The D&D Movie Liker's Thread **SPOILERS**


log in or register to remove this ad

I think the D&D movie accurately portrays what roughly 75% of campaigns are actually like. It's like a badly-ran D&D game made manifest. In that sense, it can be entertaining to watch, and to try to work out what all the game mechanics must have been in the various scenes. But then some totally rule-breaking things happen which irk me, like that infimous beholder shot.

Now, I don't think what I've stated so far has been negative, it is a very fair analysis, imo.

I will say that me and several of my players went to see it together at the theatre. We were VERY stoked about it, even though it looked a bit sub-par. But in the pre-LotR-film days, there hadn't been that many great fantasy movies since the '80s (when we were all little kids anyway, so we couldn't go see 'em half the time!), so it was quite an event. I'd say most of us thought it was decent, just not great (I must add that my players are very easily pleased and tend to like most action films, half of them even find Pro Wrestling entertaining, so bleh)

I'm looking forward to the sequel ... even though the straight-to-video(err, dvd I hope?) status is discouraging.
 
Last edited:

Here is my preferred ending to Dungeons and Dragons, the movie. After the big climactic battle, we get the scene with Ridley at Snails' grave. The version presented is the alternate ending seen on the DVD, where Ridley just tells Snails how they succeeded, then leaves the ruby, head bowed. No magicaly stuff with getting pulled into the ruby, just a bit of a downer. We then get a bit of wrap-up narration, telling how the kingdom found itself under new, superior leadership, but, with the deaths of so many dragons, the very state of the earth is in jeopardy...

We pan out to a gaming table. Jeremy Irons is the DM, and the actors playing all the main characters are his players. Maybe the guy playing Ridley is his son, and he and the girl playing Marina are dating. Snails is just as much of a goofball as he is in the game, and maybe the dwarf is the other PC (the elf seemed to be a plot-NPC, really). Jeremy Irons asks how the game went. Roll credits.

Makes it feel much more like an actual D&D game, and makes all the various grievances with the plot and characters useless (we gamers feel much more comfortable with silly players and weird DMs, after all).

Demiurge out.
 

Acid_crash said:
I liked the deleted scenes on the dvd that adds all the necessary scenes for all the major plot points in the movie.



Yes, most of those scenes should have been in the movie, it would have been a better movie. I also perfer the orginal ending that was on the DVD.
 

I thought that the D&D movie wasn't a complete waste of film in that it was a step up from teenage slasher flicks and other bottom-of-the-barrel movies. In the end I was left seriously disappointed. It's not a movie I can enjoy, or even sit through again.

That said, there were a couple of things I liked. Some in-jokes ("I thought wizards were supposed to be intelligent!"), the monsters (beholders, a lich, an osyluth, and a wannabe dracolich), and the fact that this whole magical empire was more or less a stand-in for Alphatia in Mystara ("Soon, the power of the Immortals shall be mine!!111").

What burned me the most was the ending, though. No idea what was happening. I kinda figured they were off to the Outer Planes to meet Snails again, or something, but I really had no clue. What was the ending on the DVD?
 

The orginal ending was on the DVD it was:
Just Ridley, alone at Snails' grave, talking. None of the other party members are there. But Snails does not come back, like the ending in the movie.
 
Last edited:

Only two good things - the line about two-hundred pound dwarf women with hair on their chins, and calling off '1D6, 2D6, 3D6...' as Snails fell.

The Auld Grump
 

I liked it, and while it was certainly not the best movie in the world I'm always surprised at the utter contempt most people express for it. It just wasn't that bad a fantasy movie, guys. There are quite a few worse ones.

Again the DVD extras are nice, but they're also sad in a way. It shows a bit of what the film could have been if their first special effects house hadn't effectively stolen something like 75% of their FX budget. (All that info used to be on the dndmovie.com site, but that was taken down long ago. Not even the wayback machine saved any of it that I could ever discover.)
 

Zulithe said:
I think the D&D movie accurately portrays what roughly 75% of campaigns are actually like. It's like a badly-ran D&D game made manifest.
Exactly. That's why I like it; it reminds me of the games my friends and I had a BLAST playing when we were kids. They were stupid stories built on top of unsupportable social frameworks with flimsy excuses for fights and needlessly complicated traps all over the place. Stupidly powerful magical items just sort of hanging around here and there.

Bad guy guards who can be distracted by a bit of thrown stick.

And, oh yeah, Thora Birch's SPECTACULAR display of bad acting. Honestly, to stand out in that movie was a task but she really pulled it off. A tip of the hat to her for being the worst actor in the D&D movie. There's an achievement.

Although I will say I thought the two leads were very charming and would watch them in another film happily.
 

I enjoyed watching it. Simple as that.
At times I felt I was laughing with the actors, at others I was laughing at them.
The important thing was, I was laughing ;)

And of course the whole "D&D is accepted enough to spin off it's own movie" was kinda cool. Remember, it was before Lord of the Rings, ie BCE (before cool elves)
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top