D&D General Lorraine Williams: Is it Time for a Reevaluation?

darjr

I crit!
I dunno. As close as things were I think the debtors might have taken the failure to sell to wotc as a bad sign and come callling. But of coarse that’s a guess.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I remember looking briefly at those. And not finding anything noteworthy. But I would be happy to re-evaluate if you could point me to the parts that you feel are the most significant and lack the obvious sexism and such.

Significant parts:

  • Williams controlled the D&D movie license.
  • She couldn't reach an agreement with a major studio because she wanted to keep more control than any of the bigger companies would agree to.
  • She sold the rights to a no-name company/person with little experience.
  • The contract she agreed to had no time limit; it was essentially the rights "in perpetuity".
  • The D&D movie that was eventually made was a version of the script that Williams had personally signed off on, and directed by the person she sold the rights to.

The background parts to this discussion are:

  • The 2000 D&D movie was bad.
  • It was not a financial success.
  • The movie was, overall, bad for the D&D brand in both short and long terms (no significant merch, no other movie for decades, Dragonlance, etc).

Each of these points could be discussed in much more detail, without sexism being the most significant factor. IMNSHO, the thesis here is that Williams did a bad job of managing the D&D movie license, and the game as a whole suffered as a result.
 
Last edited:

the thesis here is that Williams did a bad job of managing the D&D movie license, and the game as a whole suffered as a result.
Thanks. Yea, I don't think anyone is arguing those aspects at all are they? I'm not. I think what people are arguing is that Solomon does not appear to be a reliable or unbiased source. And that the demeaning he does of Williams is... distasteful.
 









There are so many points of failure where someone could've said something, whether it was the costuming, the script, the super-dodgy CGI, much of the acting. Heck, did no one say "maybe skip the blue lipstick?" While I don't think that it could have ever been a great movie, it could've been decent with some tweaks.

But even so, Courtney Solomon was a first-time director and producer, and one without much in the way of natural talent. I think a lot still falls on him for the movie failing so badly.

In my experience with large projects, they rarely turn disastrous because only ONE person is at fault...
 

Thanks. Yea, I don't think anyone is arguing those aspects at all are they? I'm not. I think what people are arguing is that Solomon does not appear to be a reliable or unbiased source. And that the demeaning he does of Williams is... distasteful.

No argument from me that his manner is distasteful, I'm certainly not trying to sugar coat it. But when you're trying to reevaluate history there is no such thing as an unbiased source; you have to work with what you have. I would love to find more quotes about Williams' involvement in the movie process if anyone can find them; there's a couple of offhand comments from Weis and Dancey in the links I posted as well.

The most critical part from Solomon is that (biased or not) he confirms Williams role at the center of the movie deal. If you read a lot of the other sources about the movie, like the magazine article I posted, you'll find a lot of vague "TSR wanted to do this" and "management said we had to do that" statements. Solomon's interviews spell out that it was her directly. Furthermore, these details about the movie deal corroborate statements from others about Williams management style and long term plans for the company.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top