D&D Movie/TV The D&D Movie Has Begun Filming!

Director Jonathan Goldstein tweeted "The campaign begins" with the following image!


Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley will be directing the film which features "an ensemble cast and take a subversive approach to the game."

The film stars Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith, Hugh Grant, and Rege-Jean Page.

D&D Movie/TV - Hugh Grant To Play Villain in the D&D Movie

Hugh Grant will be playing the villain in the Chris Pine D&D movie, which also stars Fast & Furious' Michelle Rodriguez, Jurassic World's Justice Smith and Bridgerton star Regé-Jean Page, according to Deadline. According to ComicBookMovie, his character name is Forge Fletcher, and the cast will...

www.enworld.org

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Definition of a comedy: "a film, play, or broadcast programme intended to make an audience laugh."

A comedy is not serious. Something that is serious cannot be a comedy.

Firstly, this is false. Full stop.

Secondly, you are the only person trying to make it about seriousness of tone. You continue to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the phrase "takes itself seriously". Do you need clarification of what it means, do you disagree with the distinction, do you just not want to deal with it because you're stuck on the seriousness of tone argument that no one else is having?

Indeed. There is clearly a sliding scale. But we initially started talking about things that where "very serious", "over-serious" and "po-faced". Something that seems to be a trend in some TV and in DC movies. For example, Man of Steel (2013) takes it's subject matter (which is fundamentally ridiculous, just like D&D) far too seriously. Shadow and Bones takes it's subject matter far to seriously, forgetting that entertainment is supposed to be enjoyable, and so on. Away, Another Place, Stowaway. Too serious. Come to think of it, Netflix is a major offender.

No, we initially started talking about whether or not a work takes itself seriously. You tried to make it about your dismissive condescension toward fantastical works that take themselves seriously.

And I'm very confident in saying that the vast majority of people disagree with you on whether DnD is "fundamentally ridiculous", and on whether most of those works are "too serious", on top of your fundamental misunderstanding of what the contention even was that you initially responded to.

And I think you're still using "takes its subject matter seriously" incorrectly, because you still seem to be using it to refer to seriousness of tone, rather than whether or not the assumptions of the subject matter are treated as genuine and real within the fiction. Guardians of the Galaxy is a comedy that takes it's subject matter seriously. Man of Steel is a grimdark action-drama that also takes it's subject matter seriously. Taking the subject matter seriously does not determine where on the scale from drama to comedy a work is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Firstly, this is false. Full stop.

Take it up with the dictionary writers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Take it up with the dictionary writers.

The definition doesn't support your position. Definition of COMEDY

One definition of 4 assumes "ludicrous or farcical events". The rest simply assume humor, happy ending, and a light tone. None of which are contradictory to the subject matter being taken seriously.

 

[payn]

Game Night was pretty fuuny. I wish Jessie Plemons was cast in the upcoming D&D movie.

 

[Mistwell]

Looks like, in addition to principal filming in Belfast, Ireland, there were some large scale shots filmed in Iceland recently for the movie.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I just wish we could have Mackenzie Crook write a D&D movie. D&Detectorists. Only, about the fantasy characters, not the real world ones and their hobby. Lance and Andy as a fighter and a rogue, stolidly exploring kobold-infested dungeons and never finding a dragon, while a rival party plot to get the treasure first. First level to third type of thing. Taken seriously, because they’re true to their characters and not stereotypes; but with a silver thread of comedy running through the tapestry. Enough to make us care for them. God that’d be good.
(If you have yet to see Detectorists, go find it. It really is a treasure)

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I just wish we could have Mackenzie Crook write a D&D movie. D&Detectorists. Only, about the fantasy characters, not the real world ones and their hobby. Lance and Andy as a fighter and a rogue, stolidly exploring kobold-infested dungeons and never finding a dragon, while a rival party plot to get the treasure first. First level to third type of thing. Taken seriously, because they’re true to their characters and not stereotypes; but with a silver thread of comedy running through the tapestry. Enough to make us care for them. God that’d be good.
(If you have yet to see Detectorists, go find it. It really is a treasure)

Sitting there comparing iron rations while debating the usefulness of a ten foot pole. Interrupted by the arrival of their elvish friend who’s 127 years old but gets treated like a teenager.
“Tavern?”
“Tavern.”

 

[hopeless]

The elf wanders over to the wood elf who promptly comments,"I'm almost 150 and they still treat me the same as you, be grateful they're not sending you up front to trigger all the traps!"

 

[Imaculata]

Take it up with the dictionary writers.

No, you are absolutely wrong. Full stop.

Just because a movie is full of humor, does not exclude the possibility of it also having a lot of heart, or moments of seriousness.

Examples:

Jumanji is an adventure comedy, and yet when Alan Parridge learns that his dad let his shoe factory go out of business just to find his son, this is treated very serious and with a lot of heart.

Mrs Doubtfire is a full on comedy, but the divorce is taken very seriously, and the movie has plenty of sincere drama.

Ghostbusters is a comedy, but it contains scenes of genuine horror. It works as a comedy because it takes its main threat seriously.

Home Alone is a comedy, but with a kid who learns the value of family at the heart of it all. His reunion with his mother at the end of the film is not a joke. Nor is his conversation at the church with the scary man next door, who is ultimately reunited with his family too.

I could go on and on.

There is an obvious difference between comedies that do this, and those that are complete parodies (Airplane, Naked Gun, Scary Movie).

The original Dungeons and Dragons film falls somewhere in between unintensionally. The director couldn't get the tone right, and several actors didn't take it seriously and just gave hammy performances. Plus the CGI is laughably bad. But some of the actors did take it seriously, so you end up with this bizarre tonally inconsistent movie.

But when done right, it can work. Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is full of humor, but at the centre of its story is a genuine story about Peter Quill being reunited with his dad, and finding out who his real family is.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, you are absolutely wrong. Full stop.

Just because a movie is full of humor, does not exclude the possibility of it also having a lot of heart, or moments of seriousness.

Examples:

Jumanji is an adventure comedy, and yet when Alan Parridge learns that his dad let his shoe factory go out of business just to find his son, this is treated very serious and with a lot of heart.

Mrs Doubtfire is a full on comedy, but the divorce is taken very seriously, and the movie has plenty of sincere drama.

Ghostbusters is a comedy, but it contains scenes of genuine horror. It works as a comedy because it takes its main threat seriously.

Home Alone is a comedy, but with a kid who learns the value of family at the heart of it all. His reunion with his mother at the end of the film is not a joke. Nor is his conversation at the church with the scary man next door, who is ultimately reunited with his family too.

I could go on and on.

There is an obvious difference between comedies that do this, and those that are complete parodies (Airplane, Naked Gun, Scary Movie).

The original Dungeons and Dragons film falls somewhere in between unintensionally. The director couldn't get the tone right, and several actors didn't take it seriously and just gave hammy performances. Plus the CGI is laughably bad. But some of the actors did take it seriously, so you end up with this bizarre tonally inconsistent movie.

"Serious moments" does not make a serious movie, just as moments of levity does not make a film a comedy.

Generally, when I talk about "over-serious" I mean a movie that is completely lacking in levity. Otherwise it's continuous spectrum.