That Full D&D Renault Commercial Is Here And It Features Tiamat And Venger!

I don't know who owns the IP for the old D&D cartoon characters, but they're using WotC's dragon...

I don't know who owns the IP for the old D&D cartoon characters, but they're using WotC's dragon designs for Tiamat's heads. I wonder if there's any copyright violation going on in this ad?
 

cmad1977

Hero
Clarke was the was the one who played the character as a lawful good paladin who only wanted to conquer the world for perfectly justifiable reasons (and it's okay to crucify or burn thousands so long as they are "always chaotic evil"). The character shouldn't have unconvincingly turned evil - she was supposed to be evil all along!

Oof. This is a quote from someone who doesn’t understand the role of the writers in television/movies. If a character made an unconvincing turn.... it’s not the actors fault.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cmad1977

Hero
Either the directors or the actor was to blame, and judging by Clarke's comments it sounds like she always wanted to play a big damn hero, rather than a nuanced character whose actions might seem justified to themselves and their devoted followers but viewed from the outside was a mono-maniacal demagogue with a messiah complex.

Oof! Another whiff! The writers man... WRITERS.. WRITE.. THE.. DIALOGUE.

An actor can’t make chicken soup with chicken poop.
 


Oof. This is a quote from someone who doesn’t understand the role of the writers in television/movies. If a character made an unconvincing turn.... it’s not the actors fault.

If you think it's just the writing that matters, you need to go to the theatre more, and see the same play performed with different writers and directors. For example, have seen several versions of A Midsummer Night's Dream. One was utterly brilliant, anther was utterly, toe-curlingly awful.

The writing was fine. Everything was set up, signalled and foreshadowed. Clarke's acting was, in a sense, too good. She convinced much of the audience that her character was noble, just and wise, even when her actions, viewed objectively, where clearly otherwise.
 

cmad1977

Hero
If you think it's just the writing that matters, you need to go to the theatre more, and see the same play performed with different writers and directors. For example, have seen several versions of A Midsummer Night's Dream. One was utterly brilliant, anther was utterly, toe-curlingly awful.

The writing was fine. Everything was set up, signalled and foreshadowed. Clarke's acting was, in a sense, too good. She convinced much of the audience that her character was noble, just and wise, even when her actions, viewed objectively, where clearly otherwise.

Strike 3. Theatre and film/TV are NOT the same medium for delivery a story.
 



Darkwintre

First Post
So how would you handle a new version of this assuming you had an entirely new cast?

Would you pick a specific game world or keep that generic?

In Brazil wasn't Sheila actually an Illusionist?
 

The closest one to GoT by D&D is "Birthright" and this only will come back like a real-time-strategy videogame (of the type "Total War"). Lot of writers can try to create their own GoT but the key is a really good story with good characters.

GoT is a mixture of historical romance, dark-low fantasy and epic. D&D usually is more exotic and "hopepunk" ( = the world sucks but we can still fix it).

A lot of people don't like the final of GoT but that was the true goal from the beginning, because G.R.R Martin wanted to show us the moral of this story, a warning about "wolves with sheep's clothing", the heroes who can become the new tyrants. The signs of that hero was going to fall in the dark side of the for were for who could see them. It is tragic it wasn't a death as a heroic sacrifice but killed like a tyrant by a loved being, with sincere tears in the eyes.

* I would bet it is a open end, but we don't know George Martin will live enough to can write it.
 

GoT also draws heavily on real history, including the Wars of the Roses, which where won by Henry Tudor, someone whose only claim to the crown was that his mother had once been married to a king. He wasn't called out on his lack of legitimacy simply because the nobility felt he was the best person for the job.

GRRM's solution is also very close to Terry Pratchett's. They both have the "rightful" king protecting the realm on the front lines (working as a city guard in Sir Terry's case) whilst the person with the most appropriate skillset gets on with ruling the nation.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top