D&D Movie/TV Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith Join D&D Movie

From Comic Book Movies -- "Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar) and Justice Smith (Detective Pikachu) have joined Wonder Woman 1984's Chris Pine in Paramount and eOne's upcoming big-budget board game adaptation, Dungeons & Dragons..."

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Michelle Rodriguez And Justice Smith Join Chris Pine In Fantasy Adaptation

Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar) and Justice Smith (Detective Pikachu) have joined Wonder Woman 1984's Chris Pine in Paramount and eOne's upcoming big-budget board game adaptation, Dungeons & Dragons...

www.comicbookmovie.com

We learned in December about Chris Pine's involvement, along with directors Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley.

D&D Movie/TV - Chris Pine To Star In D&D Movie

The long, slow process towards a modern take on D&D movies took a large step forward with the announcement of a huge star signed to the project. Considering that filming is set to start soon a cascade of announcements should be revealed in initiative order imminently. Filming begins in Q1 2021...

www.enworld.org

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is complete nonsense.

There isn't any non-D&D player who thinks "trains" when they hear "Dungeons & Dragons".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

How do you think people are? "Classic D&D" is like, retirement-age stuff almost (soz all my fellow oldies). I'm 42 and I was raised on Dark Sun and Planescape and so on. Not on Greyhawk or a particularly staid take on the Forgotten Realms.

Frozen 2, 2019.

Kids are familiar with GenericFantasyland.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Marvel movies seem to do pretty well with that exact model. Iron Man is, what, 1960s?

The Iron Man in the movies? No.

That's the 1980s/1990s take on him personality-wise, with some 2000s elements (I was a big Marvel fan at one point), and 2000s armour. The thing with comic book characters is that they tend to eternally rejuvenated and changed in subtle ways to keep them up to date. In part because they'd all be in their 80s or older if they didn't! And it means you can draw in elements from across the history of the character.

If we look at the Avengers in general, most of them are pretty updated, with newer, more charming personalities (Banner and Thor particularly - Banner is particularly obvious when you contrast his personality with that of the other recent Banners, who are closer to the original comic-book Banner), more modern and movie-friendly appearances (which typically tie to 2000s-era comic book appearances). Similar things have happened with Guardians of the Galaxy and so on. Starlord in the comics is not remotely Starlord in the movies. With villains the changes are generally even bigger, often with only very basic concepts or look-elements being kept.

If they'd taken the 1960s or 1970s looks of the Avengers, or even the 1980s ones, it'd have been hilarious, rather than cool. You can watch Today's WandaVision for some very direct evidence of that.

Frozen 2, 2019.

Kids are familiar with GenericFantasyland.

Frozen 2 isn't GenericFantasyland, but it's fun that you think it is. It's Fantasy Scandinavia circa 1850 minus guns. You didn't get that with the whole group of people who look like Suomi, herd reindeer like Suomi, and so on? Those aren't generic people. They're a reference to a very specific ethnic and cultural group that once spanned the entire "top" of Europe.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Frozen 2 isn't GenericFantasyland, but it's fun that you think it is. It's Fantasy Scandinavia circa 1850 minus guns. You didn't get that with the whole group of people who look like Suomi, herd reindeer like Suomi, and so on? Those aren't generic people. They're a reference to a very specific ethnic and cultural group that once spanned the entire "top" of Europe.

Which is part of the GenericFantasyland of Disney animation - didn't you know it shares a world with Tangled Etc? It does exactly what FR does and borrows from real world cultures. Frozen 2 is the most D&D movie currently in circulation, with it's take on elementals almost a direct steal.

Parts of the Forgotten Realms are 1850 minus guns. and parts are 1850 with guns.

Waterdeep nobles:

Arrendale nobles:

 

[ART!]

Another way to set themselves apart would be to include some planar travel and

There isn't any non-D&D player who thinks "trains" when they hear "Dungeons & Dragons".

1000% this.

It would be tricky to get audiences to accept magic trains in a movie in which they had absolutely no reason to expecting magic trains, in a setting whose most popular precendents very much excluded the inclusion of trains or anything else of that technological level. I'm sure there's a way to pull it off, though.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

. I'm sure there's a way to pull it off, though.

You can do it - once you have an established movie franchise.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Critics are often wrong.

YUP.
Look up the inital reviews for movies like ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, THE THING (1982), STAR WARS and CITIZEN KANE.
While there are one or two reviewers that have similar tastes to me and that I trust? Most reviewers have a barely hidden contempt for ANY type of genre film, specifically Horror, sci-fi, fantasy, superheroes, etc. So I've learned to ignore most reviewers.

This really hit home as a regular viewer of AT THE MOVIES with Siskel and Ebert. They often panned movies that I'd seen and loved. I think I finally gave up on them with their review of DIE HARD. Ebert gave it a two star review mostly because he thought the Paul Gleason character (Dwayne T. Robinson) was annoying. Ebert while a well known and popular film critic was also like most film critics, a snob.

 

[ART!]

There was a contemporary review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture by a major movie critic, in Time magazine. The reviewer thought that in the opening sequence when the V'ger cloud destroys three Klingon warships with Klingons in them, he thought the Klingons were on/in V'ger. That movie has problems, but clarity is not one of them.

So, yeah - movie critics are a strange lot.

 

[Mind of tempest]

There was a contemporary review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture by a major movie critic, in Time magazine. The reviewer thought that in the opening sequence when the V'ger cloud destroys three Klingon warships with Klingons in them, he thought the Klingons were on/in V'ger. That movie has problems, but clarity is not one of them.

So, yeah - movie critics are a strange lot.

art critics are strange to me they tools they use make sense but the biases seem so odd.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There was a contemporary review of Star Trek: The Motion Picture by a major movie critic, in Time magazine. The reviewer thought that in the opening sequence when the V'ger cloud destroys three Klingon warships with Klingons in them, he thought the Klingons were on/in V'ger. That movie has problems, but clarity is not one of them.

So, yeah - movie critics are a strange lot.

Most of us who went to see The Slow Motion Picture had seen TOS, so we already knew what a Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser looks like. But if you cut between two completely unfamiliar space vessels, then to the people inside one of them, is it that obvious which ship they are in?

It's an artificial situation of course. No one choosing to go to see a Star Trek movie would be as ignorant of the TV series as a critic who is only there because they have to be.