Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="velm" data-source="post: 1963254" data-attributes="member: 25998">Why, yes, indeed, ED does have a cult following.&nbsp; However, where did it get that following? some from ED1, and others like me from ED2 alone.&nbsp; Why? great budget? no. great acting? no. Great script? no.&nbsp; For a lead character, it had an unkown by the name of Bruce Campbell.&nbsp; It has a certain 'chemstry.'&nbsp; It is that very same 'chemisty' that some movies have, and others do not.&nbsp; The same 'cult following' could be said of the other examples of 'good' low budget movies i mentioned.&nbsp; Granted, they might be so large, but people still do watch them.&nbsp; The flavor and style is a not so much of a hard isssue.&nbsp;What was the style of DND1? bad is my answer.&nbsp; &nbsp; What was the style of Conan? good is my answer.&nbsp;&nbsp; What was the style of LotR? good is my answer.Those are three examples of fantasy movies that come to mind.&nbsp; Two are good and one is not.&nbsp; Did Conan follow the books? No.&nbsp; Was it good movie? I would say, the majority would say yes.&nbsp; Same goes with LotR.&nbsp; It is not a difficult thing to do.&nbsp; DND1 failed on many many many accounts.&nbsp; Purple lipstick?&nbsp; the Star Wars Cantina feel of some of the scenes?&nbsp; Dialoge? Action scenes, the one action scene that i cannot forget reminds me of the Power Rangers.&nbsp; If the studio were to have taken the movie seriously, it would have been much better.&nbsp; I liked Ladyhawke.&nbsp; That is a fantasy movie.&nbsp; Doubt it had a huge budget, but it was done good.&nbsp; So DND1 COULD have.&nbsp; Again, it is NOT difficult to make a decent fantasy movie.&nbsp; Does it HAVE to be an EPIC on the scale of LotR? no.&nbsp; But, it can still be good, which I doubt DND2 and 3 will.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="velm, post: 1963254, member: 25998"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification