• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





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)
 

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

Adventurer
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!"
 

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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 

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

What Doctor Badwolf was getting at, was that a movie needs to take its central threat seriously. Ghostbusters wouldn't work, if it didn't also scare the audience. Guardians wouldn't work if it wasn't serious about its core plot.

A movie can be serious and also funny. Ghostbusters is totally serious. In fact, Dan Aykroyd really wanted the ghost busting tech to be believable and serious, because otherwise the movie doesn't work... and you get that awful reboot.
 

What Doctor Badwolf was getting at, was that a movie needs to take its central threat seriously. Ghostbusters wouldn't work, if it didn't also scare the audience. Guardians wouldn't work if it wasn't serious about its core plot.

A movie can be serious and also funny. Ghostbusters is totally serious. In fact, Dan Aykroyd really wanted the ghost busting tech to be believable and serious, because otherwise the movie doesn't work... and you get that awful reboot.
"Takes if premise seriously" does not make it a serious movie. The vast majority of comedy, beyond Monty Python and the Holy Grail, takes it's premise seriously, but the intent is still to entertain the audience and make them laugh. A serious movie is one that tires not to make the audience laugh. Disney/Marvel does not make serious movies. DC/Warner does (sometimes), and that is why the Marvel movies succeed where the DC movies fail.
 

There is no such thing, at least by theater or cinematic standards and terminology as a "serious" movie. " Serious" is a singular reaction and subjective, i.e., "The story was too serious for me.". Directors do not set out to make "Serious" movies. They are dramatic, comedic, tragic, and sometimes epic, all traditional forms throughout fiction, theater and film. Likewise one should not confuse humor with overt comedy, as humor is a normal human condition and thus occurs side=by-side in drama, lest humans become cardboard cut-outs of themselves.
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
"Takes if premise seriously" does not make it a serious movie. The vast majority of comedy, beyond Monty Python and the Holy Grail, takes it's premise seriously, but the intent is still to entertain the audience and make them laugh. A serious movie is one that tires not to make the audience laugh. Disney/Marvel does not make serious movies. DC/Warner does (sometimes), and that is why the Marvel movies succeed where the DC movies fail.
Jfc!

LOL

Thank you for saying what I said in the first place, and acting like that isn’t what happened!
 

Okay? Does Clark need to be white to be Clark?

Spoiler; the answer is no.

Black Superman doesn't mean black Clark Kent, Black Superman in DC comics is Calvin Ellis who is also President of the United States in an alternate universe, so Henry might get to keep his job after all.

 

Black Superman doesn't mean black Clark Kent, Black Superman in DC comics is Calvin Ellis who is also President of the United States in an alternate universe, so Henry might get to keep his job after all.

Calvin Ellis that was his name.
 

hopeless

Adventurer
So all those articles about them going with a Black Clark Kent instead of using an existing equivalent to a Black Superman (eg: Icon) are all rubbish?
 


hopeless

Adventurer
The ones I have been reading and watching seem to think Abrams & co are more interested in race changing than actually creating something that would be worth watching.
It would be nice to discover whether this is the case or rather they're actually using Icon or Calvin Ellis or whoever he's called.
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top