Dungeons and Dragons 2

[BASTON!!!]

D&D Movie 2

AAAARRRGGHH!!!!

"Help me Obe-wan Kenobi, your our only hope!"

Oups, wrong movie! But my only hope this time, is that they don't re-try to produce another medieval fantasy Star Wars.

If it's the case, our only hope will be the destruction of the Earth before the release of that crap!

Ah damn! For real, my only hope is that i won't be to much desapointed when i get out of the theater, because i will go see it anyway... This sucks!!!

BASTON!!!

 

[WanderingMonster]

You know, I thought that the first D&D movie actually did a good job of capturing the D&D feel: The D&D movie was full of corny dialogue and overacting, and so is the typical D&D campaign.

This is why The Gamers works. But they tried on purpose. Camp isn't something you stumble upon, it's a stylistic choice.

I agree with Mark. Start with good characters. Move on to good plot. Once you have those, then you can have kewl effects and nods to the subculture. It's also worth noting that getting "star power" by attracting big Hollywood names to your film, is not assurance of success. I know what I'm saying is obvious, but why is it that we-who-are-not-film-makers see it, and the professionals don't?

 

[Ranger REG]

So if they do a Salvatore movie Wulfgar has to stay dead? that would not work. And what about the chosen have some of them died and come back because of their powers,

I don't recall if Wulfgar was dead in the first book of the Icewind Dale Trilogy upon first meeting Bruenor.

One resurrection is okay. Two and you're pushing it. I guess I just don't like to see magic being all too common. It seems to "gamey" (for lack of a better adjective) and not very subtle (which I prefer).

But if it must be flashy or common, at least there should be a good story to back all that special effects up. Of course, writing a story for the sole purpose of displaying these effects is more likely to be ... unappealing. But please, creative writers, prove me wrong.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I know what I'm saying is obvious, but why is it that we-who-are-not-film-makers see it, and the professionals don't?

For various reasons there is a cultural dislike of writers within Hollywood. Sort of like making fun of the drummer in a rock band. Yes, there are exceptions. Those exceptions are few.

Consider, Joss Wheaton, the man who wrote Buffy and Angel (Firefly was not produced at the time) was flown out to Hollywood to do a re-write of the X-men movie. According to an interview I read (in the AV section of Onion) He was treated in a patronizing manner and generally snubbed. The sum total of what was kept of he re-write isn't long, so I'll write it out in totum:

Cyclops: How do I know it's really you?
Wolverine: You're a dick.
Cyclops: OK, let's go.

... hey, it got a laugh.

But roll that one around a bit. Tens of thousands of dollars must have been spent on Wheaton and all they kept was a dick joke. Hollywood just doesn't like writers. There's some fascinating stuff on the topic by Joe M. Strysinski and, I believe, Terry Gilliam. I guess that's why some people call it "Hollyweird".

 

[Ranger REG]

It's Whedon. Wheaton was that former kid actor who played "the boy who saved Enterprise-D many times."

 

[Taelorn76]

I don't recall if Wulfgar was dead in the first book of the Icewind Dale Trilogy upon first meeting Bruenor.

I think it might have been in the trilogy after the The DarkElf Trilogy.

One resurrection is okay. Two and you're pushing it. I guess I just don't like to see magic being all too common. It seems to "gamey" (for lack of a better adjective) and not very subtle (which I prefer).

But if it must be flashy or common, at least there should be a good story to back all that special effects up. Of course, writing a story for the sole purpose of displaying these effects is more likely to be ... unappealing. But please, creative writers, prove me wrong.

I wasn't completly disagreeing with you either though. I think if you use resurection as a way to keep the story moving or you kill someone off and the fans hate then ressurect them in the next movie. That is bad, my point was that sometimes it is part of the story.

 

[Ranger REG]

If it is needed in the story, unless you're referring to making a screenplay adaptation of one of the books.

And you're right. It all boils down to having a very, VERY good story ... but can we do that without recycling the characters from the first film?

 

[Trainz]

Hell, there are hundreads of very good D&D stories lying around just waiting to see the silver screens.

Just take our story hours. Take Piratecat's.

I'm not saying to film them word for word, but it sure as hell is a good reference, at least for ideas, if not dialogue.

Hollywood is going south, calling New Zealand...

 

[Barendd Nobeard]

I certainly wouldn't suggest it would be a good idea to maintain any of the less desirable elements from the first fiasco. About the only thing I felt was good from the first movie was some of the effects work, such as the dragons. Aside from that, I'd much prefer they start fresh and consider the first film as nothing more than a reference point for what NOT to do...

And tricking beholders by throwing a rock. They gotta have more of that--works every time!

 

[Dirigible]

Hollywood is going south, calling New Zealand...

Doable. We've got some nice forests to stand in Cormanthor, a couple of mountains that'd pass for the Spine of the World, a desert that'd make a tolerable Athas, given enough filters... [local]and if Gore isn's the spitting image of Sigil, I don't know what is.[/local]