Ranger REG
Explorer
Oh, gee, thank you. Up until now, this boards lack a spellchecker.die_kluge said:
Then again, this boards still lack a spellchecker.die_kluge said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Dungeons & Dragons III?!?
- Thread starter nikolai
- Start date
While DnD2 might have a low budget, it does not mean disaster. Evil Dead 2: Dead by dawn, was made with a slim budget, and it is a great movie, for what it is. Cabin Fever, another low budget movie (which I thought was written INCREDIBLY bad, but still had potential) had a some good qualities. 28 Days Later, was another low budget movie, but a good quality one, very good script, and acting.
The bad thing is that the above examples are only the brightest of the bunch of 'low budget' out there. For each Evil Dead2, there are 50 pieces of flop showing. Just go to SomethingAwful.com and see some of the winners there.
The sad and disturbing thing is that DND (the original one) was HORRIBLE. I could not even see the whole thing, it was JUST that bad. I have NO idea what they were trying to do with it. They had a DECENT enough cast, but everything just fell to pieces. It is my firm belief that it will happen with the rest of the DND films.
Peter Jackson did a GREAT job with the LoTR movies. Yes, there will be people saying on how he did not follow certain parts of the books, but in the end, I think he captured the 'feel' of the setting. When I can sit through a 3+ hour movie without moving ONCE for any reason, that tells me something or I do not want to move for not wanting to miss anything. DND NEEDS the same kind of treatment that LoTR got.
The bad thing is that the above examples are only the brightest of the bunch of 'low budget' out there. For each Evil Dead2, there are 50 pieces of flop showing. Just go to SomethingAwful.com and see some of the winners there.
The sad and disturbing thing is that DND (the original one) was HORRIBLE. I could not even see the whole thing, it was JUST that bad. I have NO idea what they were trying to do with it. They had a DECENT enough cast, but everything just fell to pieces. It is my firm belief that it will happen with the rest of the DND films.
Peter Jackson did a GREAT job with the LoTR movies. Yes, there will be people saying on how he did not follow certain parts of the books, but in the end, I think he captured the 'feel' of the setting. When I can sit through a 3+ hour movie without moving ONCE for any reason, that tells me something or I do not want to move for not wanting to miss anything. DND NEEDS the same kind of treatment that LoTR got.
Ranger REG
Explorer
I'm not worried about the budget, unless it actually shows on picture or in sound. I'm just worried that now that the first D&D movie bombed, they got a very deep hole to climb out of, and they're going to need the most creative people to bring them out of that hole. Can they find such creative people on a shoestring budget, kudos for them. But we the audience still remain skeptical.
I think they already stated the budget was in the 20 mil mark. In holywood terms, it is kinda low. Conversly, a big budget does not mean it will be a good movie either.
the first one was bad, the rest, i feel will follow in its footsteps. I do not to be a negative thinker, but with how bad the first one was, it showed to me that now one in TSR/WOTC really cared. Dont remember if WOTC had DND then. Been a while, plus I tried to forcefully forget all images from that movie out of my brain.
the first one was bad, the rest, i feel will follow in its footsteps. I do not to be a negative thinker, but with how bad the first one was, it showed to me that now one in TSR/WOTC really cared. Dont remember if WOTC had DND then. Been a while, plus I tried to forcefully forget all images from that movie out of my brain.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
Ranger REG said:
If you are talking about the deep hole in the finance gain, they made that back, in the overseas market.
If you are talking about the deep hole...in reputation.....*picture a BLACK hole*, oh yes...most definitely.
If you are talking about swaying us, in the US, to have some feeling for this...this...*censored*, they have a lonnnnnnng way to go.
Truth Seeker
Adventurer
velm said:
Major difference with Evil Dead 2 and D&D 1...ED has a cult following, with Bruce Campbell as the icon...where does the D&D movie 1 has that?(wait...don't answer).
Treatment, yes...good treatment is possible, but it will come down to flavor and style from which gaming world used to represent the genre...in that, the choices are extremely hard to choose.*everyone has a favorite*
Last edited:
Truth Seeker said:
Why, yes, indeed, ED does have a cult following. However, where did it get that following? some from ED1, and others like me from ED2 alone. Why? great budget? no. great acting? no. Great script? no. For a lead character, it had an unkown by the name of Bruce Campbell. It has a certain 'chemstry.'
It is that very same 'chemisty' that some movies have, and others do not. The same 'cult following' could be said of the other examples of 'good' low budget movies i mentioned. Granted, they might be so large, but people still do watch them.
The flavor and style is a not so much of a hard isssue.
What was the style of DND1? bad is my answer.
What was the style of Conan? good is my answer.
What was the style of LotR? good is my answer.
Those are three examples of fantasy movies that come to mind. Two are good and one is not. Did Conan follow the books? No. Was it good movie? I would say, the majority would say yes. Same goes with LotR. It is not a difficult thing to do. DND1 failed on many many many accounts. Purple lipstick? the Star Wars Cantina feel of some of the scenes? Dialoge? Action scenes, the one action scene that i cannot forget reminds me of the Power Rangers.
If the studio were to have taken the movie seriously, it would have been much better. I liked Ladyhawke. That is a fantasy movie. Doubt it had a huge budget, but it was done good. So DND1 COULD have. Again, it is NOT difficult to make a decent fantasy movie. Does it HAVE to be an EPIC on the scale of LotR? no. But, it can still be good, which I doubt DND2 and 3 will.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Hmm. That could only mean one thing. They're making the D&D sequel appealing for the overseas audience. Absurdly pathetic but true.Truth Seeker said:
Greyhawk_DM
First Post
Dungeons & Dragons 2: The Elemental Might is based upon the highly successful role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons. An evil Sorcerer (Bruce Payne) steals a magical orb which controls a powerful sleeping black dragon. In response, an aspiring Mage and a decorated Warrior are summoned to defend the kingdom and solve the mystery of an enigmatic tome as evil forces lay waste. A battle for control of the kingdom unfolds in this classic tale of good vs. evil. The film captures the spirit of Dungeons & Dragons by creating a role-playing, event-based adventure comprising of magical paraphernalia, hand to hand combat, and incredible creatures including Magmin, Dragons, Harpies and a Lich. The production has been working closely with TSR and Wizards of the Coast (divisions of Hasbro Entertainment), the creators of the role-playing game, to ensure the project adheres to the strict guidelines of the property.
