Movies

[arscott]

History has shown that the D&D brand doesn't bring people to the theaters.

The thing is, past that, what's the point of having a D&D movie at all. It's not as though Dungeons & Dragons has much in the way of unique story or unique setting that would make for a good movie--campaign settings and adventures don't turn into movies very well. Novels certainly can, but most of the D&D novels aren't exactly standouts, and the ones that are usually require enough setting knowledge to appreciate that they'll be lost on the average moviegoer.

If somebody had a good Idea for a fantasy movie that "feels" like a D&D movie, then they can just make that movie and not bother putting the words D&D on it. You can be sure that everyone who appreciates D&D enough to see a movie version will be willing to go see a big-budget fantasy movie even without the brand name.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And the way to do THAT is to center the story on someone ormaomething that would be immediately identifiable to the D&D community and use that name in the title without putting the D&D name anywhere but the closing credits.

Examples:

1. Waterdeep Nights
2. A Killing in Greyhawk
3. Khelben Blackstaff
4. Elminster's Return

Put out a fantasy movie with a title like that and nobody will know it's a D&D movie...unless it sucks and the community gets bent out of shape again.

Note that I did NOT use Drizzt as an example. That is because his name is SO unusual that most people would be puzzled by it, and reviewers would be hard pressed to avoid mentioning D&D to explain it. At that point, the movie might as well be named "National Lampoon Presents D&D #3 in 3D: Electric Wyrm Boogloo (with special appearance by Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan!!!)"

 

[Mercurius]

I'm still scarred by Jeremy Irons' lowest moment in an otherwise illustrious career:

On a serious note, of the entire D&D canon I still think that the Dragonlance Chronicles is the best pre-made story for a D&D movie series. The first book was self-contained enough to make it a one-off, but then you've got two others to follow if it is a hit. The names are evocative enough--Dragons of Autumn Twilight--and are obviously fantasy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Speak of the Devil and he shall appear.

Assuming it's not a joke, this will be a joke.

To paraphrase Peter Cook's Satan from the original Bedazzled, everything about this projected movie fills me with inertia.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

People always slam the original dnd movie but it was no worse than the toxic avenger or any-other 80's/90's b-grade movie that are trendy now. It's entertaining with good, funny characterizations. That's more than a lot of movies with huge budgets have going for them.

 

[Stormonu]

They're remaking Judge Dredd, Dune has seen multiple takes with yet another in production . . . . .

Both examples sort of prove the point. The Dune movie was 1984, with the TV movie 16 years later. With Judge Dredd originally done in 1995 and a new one supposedly coming in 2012, that's 17 years later. For me, that's close enough to 20 years to call it.

Even the runaway hit LotR from 2001 had to shrug off the 1978 version (putting that at 23 years later).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

People always slam the original dnd movie but it was no worse than the toxic avenger or any-other 80's/90's b-grade movie that are trendy now. It's entertaining with good, funny characterizations. That's more than a lot of movies with huge budgets have going for them.

Bad example: Toxic Avenger was indented to be a spoof, and many of the other movies you're probably thinking of were intended to be low-budget schlock.

And if you go back and read the interviews that were done about the making of that first movie (before it's release), you'll see they were expecting a $20M fantasy masterpiece.

(By way of comparison, Toxic Avenger cost $500,000 to make. Adjusted for inflation, that would still only be about $2M film if it were made at the same time as the first D&D movie.)

 

[Stormonu]

I'd like to point out, despite my criticism, I actually did like the D&D movie (and sequel) - I consider it passable (it had some bumps that needed to be ironed out and didn't have the epic feel of LotR, the fantasy movie standard these days). However, every person I've had a conversation with has utterly hated the movie. (The Dragonlance cartoon was a just a slap in the face, to me).

It's certainly far better than the fantasy movies of my time - The Barbarian Brothers, Hawk the Slayer, Krull, etc. Heck, before LotR, for me the gold standard was Dragonslayer, Conan the Barbarian and Dragonheart. (And I did like Eragon, too).

I'm hoping that the Conan movie that's in production will turn out good. The more fantasy movies that have good turn outs, the better chance we have of seeing a quality D&D movie in our futures. Please, no more "In the Name of the King:A Dungeon Siege Tale" type movies.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Bad example: Toxic Avenger was indented to be a spoof, and many of the other movies you're probably thinking of were intended to be low-budget schlock.

And if you go back and read the interviews that were done about the making of that first movie (before it's release), you'll see they were expecting a $20M fantasy masterpiece.

(By way of comparison, Toxic Avenger cost $500,000 to make. Adjusted for inflation, that would still only be about $2M film if it were made at the same time as the first D&D movie.)

I think your misunderstood my reference to the toxic avenger.

But that's besides the point. To paraphrase Uwe Boll, I think they made a good dnd movie because it feels like something that is associated with the rpg.

The plot is dis-jointed, the characterizations are over-the-top and humorous, demi-human stereotyping, dragons, esoteric references, tv spoofs etc etc

People slam it because it wasn't a good movie, okay so I can see their point but I think it's a great DND movie and no worse than any other niche influenced production like the slew of b-grades or hammer horrors or whatevers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's certainly far better than the fantasy movies of my time - The Barbarian Brothers, Hawk the Slayer, Krull, etc. Heck, before LotR, for me the gold standard was Dragonslayer, Conan the Barbarian and Dragonheart. (And I did like Eragon, too).

I'll watch Hawk the Slayer a hundred times before I'll sit through the first D&D movie again; Krull only four times.

I'll grant you Barbarian Brothers, it's a laugher.

But again, you're comparing a movie made with a budget at the bottom of Hollywood's A-list with B- or worse list movies that had a fraction of the budget, even adjusted for inflation.