Nebulous
Legend
Yeah, like James Cameron's Avatar. That movie was a total flop.
I hated that movie.
Yeah, like James Cameron's Avatar. That movie was a total flop.
I'd rather have animatronics and people in suits and makeup. To me CGI along side real people is often too noticeable and comes off like Mary Poppins or Pete's Dragon (e.g., Jar-Jar and Azog).
Starts with a good script. Not a good D&D script - just a good script. Fun, interesting plot and characters. A script NOT written by any one of the producers, directors, or actors. Now send it for a light re-write to ensure sufficient D&D-isms to make it sensible that you're hanging the tag of "D&D" on it. Change a few place-names and character names if adapting to an existing, known D&D setting. This should not be hard and is not going to break any script that was tolerably crafted in the first place. Cast with good actors and tell them to take their roles seriously. Hire a director who knows FILM and has a proven track record of success and proof that they DO know film direction. Assign a TECHNICAL ADVISOR to ensure mostly that the movie simply doesn't stray OUTSIDE of D&D rules bounds rather than trying to ensure that rules come first. Don't give the effects work to the guys you knew in high school. Add actual money. Profit.
I'd rather have animatronics and people in suits and makeup. To me CGI along side real people is often too noticeable and comes off like Mary Poppins or Pete's Dragon (e.g., Jar-Jar and Azog).
Didn't like Smaug's jawline.
You notice it because its BAD CGI, not because its CGI. Good CGI isn't noticed; that's the point.
The biggest problem with that is that animatronics and people in suits & makeup can be more expensive than all but the priciest CGI.
I don't want bad CGI, but in a budgetary tug-o-war between having great CGI and not having enough money to pay for decent scriptwriting, directing and acting? Well, I'm going to pick having the latter and hope the CGI doesn't reek.
Me neither. As silly as that sounds.
Nor did I like the inability of a 100 ton dragon that was unable to so much as SINGE the beard hairs of a single dwarf![]()
Blame Tolkien on that one; nobody (important) dies in the Desolation of Smaug...
Blame Tolkien on that one; nobody (important) dies in the Desolation of Smaug...
My bad, only three.
But, all things considered, they were quite well done.
To me, a good D&D movie means a party of heroes needs to be centerstage. Dragonlance novels, the first ones or the Twins saga, would fit nicely and still be "generic" enough not to be necessarily branded as a specific D&D setting to the large public.
The first Drizz't novels weren't bad, but too much centered on a single hero, which for me as a D&D player is not what I'd like to see in a movie (but still would watch it of course).
DL has it all: a party, romance, adventure, dragons and a "comic relief" character who is actually funny and not too Jar Jar Garbish.
Crystal Shard was not focused on Driz'zt, it was focused on all the heroes, in fact, Wulfgar was touted as the main character with Drizzt as his sidekick. The prequel novels changed that. I am glad that the films will not be based on Dragonlance, and instead on the Forgotten Realms. The Dragonlance franchise has become 'dated' and I think its time for Wizards to focus on what makes money and is popular, not nostalgia.
You know what? I'd really love something refreshing like the very, very old D&D spirit of characters more like a band of mercenaries looking for riches than heroes saving the world from disaster. Life or death situations, bigger than life but somehow antiheoroic characters.
In other words, a party of BRONNs (from Game of Thrones) and Raistlins and perhaps some less evil version of Entreri trying to carve a place in history. That's what we all really played when we were kids, I think.
At least that would be new![]()
Yet, despite having the exact same power behind it, and a far more established fiction, John Carter flopped badly.
We were discussing the idea of using established D&D fiction as the basis for a movie. My point is that lots of successful movies have been based on much, much less than a full series of novels, and done quite well.
Or Farscape, Chronicles of Narnia, Guardians of the Galaxy, or Wizard of Oz. Any idea sounds bad if you only name the bad examples.
But there's not many examples of regular people in a fantasy world beyond Chronicles of Narnia.
Yeah, it's a pet peeve of mine. It appears to be impossible to have a fantasy movie WITHOUT framing it in terms of "The main character is from modern day earth and is brought into this world." Apparently audiences won't accept fantasy movies unless they have something to relate to.In fact, it's the most common trope that comes to mind in "Fantasy that sells"...