Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost" data-source="post: 1616153" data-attributes="member: 4720">You know, this thread is taking a notable elitist turn.&quot;Popular = bad&quot;Not going to bother pointing out the fallacy here.&nbsp; It's been done to death without convincing anyone.&quot;Our hobby = Great potential for a film&quot;Despite the substantial evidence to the contrary?&nbsp; (i.e. a film even we didn't like and a great many cookie-cutter books.)&nbsp; Besides, what's actually compelling about D&amp;D?&nbsp; What makes it something more than a lot of recycled, generic fantasy plots and characters?&nbsp; Interaction.&nbsp; We all think our games are incredibly compelling and would make great films.&nbsp; But we're all coming from the inherently biased point of view of a participant in those stories.&nbsp; Of course they're compelling to us, we're IN them.&nbsp; 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&amp;D movie is forced to compete with every campaign we've ever played.&nbsp; And in those, we could and did change the story to fit our personal vision of what was &quot;right.&quot;&nbsp; As a result, we're going to find any static interpretation of D&amp;D wanting.And then we get all the fun of armchair directing/writing/etc.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeremy Ackerman-Yost, post: 1616153, member: 4720"] 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. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification