D&D Movie Redux (Tangent from Ep2 thread)

[Randolpho]

I posted this as a tangent over on the Ep2 thread (found here), but I felt perhaps it should have its own thread, rather than hijack that thread.

Well, I have never seen the Dungeons & Dragons movie. I guess *technically* I can't say I don't like it. But I wouldn't waste my time with it given reviews, previews, trailers, etc.

<tangent>

You know... it's actually not that bad of a movie -- if you get the DVD and watch the deleted scenes (which really shouldn't have been deleted). I'm kinda getting tired of people picking on it so much.

Sure, the acting is pathetic all round (the best actors of the entire movie were Riff-raff himself Richard O'Brien and Marlon Wayans, neither of whom got top billing ), and some of the CGI was a little low-quality, but the sets, character development, and plot were very good. That movie *was* D&D.

</tangent>

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I've seen it several times and agree it's not a bad movie. I just think every one was hopeing for a great movie that would spawna great franchise.

 

[Randolpho]

True enough.

I hear it had a low budget tho... if that's the case, this movie worked out damn well for a low budget.

If only the director had managed to get some *acting* out of the actors....

 

[Craer]

So when is the sequel coming out? I'm looking forward to it. Maybe it will be better this time around. In the first D&D movie, the only thing that I could positively identy as "D&D" were the beholders. Ah well. Maybe we'll get an illithid this time around, or something along those lines.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The sets were good.

But you're saying the character development and plot was good? What? Railroading and Dues Ex Machina are good?

Granted I saw this particular feature through a haze of vodka. But I don't recall there even being any character development.

And the budget for the movie was not too low. It was just spent very foolishly. Although, this bit is strictly my opinion.

 

[Randolpho]

So when is the sequel coming out? I'm looking forward to it. Maybe it will be better this time around. In the first D&D movie, the only thing that I could positively identy as "D&D" were the beholders. Ah well. Maybe we'll get an illithid this time around, or something along those lines.

D&D Stereotypical Thief (complete with thieves guild), D&D Stereotypical Dwarf Fighter (complete with bad manners, drunkenness, and bearded women), D&D Stereotypical Elf Ranger/Druid, D&D Colored Dragons. I notice a lot more than just beholders (although they were damn cool).

I hope they make a sequel. I'm not holding my breath, tho.

 

[Desdichado]

Randolpho:
Sure, the acting is pathetic all round (the best actors of the entire movie were Riff-raff himself Richard O'Brien and Marlon Wayans, neither of whom got top billing ), and some of the CGI was a little low-quality, but the sets, character development, and plot were very good. That movie *was* D&D.

Sorry, buddy, but if you think everything about that movie was good except the acting, then you need to see more movies. The sets were OK -- some of them, the character development was either cliched or non-existent and the plot was inane, see-through, hack-jobs stolen from a dozens of other b-movies that did it first, usually equally poorly. That *was* D&D? If that were true, that's a good explanation for the ubiquitous concerns amongst gamers that playing D&D is a hobby that is seen to cater to geeks.

 

[Randolpho]

The sets were good.

But you're saying the character development and plot was good? What? Railroading and Dues Ex Machina are good?

Care to back that claim up? What do you consider railroading and Dues Ex Machina?

Granted I saw this particular feature through a haze of vodka. But I don't recall there even being any character development.

Well, ok, maybe not *growth* of character, save Ridley coming to grips with the death of Snails, but each character was unique (if D&D Stereotypical) in his/her own way. Or would have been, had the actors been capable of showing that uniqueness.

And the budget for the movie was not too low. It was just spent very foolishly. Although, this bit is strictly my opinion.

Acting classes for the cast would have been nice.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Care to back that claim up? What do you consider railroading and Dues Ex Machina?

The primaries made few choices. We see this at the start of the film where the two thieves were litterally dragged by the wizard apprentice. Dues Ex Machina might be an inapporpriate phrase, but what do you call it when the bad guy tosses his superweapon aside in the final conflict with the hero? And what on earth was the point of that theif maze other than filler?

Look, if people liked the movie that's great and I'm happy for them. But that doesn't make the movie good. The writer/director was a fanboy who went for 10 years getting this from concept to screen. But as an artistic vision it fails. The movie made around 12 million. That's chicken feed in the film industry. Which is why I would be very surprised we will see a sequel and given how producers decide on how to make movies, I'm surprised they went ahead with Lord of the Rings.

 

[LostSoul]

I don't know why they didn't do a typical D&D adventure.

A dungeon crawl into some strange Temple of Evil would have made a good Alien-esque thriller.

I can see it now:

Sun setting at the back of a small keep in the borderlands. A group of four adventurers enters the keep. They talk with the lord and ask about the caves that are plaguing the keep.

Foreshadowing.

The next day they enter the caves. Bad Things happen. They fight all sorts of D&D monsters and cast all sorts of D&D spells. The rogue disarms traps and the cleric turns undead.

Eventually they make it back out into the light of day, one or two of thier party dead, wounded but wiser for the experience.