What was wrong with the DnD Movie?

[NoOneofConsequence]

Given the thread currently discussing directors for the "next" DnD movie, I thought it might be a good idea to put together a primer on what not to do in the next one, based on the first one.

I suggest two categories, film/technical errors and genre errors. As an example of each -

Film/technical error: the dragon fight at the end of the film was too confused. The point of view was too mobile and disassociated from the action. Instead of having the sense of moving with the action, the camera feels like it is moving in spite of it.

Genre errors: beholder guard dogs, elves in plastic plate, a level 2/1 fighter rogue taking out a level 10 fighter in single combat...etc.

Also, in the interests of fairness, people can post what they think was done right - ie. I happen to think that the thieve's maze sequence works ok. It's hardly an exemplar of the set-piece but it's not especially bad either.

 

[Xarlen]

How about... Everything?

Genre: Dragons Don't Talk?! WTF? They seemed like Wyverns. And I don't think dragons would appreciate being Controlled.

Genre: Not one recognizable spell was cast, sans Fireballs, at the dragons. And considering the type of dragons, fireballs wouldn't have effected them.

Genre: Not one monster encountered in the woods. At all. Huh?

Film/Tech: When the mage was riding the dragon, it looked like she was sitting on something while the screen went by. Hello, this is the 21st century.

Film/Tech: When the little bone thinger lept on her, it seemed to be moving on it's own accord, and her motions didn't reflect it's movements very well.

 

[333 Dave]

Genre: Allowing only one person into the shortest dungeon in history. Dur, this is DUNGEONS & Dragons, not Dragons & Dragons, put some frikken Dungeon action in there!

Genre: That three eyed purple dude. Anybody have any clue what he was supposed to be?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

ie. I happen to think that the thieve's maze sequence works ok. It's hardly an exemplar of the set-piece but it's not especially bad either.

Other than to serve no story purpose other than filler? Eh. OK. I'll buy "not especially bad".

How about at the end when the Jermey Irons tosses aside the magic staff thingie for no other reason than to do the coup de gras without it?

Look, the director put his heart and soul into the thing. I'll grant you that. But, my hand to God, the script, acting, and direction were all poor. The makup artist should have been shot and had his/her corpse recycled into the ecosphere. Everything else was meerly cliche/uninspired.

I did my part. I saw it in the theater opening weekend. Sure, I snuck in a flask of vokda because I read the outstandingly bad reviews. But I was there for it as a fan. The movie was bad. I can accept that.

This isn't a big industry. I read once where we draw in less annual revenue than the quilt-making hobbists. The fact that we got our own zowie-bang special effects movie is an accomplishment and a tribute to the director's efforts. Maybe next time we can get quality as well.

However, in the spirit of the thread I will attempt to list the things I liked.


* I thought the beholders (while out of place) were cool looking.
* I liked seeing Tom Baker
* The first half hour where they dumped all the special effects budget (*) was visually pleasing ... though this may have just been the vodka kicking in.


-BG

*PS movie watching tip! Look for flicks with big openings and low budget endings. That's a sure sign someone screwed up on the budget and ran out of money. Gladiator is a good example. Big battle in the beginning, dramatic one-on-one in the end with NOONE in the audience! Classic case.

 

[Dark Psion]

The Beholders looked good, but they only got a token apearance.

On the other hand, the Orcs looked terrible. Just compare them to the Orcs in Lord of the Rings.

Where are the Clerics?? D&D without clerics is a quick and painful death.

Where are the monsters??? We get token Beholders, too many Dragons, an Imp and an anamatronic Skeleton and that's it.

 

[-Ekimus-]

How about... Everything?

Exactly. it was a pos

 

[Xarlen]

Where was the imp?

 

[Turlogh]

There is way too much wrong with this movie-
Bad acting
Dumb, under developed plot
D&D is about parties of adventures, not one guy and token friends, who do next to nothing.
Tiny, pointless, uninteresting "dungeons".
The forced humour of the comic relief- why do movies have these guys? Can they not find bettter ways to include humour?

 

[Xarlen]

If I heard Wayans squeak one more time...

 

[Voneth]

Some of these comments sort of strike me as ... challenging


I personaly don't see how a flim about crawling around in a dugeon for most of the movie would be that attractive. LOTR did it to a small degree, the mines got wrapped up quickly once the action got going.

The closest thing I could see that would work in this fashion would be an ensemble cast doing a Hercules/Xena type story.

Personaly, I am not the type to really try to "identify" spell effects, that would border on trekkie nit-picking for me, not my bag, baby.

The dumb dragons and missing clerics, didn't you hear? The producers wanted to make a trilogy where those things would be explained and solved.

I still think the movie sucked. But if you ask me to chose between a movie that has to delvier entertainemnt while being constrained to several highly artifical game conventions or just deliver a GOOD fantasy movie with the DND logo slapped on it. I'll pick #2.