D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie: Action Packed, Funny as Hell

According to Justice Smith, one of the stars of the upcoming Dungeons and Dragons movie, the film is "action-packed, thrilling, funny as hell".

D&D Movie/TV - Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith Join D&D Movie

From Comic Book Movies -- "Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar) and Justice Smith (Detective Pikachu) have joined Wonder Woman 1984's Chris Pine in Paramount and eOne's upcoming big-budget board game adaptation, Dungeons & Dragons..."...

www.enworld.org

In a conversation with Collider, Smith said:

[Goldstein and Daley are] incredible. They’re so funny and they have such clear vision. I loved Game Night. That movie is so good and so funny. And it’s such a clear, specific story. It doesn’t try and be anything that it’s not. I think they approached this the same way. I can’t spoil too much but it’s action-packed, thrilling, funny as hell… it’s all of the things and yet it has a clear idea. That specificity is key in storytelling and John and Jonathan do that so well, being like, "This is the story we’re telling but they’re making it enjoyable the entire time." This is me not trying to spoil the movie in any regards. I’ve given away no details.

The movie, which also stars Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Regé-Jean Page, Hugh Grant, and Sophia Lillis, is scheduled for March 3rd, 2023.

D&D Movie/TV - Hugh Grant To Play Villain in the D&D Movie

Hugh Grant will be playing the villain in the Chris Pine D&D movie, which also stars Fast & Furious' Michelle Rodriguez, Jurassic World's Justice Smith and Bridgerton star Regé-Jean Page, according to Deadline. According to ComicBookMovie, his character name is Forge Fletcher, and the cast will...

www.enworld.org

D&D Movie/TV - Check Out Hugh Grant's D&D Movie Costume!

Posted by the Daily Mail, Hugh Grant was pictured at Somerset's Wells Cathedral in full costume. Hugh Grant plays the villain in the movie, which also stars Chris Pine, Regé-Jean Page, Michelle Rodriguez, and Justice Smith. See the link for more photos...

www.enworld.org

 

[MarkB]

I find it fun when there's a source material to make fun of.

But these days, it's all ONLY deconstruction and let's-not-take-this-seriously..... so where's the original source material it's making fun of? If you think you cannot tell a fantasy/sci-fi/superhero tale without taking it seriously, don't make one to begin with, is what I say.

And mind you, I LOVE humour. I just think the genre deconstrution became overused, and cheap, and making dumb MarvelDisney jokes.

"The Boys" was an example of a genre deconstruction I still nonetheless loved. It actually had stuff to say. Wait, maybe it's not that I dislike the deconstruction of a genre.... I just hate it when it's used to tell a plain story that is neither original nor smart.

So, right now, what we've been told about the movie is: It's funny.

We don't know whether it's a deconstruction, we don't know how seriously it takes the material, and we don't know whether it has a point to make.

So why assume that it'll be everything you hate, just to feel bad about it? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Bird Of Play]

So why assume that it'll be everything you hate, just to feel bad about it? What purpose does it serve?

Setting me up for the inevitable disappointment! XP

 

[Parmandur]

I find it fun when there's a source material to make fun of.

But these days, it's all ONLY deconstruction and let's-not-take-this-seriously..... so where's the original source material it's making fun of? If you think you cannot tell a fantasy/sci-fi/superhero tale without taking it seriously, don't make one to begin with, is what I say.

And mind you, I LOVE humour. I just think the genre deconstrution became overused, and cheap, and making dumb MarvelDisney jokes.

"The Boys" was an example of a genre deconstruction I still nonetheless loved. It actually had stuff to say. Wait, maybe it's not that I dislike the deconstruction of a genre.... I just hate it when it's used to tell a plain story that is neither original nor smart.

Just because something is funny and doesn't take itself too seriously doesn't mean it can't have serious beats. The MCU is a great example. Consistently hilarious, but also filled with genuine pathos.

 

[Parmandur]

So, right now, what we've been told about the movie is: It's funny.

We don't know whether it's a deconstruction, we don't know how seriously it takes the material, and we don't know whether it has a point to make.

So why assume that it'll be everything you hate, just to feel bad about it? What purpose does it serve?

Well, WotC and Hasbro people have consistently cited Guarfians of the Galaxy as a touchstone when discussing D&D movie plans. So it is reasonable to expect they are aiming for that sort of campy good humored fun with action. Which seems D&D as all get out to me, my experience D&D has been way more Guardians of the Galaxy than LOTR.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

So, right now, what we've been told about the movie is: It's funny.

We don't know whether it's a deconstruction, we don't know how seriously it takes the material, and we don't know whether it has a point to make.

So why assume that it'll be everything you hate, just to feel bad about it? What purpose does it serve?

Months ago, one of the directors or writers was quoted as calling the plot/story subversive, though no clue if that element survived rewrites and made it into the filmed product.

Also, does anyone know if Justice Smith is even a gamer? "Funny as hell" means one thing to someone who know games and the source material and something completely different to someone who does not game and only makes fun of people who play.

 

[Parmandur]

Months ago, one of the directors or writers was quoted as calling the plot/story subversive, though no clue if that element survived rewrites and made it into the filmed product.

Also, does anyone know if Justice Smith is even a gamer? "Funny as hell" means one thing to someone who know games and the source material and something completely different to someone who does not game and only makes fun of people who play.

We know the directors are gamers.

 

[Mannahnin]

IDK, I actually don't think the Two Towers or the Return of the King are that good. And he really butchered the source material as well, not as bad as he did for the hobbit though.

The hobbit was really disappointing to me as I think it is better movie material than LotR.

I guess I think he basically got it right (or close to it) with Fellowship and then coasted on the zeitgeist he created.

I agree to a certain extent. The logistical and directorial work of shooting the three movies stands as a monumental achievement, and I tend to agree that they definitely could have come out much worse. The casting, cinematography, and performances were generally top-notch. They are overall excellent films, filled with wonderful moments and cinematic realizations of much-loved scenes. Genuinely epic.

That being said, they suffer a bit especially from the places where PJ and the script diverged from the books unnecessarily (though certain adaptations made sense). Fellowship had the best screenplay, and I think it's no coincidence that it's the one that hews closest to the source material. The Two Towers and RotK, while still good, have more weaknesses, flaws and places where the script betrays the characters.

The Hobbit movies are indeed a tragedy of studio greed. A great story which could have made a really excellent single film, padded out to absurd length and losing most of its charms in the process. Rankin Bass did a creditable job in the animated film in 1977 in only 90 minutes; I think with a good script, screenplay and editor PJ could have made an amazing one in 120, maybe 150 minutes.

Of course, the Hobbit movies are also a cautionary tale of how studio demands and production problems could have also sabotaged the LotR pics, so I'm all the more grateful that trilogy came out as well as it did.

 

[Bird Of Play]

Just because something is funny and doesn't take itself too seriously doesn't mean it can't have serious beats. The MCU is a great example. Consistently hilarious, but also filled with genuine pathos.

I think you found the wrong person to make this comment: I despise the current MCU.

 

[billd91]

IDK, I actually don't think the Two Towers or the Return of the King are that good. And he really butchered the source material as well, not as bad as he did for the hobbit though.

The hobbit was really disappointing to me as I think it is better movie material than LotR.

I guess I think he basically got it right (or close to it) with Fellowship and then coasted on the zeitgeist he created.

I think The Two Towers suffers the worst, complicating things without need. But I do agree that the Fellowship is hands-down the best of the trilogy. It's not really matter of coasting, though. They were all shot together, so most of the material was already planned and, I'm sure, story-boarded out. I doubt Frodo and Sam being dragged to Osgiliath was a later, editing room decision.

But The Hobbit - ugh! I knew when announced it that going to 3 movies meant it was going to be packed with filler. It was awful. I can handle the LotR trilogy and rewatch it. I really won't sit through The Hobbit trilogy again. I'd rather watch Meet the Feebles.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Mazes and Monsters is such a hoot. Seeing Tom Hanks as a made-for-tv-movie jobber is kinda jarring these days. I used to think that the second D&D movie was at least passable until I tried to rewatch it recently. I at least still get a chuckle out of M&M.

I would rather watch Mazes & Monsters again than any of the past D&D movies.