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

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.

"Popular = bad"
Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here. It's been done to death without convincing anyone.

"Our hobby = Great potential for a film"
Despite the substantial evidence to the contrary? (i.e. a film even we didn't like and a great many cookie-cutter books.) Besides, what's actually compelling about D&D? What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters? Interaction. We all think our games are incredibly compelling and would make great films. But we're all coming from the inherently biased point of view of a participant in those stories. Of course they're compelling to us, we're IN them. A story about yourself (and your character is really just an extension of yourself) is automatically more compelling than the same story about someone else.

Any D&D movie is forced to compete with every campaign we've ever played. And in those, we could and did change the story to fit our personal vision of what was "right." As a result, we're going to find any static interpretation of D&D wanting.

And then we get all the fun of armchair directing/writing/etc. Plus we can pat ourselves on the back about how much more compelling our stories are because we are smarter and more sophisticated, and we don't have to dumb down our stories to cater to the rest of the stupid public.

So really, it's a win for us anyway.

 

[Enchantress]

IMHO, any sort of D&D movie ever made would have to not only have awesome graphics and action scenes, which is a must, but also have at least a decent plot. Take The Scorpion King for example. The fighting scenes were very good, but the plot....wait, WAS there a plot??? Personally, I like to have a point to the movie I'm watching as opposed to mindless, pointless violence.
I also think that in order to really show how a D&D story really is, they need to portray that it is not a one man show. There can't be just one hero that the entire story and therefore the entire world focuses on. They need to show that each and every character has a story, a past, and hopefully a future. They need to show that the character, though made up, is still a living part of the world they are trying to create. If we watch all of the characters live and learn, then the story becomes real to us and we can relate to their experiences. The only two movies that I can think of where this was used is LOTR and LXG. LOTR pretty much explains itself, but in LXG, it wasn't really just about Allan Quatermain. You also see the way Jekyll learns to live and even cooperate with his counter part, and how he begins to feel for Mia. And how Tom Sawyer finally manages to get through his teenage I'm-better-than-everyone-else-so-worship-me stage. This isn't the only thing that makes a good movie, but it certainly plays a large part in my oppinion.

So, how was my attempt at sounding halfway intelligent?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Noooo!!!!!


I want my mommy.

 

[Desdichado]

You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.

"Popular = bad"
Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here. It's been done to death without convincing anyone.

I agree with you completely. Well, that's not exactly true; I don't believe the thread is taking an elitist turn, I believe it started out elitist and has only gotten worse as its progressed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I agree with you completely. Well, that's not exactly true; I don't believe the thread is taking an elitist turn, I believe it started out elitist and has only gotten worse as its progressed.

I think that's a bit uncalled for. I didn't start the thread with "Everything popular sucks, and everyone's wrong but me." I started it with an opinion--one I still stand by--that Paris Hilton's presence in something like this is a sign that the creators are clueless.

Others have pointed out her various guest appearances here and there, so I won't address the acting ability.

But you know, even if she can act, I stand by what I said. There are certain celebrities whose entire image and public persona are off-putting, or are at least wrong for certain projects. It doesn't matter how well they can (or can't) act, their presence in a film projects a specific feel, image or expectation. Remember the uproar when it was thought DiCaprio was going to be Annakin Skywalker? For a lot of people, it wasn't because they thought DiCaprio can't act; it's because he felt wrong for that sort of movie.

The same holds true, but to the Nth power, of Paris Hilton in any sort of role where she's playing anything other than Paris Hilton. The fact is, right or wrong, actors and film-stars carry who they are, and what they've done in the past, as baggage to every film they do. Whether or not that's fair, it's the way it is, and it's something film-makers should be aware of. These guys clearly aren't.

Put another way... I dislike Adam Sandler, because I don't like the sorts of movies he makes. I'm willing to acknowledge that he can actually act, at least somewhat, when he puts his mind to it. But even knowing that, I wouldn't have wanted to see him cast in Lord of the Rings. Even if he nailed the part, the fact that it was Adam Sandler, and all the baggage he carries, would have ruined the scene, if not the movie.

 

[Enchantress]

"The stars are veiled....something stirs in the East.....The eye of the enemy is moving......Adam Sandler is HERE!!!!!!!!!!"

 

[Celtavian]

re

I'm not following you Celt-bird. How is that a bad thing? Especially next to the alternative: i.e., creating another movie in the same vein as the original?

It is a bad thing because they are not taking it seriously. They are casting actors without much merit into the lead roles because they are the flavor of the week in pop culture. More often than not, that leads to a very poorly done movie.

Personally, I see D&D as fertile ground for producing a truly interesting, exciting, and entertaining movie if handled right. I would prefer a director/writer/producer to look at this as a chance to produce another fantasy masterpiece based on the best Fantasy RPG ever made.

By choosing to cast someone such as Paris Hilton, basically a pop culture phenomena primarily known for being pretty, does not make me feel confident that they intend to build this into a great movie. Instead, it indicates to me that they are going to try to throw something together that will hopefully be a quick money grab because of its incorporation of popular culture and special effects.

As is always the case, we'll see when its done. This does not inspire my confidence.

 

[Enchantress]

I completely agree with Celtavian except for one small thing. I do not believe that Paris Hilton is pretty in any way, shape, or form. But that's my oppinion.

 

[Celtavian]

You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.

"Popular = bad"
Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here. It's been done to death without convincing anyone.

Popular is not bad. "Pop" culture on the other hand is questionable. Paris Hilton is all about "pop" culture. She hasn't proven anything except that she is a pretty woman.

"Our hobby = Great potential for a film"
Despite the substantial evidence to the contrary? (i.e. a film even we didn't like and a great many cookie-cutter books.) Besides, what's actually compelling about D&D? What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters? Interaction. We all think our games are incredibly compelling and would make great films. But we're all coming from the inherently biased point of view of a participant in those stories. Of course they're compelling to us, we're IN them. A story about yourself (and your character is really just an extension of yourself) is automatically more compelling than the same story about someone else.

D&D can be built into a great adventure story in the tradition of any great adventure story if handled correctly.

Any D&D movie is forced to compete with every campaign we've ever played. And in those, we could and did change the story to fit our personal vision of what was "right." As a result, we're going to find any static interpretation of D&D wanting.

You must be kidding. Compete with our campaigns. I could care less if it simulates my campaign. D&D is synonymous with Sword and Sorcery fantasy. I'd like to see a successful Sword and Sorcerty fantasy franchise developed that could be continued. Then I wouldn't have to wait so many odd years for the next great Sword and Sorcery fantasy film.

Lord of the Rings has opened the door for other fantasy films to be made even moreso than Conan and Excalibur did so many years ago. A few poorly done films is just going to kill Sword and Sorcery fantasy again leaving those of us who enjoy such films to wait through another long draught until The Hobbit is made or some other great fantasy book makes it to screen.

Sword and sorcery fantasy fades faster than horror films.

 

[nikolai]

My thoughts;

I really doubt this is another "Liv Tyler=Arwen" controversy. Paris Hilton may, unbeknownst to the rest of us, have superb acting abilities and be perfect for the part. But, I think it is more likely that she's being cast because she's famous. Even if she's any good, who she is will likely overpower any role she plays, and that's the best case scenario. That said, the last film did have top notch acting talent, not that it did them any good...

D&D is synonymous with Sword and Sorcery fantasy. I'd like to see a successful Sword and Sorcerty fantasy franchise developed that could be continued. Then I wouldn't have to wait so many odd years for the next great Sword and Sorcery fantasy film.

I think there are a lot of posts which have been spot on about the atractions of the film. D&D could make a great adventure film. It's hard to think of a better title for a S&S film. The game has it's own tropes which could work brilliantly on screen. And most importantly, the game is distilled out of the best features of S&S. I think this is why there's still the interest in the franchise; even though the first film wasn't up to much.

But I have my suspicions about whether the people behind the sequel "get" all the reasons why the game is popular. The fun of playing the game is the teamwork, adventure, and having to use your wits to survive; it'd be great it this all got carried across onto the screen - I'm not sure it will though.