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

[Dire Bare]

There's no rehabilitation possible for a movie that terrible. It's not really even fun bad, just bad bad. In the 90s, I was a big fan of D&D and Street Fighter and both of those movies were just.... so disappointing. What a bummer both of those were on two of my favorite franchise opportunities. And Courtney Solomon saying Gary Gygax blue all the money TSR made on a gigantic coke binge doesn't endear him to me as a likeable but hapless super-fan just living the dream. What a jerk.

There are a handful of individual elements that aren't... terrible. But nothing in it is really all that good, even if separated from the terrible context in which it appears.

In the interview, Solomon does come across as someone looking to blame everyone but himself for the terrible movie he made.

But Gygax blowing his millions on, well, blow is actually what happened. It's pretty well documented.

 

[Dire Bare]

Despite it's popularity here, the recent D&D movie is not the best D&D movie in my opinion.

The movie this thread is about was absolutely abominable, but the sequel was actually decent as movies go. I actually enjoyed the sequel more than I enjoyed HaT.

That's an interesting take!

I've had folks express they preferred the sequels to Solomon's 2000 D&D movie to the original . . . which I also don't get, but they are all so bad its not worth debating.

But "Wrath of the Dragon God" (2005) and/or "The Book of Vile Darkness" (2012) better than "Honor Among Thieves"?!?!

To each their own, I guess!

 

[GreyLord]

That's an interesting take!

I've had folks express they preferred the sequels to Solomon's 2000 D&D movie to the original . . . which I also don't get, but they are all so bad its not worth debating.

But "Wrath of the Dragon God" (2005) and/or "The Book of Vile Darkness" (2012) better than "Honor Among Thieves"?!?!

To each their own, I guess!

Book of Vile Darkness...absolutely not. That one is worse than the original.

However, Wrath of the Dragon God was a decent movie. Unlike HaT which made me absolutely cringe at some parts, as well as feel disconnected to it (as an older D&D player) as there were some things that just...don't feel like the game or really like a type of fantasy I enjoy...yeah.

I completely understand why it (HaT) was not the Box office hit people here think it should have been. Unless you are a 5e D&D player (and maybe 3.X) you can see it as a decent film, but you just can't connect with it all that well. It doesn't touch on generic fantasy ideas as easily as other films (too much of the 5e D&D culture in it) and doesn't really have the biggest draw for those who don't really get the entire nerdity that this forum has for it. It has a story one can get into, but too many of the elements isolate the viewer if they are not into the entire 5e culture. It did well with streaming, but Wrath of the Dragon God did well enough on direct DVD sells to warrant another sequel as well.

Wrath isn't a great film, but it's the best D&D film put out thus far for live action which was labled as D&D (animated...the cartoon is better, and if we count the Amazon ones which aren't official D&D, but based on D&D campaigns, well...I think that there is no competition which ones are better).

 

[payn]

Book of Vile Darkness...absolutely not. That one is worse than the original.

I really dont think so. Its bad, dont get me wrong, but BoVD felt like every home campaign ever. A bunch of evil chuckleheads going around laying waste to innocent villages before inevitably turning on each other. Classic D&D.

However, Wrath of the Dragon God was a decent movie. Unlike HaT which made me absolutely cringe at some parts, as well as feel disconnected to it (as an older D&D player) as there were some things that just...don't feel like the game or really like a type of fantasy I enjoy...yeah.

I completely understand why it (HaT) was not the Box office hit people here think it should have been. Unless you are a 5e D&D player (and maybe 3.X) you can see it as a decent film, but you just can't connect with it all that well. It doesn't touch on generic fantasy ideas as easily as other films (too much of the 5e D&D culture in it) and doesn't really have the biggest draw for those who don't really get the entire nerdity that this forum has for it. It has a story one can get into, but too many of the elements isolate the viewer if they are not into the entire 5e culture. It did well with streaming, but Wrath of the Dragon God did well enough on direct DVD sells to warrant another sequel as well.

What exactly is 5E culture? I mean, you might be right in that old grogs didnt enjoy it becasue it wasnt old school enough, but if it was more sword and sorcery I think it would have done worse.

Wrath isn't a great film, but it's the best D&D film put out thus far for live action which was labled as D&D (animated...the cartoon is better, and if we count the Amazon ones which aren't official D&D, but based on D&D campaigns, well...I think that there is no competition which ones are better).

Wrath is underrated and often forgotten.

 

[Parmandur]

too much of the 5e D&D culture in it

Honestly no idea what this means...?

 

[Mannahnin]

But Gygax blowing his millions on, well, blow is actually what happened. It's pretty well documented.

Kind of. What's documented is general heavy expenditures for a lavish lifestyle once D&D became a fad and millions were rolling in. Various people who knew him mention or hint about coke use, though people who knew him personally tend(ed) to talk more (at least on the record) about alcohol and fancy meals. I've never seen any of the sources get into any specifics about how much he spent on any of that. People talk about him spending money on three martini lunches and Big Deal Businessman dinners at the Playboy Club and other fancy restaurants in Lake Geneva, and in Hollywood once he got there. And a ton of money on his Dragonlands estate in Clinton, WI (complete with stable and Arabian horses), And his Stone Mansion apartment on Lake Geneva after he and his first wife Mary Jo were separated. TSR paid for King Vidor's mansion in Hollywood as his TSR Entertainment/West headquarters and residence, as an operating expense. Gary's car and his bodyguard/driver were also on the TSR dime.

Solomon claiming Gary blew all of TSR's money on coke is certainly overstating it, but it's got a little seed of truth since as we know part of TSR's financial precarity was Gary's demands for his own relatively exorbitant royalties to be paid regardless what state the company's finances were in. Of course from Gary's perspective he was owed his money and the company would have been able to afford his royalties if the Blumes hadn't spent the company into the ground. Tons of nepo hires, the ship-raising, buying a needlepoint company, a fleet of company cars and expensive office furniture, and other shady dealing to relatives, a few notorious examples of which are detailed in When We Were Wizards and Slaying the Dragon. But we know Gary did much the same stuff, and co-signed a lot of their worse management actions, though he later painted himself as the victim and hero of the story.

 

[gnarlygninja]

I think When We Were Wizards gets into some of the specific figures for the Hollywood years, I remember someone mentioning that mansion he rented costing about 10k a month in rent.

 

[Parmandur]

I think When We Were Wizards gets into some of the specific figures for the Hollywood years, I remember someone mentioning that mansion he rented costing about 10k a month in rent.

Yeah, Gygax was living pretty lavishly.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That's an interesting take!

I've had folks express they preferred the sequels to Solomon's 2000 D&D movie to the original . . . which I also don't get, but they are all so bad its not worth debating.

But "Wrath of the Dragon God" (2005) and/or "The Book of Vile Darkness" (2012) better than "Honor Among Thieves"?!?!

To each their own, I guess!

Wrath of the Dragon God is a smaller movie than the original D&D movie. But while the original looks bad, the sequel, if you go back and watch it today, looks cheap. It's got under a third of the budget of the first movie, and it shows. Does it still punch above it's weight? Absolutely.

Had you taken everything about the second movie and brought it out first, with the budget of the first movie, it would've been much better received. Had you tripled the budget of the first Dungeons and Dragons movie, but otherwise left all the cast and crew in place, it still would've been a bad movie.

 

[Aeson]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one that prefers Wrath of the Dragon God over it's predecessor or successor. Honor Among Thieves had it's cringe moments but I still enjoy it.