Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NoOneofConsequence" data-source="post: 320337" data-attributes="member: 5400">Given the thread currently discussing directors for the &quot;next&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NoOneofConsequence, post: 320337, member: 5400"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification