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

No, you just said they'd have to have been off their heads on drugs. Do you have any more hairs you'd like to split?
Not splitting hairs, just stating the obvious. A win in conception to a win in production is 100%. Everyone else was wrong. I seem to remember a similar situation I was privy to where the wargame industry leader was wrong: It was 1973, and we (TSR and the LGTSA) were told by Avalon Hill that this Fantasy game ms titled Dungeons and Dragons that they'd received from Gary wouldn't last on gamers' bookshelves. Luckily pundits in both cases were wrong. We knew, just as Jackson and New Line knew, that we had a winner on our hands.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



dave2008

Legend
Yes a greedy grabber play. But it does not diminish LotR.
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.
 


GreyLord

Hero
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 like the Hobbit movies overall, I suppose I am in the minority. I think they SUFFER by being drawn out too much and having too much added on.

However, when you start with one movie, have it extended to two and figure you can plan for that, and then get told you have to make it three...what can one do?

Draw things out and add more stuff to it.

In light of that, I think it turned out quite well. It would have been better if it was squashed into two movies, and perhaps ideal as one.
 

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.
I don't know how Jackson persuaded the studio to part with so much dosh, it has to be either a natural 20 on persuade, or blackmail.
Jackson was gifted with the best piece of Fantasy fiction ever crafted
I would say bollocks to that. It's great, but "best" is a wild assertion. And great literature does not necessarily make a great movie. Different media are different. LotR had already had one mediocre movie adaptation.
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
Anyone can make a bad movie, Jackson has made several.
 

I like the Hobbit movies overall, I suppose I am in the minority.
To be fair, the novel is a pretty difficult piece of work. It swings wildly between a children's adventure story and adult literature, the vast majority of characters are underdeveloped (Lobelia Sackville-Baggins is the only female character), the climax takes place whilst the protagonist is unconscious and is narrated in flashback, and it hinges on a complex moral dilemma.
 

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.
Yeah, well, everyone knew that there was no way, ever, to a straight adaptation, so "based upon" became the route with changes and amalgamations. However, in the wash, Jackson captured the "spirt" and "essence" of the story while maintaining the major themes and arc. Interesting, too, that the reactions to each of the three grew at a progressing clip, always edging upwards in acclaim, revenue and awards, another indicator of a story well told.
 

I don't know how Jackson persuaded the studio to part with so much dosh, it has to be either a natural 20 on persuade, or blackmail.

I would say bollocks to that. It's great, but "best" is a wild assertion. And great literature does not necessarily make a great movie. Different media are different. LotR had already had one mediocre movie adaptation.

Anyone can make a bad movie, Jackson has made several.
Could have been, would have been, should have been.

I'll stick with What it is and What it remains.

Aside: it was Miramax who originally wanted to cut it to a 2 hour single movie and Jackson refused, knowing full well that the story could not be done justice in that frame.
 


Azuresun

Adventurer
I mean, I find myself laughing consistently through most of them. Thor: Ragnorak and Guardians of the Galaxy are particularly great examples, and Guardians is the movie that the D&D film producers have referenced as a touchstone over the years.

The prison break in GotG1 is such an RPG moment.

--The smart guy lays out a plan which fails at the first hurdle because another one of the group wasn't paying attention.
--So the group just starts a big fight instead.
--A new character joins the party out of nowhere.
--One character insists on going back to get his loot.
 

Sure. That time. But it could have gone any way. Chance is the biggest factor in determining a movie's success.
It is or it isn't in each singular and measurable case as there is attendant risk with everything in life. Post-modern gobbledegook aside, the idea then in each case is to reduce risk, something which LotR as an epic and a movie series both accomplished and which is a singular, specific observable fact and not a general outlook applied across the entire spectrum of movies just because of an opinion that "it could have been otherwise." If pigs had wings...
 


MarkB

Legend
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.
I think they're all good, but they suffer a progressive reduction in subtlety. Jackson had this concept that the characters should not start off as the heroic versions from the novels, but should be on a journey towards that ideal. And it works really well for a couple of them - Aragorn's character arc is great.

But for anyone who didn't get as much screen time, there just isn't time for that character arc to play out naturally, and it leaves them feeling like jerks who redeem themselves at the last minute. Theoden and Faramir suffer particularly badly.
 

It is or it isn't in each singular and measurable case as there is attendant risk with everything in life. Post-modern gobbledegook aside, the idea then in each case is to reduce risk, something which LotR as an epic and a movie series both accomplished and which is a singular, specific observable fact and not a general outlook applied across the entire spectrum of movies just because of an opinion that "it could have been otherwise." If pigs had wings...
The best way to reduce risk is not to make movies. It's inherently a high risk high reward business.

Failing that, churn out sequels (or shared universe connected stories).

There are parallel universes in which the 2000 D&D movie was great, and Fellowship was a turkey.
 

Bird Of Play

Explorer
As previously mentioned by other commenters, "funny as hell" makes me think it's yet another genre deconstruction. I'm already guessing they're gonna spend most of the time poking fun at classic fantasy and rpg tropes, hinting pop culture references, or quipping witty one-liners.
Look, this kind of stuff was fun when it was a fresh take on the subject, but now.....
 

As previously mentioned by other commenters, "funny as hell" makes me think it's yet another genre deconstruction. I'm already guessing they're gonna spend most of the time poking fun at classic fantasy and rpg tropes, hinting pop culture references, or quipping witty one-liners.
Look, this kind of stuff was fun when it was a fresh take on the subject, but now.....
It isn't that the film industry now lacks cogent examples of good Fantasy stories, it's because they conflate D&Ds rise as a game as other than influenced by serious Fantasy, a similar attitude that was defaulted to in the past before D&D's rise. Myth, legend, folklore, literature, poetry, that's all fine for indexing Fantasy, but it appears that the film industry just can't wrap their collective minds around that Fantasy movies can have a great story as well, and moreso when it has been forwarded through the mostly cultural lens of a "game". In D&D's case they appear to be defaulting to "light-heartedness" once again, but the cards as finally dealt will tell. Before the advent of LotR we had IMO the best Fantasy film in Jason and the Argonauts, but even that was overlooked and we got a lot of pablum in between then and now. If LotR, Harry Potter and GoT haven't permanently moved that dial I don't foresee what will.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
As previously mentioned by other commenters, "funny as hell" makes me think it's yet another genre deconstruction. I'm already guessing they're gonna spend most of the time poking fun at classic fantasy and rpg tropes, hinting pop culture references, or quipping witty one-liners.
Look, this kind of stuff was fun when it was a fresh take on the subject, but now.....
I mean, it's still fun. Look at what's dominated the box office this year. The main rule of the movie industry, and any creative industry, is survival of the fittest. Give the people what they want.
 

Bird Of Play

Explorer
I mean, it's still fun. Look at what's dominated the box office this year. The main rule of the movie industry, and any creative industry, is survival of the fittest. Give the people what they want.

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.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top