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

MarkB

Legend
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?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Parmandur

Book-Friend
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

Book-Friend
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.
 

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

Book-Friend
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.
 

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

Explorer
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

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
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.
 

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.
 

payn

Hero
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.
lol, when they announced The Hobbit an unexpected journey I immediately started calling it The Hobbit the totally expected trilogy.
 

dave2008

Legend
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.
I've watched the Smaug parts more than once - but that is it. It is a shame for me too as I think the Hobbit is a better book to make a movie from.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The Two Towers and RotK, while still good, have more weaknesses, flaws and places where the script betrays the characters.
While this is true overall, I have a hard time ignoring how much better the latter two films treated the hobbits, compared to the nonsense treatment of Merry and Pippin in Fellowship.

There was no legit reason, IMO, to make them useless idiots in Fellowship.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
While this is true overall, I have a hard time ignoring how much better the latter two films treated the hobbits, compared to the nonsense treatment of Merry and Pippin in Fellowship.

There was no legit reason, IMO, to make them useless idiots in Fellowship.
In the books, Merry is pretty competent in the trilogy, but until Return of the King, Pippin is a bit of a screw-up - and that's a character theme. He blunders into things and only when it's time to save Faramir from Denethor does he really come into his own. So I'm not too fussed about him being played up for humor in the Fellowship movie.
 

While this is true overall, I have a hard time ignoring how much better the latter two films treated the hobbits, compared to the nonsense treatment of Merry and Pippin in Fellowship.

There was no legit reason, IMO, to make them useless idiots in Fellowship.

Until they spent time with the Ents, those two were mostly comic relief in the books too.
 

As much as I love the LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson's impulses towards always having comic relief characters did the films no favors (and there is humor in the books, without characters having to put on clownshoes). When the hobbits got more serious, Gimli got more comedic, which still gets me steamed to this day.

While this is true overall, I have a hard time ignoring how much better the latter two films treated the hobbits, compared to the nonsense treatment of Merry and Pippin in Fellowship.

There was no legit reason, IMO, to make them useless idiots in Fellowship.
 

MarkB

Legend
As much as I love the LOTR trilogy, Peter Jackson's impulses towards always having comic relief characters did the films no favors (and there is humor in the books, without characters having to put on clownshoes). When the hobbits got more serious, Gimli got more comedic, which still gets me steamed to this day.
Yeah, absolutely. It's when he starts butchering the lore just to get in another "short" joke that I really get annoyed.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
In the books, Merry is pretty competent in the trilogy, but until Return of the King, Pippin is a bit of a screw-up - and that's a character theme. He blunders into things and only when it's time to save Faramir from Denethor does he really come into his own. So I'm not too fussed about him being played up for humor in the Fellowship movie.
Pippin is a bit of a restless knave in the books, but he competently helps Frodo leave the Shire, learns to fight, etc, all in Fellowship.
Until they spent time with the Ents, those two were mostly comic relief in the books too.
Strongly disagree. Like “we read different books” level disagree. Both of them were competent and useful in the Shire.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
Pippin is a bit of a restless knave in the books, but he competently helps Frodo leave the Shire, learns to fight, etc, all in Fellowship.

Strongly disagree. Like “we read different books” level disagree. Both of them were competent and useful in the Shire.
Yeah, Peter Jackson really leaned too hard into "everyone needs an arc" when the book is a lot more subtle. Merry and Pippen start as carefree youths eager for adventure who come back wise but traumatized, not as comic relief.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top