Just when I thought there might have been hope for the second D&D movie...

[Chimera]

The only decent role I can see for PH would be lifted directly from the setup from my last campaign.

Woman sitting by campfire with others. Suddenly, Great Red Wyrm with a Wizard on it's back comes swooping down. All others run, but she stands up and freezes there, wide eyed in fear. She opens her mouth to scream just as it breathes, full force, directly at her. Cut scene to people running and dragon swooping up, then back to woman shaped pile of ashes that then falls to pieces.

 

[Bass Puppet]

How do you know?

How do you know?

Reason I ask is because if nothing else, the director and producer of the first film, Courtney Solomon, is certainly a honking big Dungeons and Dragons fan, and certainly made a movie that was lifted straight from his own home campaign. Or at least that's his story on the movie commentary.

I would say most definitely it WAS made for fans, by fans. That's it's biggest problem -- if it had been made by skilled professionals it would have been a very different movie. I possibly would have liked it less, but there you go.

Two words, George Lucas. He doesn't make Star Wars Films for loyal Star Wars Fans, he makes them for his children. Maybe Courtney made them for his gaming group. AND Atleast when you look at a Tie fighter, you don't say you've seen one better in Star Trek.

Right. Because the rest of us are willing to accept crap, as long as there's lots of it.

Sheesh. You know, people who like things different than you aren't STUPID. Statements like that serve no purpose other than attempting to insult people whose tastes differ from yours.

Your angry and your taking this the wrong way. Many people (I don't know about you) have stated that they would rather have a D&D movie than no movie at all, which I have stated my opinion on a different thread. There was no intended insult there but if you feel insulted, i'm sorry.

You thought the first film was bad, well, good for you. I'm interested in hearing why and what you would do differently. If your only contribution can be "People who don't like what I do are morons who don't understand what crap they're digesting," then we can't have much of a conversation, can we? Unless you'll deign to talk to one of us morons who happens to disagree with you.

Your just being mean now, and I'm sorry you feel so strongly about this. I'm not attacking you or anybody else on this board. I'm simply stating the obvious, if you need me to dissect the obvious than look somewhere else, most of us who know, know this was a bad movie and if you liked it, that's great. I'm not saying you can't like a bad movie nor am I saying that if you like it, it's good. Ticket sales and loyal D&D fans reflect the accuracy and success of this film. If you think my only critique is without contribution, than your wrong. I've stated several times that I think they should have abandoned the movie and went in the direction of the Scorging of the Worlds, maybe not in this thread, but in several before this, ones you even contributed. And by the way, this is not about what "I" would do differently, heck, many of the threads in the Story Hour would work better on screen than that movie and it doesn't take a D&D Fan to pick one out. You make it sound like nobody has a right to critique a movie without providing you with a better one. Here's a tip, if your getting heated on a message board, then find something better to get heated about because this is pretty stupid.

If you want to continue this arguement, please message me.

 

[Enchantress]

It's a tie; Jar-Jar is now #3.

Does that mean that there is a #2 that is different than Paris and the movie creators?

 

[Ranger REG]

I want my D&D movies like I like my D&D campaigns -- pieced together by enthusiastic amateurs with more passion than talent, with more ideas than sense, not by professionals who'd just as soon be working on a romantic comedy or a searing family drama for all they care.

IOW, Courtney Solomon's Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie. Plenty passion, zero talent.

But I love enthusiastic amateurs. It's one of the things I love about the RPG industry. And the porn industry.

Then we have plenty of mediocre-quality d20 products for you in the market.

As for porn, there was a time when films have plot, more or less. I miss those kind of movies. :\

 

[Desdichado]

Despite the naysayers, I think this is a positive thing. It shows that someone, at least, is serious about trying to revive a franchise that shouldn't have kicked off so freakin' badly.

And Henry, although I don't know about most of those movies you listed on her credits, you are missing two deleted scenes from Win a Date with Tad Hamilton, which are shown on the DVD. And her cameo in The Cat in the Hat can hardly be called something that showcases her ability (or lack thereof) to act.

As far as I'm concerned, her ability is a cypher. I have no idea if she can act or not, but what the hey, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt until I see something to convince me otherwise.

But I mean really, how can the franchise be any worse? The plot and pacing of the first movie were atrocious, the look of the movie was mostly laughable, the dialogue was painful, the director was completely out of his league in dealing with the actors he had -- in every way I can think of, the movie was a failure. It's painful to admit that the D&D movie, a hobby about which I, at least, am passionate, is represented by such a poorly concieved and executed movie. The only cinematic faux pas to perhaps equal it is the Street Fighter movie with Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue, etc.

 

[barsoomcore]

Two words, George Lucas.

Three words, different human being.

If you've got any evidence to present to suggest that the movie wasn't made for the fans, bring it up. Like I say, I'm happy to discuss either facts or opinions, but if you can't defend your opinion with a fact then don't expect me to take it for granted.

I'm not claiming definitively one way or the other, but there's at least one bit of evidence AGAINST your statement -- the word of the director himself, who claims to be a fan and made a movie he thought would be cool. Ergo, he made it for the fans.

Maybe not for YOU, but you do not represent all fans. Nobody does. So if he made it for SOME fans, your statement, "It was never made for the fans," is incorrect.

Your angry and your taking this the wrong way.

I'm not the slightest bit angry nor am I heated. I'm just smacking you for making insulting remarks. The statement "I prefer quality" has no meaning -- it only makes sense as an veiled insult towards those who disagree with you.

Because EVERYONE prefers quality, if that's the only variable on the table. EVERYONE will take the higher-quality item, all other things being equal.

The point isn't that you like quality and I like crap. It's that we disagree as to the definition of quality. And it's that very disagreement that is the interesting part of any conversation that you and I might have on this subject. It's that very disagreement that I would want to talk about. What does quality mean to you and why does one movie show it and not the other?

Ticket sales and loyal D&D fans reflect the accuracy and success of this film.

Here you go again. "Loyal D&D fans"? Come on. What you mean is, "People who agree (don't like the movie) with me agree with me (are loyal D&D fans)." And you're insinuating that people who like this film aren't loyal D&D fans, which is a ridiculous (and again, insulting) thing to say. Say this: "I don't like this movie." Isn't that simpler? Doesn't that feel better? Why do you need to support your opinion with these legions of mythical "Loyal D&D fans"?

I'm interested in YOUR opinion. I don't care HOW many people share it. But if all you've got for me is insults, well, we don't have anything to talk about, do we? And I think that's a shame.

You make it sound like nobody has a right to critique a movie without providing you with a better one.

I'm not objecting to anyone's critique of any movie. I'm objecting to you calling people who disagree with you stupid or disloyal or any other pejorative thing. And I'm not objecting to it because it makes me angry. Believe me, you're not capable of making me angry. Only IKEA furniture that won't assemble properly is truly capable of making me angry.

Here's a tip, if your getting heated on a message board, then find something better to get heated about because this is pretty stupid.

You think the standards of debate on ENWorld is a stupid topic? Well, it isn't to me, and I'm sorry that once again, the fact that I disagree with you is being taken by you as evidence of my stupidity.

But it isn't stupid to me; it's something I feel passionately about.

I WANT to hear your opinion. I think you're smart. I think you've probably got good ideas, and I want to know what they are, even if I disagree with them. But don't expect me to take insults, veiled, conscious, or otherwise, lying down.

 

[Kai Lord]

What? Paris Hilton and that Ridley guy from the first movie are going to be in the sequel to the D&D movie!? That's HORRI--Kai Lord notices the LOTR DVD's sitting on his shelf--um...what were we talking about again?

 

[takyris]

I saw her on Saturday Night Live. She was trying to act. It was embarrassing. I feel capable of judging her acting ability as bad.

My personal feelings about the original movie were that it was definitely a movie made by a fan, but it was put through too many script-wringers to get the movie cliches, and it ended up annoying many fans with those changes. The beholders, as one example. My non-gaming wife caught that one. "Wait, aren't beholders like totally scary and badass and stuff? And they just turned them into little bouncy guard dogs?" Its heart was in the right place -- it had the beholders in there -- but somewhere about three rewrites into it, somebody forgot what made beholders cool in the first place.

Same deal on much of the other writing. They made it into a one-man show, with Destiny Boy, his Love Interest, and all his Sidekicks. My complete and total guess is that they did that because it's a movie, and movies need heroes (according to the people who handle script revision number four). The movie had the requisite elf, dwarf, wizard, and rogue, but it was all about the rogue, who got turned into a rogue/fighter, and everyone else got backgrounded... when the fun of general-purpose D&D is in teamwork and camraderie and working together -- and if somebody has a destiny, everybody has that destiny. You're the "Team of the Iron Forge" or whatever, not "Bob the Chosen One, and his sidekicks, the Bob-ettes". Too many scenes of our hero on his own. Too many scenes of him winning because he was the movie hero. It lost enough of the elements of D&D that it had to be judged as an ordinary fantasy movie... and as an ordinary fantasy movie, it was moderately simplistic, fairly low-budget-looking, and poorly acted in a few key areas.

That is solely my opinion, however.

And it was interesting to watch the DVD with the deleted scenes and see what they took out. Many of the scenes that were deleted were "Other-Character" scenes, developing people who weren't the hero. (There were also two hero-heavy scenes deleted, but they were effect-heavy set pieces, and it made sense to cut them for budget reasons.)

 

[barsoomcore]

IOW, Courtney Solomon's Dungeons & Dragons: The Movie. Plenty passion, zero talent.

Exactly. And if I have to choose between the two, I'll take the passion every time.

You can learn just about anything if you're determined enough. But if you don't got the passion, who cares how talented you are?

Then we have plenty of mediocre-quality d20 products for you in the market.

*checks bank account*

Yep, spent plenty of money on those, too. And the only ones I regret buying are the ones that don't feel like they were done with any passion.

 

[barsoomcore]

But I mean really, how can the franchise be any worse?

Man, did you have to say it out loud? Now we're cursed for sure.

If Number Two opens and the first thing we all say is, "This is worse than I imagined," we're all coming looking for you. Just so you know.

The only cinematic faux pas to perhaps equal it is the Street Fighter movie with Van Damme, Raul Julia, Kylie Minogue, etc.

I think we've discovered a fault line in our tastes, JD. Cause I'll take Street Fighter over Mortal Kombat any day of the week. It had Sumo wrestlers struggling in a balsa-wood Tokyo! Raul Julia and Ming-Na Wen! Public Enemy, Ice Cube, LL Cool J and Pharcyde!

What did Mortal Kombat have? Christopher Lambert and that Cary-Hiroyuki guy who always plays the bad Asian guy. Oh, and Talisa Soto. No Sumo wrestlers, though.

Tell me I'm crazy.