GCS
I wonder is this a Wizards sanctioned movie?
I would say so since Wizards owns the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual property. ;)
I mean, let's take Earthsea, for example. Ever since that SCI-FI mini-series aired, the literary author LeGuin(?) have denounced the premise of the mini-series.
All I know on the subject.
Oggie
It's like a 50 car pileup. I know it is wrong to stop and stare, but I will...
I would say so since Wizards owns the Dungeons and Dragons intellectual property. ;)
Please don't tell me you think the D&D movie(s) are intellectual in any sense of the word. :D I like my eyes, they help me see, so to continue to do so will mean staying away from the D&D Movie II so I can avoid having to burn my eyes out of my head.
Please don't tell me you think the D&D movie(s) are intellectual in any sense of the word. :D
Sighs. I can only give you a "B" for effort on that joke. :P
I dunno. Could WotC have any say or input to a film right that have already been sold in the market?
I mean, let's take Earthsea, for example. Ever since that SCI-FI mini-series aired, the literary author LeGuin(?) have denounced the premise of the mini-series.
I thought that I had read when the FIRST D&D movie came out that Wizards couldn't do anything about the movie but grit their teeth and try to make the best of it, because TSR had already signed away options for 3 movies (it may have been more or less than that, but I distinctly remember the number 3 coming up). I recall also that TSR signed away all creative control over the movies, so when Wizards bought TSR they were stuck with TSRs movie deal.
Once you sign away your creative control rights, there's pretty much nothing you can do to save your property from becoming whatever the folks making the movies want to make it. That's (part of the reason) why so many Marvel Comics movies were disasters until the first X-Men movie came out - Marvel's previous managment was more concerned with the quick buck from the movie rights than they were about making a good movie. Once Marvel realized that bad movies were actually harmful to their properties, they got really serious about making sure that they had some level of creative input into the process.
Hopefully the D&D movie is a lesson to Wizards/Hasbro, since I always like to think that some good can come out of anything, even one of the most terribly disappointing movies ever made.
Please tell me Jeremy Irons will have nothing to do with this one.
Definetly not, as he burned the first one and they considered it an outtake worthy of the DVD (yes, I have seen the DVD). He absolutely said no for this movie, and I can understand why.
Sighs. I can only give you a "B" for effort on that joke. :P
Good grade, I was only aiming for mild humor as it is.
Please tell me Jeremy Irons will have nothing to do with this one.
"Now it is your TIME to DIE!"
My favorite Jeremy Irons quote. Of all time.
Well, OK, no it isn't.
Cheers,
Cam
Good grade, I was only aiming for mild humor as it is.
Actually, I graded the joke itself an "F." :P
GCS
People were complaining when they heard the bald guy was coming back b/c his makeup looked so stupid in the first movie, but apparently he'd coming back as a death knight so it might not be an issue.
On top of all that, and despite what you might think, the D&D movie was a financial success...
On top of all that, and despite what you might think, the D&D movie was a financial success...
That's because D&D fans went to see it not knowing what it was like. Now that we know, I'll bet a good number of us who saw the first will not bother seeing anymore. You know those sort of movies that are really bad, but you watch them to get a laugh (and they weren't meant to be comedies)? The D&D movie was so bad that it's not even something you should watch for that reason. I mean watching it was one of the few things that I've done which I think was a complete waste of time. I wouldn't trust a "sequel".
That's because D&D fans went to see it not knowing what it was like. Now that we know, I'll bet a good number of us who saw the first will not bother seeing anymore. You know those sort of movies that are really bad, but you watch them to get a laugh (and they weren't meant to be comedies)? The D&D movie was so bad that it's not even something you should watch for that reason. I mean watching it was one of the few things that I've done which I think was a complete waste of time. I wouldn't trust a "sequel".
I fully agree. The movie made money because we were relying on the great D&D name to come up with the "Ultimate Fantasy" movie. What we got was the ultimate farce. Come on, not that I don't love the Wayans clan, but there is no reason one of them should be in a lead role in anything that should be considered serious.
I remember being excited about that movie before it came out. IIRC though, it was even late to be released. Never a good thing, unless it's a Spielbergesque masterpiece.
As far as this one, they must be joking. Obviously, they cannot feel very confident that this will be good, considering it is going direct to tv, not even DVD. We don't need to pay a single copper to see this? I could fail a Wisdom check and predict that this one is going to be garbage.
Of course, I will watch it ;)
The most bothersome part is that a movie like this can only hurt something like a DL movie. With movies like LotR, or now it looks like Chronicles of Narnia is going to be a good film, putting out sad imitations like this doesn't bode well for future selling of intellectual property.
Ah well. Guess we just wait and see. Besides, there's not much sense in complaining about it yet. We don't have actual scenes to refer to as total crap.
People were complaining when they heard the bald guy was coming back b/c his makeup looked so stupid in the first movie,
Oh come on now, you know that blue lipstick was awesome. :P (and by awesome, I mean awful). That movie was just painful to watch. Even inebriated I don't think I could stand the pain of watching it again. The first time was bad enough. And as bad as Jeremy Irons' character was, Thora Birch wasn't a gleaming bastion of acting brilliance either. Oh the pain, I had relegated this movie as a bad, repressed memory, and now it's all coming back to me.
And as bad as Jeremy Irons' character was, Thora Birch wasn't a gleaming bastion of acting brilliance either.
Actually I'm of the opinion that Jeremy Irons is far too good an actor to be in a film like this. Look up "miscast" in the dictionary, you'll find Jeremy Irons's D&D credit.
Actually I'm of the opinion that Jeremy Irons is far too good an actor to be in a film like this. Look up "miscast" in the dictionary, you'll find Jeremy Irons's D&D credit.
Ordinarily I'd totally agree with you, but wow, what a gawful (god awful) performance in the first D&D movie. He gave overacting a whole new meaning. :P
He's a good actor. He and the movie just have a bad director (Courtney Solomon).
I don't know if Mr. Irons is miscast or not. I do know that Thora Birch is very much a prime example of miscasting.
He's a good actor. He and the movie just have a bad director (Courtney Solomon).
Yup. Actors usually have to trust the director's vision, and when the director tells you to do something, you go along with it. Seeing the movie was enough evidence that the director was bad. Seeing the extra bits on the DVD, including interviews, confirms it further. I mean, the way he talked about D&D, I wouldn't want to see him DM a game either.
Well, as this one's on TV, at least the price'll be right.
Having it aired on the small screen does not excuse them from continuing the same quid pro quo style of making film for the Dungeons & Dragons franchise. If anything, they should improve themselves as to attract us audience, both mainstream (at least those who like LOTR and Harry Potter even if they didn't read the books) and genre fans.
IOW, there shouldn't be a double standard between a movie showing in theaters and a movie showing on TV, just because one you have to pay to see it and the others are sponsored by advertisers (or a small portion of your cable bill).
That's because D&D fans went to see it not knowing what it was like. Now that we know, I'll bet a good number of us who saw the first will not bother seeing anymore.
Actually, you're wrong. It wasn't a financial success at the box office at all; it was a financial success at the video store. And not necessarily b/c of D&D fans (who I'm sure had heard all the bashing by the time it came out on DVD), but rather all the mothers who were looking for something to rent for their kids - and D&D The Movie was it. And the fact that it's been shown repeatedly (ad nauseum, some might say) on TV is also indicative of its success as visual entertainment.
It may also have been successful b/c of foreign sales, but I dunno about that.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was a great movie or anything. Lord of the Rings totally blew any chance of that. But I would say that it takes far more bashing from D&D players who just want to gripe about anything and everything that doesn't suit their particular fancy (just look at all the negativity on EN World, for example). People don't generally praise what they like; but they sure do lambast what they don't like.
On a whole 'nother point, one could argue that the D&D movie was a success regardless of what current D&D players think. Because it serves as a marketing tool to bring in new players who might have thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread (as hard as that might be to believe). And if there's one thing D&D needs now more than ever, it's a new crop of fresh blood to replace all the middle aged gamers that the game currently survives off of.
Actually, you're wrong. It wasn't a financial success at the box office at all; it was a financial success at the video store. And not necessarily b/c of D&D fans (who I'm sure had heard all the bashing by the time it came out on DVD)
I'm one of those fans who watched it on DVD after hearing all the bashing. Like I said earlier, some "bad" movies are still worth watching for a laugh, or because it's got a few redeeming qualities (eg, Conan the Barbarian was not a good movie, but I still enjoy watching it).
Or have studies been done in which it was concluded that mothers were renting it?
But I would say that it takes far more bashing from D&D players who just want to gripe about anything and everything that doesn't suit their particular fancy
Yes, the movie didn't suite my fancy. But there was more to it than that. To give one example, there was no reason to include a **** scene. (Although I wonder how many people actually saw it as such.) Very poor taste.
On a whole 'nother point, one could argue that the D&D movie was a success regardless of what current D&D players think. Because it serves as a marketing tool to bring in new players who might have thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread (as hard as that might be to believe). And if there's one thing D&D needs now more than ever, it's a new crop of fresh blood to replace all the middle aged gamers that the game currently survives off of.
How do you know the D&D movie did that? I'd be more inclined to believe LotR drew more people into the fantasy genre (and hence into D&D). My only "evidence" is anecdotal, but I'd be interested in hearing your evidence.