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".

D&D Movie/TV - Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith Join D&D Movie

From Comic Book Movies -- "Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar) and Justice Smith (Detective Pikachu) have joined Wonder Woman 1984's Chris Pine in Paramount and eOne's upcoming big-budget board game adaptation, Dungeons & Dragons..."...

www.enworld.org

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.

D&D Movie/TV - Hugh Grant To Play Villain in the D&D Movie

Hugh Grant will be playing the villain in the Chris Pine D&D movie, which also stars Fast & Furious' Michelle Rodriguez, Jurassic World's Justice Smith and Bridgerton star Regé-Jean Page, according to Deadline. According to ComicBookMovie, his character name is Forge Fletcher, and the cast will...

www.enworld.org

D&D Movie/TV - Check Out Hugh Grant's D&D Movie Costume!

Posted by the Daily Mail, Hugh Grant was pictured at Somerset's Wells Cathedral in full costume. Hugh Grant plays the villain in the movie, which also stars Chris Pine, Regé-Jean Page, Michelle Rodriguez, and Justice Smith. See the link for more photos...

www.enworld.org

 

[Rob Kuntz]

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.

 

[payn]

Except I wasn't referring to scripts in general, but to Part 1, FotR, which was a very good script.

Right, it was about you referring to the "studio system". The same system that was in sheer panic that FotR was going to be D&D the movie part 2 just before release.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

Right, it was about you referring to the "studio system". The same system that was in sheer panic that FotR was going to be D&D the movie part 2 just before release.

The naysayers lost. Tissue?

 

[dave2008]

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.

 

[payn]

The naysayers lost. Tissue?

Super weird, but whatever.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

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.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

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.