log in or register to remove this ad

 

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".

dungeons-and-dragons-filming.jpg



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.


 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

The weird thing about the D&D movie is that it existed right before Fantasy movies became big box office. Within a year of its release, both the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises would be launched.
The time was right, but a good film is a good film, and a bad film is a bad film, and you don't know until you roll the dice. It could just as easily been the D&D movie that was good and Fellowship that sucked (lots of people expected it to).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

grimslade

Doddering Old Git
The time was right, but a good film is a good film, and a bad film is a bad film, and you don't know until you roll the dice. It could just as easily been the D&D movie that was good and Fellowship that sucked (lots of people expected it to).
Definitely. There were plenty of terrible fantasy movies after 2001, Eragon, The Seventh Son, Prince of Persia... The expectation that fantasy movies were a niche market was broken. Fantasy was no longer Sci Fis little annoying brother.
The interesting thing about Peter Jackson being given The Lord of the Rings to direct is that he was mainly known for slapstick horror-comedies. He had the passion and drive to bring his vision to the screen. We will see if Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley can work a similar magic.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
Definitely. There were plenty of terrible fantasy movies after 2001, Eragon, The Seventh Son, Prince of Persia... The expectation that fantasy movies were a niche market was broken. Fantasy was no longer Sci Fis little annoying brother.

I've never heard of the Seventh Son - I take it you dont recommend it
 

I'll be happy if this is at least a semi competent fantasy movie, but I would be delighted if it actually included the D&D game. It could be 99% straight up fantasy, and ending with a bunch of players around a table, and I would be satisfied.
 

The time was right, but a good film is a good film, and a bad film is a bad film, and you don't know until you roll the dice. It could just as easily been the D&D movie that was good and Fellowship that sucked (lots of people expected it to).
Erm. Jackson signed on to produce three movies on an epic trilogy that had (by then) sold 80 million copies world wide (it's now over 150 million). If lots of people expected it to fail then they were smokin' better stuff than I've ever had. Jackson was gifted with the best piece of Fantasy fiction ever crafted and banked 7 times the budget for the 3 film run. Only an idiot could be handed such a great story and fail, and Jackson was no idiot; and the studio, producers and actors knew that before they started shooting
 

payn

Hero
Erm. Jackson signed on to produce three movies on an epic trilogy that had (by then) sold 80 million copies world wide (it's now over 150 million). If lots of people expected it to fail then they were smokin' better stuff than I've ever had. Jackson was gifted with the best piece of Fantasy fiction ever crafted and banked 7 times the budget for the 3 film run. Only an idiot could be handed such a great story and fail, and Jackson was no idiot; and the studio, producers and actors knew that before they started shooting
Some of the earliest marketing was bad, and folks were panicking that LotR was going to be another D&D movie to the general masses.
 


MarkB

Legend
Erm. Jackson signed on to produce three movies on an epic trilogy that had (by then) sold 80 million copies world wide (it's now over 150 million). If lots of people expected it to fail then they were smokin' better stuff than I've ever had. Jackson was gifted with the best piece of Fantasy fiction ever crafted and banked 7 times the budget for the 3 film run. Only an idiot could be handed such a great story and fail, and Jackson was no idiot; and the studio, producers and actors knew that before they started shooting
And yet, The Hobbit.
 


Stormonu

Legend
Definitely. There were plenty of terrible fantasy movies after 2001, Eragon, The Seventh Son, Prince of Persia... The expectation that fantasy movies were a niche market was broken. Fantasy was no longer Sci Fis little annoying brother.
The interesting thing about Peter Jackson being given The Lord of the Rings to direct is that he was mainly known for slapstick horror-comedies. He had the passion and drive to bring his vision to the screen. We will see if Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley can work a similar magic.
Well, that explains the Hobbit.

I heard that Ian McKellan (Gandalf) had given Jackson constant hell on the set about the direction of the movies, and it was that stubbornness that contributed to the movies being taken more seriously - but those are memories 20 years old now.

Don't get me wrong, I do like most of Jackson's movies (especially King Kong), and there were elements of the Hobbit that were good (Gandalf's visit to the Necromancer impressed me), but overall, Hobbit was not nearly as impressive as LotR had been. I'd rather see a D&D movie lean towards how LotR was made and not as over-the-top as the Hobbit was.
 


Well, that explains the Hobbit.

I heard that Ian McKellan (Gandalf) had given Jackson constant hell on the set about the direction of the movies, and it was that stubbornness that contributed to the movies being taken more seriously - but those are memories 20 years old now.

Don't get me wrong, I do like most of Jackson's movies (especially King Kong), and there were elements of the Hobbit that were good (Gandalf's visit to the Necromancer impressed me), but overall, Hobbit was not nearly as impressive as LotR had been. I'd rather see a D&D movie lean towards how LotR was made and not as over-the-top as the Hobbit was.
Plus Christopher Lee, the only true LotR "scholar" in the productions (he'd read the books many times) was a guiding hand for Jackson as well.
 





Precisely. We know it's a great trilogy now, having seen it. That doesn't mean people were idiots for having their doubts before they saw it. That's the part of your statement I took issue with.
Never said people were idiots. I mentioned idiots here: "Only an idiot could be handed such a great story and fail, and Jackson was no idiot; and the studio, producers and actors knew that before they started shooting."

BTW: You obviously do not understand the Studio system. There is no way they would have green-lit this without a script, so it really doesn't matter what "people think" until after it's said and done, it only matters what the above-the-line people believed, and based upon the results, they were right and that's all that mattered.
 




Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top