D&D Movie Interview With Director Corey Solomon At IGN Scifi
It's not a CRPG story, but a Dungeons & Dragons movie interview with Director Corey Solomon is up on our IGN Scifi hub site. Here's an excerpt:
Solomon's own favorite character in his playing days was a druid, a character he kept going for four years. "I was so careful about that character I just retired it," he says. "I didn't want it to die." But don't look for this druid in the movie. "I didn't think it was fair for me to take my personal D&D character and just stick it in the movie."
So he didn't actually take the characters and places from the film out of his own campaign, as you might expect. Instead he based the world of Izmer and Sumdall, where the movie, takes place from one of TSR's older, obscurer campaign worlds, Mystara.
"There was a whole empire of mages in Mystara called Alphatia," Solomon explains. "I just sort of loosely based it off of those things, because I wanted generic stuff, to specifically stay away from stuff like Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance, for various reasons," he says, referring to two much more popular and better known D&D game environments, both of which have had huge numbers of novels and game supplements devoted to them; and in fact, a Dragonlance script is also making the rounds of Hollywood at this point.
Just follow the link above for lots more. The cast members named include Oscar winner Jeremy Irons, Marlon Wayans and Thora Birch.
have you tried checking that dead link you mention with the Wayback Machine? http://www.archive.org/index.php
Might be worth a try.
Given the quality of the movie, we might be better off distancing ourselves from this movie. OTOH, had the movie used the actual Mystaran names and been slightly more true to the setting, I might have ended up liking it in spite of mentioned quality.
If we ever manage to get Dave Arneson into the Q&A thread over at www.dablackmoor.com we could try asking him about the role he played in the creation of the movie as well. There were even rumours of using some elements from the movie with the Blackmoor setting, but again due to the reasons above, this was abandoned.
Håvard
And while Mystara was actually a setting for the Basic D&D rule sets, Solomon says most of movie was inspired by the more complex AD&D rule set -- a distinction that's really only going to matter to serious roleplayers.
"I borrowed more from the AD&D rules, because Basic is just too Basic for everybody I think, where races are just like classes and stuff like that," he says. "All of our characters have classes, races, multi-classes like that. We really made an effort to keep all the rules of the game active in the film, and not break the rules of the game.
Despite my distaste for the film, the appearance and layout of the city of Sumdall and other locations in Izmer could be adapted for Sundsvall and Alphatia.
Shane
Thanks Havard, I found the entire four-part interview here. The only thing that seems relevant to Mystara are these two paragraphs which follow the one I quoted above:
"I borrowed more from the AD&D rules, because Basic is just too Basic for everybody I think, where races are just like classes and stuff like that," he says. "All of our characters have classes, races, multi-classes like that. We really made an effort to keep all the rules of the game active in the film, and not break the rules of the game. "
This explains alot of why Courtney Salomon (spl) messed up this movie. When I play D&D, I try to create a world where game concepts such as class, multiclassing. alignment etc are things that the characters are oblivious to. As I recall from the movie, characters would for instance refer to eachother by character class or refer to other game concepts, which is something we refer to as bad roleplaying in my gaming group.
Despite my distaste for the film, the appearance and layout of the city of Sumdall and other locations in Izmer could be adapted for Sundsvall and Alphatia.
Yep. Obviously where the two are in contradiction, Mystara canon should be followed, ignoring the Izmer files, but in cases where canon is vague, those files can be used.
Håvard
This explains alot of why Courtney Salomon (spl) messed up this movie. When I play D&D, I try to create a world where game concepts such as class, multiclassing. alignment etc are things that the characters are oblivious to. As I recall from the movie, characters would for instance refer to eachother by character class or refer to other game concepts, which is something we refer to as bad roleplaying in my gaming group.
This was definately one of the things that I really did not like about the movie as well. Thankfully, the second one had no such references (that I can recall anyway; and if there were they must have made sense in the context).
This was definately one of the things that I really did not like about the movie as well. Thankfully, the second one had no such references (that I can recall anyway; and if there were they must have made sense in the context).
Yes. Before the inclusion of those references, it was just a bad movie with some cool features. With those, it went from bad to horrible.
The second movie didnt have any game mechanical references AFAIK, but quite a few Greyhawk ones.
Håvard
What ruins the film is the absolutely ghastly acting and the hopeless clichés that plague the film. And then there are some scenes that are just so stupid that it's insulting, like with the beholder chases after a thrown rock... A rock for crying out loud!!!
Add to that the "oh so wise and know-it-all" smartmouth comments like "we were not meant to enter this place" by Norda the elven ranger (dark-skinned - I guess Drizzt isn't alone...), and the terror is almost complete. Especially since letting one or two heroes go into danger alone every time is in utter contrast to what people usually face in the game. Sure, if there is a dramatic reason for them to go alone, then fine, but there doesn't appear to be.
But the real problem is the acting is just terrible. Marina the mage is annoying because she gasps at just about everything, the dwarf has next to no character beyond the stereotypical grumpy dwarf, and even Jeremy Irons is horrible as Profion in the way he grimaces in every bloody scene - just where did the subtlety go? I won't even get into Marlon Wayans as Snails - I may hate JarJar for many and good reasons, but not as much as I did Snails. It was actually not so much sad as a bit of a relief when he died, and I don't think that was what I was supposed to feel at the time... Justin Whalin isn't a particularly good actor, but he still manages some of the better acting, second only to Bruce Payne, who steals the movie as Damodar - he may be very cliché with his bad-guy blue lipstick, but he still plays it all fairly well.
The number of dragons is also beyond what the movie can bear. For a movie that came out this decade, the effects are just terrible. Actually, the dragons are okay when they fill up the sky, but when they move to a close-up, the credibility goes right out the window - it just doesn't work.
But the plot actually works fairly well. Many have criticised it, but I don't see why - the problem doesn't lie with the plot but rather with its execution as far as I can see. I mean, if Solomon could have gotten decent acting of his actors and cut the stupid bits (like the stone-chasing beholder or smartmouth "not meant to enter" comments), then it could actually have been an okay movie. Sadly he failed utterly to get his actors to emote anything that would have compelled the audience to identify with the movie's characters. And without that, a project like this dies immediately.
I do understand your arguments, but, in my mind, the movie was meant to be cliche'd. Look at our own setting... The Black Eagle is the largest fantasy stereotype ever seen... And our own brand of comic genius, the RAF, ELF, FAERY, Top Ballista, and even Benji Frankfoot... Any non-fan would use these as examples to discredit Mystara much in the same manner that most (who wanted main-stream LotR/Braveheart type epic cinematics) use to discredit the movies.
I laughed my butt off when the beholder chased the stone like a puppy... of course I know that would never happen in a game... but the alternative--an OBVIOUSLY low-level thief besting a moderately powerful monster--is even MORE non-believable.
In the end, for me, the movie brought to light the two most important parts of the game... 1-a heroic story, built upon the (not always heroic) actions of the main characters (PCs)... and 2-it's a fun, and quite often humorous GAME, that can be enjoyed by any level of nerdiness.
I think I might like to watch it again now after all these years.
Håvard
I think part of the reason why people hate this movie so much is because we care so much about the game that shares its name. Not only that, but it also becomes a presentation of what D&D is to people who dont know the game, but only watch the movie. This was a major issue when the movie first came out, but it is fading with time I think. Also, I suppose it was a matter of expectations.
I think I might like to watch it again now after all these years.
Håvard
I don't think it was a terrible movie, but I think the reception it got had a lot to do with how the poor acting and characterization were combined with poor use of D&D fundamentals(like the beholder, and Justin doing all the work).
But, I have the movie on DVD, and when I watched it with a friend who had not seen it but had played D&D, I tried a suggestion from a post on rec.games.frp.dnd back when the movie came out.
When the movie finished, I described one additional scene:
Cut to the actors gathered around a table with books and dice, Jeremy Irons is behind a GM screen. As the actors began to pack up their things, he says, "Ok, guys we meet the same time next week. Wayans, get here a half-hour early so you can roll up a new character. Oh, and guys, if you are going to be late next time, let me know in advance, so we don't end up having the thief doing everything before you get here."
According to my friend, just imagining that scene made the movie significantly more enjoyable at the end.
Cut to the actors gathered around a table with books and dice, Jeremy Irons is behind a GM screen. As the actors began to pack up their things, he says, "Ok, guys we meet the same time next week. Wayans, get here a half-hour early so you can roll up a new character. Oh, and guys, if you are going to be late next time, let me know in advance, so we don't end up having the thief doing everything before you get here."
According to my friend, just imagining that scene made the movie significantly more enjoyable at the end.
That is pretty funny. A little irony like that would definately have made it a cult hit, which may have been what they should have been going for in the first place.
It sort of reminds me of the movie The Gamers, which I really loved.
Håvard
I think part of the reason why people hate this movie so much is because we care so much about the game that shares its name. Not only that, but it also becomes a presentation of what D&D is to people who dont know the game, but only watch the movie. This was a major issue when the movie first came out, but it is fading with time I think. Also, I suppose it was a matter of expectations.
I think I might like to watch it again now after all these years.
Håvard
I don't think it was a terrible movie, but I think the reception it got had a lot to do with how the poor acting and characterization were combined with poor use of D&D fundamentals(like the beholder, and Justin doing all the work).
But, I have the movie on DVD, and when I watched it with a friend who had not seen it but had played D&D, I tried a suggestion from a post on rec.games.frp.dnd back when the movie came out.
When the movie finished, I described one additional scene:
Cut to the actors gathered around a table with books and dice, Jeremy Irons is behind a GM screen. As the actors began to pack up their things, he says, "Ok, guys we meet the same time next week. Wayans, get here a half-hour early so you can roll up a new character. Oh, and guys, if you are going to be late next time, let me know in advance, so we don't end up having the thief doing everything before you get here."
According to my friend, just imagining that scene made the movie significantly more enjoyable at the end.