Dungeons & Dragons (2000) was a passion project turned cinematic disaster

[Nikosandros]

I just find it really improbable that Francis Ford Coppola was jazzed about making a fantasy movie, but then, upon being denied the use of the Greyhawk setting or Owlbears or something, just shelved the project.

Dyvers, damn. I'm still only in Dyvers. Every time I think I'm going to wake up back in the dungeon. When I was home after my first delve, it was worse. I'd wake up and there'd be nothing... I hardly said a word to my wife until I said yes to a divorce. When I was here I wanted to be there. When I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the dungeon. I've been here a week now. Waiting for a quest, getting softer. Every minute I stay in this room I get weaker. And every minute Acererak squats in the tomb he gets stronger. Each time I look around the walls move in a little tighter.

Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a quest, and for my sins they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I've definitely read articles or seen YouTube videos with all this information before, and my real question remains unanswered, namely how did someone with no apparent experience get handed the D&D movie (and seemingly on the strength of a vision for the movie which, judging by the end result, was pure generic fantasy)? How did the project continue to get the greenlight when he turned in a terrible script?

My impression was that TSR was in panic mode, financially, and after Gygax's Hollywood misadventures, didn't believe that anyone else wanted the rights.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I will say - given Solomon was a twenty something year old when he directed the movie, it is an accomplishment that he was able to get the movie made with the cast that it had. Most people don’t even get that far. I just think there are some tall tales being told here.

Definitely. That's the most interesting thing about the movie by far. Somehow a twenty-something guy got his own D&D campaign turned into a theatrical movie, and I want to know more about that story.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I've definitely read articles or seen YouTube videos with all this information before, and my real question remains unanswered, namely how did someone with no apparent experience get handed the D&D movie (and seemingly on the strength of a vision for the movie which, judging by the end result, was pure generic fantasy)? How did the project continue to get the greenlight when he turned in a terrible script?

Hollywood accepts undercooked premises and terrible scripts all the time, but usually you have to have star power or at least an established track record to get this much financing for something this terrible.



I'd believe that production companies associated with those directors showed interest in optioning the rights, or that people pitched D&D movies suggesting these names to direct. But if any of these directors was serious about directing the sort of movie which could be branded as a D&D movie I think not getting the D&D licensing would not have been a barrier and they would have made some sort of medieval fantasy movies. D&D has lots of specific monsters, spells, settings, and ludonarrative conceits that players might fixate on as making it distinctive, but to the general public it's generic pseudo-medieval fantasy, and from a 1990s Hollywood's perspective only the marketing department care's about D&D branding. I just find it really improbable that Francis Ford Coppola was jazzed about making a fantasy movie, but then, upon being denied the use of the Greyhawk setting or Owlbears or something, just shelved the project.

But the few people who really know (or knew) aren't talking. Maybe James Cameron's Avatar series somehow started out as a failed attempt to make a live action version of the D&D cartoon series.

I found some other articles at the time that mention Coppola was interested in being an executive producer, not in directing it. Likewise for all the other directors their attachment is never actually confirmed to be as a director.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One thing I'd point out is that the article indicates that "Irons was having his “Raul Julia in Street Fighter” experience here, otherwise you can’t explain his presence in the movie or his constant over-the-top acting." However, there are interviews with Jeremy Irons where he gives the reason - he had just bought a castle and needed the money. Which honestly sounds like the hook of a D&D adventure.

The original D&D movie has its moments, but is still a bad movie, and not a "so bad it's good" movie. If I had to pick one thing emblematic of its badness, it'd be Damodar's blue lipstick. No one ever comments on it, no reason is ever given in the movie, and it just looks terrible. I know that somewhere else they said it was from using a drug that stains his lips, but again, nowhere is that said or shown in the movie.

I did steal Richard O'Brien's Silas for the head of a thieves guild in one of my campaigns.

The 2000 D&D movie was trash. Marlon Wayans carried the whole thing as a comic relief character. And that's really all that you need to know.

Marlon Wayans was literally flying back and forth to act in Requiem for a Dream at the same time as the D&D movie. That had to be one weird headspace.

 

[Alzrius]

If I had to pick one thing emblematic of its badness, it'd be Damodar's blue lipstick. No one ever comments on it, no reason is ever given in the movie, and it just looks terrible. I know that somewhere else they said it was from using a drug that stains his lips, but again, nowhere is that said or shown in the movie.

I wonder if that's in the novelization of the movie, which I have but haven't read. I tried once, and the writing is as atrocious to read as the film is to watch. I'm still not sure if that's an indication that the author, Neal Barrett Jr., is incredibly talented or a complete hack.

 

[Dire Bare]

One thing I'd point out is that the article indicates that "Irons was having his “Raul Julia in Street Fighter” experience here, otherwise you can’t explain his presence in the movie or his constant over-the-top acting." However, there are interviews with Jeremy Irons where he gives the reason - he had just bought a castle and needed the money. Which honestly sounds like the hook of a D&D adventure.

The original D&D movie has its moments, but is still a bad movie, and not a "so bad it's good" movie. If I had to pick one thing emblematic of its badness, it'd be Damodar's blue lipstick. No one ever comments on it, no reason is ever given in the movie, and it just looks terrible. I know that somewhere else they said it was from using a drug that stains his lips, but again, nowhere is that said or shown in the movie.

I did steal Richard O'Brien's Silas for the head of a thieves guild in one of my campaigns.


Marlon Wayans was literally flying back and forth to act in Requiem for a Dream at the same time as the D&D movie. That had to be one weird headspace.

Jeremy Irons needing some money for his castle might explain why he took on the role . . . but it doesn't explain why he chose to ham it up to that level. Was that a directorial choice or an actor's choice? We'll probably never know, but in a bad movie with such a great cast, Irons' cheesy portrayal of the villain stands out from the other performances, and not in a good way.

Still think he's an amazing actor though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I paid money to see this movie in the theater, and Marlon Wayland as Snails was my third most hated thing after #1 the crappy CGI dragons & crowd scenes and #2 Irons’ overacting. (And edging out “Right Said Fred” in blue lipstick as an enforcer type.)

I don’t dislike Wayans. I’ve enjoyed a lot of his stuff, in fact. But in THAT role, it felt like they asked him to do his best Chris Tucker impression and he botched it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The original D&D movie has its moments, but is still a bad movie, and not a "so bad it's good" movie. If I had to pick one thing emblematic of its badness, it'd be Damodar's blue lipstick. No one ever comments on it, no reason is ever given in the movie, and it just looks terrible. I know that somewhere else they said it was from using a drug that stains his lips, but again, nowhere is that said or shown in the movie.

See, I love that part. He's a weird creep. I don't think you really need a big backstory on why he's a weird creep -- we don't know the backstories of most of the weird creeps in, say, Tarantino films -- but the blue lipstick just makes him stand out and not be a generic thug. Something else is going on with him, but we don't ever get to know, or need to know. (This ain't Star Wars, baby.)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wonder if that's in the novelization of the movie, which I have but haven't read. I tried once, and the writing is as atrocious to read as the film is to watch. I'm still not sure if that's an indication that the author, Neal Barrett Jr., is incredibly talented or a complete hack.

Usually when good actor ham it up this much it is because they know it is a bad movie, they are going to be memorable in a terrible movie and the director does not have to experience to notice or rein them in.