Of course they're compelling to us, we're IN them.  A story about yourself (and your character is really just an extension of yourself) is automatically more compelling than the same story about someone else.

Any D&D movie is forced to compete with every campaign we've ever played.  And in those, we could and did change the story to fit our personal vision of what was "right."  As a result, we're going to find any static interpretation of D&D wanting.

And then we get all the fun of armchair directing/writing/etc.  Plus we can pat ourselves on the back about how much more compelling our stories are because we are smarter and more sophisticated, and we don't have to dumb down our stories to cater to the rest of the stupid public.

So really, it's a win for us anyway.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

IMHO, any sort of D&D movie ever made would have to not only have awesome graphics and action scenes, which is a must, but also have at least a decent plot.  Take The Scorpion King for example.  The fighting scenes were very good, but the plot....wait, WAS there a plot???  Personally, I like to have a point to the movie I'm watching as opposed to mindless, pointless violence.  
I also think that in order to really show how a D&D story really is, they need to portray that it is not a  one man show.  There can't be just one hero that the entire story and therefore the entire world focuses on.  They need to show that each and every character has a story, a past, and hopefully a future.  They need to show that the character, though made up, is still a living part of the world they are trying to create.  If we watch all of the characters live and learn, then the story becomes real to us and we can relate to their experiences.  The only two movies that I can think of where this was used is LOTR and LXG.  LOTR pretty much explains itself, but in LXG, it wasn't really just about Allan Quatermain.  You also see the way Jekyll learns to live and even cooperate with his counter part, and how he begins to feel for Mia.  And how Tom Sawyer finally manages to get through his teenage I'm-better-than-everyone-else-so-worship-me stage.  This isn't the only thing that makes a good movie, but it certainly plays a large part in my oppinion.

So, how was my attempt at sounding halfway intelligent?


----------



## BiggusGeekus (Jun 23, 2004)

Noooo!!!!!


I want my mommy.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.
> 
> "Popular = bad"
> Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here.  It's been done to death without convincing anyone.



I agree with you completely.  Well, that's not exactly true; I don't believe the thread is _taking_ an elitist turn, I believe it _started out_ elitist and has only gotten worse as its progressed.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I agree with you completely.  Well, that's not exactly true; I don't believe the thread is _taking_ an elitist turn, I believe it _started out_ elitist and has only gotten worse as its progressed.




I think that's a bit uncalled for. I didn't start the thread with "Everything popular sucks, and everyone's wrong but me." I started it with an opinion--one I still stand by--that Paris Hilton's presence in something like this is a sign that the creators are clueless.

Others have pointed out her various guest appearances here and there, so I won't address the acting ability.

But you know, even if she _can_ act, I stand by what I said. There are certain celebrities whose entire image and public persona are off-putting, or are at least wrong for certain projects. It doesn't matter how well they can (or can't) act, their presence in a film projects a specific feel, image or expectation. Remember the uproar when it was thought DiCaprio was going to be Annakin Skywalker? For a lot of people, it wasn't because they thought DiCaprio can't act; it's because he _felt_ wrong for that sort of movie.

The same holds true, but to the Nth power, of Paris Hilton in any sort of role where she's playing anything other than Paris Hilton. The fact is, right or wrong, actors and film-stars carry who they are, and what they've done in the past, as baggage to every film they do. Whether or not that's fair, it's the way it is, and it's something film-makers should be aware of. These guys clearly aren't.

Put another way... I dislike Adam Sandler, because I don't like the sorts of movies he makes. I'm willing to acknowledge that he can actually act, at least somewhat, when he puts his mind to it. But even knowing that, I wouldn't have wanted to see him cast in Lord of the Rings. Even if he nailed the part, the fact that it was Adam Sandler, and all the baggage he carries, would have ruined the scene, if not the movie.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

"The stars are veiled....something stirs in the East.....The eye of the enemy is moving......Adam Sandler is HERE!!!!!!!!!!"


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 23, 2004)

*re*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'm not following you Celt-bird.  How is that a bad thing?  Especially next to the alternative: i.e., creating another movie in the same vein as the original?




It is a bad thing because they are not taking it seriously. They are casting actors without much merit into the lead roles because they are the flavor of the week in pop culture. More often than not, that leads to a very poorly done movie.

Personally, I see D&D as fertile ground for producing a truly interesting, exciting, and entertaining movie if handled right. I would prefer a director/writer/producer to look at this as a chance to produce another fantasy masterpiece based on the best Fantasy RPG ever made. 

By choosing to cast someone such as Paris Hilton, basically a pop culture phenomena primarily known for being pretty, does not make me feel confident that they intend to build this into a great movie. Instead, it indicates to me that they are going to try to throw something together that will hopefully be a quick money grab because of its incorporation of popular culture and special effects.

As is always the case, we'll see when its done. This does not inspire my confidence.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

I completely agree with Celtavian except for one small thing.  I do not believe that Paris Hilton is pretty in any way, shape, or form.  But that's my oppinion.


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 23, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.
> 
> "Popular = bad"
> Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here.  It's been done to death without convincing anyone.




Popular is not bad. "Pop" culture on the other hand is questionable. Paris Hilton is all about "pop" culture. She hasn't proven anything except that she is a pretty woman. 



> "Our hobby = Great potential for a film"
> Despite the substantial evidence to the contrary?  (i.e. a film even we didn't like and a great many cookie-cutter books.)  Besides, what's actually compelling about D&D?  What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters?  Interaction.  We all think our games are incredibly compelling and would make great films.  But we're all coming from the inherently biased point of view of a participant in those stories.  Of course they're compelling to us, we're IN them.  A story about yourself (and your character is really just an extension of yourself) is automatically more compelling than the same story about someone else.




D&D can be built into a great adventure story in the tradition of any great adventure story if handled correctly. 



> Any D&D movie is forced to compete with every campaign we've ever played.  And in those, we could and did change the story to fit our personal vision of what was "right."  As a result, we're going to find any static interpretation of D&D wanting.




You must be kidding. Compete with our campaigns. I could care less if it simulates my campaign. D&D is synonymous with Sword and Sorcery fantasy. I'd like to see a successful Sword and Sorcerty fantasy franchise developed that could be continued. Then I wouldn't have to wait so many odd years for the next great Sword and Sorcery fantasy film.

_Lord of the Rings_ has opened the door for other fantasy films to be made even moreso than _Conan_ and _Excalibur_ did so many years ago. A few poorly done films is just going to kill Sword and Sorcery fantasy again leaving those of us who enjoy such films to wait through another long draught until _The Hobbit_ is made or some other great fantasy book makes it to screen.

Sword and sorcery fantasy fades faster than horror films.


----------



## nikolai (Jun 23, 2004)

My thoughts;

I really doubt this is another "Liv Tyler=Arwen" controversy. Paris Hilton may, unbeknownst to the rest of us, have superb acting abilities and be perfect for the part. But, I think it is more likely that she's being cast because she's famous. Even if she's any good, who she is will likely overpower any role she plays, and that's the best case scenario. That said, the last film did have top notch acting talent, not that it did them any good...



			
				Celtavian said:
			
		

> D&D is synonymous with Sword and Sorcery fantasy. I'd like to see a successful Sword and Sorcerty fantasy franchise developed that could be continued. Then I wouldn't have to wait so many odd years for the next great Sword and Sorcery fantasy film.




I think there are a lot of posts which have been spot on about the atractions of the film. D&D could make a great adventure film. It's hard to think of a better title for a S&S film. The game has it's own tropes which could work brilliantly on screen. And most importantly, the game is distilled out of the best features of S&S. I think this is why there's still the interest in the franchise; even though the first film wasn't up to much.

But I have my suspicions about whether the people behind the sequel "get" all the reasons why the game is popular. The fun of playing the game is the teamwork, adventure, and having to use your wits to survive; it'd be great it this all got carried across onto the screen - I'm not sure it will though.


----------



## Bass Puppet (Jun 23, 2004)

Thank Peter Jackson for making a "Passionate Movie" with a crew that had an eye for "Quality" regardless how "True" it was to the books or not. *



* disclaimer
That wasn't a dig or insult or put down to those who thought LOTR sucked nor was it elitist of me to think that any movie made with less quality or passion will be  inadiquit compared to LOTR.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jun 23, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> She hasn't proven anything except that she is a pretty woman.



And even that's pretty disputable, IMHO.


----------



## ghettognome (Jun 23, 2004)

Paris would be a bad choice, though she would bring ratings. They really need to get Vin Diesel as the main character, that would make it worthwhile, he would ensure it was a good D&D flick.  Someone should write to the producer.


----------



## ghettognome (Jun 23, 2004)

Paris would be a bad choice, though she would bring ratings. They really need to get Vin Diesel as the main character, that would make it worthwhile, he would ensure it was a good D&D flick.  Someone should write to the producer. 
er there was an error in posting... and seems I am pages behind on my reading.... my bad


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

I think that someone like Kate Beckinsale would bring in much better ratings than Paris Hilton.  Not necessarily more attention, but better ratings.  There may even be a chance that she'd be interested.  She seems to be getting into the whole fantasy/horror stuff nowadays.


----------



## takyris (Jun 23, 2004)

Well, not to defend Paris Hilton -- since, er, I find her annoying whenever I roll through something she's in -- but as JD-jazzy-Dyal said, has anybody but me actually seen her in something?  Now, I saw her live (as a cameo guest on _SNL_), and she was still "acting" like herself, so that's not an indication (although as I said, she was bad, in kind of a faux-"I'm showing you that I'm assured and in control of the situation" kind of way, where you could tell that she thought she was far cooler than she actually was).  She could do an incredibly rockin' Lady Macbeth, for all I know.

I don't *believe* that to be the case, and I'm not a fan of her personally, but it's not inconceivable.  I haven't seen her in anything where she wasn't playing herself (or a herself knock-off), and I personally haven't seen her in anything that wasn't shot in one take.  A good director can make mediocre actors look good with enough takes.  You can often tell the mediocre actors from the great ones by looking at which actors can change emotion or deliver an impassioned dialogue without the director having to go to a different camera shot (and thus, go to a different take, give them time to get into their new emotion, etc).

And frankly, she's tall, thin, and expensive-looking enough to make a pretty good aristocratic elf wizardess or something (provided that she can in fact act).


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 23, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I think that's a bit uncalled for. I didn't start the thread with "Everything popular sucks, and everyone's wrong but me." I started it with an opinion--one I still stand by--that Paris Hilton's presence in something like this is a sign that the creators are clueless.



Sorry, Mouse -- didn't mean to single you out there, just point out that from pretty much it's inception the idea has been that Paris Hilton = bad because Paris Hilton = flavor of the month in pop culture.

I think that _is_ an elitist attitude, and one that logically doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Modin Godstalker (Jun 23, 2004)

Just chiming in to reinforce a previous posters point about using one of the D&D novels to base the movie off of.

D&D is pretty much a set of rules to help move along the cooperatively created plot between GM and players.  Its too generic to make a movie from.  The original Dragonlance novels probably are good enough though.

If you want to make a movie about D&D, make a documentary about the culture of roleplaying.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Sorry, Mouse -- didn't mean to single you out there, just point out that from pretty much it's inception the idea has been that Paris Hilton = bad because Paris Hilton = flavor of the month in pop culture.




'sokay. I'm pretty much on a hair trigger these days. I've been dealing a lot with the White Wolf boards--specifically, the one about the New World of Darkness--recently. It's enough to get under _anyone's_ skin.


----------



## Celtavian (Jun 23, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Sorry, Mouse -- didn't mean to single you out there, just point out that from pretty much it's inception the idea has been that Paris Hilton = bad because Paris Hilton = flavor of the month in pop culture.
> 
> I think that _is_ an elitist attitude, and one that logically doesn't make much sense.




It makes plenty of sense if you prefer the "old" way of doing things where acting was considered a profession where a person would earn their place. I'm partial to the "old" way of doing things. I don't like seeing people cast in movies because they are the current "pop" culture thing. I would prefer they were cast because they had some acting training, experience, and a degree of talent. This is especially true of movies I would like to see done well. 

I think you are taking your current stance just to be contrary to the popular opinion on the thread. You wouldn't know what an elitist attitude was if it hit you on the head. Most people are stating their opinion based on seeing Paris Hilton on T.V. 

If she were some unknown, this wouldn't be an issue. Plenty of people have seen her face splashed across the media and heard her speak much to their chagrin. If you have some information to the contrary, then why don't you post it. Where has she received her theatrical training? Has she any background in theatre? Does she taking acting seriously or is she doing it because her agent recommended it? Acting is a profession to me, not something to be tried by every person who manages to get a moment of the spotlight.


----------



## takyris (Jun 23, 2004)

Celtavain, that's not really a supportable statement.  I dislike many celebrities after seeing them acting like themselves or on live television, but that doesn't make them less cool as actors.  David Duchovny has moments of coming off like a jerk in person, and Orlando Bloom has gotten quoted as saying some fairly stupid stuff, but that doesn't mean I dislike Duchovny's portrayal of Agent Mulder (or, for that matter, his character in "Return to Me", the romantic comedy with Minnie Driver), or Bloom's portrayal of Legolas or his character (Tanner, Turner?  Brain fart) in "Pirates".  Judging someone's acting ability based on their personal comments and their attitude on a reality show is not really a good thing to do.

I'm not saying that I think she'll be great.  I'm just saying that I don't automatically think she'll be awful.  I'm looking forward to seeing her as much as I'm looking forward to seeing any probably-hired-for-appearance-rather-than-acting-ability person with only minor acting credits up to this point.


----------



## Fast Learner (Jun 23, 2004)

I'm with Mouse here. Adam Sandler is a good example. Michael Jackson might be an even better example: would you _care_ about how good his acting skills were if you knew he was going to have a major role in the film? His celebrity -- and infamy -- would completely mask the role and overwhelm the film and his acting skill wouldn't matter one whit. While Paris' celebrity and infamy aren't nearly as strong, the same effect will be produced.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 23, 2004)

I truly think that Paris is only doing this in order to further her popularity, and her sudden good-girl-next-door look as a cover up for her recent porn video scandal.  I saw a pic of her in a Game Informer mag. where she was holding a Gamecube and smiling cutely for the camera.  To me, that's just pure, faked innocence.  Now that I hear of this D&D movie thing, it almost sounds like she's trying to form her own Leage of Extraordinary Stereo-typical Geeks..... Maybe she needs an army in order to enslave the world.  If you want brain washing technology, nerds are the people to go to.....and the cigarrette industry.

By the way takyris, it is Turner.


----------



## Zappo (Jun 24, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Besides, what's actually compelling about D&D? What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters?



Uhm, the vast, vast majority of Hollywood movies are a lot of recycled, generic [insert genre] plots and characters, and they are _still_ way better than the D&D movie. I'd _love_ a great D&D movie, but right now I would settle for mediocrity.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 24, 2004)

The first D&D movie was so bad, that i consider it an insult to the world of RPG.  If having Paris Hilton in the second movie would actually make it a better film, then I would be all for it, regardless of my personal oppinions on her past projects.  But I truly don't believe that that's going to be the case.  In fact, I believe that just the opposite will happen.  Again, this is all just my humble oppinion before anyone takes offense and tries to assassinate me.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 24, 2004)

Celtavian said:
			
		

> You must be kidding. Compete with our campaigns...



Nope.  With our perceptions of D&D filtered through our already rose-filtered impressions of our own campaigns.

I, too, would love to see a Sword & Sorcery movie out of D&D.  But it's incredibly unlikely.  Look at what has been popular and sustainable even within the hobby: High, high, HIGH fantasy.  We're going to get a low budget version of that, unfortunately.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Exactly. And if I have to choose between the two, I'll take the passion every time.
> 
> You can learn just about anything if you're determined enough. But if you don't got the passion, who cares how talented you are?



Actually, the production companies that is funding your film care how talented you are.

As for the level of determination, trust me, that is a big difference between Courtney Solomon and Peter Jackson, whose only common ground is passion.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Jun 24, 2004)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> I truly think that Paris is only doing this in order to further her popularity, and her sudden good-girl-next-door look as a cover up for her recent _porn video scandal_.



Man, that's the weirdest typo I've ever seen.  Somehow you typed "porn video scandal" when you meant to type "porn video publicity stunt."

...or maybe I'm just being overly suspicious.  Maybe there's no connection between her amateur porn tape making front page news just before her crappy reality TV show came on.  Maybe the entire world knew who she was and was fascinated by her and she didn't _need_ any publicity to drum up interest in her TV show.  After all, she was already internationally recognized and universally famous just because she was the heir to the Hilton fortune, did occasional and fairly marginal modeling jobs, and...uh...went to a lot of parties.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I'm sure the fact that she went from "Paris Hilton?  No, I've never been to France, and I think I'd probably stay somewhere else when I went" to having her picture (with or without grainy nightvision) slapped across every magazine and celebrity gossip show in creation was an entirely unintentional side effect of the "accidental" release of a video showing her having bad sex.  It's just funny how that worked out, huh?

--
anyway, it's not like a second d&d movie would be _more_ doomed with her in it
ryan


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jun 24, 2004)

I'm skipping all other posts in this thread.
I just want to say the following.

If you want to get attractive movie stars into a D&D movie, get the stars that actually friggin like D&D!!!!!

Vin Diesel, Lexa Doig, Robin Williams (maybe as the villan)

cripes!


----------



## Mystery Man (Jun 24, 2004)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I'm confused. In the same paragraph they are saying how in the right hands the D&D sequal could be good and that Paris Hilton will star in it. *head explodes from paradox*



LoL


----------



## crazedmilk (Jun 24, 2004)

*Forgotten Realms: The Simple Life*

_Someone's leaked some of the dialogue from the highly anticipated upcoming D&D sequel! Let's take a peek, shall we?_ 

Paris: (holding pitchfork and wearing +4 thong of abject sluttyness) There's that <hmmph> Midnight. Ever since she got control of the weave, she has been such a bitch. what-ever.

Nicole: Yeah, like, just about anybody can wield spellfire. I mean, like, look! (blasts hole in nearest barn, and ogling redneck child)

Paris: I just hope that something changes soon before I tell the producers to send me back to Krynn. I mean, those Minotaur Paladins are SO hot.


----------



## Mystery Man (Jun 24, 2004)

crazedmilk said:
			
		

> _Someone's leaked some of the dialogue from the highly anticipated upcoming D&D sequel! Let's take a peek, shall we?_
> 
> Paris: (holding pitchfork and wearing +4 thong of abject sluttyness) There's that <HMMPH>Midnight. Ever since she got control of the weave, she has been such a bitch. what-ever.
> 
> ...



*shudder* Please, I beg of you. Never mention ...that girl... and the Forgotten Realms in the same sentence again.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, then please elucidate.



Done already, and multiple times. See below.


> With the exception of takyris,



And Jeremy. And Henry. Note that others have also had (the misfortune?) to see some of the noted movies, etc. If you need others to concur, well then - 
"I concur".

If you want to ignore the given evidence for whatever reason, it's your perogative. But given the "roles" that she's been in, the strikes are against her so far. The negative reactions are both perfectly understandable and perfectly reasonable.


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (Jun 24, 2004)

I see a few people with the opinion that D&D simpy cannot be used as the basis of a good movie. I disagree, and I back up my opinion by saying this:

If you changed the title of the Lord of the Rings movie to Dungeons and Dragons, most people would have said it was a wonderful movie that was faithful to D&D.

Change a few names and the title, and LOTR is the best D&D movie you'll ever see. It can be done. It just takes passion *and* talent. Passion alone isn't enough and can in fact be a detriment.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 24, 2004)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> Done already, and multiple times. See below.
> 
> And Jeremy. And Henry. Note that others have also had (the misfortune?) to see some of the noted movies, etc. If you need others to concur, well then -
> "I concur".
> ...



No, it hasn't been done.  I've seen pointed out to me a number of cameos where, if she was lucky, she had _one_ line.  In a "role" where she essentially either played herself or a parody of herself.  I'm not ignoring any evidence, because I haven't seen any.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 24, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> But the Chicken Little-ness of this thread is absolutely astounding.



And is there any corroboration of this casting from a place other than an anonymous tipper to Dark Horizons? Generally it's a good idea to disregard all casting rumors until contracts are signed.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 24, 2004)

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Man, that's the weirdest typo I've ever seen.  Somehow you typed "porn video scandal" when you meant to type "porn video publicity stunt."
> 
> ...or maybe I'm just being overly suspicious.  Maybe there's no connection between her amateur porn tape making front page news just before her crappy reality TV show came on.  Maybe the entire world knew who she was and was fascinated by her and she didn't _need_ any publicity to drum up interest in her TV show.  After all, she was already internationally recognized and universally famous just because she was the heir to the Hilton fortune, did occasional and fairly marginal modeling jobs, and...uh...went to a lot of parties.
> 
> ...




Hmmm......  You make a good point, though I can't remember feeling this sheepish since first grade.    I still think that she must have some kind of alterior motive for taking such a sudden interest in the nerds and geeks of the world.  Does she really seem like the kind of person who has anyone's but own best interest in mind?   :\


----------



## Someone (Jun 24, 2004)

When I read "Paris Hilton" in the first page, at first I beieved you were talking of an hotel.


----------



## Mercule (Jun 24, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> and Orlando Bloom has gotten quoted as saying some fairly stupid stuff,



I'm always curious about this sort of stuff.  What did he say?

If it's political/otherwise in appropriate, could you drop me an email @yahoo.com.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 24, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Actually, the production companies that is funding your film care how talented you are.



I never said I didn't care about how talented somebody is. I said that if I had to CHOOSE between talent and passion, I'd choose passion. I'd rather watch somebody who really CARES about what they're doing make a hash of it than watch somebody do something really well without giving me any sense that they care about it. 

Best, obviously, is watching people who are really good at something do it with loads of passion.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> As for the level of determination, trust me, that is a big difference between Courtney Solomon and Peter Jackson, whose only common ground is passion.



I would say that Jackson has reserves of passion over Solomon. I mean, the amount of effort and faith it took to get LotR made the way he made it blows me away. I can still wish that big parts of it were done differently, and I think on any scale it fails at points, but it's still a magnificent achievement. If I've ever given the sense that I think the D&D movie compares at all to LotR, I apologize. I think the D&D movie is a very typical bad fantasy movie, nearly on a par with, say, _The Sword and the Sorcerer_, or _The Beastmaster_. The acting at its worst is worse than either of those films, but the leads in the D&D picture were better, I thought. The story was no stupider and the effects significantly better, and a couple of the fight scenes actually worked.

Yeah, it was lame. It was obviously made by people possessing very little experience or talent. I find that endearing. It find it far more appealing than many of the slicker, big-budget pictures that leave me with no sense of the people who made them. I don't think Courtney Solomon's much of a director, but I do feel like I kinda know him, and I think we'd get along just fine.

I bet he likes _Beastmaster_, too.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I bet he likes _Beastmaster_, too.




Who could possibly not like Beastmaster?


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 24, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah, it was lame. It was obviously made by people possessing very little experience or talent. I find that endearing. It find it far more appealing than many of the slicker, big-budget pictures that leave me with no sense of the people who made them. I don't think Courtney Solomon's much of a director, but I do feel like I kinda know him, and I think we'd get along just fine.



Great, I'm glad you could get along with him. In fact, if you get along with him now and keep him busy, we can get the talented folk to make a decent _D&D_ film behind his back.  

If you ask me, his "indie" fantasy film would have been acceptable if it hadn't have that _D&D_ label on it. Acceptable, but even I woudn't buy a ticket, rent it, or add to my DVD collection.




			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> I bet he likes _Beastmaster_, too.



The movie or the TV show? I only like the original film because of Tanya Robert.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 25, 2004)

NeoSamurai said:
			
		

> Isn't that an Oxymoron? Dungeons and Dragons and Paris Hilton...That's just...
> 
> Maybe it'll mean more exposure of the genre/games to a wider group of talentless and ditzy hotties that are interested in going Geek.
> 
> ...




It's a tossup as to which is worse: Paris Hilton or Mr. Blue Lips..... That's just plain wrong.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Jun 25, 2004)

Fast Learner said:
			
		

> Perhaps if she plays some kind of monster.
> 
> Personally I find her appearance very creepy, like some kind of weird plastic alien or something.




 Yeah. She reminds me of a Barbie doll. Same thing with Christina Aguliera. Both look plastic and fake as heck! 

Next thing is we'll have Britney Spears in there. Might as well go for that R rating for having a prostitute in the movie.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 25, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Yeah. She reminds me of a Barbie doll. Same thing with Christina Aguliera. Both look plastic and fake as heck!
> 
> Next thing is we'll have Britney Spears in there. Might as well go for that R rating for having a prostitute in the movie.




Well, while we're making a list, how about Janet Jackson?  She can summon a dire Justin Timberlake, that shows she's at a pretty high level!


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 25, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> If you ask me, his "indie" fantasy film would have been acceptable if it hadn't have that D&D label on it.



Yeah, I think that causes a lot of the frenzy the film generates around here. If it had been released without any ties to "our" game (with a title like _The Dragonlord_, or something stupid like that), people wouldn't be so frothed up about it. People would probably like it as much as they liked other crappy fantasy movies.

Is what I think.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Jun 26, 2004)

Enchantress said:
			
		

> Well, while we're making a list, how about Janet Jackson? She can summon a dire Justin Timberlake, that shows she's at a pretty high level!



Not funny ...not funny...that is a nightmare, a horrid thought of an idea


----------



## Goodsport (Jun 26, 2004)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Britney Spears


----------



## Goodsport (Jun 26, 2004)

Does Paris Hilton's inclusion in the sequel mean that Zoe McLellan (
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) _won't_ be reprising her role as Marina? 


-G


----------



## ElectricDevil (Jun 26, 2004)

What?  No one is lambasting in the fact that there won't be a Wayans brother in this one?  Maybe they can get Marlon Wayans back so he can torment Wilton- er... Hilton.

He -did- come back from the dead, afterall.

*Coughcough*


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 26, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Yeah, I think that causes a lot of the frenzy the film generates around here. If it had been released without any ties to "our" game (with a title like _The Dragonlord_, or something stupid like that), people wouldn't be so frothed up about it. People would probably like it as much as they liked other crappy fantasy movies.
> 
> Is what I think.



Not necessarily. It just a lot easier to dismiss said crappy fantasy movie without getting all worked up about it.   

For example...

_Conan the Barbarian._ (Rated R.) Cool!  
_Conan the Destroyer._ (Rated PG-13.) WTF!!!   

_Ator._ Feh...
_Kull the Conqueror._ Feh...

_Dragonslayer._ Cool!  
_Dragonheart._ Feh...
_Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie._ WTF!!!


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 26, 2004)

Goodsport said:
			
		

> Does Paris Hilton's inclusion in the sequel mean that Zoe McLellan (
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks like it.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 26, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Not necessarily. It just a lot easier to dismiss said crappy fantasy movie without getting all worked up about it.
> 
> For example...
> 
> ...



I'd dismiss every one of those as a crappy movie that I could do without ever seeing again, personally.


----------



## takyris (Jun 26, 2004)

Don't forget _Red Sonja_!  I watched it on Thursday.  It's still bad.


----------



## Goodsport (Jun 26, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> It looks like it.




Oh.


----------



## Templetroll (Jun 26, 2004)

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue191/interview.html

This was an interview with Courtney Solomon and Thora Birch.  Some fascinating points in it.  The cast was presigned for the trilogy; ;et's see if they show.  Solomon expected to have more money for the sequel and the story will be better about 60% of the way through it.

There was also supposed to be an actual 'dungeon sequence' with monsters that he hoped to include in the second film.

I find it interesting that the scenario was supposedly lifted from Solomon's home campaign since much had been made of they pouring over all the material from Wizards to come up with a story.  

I know that the first thing I would have done differently was to have a story that involved the characters, their backgrounds and made it personal, not this free the oppressed thing and an artifact that was only useful for the final battle.  You need to care about the characters.  How much more dangerous does The One Ring seem by being there throughout the trilogy and having its draining effect and corruptive influence on characters you care about.

the first movie should have taken from that opening scene - The wizard's evil work to gain control of *one* dragon and how that work and that dragon forces the characters to work to stop him.  There should be a nice fight st the end of the movie with one dragon versus a party, and the wizard covering his tracks, his plot foiled and the next movie is set up.  Second movie is the wizard using his position to get the young mage to lead the group into a deathtrap dungeon.  They survive, but no one knows that and the wizard is shown, via a crystal ball the party found in the last room of the dungeon, to be seeking the rod to control dragons.  third movie you have the good and evil forces moving to get the rod first, while the wizard pulls his political tricks to force the Empress to use her rod first, so that he can be seen as the savior opposing the tyrannical Empire.  Only the party has the ability to reveal the truth and they have to use some odd bits of magic to make it to the city in time.  I'd use the Folding Boat, robe of useful items and an item with Zone of Truth to make it happen.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 27, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd dismiss every one of those as a crappy movie that I could do without ever seeing again, personally.



Including Peter Jackson's _LOTR_? You'd dismisss them without any emotion behind it? You won't accuse Jackson for taking creative license in adapting Tolkien's books?


----------



## tecnowraith (Jun 27, 2004)

My 2 cents... The writers and producers of the supose sequeal should take a look at Record of Lodoss Wars (anime) on how to write a story based around the D&D book. Eeven though it was TV show/OVA, the creators of this anime based the it on D&D, from what I heard. You cared about the characters, you new about theirs histories and why they got together. It quests, treasure hunying, monter fighting and it show teamwork.


----------



## Starman (Jun 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd dismiss every one of those as a crappy movie that I could do without ever seeing again, personally.




What! Dragonslayer is a crappy movie?! Blasphemer!

Starman


----------



## Klaus (Jun 28, 2004)

A movie in the vein of Dragonslayer could be done with the small budget reported for D&D 2. And that'd be a good thing, IMHO.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Including Peter Jackson's _LOTR_? You'd dismisss them without any emotion behind it? You won't accuse Jackson for taking creative license in adapting Tolkien's books?



Uh, LotR was not on the list that I dismissed.

Although, after many repeated viewings, the flaws in the LotR movies are becoming more and more apparent to me, unfortunately.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Uh, LotR was not on the list that I dismissed.
> 
> Although, after many repeated viewings, the flaws in the LotR movies are becoming more and more apparent to me, unfortunately.



Isn't that always how it works?  I know very few movies that prove flawless on repeat viewings.

Besides, can said flaws be any worse than those of the book itself?


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Isn't that always how it works?  I know very few movies that prove flawless on repeat viewings.
> 
> Besides, can said flaws be any worse than those of the book itself?



Yes, they absolutely can.  Despite probably almost two dozen reads of the books, I still find them to be masterpieces, and the "flaws" (which in most cases were deliberate bucking of the literary conventions of modern novel structure) don't slow me down at all.

Meanwhile, there are parts of the Lord of the Rings movies that make me cringe.


----------



## nikolai (Jun 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, there are parts of the Lord of the Rings movies that make me cringe.




Would you mind elaborating on this? Here may not be the place to do it, and if you want to start a new threat, please do. But I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the LotR movies.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 28, 2004)

nikolai said:
			
		

> Would you mind elaborating on this? Here may not be the place to do it, and if you want to start a new threat, please do. But I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the LotR movies.



Just briefly, as it is OT for the thread -- at times the dialogue sounds incredibly hoaky to me.  And it's invariably dialogue that was _not_ lifted from Tolkien himself.  His dialogue, although stilted and unnatural, does fit into the kind of mythic themes, even when occasionally taken out of context.  However, Boyens and Walsh try too hard to replicate "Tolkienian" dialogue without apparently understanding how to do so.  Also, I get really tired of the slow motion "emotional set pieces" which seem to be all over the place in all three movies.

Don't get me wrong; I still really enjoy the LotR movies, but I'm now painfully aware of the fact that they're not as incredible as I initially thought they were.


----------



## Enchantress (Jun 28, 2004)

Truth Seeker said:
			
		

> Not funny ...not funny...that is a nightmare, a horrid thought of an idea




I am ashamed.    
*hangs head dejectedly*


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 28, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And it's invariably dialogue that was not lifted from Tolkien himself.  His dialogue, although stilted and unnatural, does fit into the kind of mythic themes, even when occasionally taken out of context. However, Boyens and Walsh try too hard to replicate "Tolkienian" dialogue without apparently understanding how to do so.



Word. Amen to that.

Compare Theoden's last speech to the Riders, which is a bit of a mish-mash but all pretty much Tolkein's dialogue, to Aragorn's speech before the Black Gates. The former -- goosebump city. The latter -- ho-hum. What does Tolkien have for that moment? Gandalf shouting as panic grips everyone:

_*Stand, Men of the West! Stand and wait! This is the hour of doom!*_

Hey, goosebumps. If only THAT had been in the film.

And "dwimmerlaik". Tolkien goes to all the trouble to include a word like "dwimmerlaik" -- why wouldn't you jump on that opportunity with both feet? Eowyn stands facing the Witchking and says: "Begone, foul dwimmerlaik!"

Tell the whole audience isn't on its feet screaming at that moment. They bloody well SHOULD have been, and there's only PJ to blame for that dropped ball.

Okay, ranting all finished now. Sorry about that. Go back to bashing the D&D movie, folks. Never mind the cranky old guy in the corner...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 28, 2004)

Actually, I thought you guys were referring to a flub where at one point, Pippin's hands were free from the rope just before the horse about to stomp on him, but later, according to Aragorn's "profiling" of the surrounding, Pippin's hands were suddenly rebound with the rope.  

Yes, the more you watch it, the more you observed the other stuff that didn't catch your eyes during the first few viewings. Still, at least to me, doesn't make such film less appealing.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 28, 2004)

Nah, flubs don't bug me if I don't see them first time around. Little continuity issues are no big deal. It's the outright failures of the films to generate the emotions they need to generate that hurt them.

The big failures of the films for me were:

Helm's Deep wasn't scary enough. The film failed to show me the cost that the defenders were paying.

Eowyn's stand against the Witchking. 'Nuff said.

The final stand of the West at the Black Gates. As described above.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 29, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought you guys were referring to a flub where at one point, Pippin's hands were free from the rope just before the horse about to stomp on him, but later, according to Aragorn's "profiling" of the surrounding, Pippin's hands were suddenly rebound with the rope.
> 
> Yes, the more you watch it, the more you observed the other stuff that didn't catch your eyes during the first few viewings. Still, at least to me, doesn't make such film less appealing.



I neither catch that kind of stuff (most of the time) nor am I really bothered by it.  No, it's the actual instances of poor dialogue and poor directing that I don't like about the movie's these days.

Oh, and the hand-held battle cameras.  I hate not being able to actually see what's going on.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jun 30, 2004)

Just to nail this thread hijack completely, I do think that PJ created something extraordinary with these films. I think his mobile camera (not the "hand-held" but the "drifting, swooping, flying-by" camera) is at times flabbergasting -- something you notice especially in FotR -- check the Moria battle for what I'm talking about, or the Weathertop battle -- the camera movements are like nothing I've ever seen before, and yet they work beautifully. 

I don't think the series ever manages to get back to the level of FotR, and I think it's because the technique he perfects in that film is excellent for small groups (the camera darts past them, giving you their reaction on the way in and a look at what they're reacting to on the way out (or vice versa)), it doesn't work for the larger scenes, and he just never manages to come up with a consistent technique that gives us the big-canvas view we need.

Plus, he DROPS that technique in Eowyn's confrontation (which maybe explains why that one falls so flat) and goes with a much more static camera, jumping in and out on cuts rather than moving.

There are a couple of awe-inspiring big-canvas moments, to be sure -- the lining-up of the Rohirrim at Pelennor and their exodus from Dunharrow, the approach of the orcs to Helm's Deep, the explosion on the Deeping Wall (is it just me or is that the best explosion ever?) -- but if I had to pin-point a general failure in the films, it's that one.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 30, 2004)

My vote for best explosion ever goes to that TIE fighter that "double explodes" when they're blasting their way out of the Death Star the first time...


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 30, 2004)

barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Nah, flubs don't bug me if I don't see them first time around. Little continuity issues are no big deal. It's the outright failures of the films to generate the emotions they need to generate that hurt them.
> 
> The big failures of the films for me were:
> 
> ...



But fixing the above, would that make it more appealing to the mainstream audience? To be brutally honest, I think you're as anti-mainstream as I am.


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 30, 2004)

Berandor said:
			
		

> All right, time to put my D&D knowledge into useful action. Let's plan an assault on the Silver compunds and kill the evil organization trying to bring down D&D once and for all!
> 
> (not a death threat)




It is depressing no one has the convictions to deal with those corruptors who debase the game. Death is a merciful fate compared to what should be done to them.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 30, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But fixing the above, would that make it more appealing to the mainstream audience? To be brutally honest, I think you're as anti-mainstream as I am.



Exactly.  Quite a number of my non-academic, non-geek friends and family already found the movies confusing and the language stilted and archaic.

Those of us who appreciate words like "dwimmerlaik" are really, _really_ in the minority in the real world, after all.

Keeping us geeks happy was at best secondary to making the films viable for a large audience and profitable.  If they had made direct translations of the book (which would have been 6 different mistakes in one, in any case, IMO) we'd have been lucky to get the 2nd and 3rd direct-to-video, so cataclysmic would have been the failure of the first film.


----------



## Desdichado (Jun 30, 2004)

Canis said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Quite a number of my non-academic, non-geek friends and family already found the movies confusing and the language stilted and archaic.
> 
> Those of us who appreciate words like "dwimmerlaik" are really, _really_ in the minority in the real world, after all.



Probably true.  My wife, for instance, really like the lines Eowyn _did_ have in that scene ("I am no man!" prompting spontaneous praise, which is very unusual for her).

But that doesn't invalidate a lot of barsoomcore's complaints; I think they're quite valid.  That scene _should_ have been one of the big emotional payoffs of the movie, and it played out quite flat, IMO.  And even though a strict Tolkien reproduction would undoubtably have been a poor move, replacing it with generally inferior dialogue wasn't exactly a great move either.

It's my opinion that Peter Jackson and Co. aren't really particularly gifted film-makers in a lot of ways, and the fact that the _Lord of the Rings_ movies are as good as they are is more a testament to the strength of the source material than to their ability to adapt it.  Especially as the movies went on, I noticed that the better scenes were the ones that _were_ most like Tolkien.  A particular gripe of mine is the non-Tolkien dialogue that simply rang artificial and unsatisfying.  I was also particularly tired of the "slow motion emotional set pieces" as I call them; the scenes where you have a slow motion close-ups of characters seeing other characters give unnatural, posed and strained (yet very meaningful) looks to each other.  Then character A, back to full screen slow motion close up, gasps and lets a single tear fall down his or her cheek.  Then someone says something awkward.

Granted, I sound a bit schizophrenic in that post; I do agree that Tolkien needs some serious trimming and reshaping to be viable as a movie script.  However, I also think that the Jackson adaptation, in a lot of ways, was a hack job where a more skillfull hand would have done better.  Saying that Tolkien needs to be pruned to be a good movie and then turning around and saying that the best scenes in the movies were the largely untouched scenes is not contradictory, although it seems like it up front.  It just means that Boyens and Walsh weren't really the best ones to write the screenplay.  I think there are others who could have done a better job with the dialogue and the faux meaningful scenes.

And some of the introduced "conflicts" really felt forced and unusual.  I can see what they were trying to do with the Sam and Frodo falling out, and Gollum's _lembas_ crumbs, but that whole scene felt really hoaky to me.  Of course, the slow motion falling crumbs, and slow motion stumbling Sam, and slow motion crying Sam and slow motion sneering Gollum, etc. didn't help.

Maybe I just really dislike some of the dialogue and the overuse of slow motion posed scenes for "emotional impact."  Trust in the emotional impact of the source material, without constantly overdoing one attempted dressed up emotional sucker punch after another, please.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jun 30, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Granted, I sound a bit schizophrenic in that post; I do agree that Tolkien needs some serious trimming and reshaping to be viable as a movie script.



Well, I seem to recall an old interview by the late Tolkien himself about wanting to write a screenplay based on his works, but only if he could learn how to write a screenplay. Far different from writing a book of which he has no formal training other than that literature club he has with C.S. Lewis.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> However, I also think that the Jackson adaptation, in a lot of ways, was a hack job where a more skillfull hand would have done better.  Saying that Tolkien needs to be pruned to be a good movie and then turning around and saying that the best scenes in the movies were the largely untouched scenes is not contradictory, although it seems like it up front.  It just means that Boyens and Walsh weren't really the best ones to write the screenplay.  I think there are others who could have done a better job with the dialogue and the faux meaningful scenes.



Perhaps. But I still enjoy the movies. Still, I am 35 years young, so who knows? Maybe someone out there is willing to challenge Peter Jackson's films and come out with an even better and more profitable _LOTR_ film. Of course, by then, many of the film fans of Peter Jackson's will have already read the literary masterpiece.

Any takers?


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 1, 2004)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> But fixing the above, would that make it more appealing to the mainstream audience?



Yes. I'm talking about making the film more emotionally powerful.

Had Helm's Deep been scarier, had Eowyn's moment against the Witchking been stronger, and had the final stand at the Black Gate been bleaker, the films would have been better.

Note that I'm not saying that in all cases the answer was to follow Tolkien slavishly. I'm not upset that they altered things. But I do think that in each of those cases, what Tolkien wrote would have been more powerful, more appealing to a broader audience (okay not "dwimmerlaik", but COME ON) and simpler than what they tried to accomplish.


			
				Ranger REG said:
			
		

> To be brutally honest, I think you're as anti-mainstream as I am.



I would not characterise myself as anti-mainstream. I characterize myself as anti-what-I-don't-like. 

But I like plenty of popular stuff.


			
				Canis said:
			
		

> Quite a number of my non-academic, non-geek friends and family already found the movies confusing and the language stilted and archaic.



I'll bet you the speeches they had the most trouble with AREN'T Tolkien's. It's like JD is saying -- the stuff that sounds really archaic and "wrong" is the stuff that the writers added.

I'm not saying use every line Tolkien ever wrote. I'm saying that his good dialog is more than good enough to make a great movie out of, and many of the memorable lines in the movies (if not all of them) are his.

I'm not saying make movies that reproduce every detail in the books. I'm observing that the moments where the movies fall flat are the moments where it deviates from the books -- which is kind of interesting. It doesn't follow, and I'm not pretending that it follows, that every time they deviate from the books the movies get bad. The writers created some good moments -- I think using Arwen in the flight to the ford was a good move. I think making things a little harder for Faramir was a good move. I think not having Aragorn reveal himself until the Paths of the Dead was a good move. I don't think the latter two ideas were as well executed as they needed to be, but I don't think the ideas themselves were crazy.

But I do say that every bad moment in the movies comes at a time where Tolkien's vision is not being used to drive the story. Where his dialog is not being used, or his plotting, or his storytelling.


----------



## Ranger REG (Jul 2, 2004)

As I said earlier, I'm 35 years young. So impress me with better _LOTR_ films while I still breathe. But if I die after this posting, I will die content having seen Tolkien's work in live-action motion picture.


----------



## Pants (Jul 2, 2004)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's my opinion that Peter Jackson and Co. aren't really particularly gifted film-makers in a lot of ways, and the fact that the _Lord of the Rings_ movies are as good as they are is more a testament to the strength of the source material than to their ability to adapt it.



Then why wasn't a certain animated LotR as popular as the current movies? 

I think it has a little to do with both the adaptation and the source material.



			
				barsoomcore said:
			
		

> Had Helm's Deep been scarier,



Eh, I don't know about anyone else, but I think that PJ and crew worked to make Helm's Deep much more important in the movies than it actually was in the books.  In the books, Helm's Deep is defended by mostly able bodied men along with the requisite old people.  In the movie, most of the defenders are those barely able to hold a sword or shoot a bow (plus the elves).  In the book, Saruman seeks to conquer Rohan.  In the movie, he wants to kill everybody!  In the book, the women and children are mostly safe, away from the Deep.  In the movie, they are being sheltered in the fortress itself, so that if the defenders fall, they will most likely die not too long after.

My knowledge of the book events is rather hazy, as everytime I've read tTT, Helm's Deep was never very gripping to me, never very consequential in the grand scheme, and never written as well as the rest of books.  I much prefer the movie Helm's Deep.

As it stands, I enjoy Helm's Deep more than the Siege of Gondor in RotK, which was one of my favorite parts in the books

But yeah, aside from that, I pretty much agree.  Every time I watch the movies again, I see more stuff I don't like.  I find this is much more apparent when I watch RotK and tTT,  FotR, to me, feels pretty damn perfect on nearly every viewing.  The Balrog scene (and Moria in general) are just incredible pieces of filmmaking.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 2, 2004)

Pants said:
			
		

> Then why wasn't a certain animated LotR as popular as the current movies?
> 
> I think it has a little to do with both the adaptation and the source material.



Yeah, Bakshi made a real hash of the source material -- rather, let me restate what I originally said.  I think Peter Jackson is a pedestrian, workable film-maker who wisely used (and adhered to fairly closely) wonderful source material to make a (trio of) movie(s) that really rises above his normal skill level.

Ralph Bakshi, on the other hand, is a horrible film maker who took some good source material, ignored or modified so much of it that it is nearly unrecognizable, and did such a piss-poor execution of what was left that his movie is almost unwatchable.


			
				Pants said:
			
		

> But yeah, aside from that, I pretty much agree.  Every time I watch the movies again, I see more stuff I don't like.  I find this is much more apparent when I watch RotK and tTT,  FotR, to me, feels pretty damn perfect on nearly every viewing.  The Balrog scene (and Moria in general) are just incredible pieces of filmmaking.



I'd agree with that as well.  The later two movies almost seem to be trying too hard to do certain things, while the first movie is much more consistently excellent.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 2, 2004)

I would have loved to see Paris Hilton as Arwen.  

And Thora Birch as Eowyn. And Snails (which Wayans brother is he?) as Gandalf, and the guy with the blue lips as Frodo, and Jeremy Irons as Legolas. . .


----------



## Celtavian (Jul 3, 2004)

*re*



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Probably true.  My wife, for instance, really like the lines Eowyn _did_ have in that scene ("I am no man!" prompting spontaneous praise, which is very unusual for her).
> 
> But that doesn't invalidate a lot of barsoomcore's complaints; I think they're quite valid.  That scene _should_ have been one of the big emotional payoffs of the movie, and it played out quite flat, IMO.  And even though a strict Tolkien reproduction would undoubtably have been a poor move, replacing it with generally inferior dialogue wasn't exactly a great move either.
> 
> ...




I find this really disturbing Joshua. I left this thread so I wouldn't end up in another useless debate with you over our past disagreement over _Lord of the Rings_. Now you start mentioning many of the same complaints I previously noted with the adaptation of the source material. I fail to understand why you attacked my view of the movies while now you seemingly agree with some of the glaring flaws I mentioned. I find it very strange.

I think any true Tolkien fan will have a love-hate relationship with the _Lord of the Rings_ movies. There are parts of the movies that are absolutely stellar. The movie visuals are beautiful and bring Middle Earth to life. The characterizations are off for many characters. Several of the scenes don't mesh well or are overly hokey. Some scenes lost their emotional impact when brought to the screen, most especially the scene where Eowyn kills the Witchking.

The times I have venomously attacked Peter Jackson have been because of his interviews. Everytime I hear Peter Jackson state that he has made an improvement to the story, I become extremely irritated. Peter Jackson may be a great visual director but to make the assertion that you have improved upon a story written by Professor Tolkien, a man far more educated on mythology, language, and storytelling than Peter Jackson will ever be, is the height of arrogance. Most of my attacks on Peter Jackson are fueled by his arrogant and ludicrous statements.

If Peter Jackson had simply stated that he made the change because he couldn't think of a better way to pull the scene off or continue the story flow for the movie, then I would have understood even if I did not like the change. The only improvement I can remember Peter Jackson making was showing how distressed Merry and Pippin were at being separated after Pippin stole the Palantir IMO. 

I still have no idea why you have such a problem with my take on the _Lord of the Rings_ movies. I think they are good movies, just not a particularly faithful and well-done adaptation of the books.


----------



## reapersaurus (Jul 3, 2004)

This FotR talk DEFINATELY belongs in a different thread.

You can't just tiptoe your toe in the waters of "LotR movies had flaws."

As for the D&D movie, it was heartening to hear the comment about "excitement about the franchise" etc.

It was disheartening to hear them even consider such a talentless nobody as Paris Hilton for the movie.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 4, 2004)

reaper said:
			
		

> As for the D&D movie, it was heartening to hear the comment about "excitement about the franchise" etc.



Yeah, it would be a good thing, I think, if the D&D name got considered half-way valuable. Like I've said before, I would welcome a slew of less-than-blockbuster fantasy movies. And I think there's a market for "Scorpion King"-like movies (not movies that resemble that one in plot or anything, but at that budget and exposure level) with swords, sorcery and cool stuff in them. 

I'd go see 'em, anyway. 


			
				reaper said:
			
		

> It was disheartening to hear them even consider such a talentless nobody as Paris Hilton for the movie.



Not exactly surprising, but sure, disheartening. I certainly expect the next D&D movie (assuming it ever gets made) to be chock-a-block full of "talentless nobodies".


----------



## reapersaurus (Jul 4, 2004)

But - 
If they are hiring nobodies, why the hell would they cast them if they were "talentless"?

I mean, you know what I'm getting at?  

I know tons of people hated the first one because *gasp* it didn't have beholders or dragons that were exactly like D&D , but we shouldn't expect the next movie to be absolute $hiite just because it has the D&D label.

They have NO business casting someone if they aren't a "name" actor if they don't fit the movie. That's what casting directors are for.
I feel fairly sure that if I saw 100 professional actors for any particular role in the D&D movie, I could find someone with some talent, that would dedicate the,selves to bringing some character to the screen, and would work hard.

If they can't find good actors, it's their fault. I refuse to believe with SO many people desperate for work, that they can't find adequate fantasy-actors if they don't have to cast for a Big Name Actor.

And while I'm talking about D&D movie acting, I'll state that I think that Ridley (Joe Whaley, or something?) did a good job of bringing a likeable rogue to screen last time. 
It's not rocket science.


----------



## barsoomcore (Jul 4, 2004)

Man, this weird. We keep agreeing. Something's not right.

But the first thing I'll say is that it's awfully early to be getting wound up about casting rumours on a picture that has yet to acquire a script, or even a writer. This movie is a long way from getting made and a lot is going to change between now and then.

Announcing that Paris Hilton is "in talks" to be in it isn't the stupidest move ever (not in the history of D&D films, anyway) -- it gets a bit of media attention without committing to anything whatsoever.

I'm not saying that casting Paris Hilton is a good idea -- though for all I know she's the next Cate Blanchett -- just that it's awfully early to be worrying about who's going to be IN it. I'd say, let's first find out if it's going to be made at all.


----------

