The D&D Movie vs. The D&D Game

[I'm A Banana]

I think I vaguely recall hearing something about Jet Li/DMX kind of thing? Which alludes to it being very action-y....

Also, Drizzt has been on Hollywood's table for a while now. This may eventually be that.

Of course, here we are in early 2004 without the flick....though it's probably been bumped around a lot, I haven't seen hide nor hair of it for about 6 months.

Anyhoo, the movie sucked, and I'm certain a second go around wouldn't do worse. Of course, I also think that a D&D series would be a grand idea. heh.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Besides its failings as a regular movie, my specific problem is that it failed to capture any of the feeling of D&D at all.

The D&D game has a peculiar genre: usually a motley crew of heroes gets together and does good. It really does not take much imagination to accomplish this feel in a movie, they could have remade any old Western, redressed with the genre conventions. Or retreaded The Seven Samurai with fantasy gimmicks and effects.

If they wanted the feel of a "D&D module" or wild B movie fantasy, The Mummy and its sequel marvelously succeeded there inways that the D&D movie could not touch.

I found it particularly grating that every heroic character ended up acting as Ridley's cohort. To me, the only saving grace of the movie was Snails.

 

[Krieg]

Cheap bastard could have scraped together the funds for a True Res if he really wanted to. I think he was afraid the wizard girlie had the hots for me.

ROFL

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Name five good things about that movie...

That's a tough one.

1. The beholders looked cool.
2. The fight scene where snails died was a good depiction of a high level fighter fighting with a low level rogue.
3. The beholders looked cool.
4. The 50 ft of rope was well depicted.
5. Did I mention the beholders looked cool?

 

[Bloodstone Press]

Seeing Tom Baker again was nice, though.

I forgot about that. You're right, that was cool.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Thieve's Run, it seemed tacked on and unnecessary. Plus, Ridley didn't seem that good as a rogue, so why should he have succeeded where others failed?

Now, Xilus had Ridley go through the 'maze' because he wanted the gem, and he hadn't found anyone who could get it for him in years of trying, right?

Why did he never just climb down from the viewing gallery and bypass all the traps completely?

-Hyp.

 

[demiurge1138]

Now, Xilus had Ridley go through the 'maze' because he wanted the gem, and he hadn't found anyone who could get it for him in years of trying, right?

Why did he never just climb down from the viewing gallery and bypass all the traps completely?

-Hyp.

And shouldn't the Theives' Run be more than just three trapped rooms, if it's so impossible to beat? Or did Ridley just find a shortcut?

I agree with a lot that's being said here- D&D wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't a good one, or even a not-so-bad one. The core idea of the movie- that Ridley is a "chosen" one who gets to do all of the cool stuff- runs directly counter to the cooperative nature of the game. And a lot of potentially cool scenes just got completely ignored. A fight with the beholders, for instance, would have looked really cool. There would be little physical interaction with the creature, as it attacks with eye rays, so the special effects would have been pretty cheap. But the beholder's just distracted by a throw-the-rock trick? Why?

That basic problem, that so much potential was wasted, is why I'm not fond of the D&D movie. But I'll probably see the sequel in theaters anyway

Demiurge out.

 

[Kelek72]

I thought the movie had issues...Dragons were sort of mindless beasts, dwarves were cartoonish, elves were ummm...heavyset shall we say? (how did that big elf get up in that tree?) I too wondered why nobody just skipped the traps by going in from the catwalks surrounding the maze. I believe everyone here mentioned the beholders and their stupid rocks (were they supposed to be dogs?) BLUE LIPS (please tell me someone has an explanation for this one?), J. Irons had the film coming out of his mouth he chewed the scenes so bad, Thora Birch was an Amadala clone (and a less enjoyable version of our queen) who prattled on ceaselessly about how everyone has should be equal (instead of the more popular and less communistic -have equal opportunity)...

And I own the DVD and watch it occasionally - it's a sickness really this hobby of ours

 

[Knightfall]

I think I vaguely recall hearing something about Jet Li/DMX kind of thing? Which alludes to it being very action-y....

Also, Drizzt has been on Hollywood's table for a while now. This may eventually be that.

Drizzt is overrated, IMO. Of course, I think drow are overrated period.

Of course, here we are in early 2004 without the flick....though it's probably been bumped around a lot, I haven't seen hide nor hair of it for about 6 months.

yeah, I been wondering what's going on. I tried to find out if Thora Birch was going to reprise her role as Savina. I liked her in American Beauty, and I'm a D&D Movie fanboy (I'm part of a very small minority), so I want the orignal cast to come back.

Of course, yor note about Jet Li makes me think he'd make a cool monk.

 

[Sejs]

Drizzt is overrated, IMO. Of course, I think drow are overrated period.

Seconded.



Anyway, uh 5 good things about the D&D movie:

- It was really, really easy to MST.

- Snails and his encounter with Evil Oatmeal.

- It had Richard O'brien in it. Richard O'brien is a good thing.

- A party that didn't hinge around it's healer characters.

- It made even the most horrible, crap tabletop game look like solid gold by comparison.