So with the immense success of Lord of the Rings I found it interesting that New Line Cinema is going with White Wolf. I know they still have D&D (shivers) and D&D 2 is on the works (I curse them for it) so what is anyone with the rights to Dragonlance waiting for to pitch it as a movie?? Tolkien's work wasn't **** to hell; the movies were good despite discrepancies. I'm sure justice can be done to Dragonlance on the big screen.
So we only really need to cast voices now. If Dragons of Autums Twilight does well, then perhaps they go on to others. AUTUMS is great because it could easily come across as a "Stand Alone" film, much like A NEW HOPE did for SW. Great on it's own, and if succesfull will help launch the others.
Besides, I would like to see Dragonlance as an actual movie, not a hype-CGI-anime-style action film. I want to see the emotion behind the Companions capture by brilliant actors.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
The problem with CGI is that the last movie to use CGI that was not a comedy and done by Pixar bankrupted it's production company. Remember Final Fantasy?
Besides, I would like to see Dragonlance as an actual movie, not a hype-CGI-anime-style action film. I want to see the emotion behind the Companions capture by brilliant actors.
I can see the wisdom behind it. BUt there is no way that a stuido will get what they need.
Well, I don't know. I imagine DRAGONS OF AUTUMN TWILIGHT could be done, I suppose in New Zealand. If New Line were to do it, and recycle some of their LORD OF THE RINGS props, perhaps they could do it.
Originally posted by iltharanos
On a somewhat related manner, I'd be perfectly happy if they came out with a TV-movie/miniseries based on the original Dragonlance trilogy. Sci-Fi Channel is actually doing just such a thing this December with Earthsea. Woot!
If they could do that on a Mini-Series type scale budget and pull it off, more power to them.
I still think an Animated version, either traditional or CGI, would be more likely.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
New Line Cinema has optioned to use White Wolf's new Vampire: The Requiem as a new franchise for vampire films. Makes sense considering most vamp films rip-off the World of Darkness ambience. Even Marvel's Blade vampires resembled more Vampire: The Masquerade vampires than the ones presented in the comics.
Gee. You made it sound like Vampire: The Masquerade is the original source.
So with the immense success of Lord of the Rings I found it interesting that New Line Cinema is going with White Wolf. I know they still have D&D (shivers) and D&D 2 is on the works (I curse them for it) so what is anyone with the rights to Dragonlance waiting for to pitch it as a movie??
Why? It's a Tolkien ripoff.
I'm sure justice can be done to Dragonlance on the big screen.
It could if Weis & Hickman could flesh out the Dragonlance world some more. At least the late great J.R.R. Tolkien left a lot of appendix notes for the film producers to work with. After all, he was an unconventional story writer with a flair for the detail, and a deep passion for mythology.
Weis & Hickman will have to write a bible for the film producers and screenwriters (including storyboard artists) to work on, and not just be technical consultants.
You also need to find someone as serious as Peter Jackson and not ... well, someone who is not like Courtney Solomon.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
It could if Weis & Hickman could flesh out the Dragonlance world some more.
So the bajillion novels in the DL Line and 20 years of gaming material and the fact that the writers are still alive are not good enough for screenplay writers?
Really though, I do not think that screenplay writers and set designers would have too much of a problem getting a DL novel onto the big screen.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
New Line Cinema has optioned to use White Wolf's new Vampire: The Requiem as a new franchise for vampire films. Makes sense considering most vamp films rip-off the World of Darkness ambience. Even Marvel's Blade vampires resembled more Vampire: The Masquerade vampires than the ones presented in the comics.
So with the immense success of Lord of the Rings I found it interesting that New Line Cinema is going with White Wolf. I know they still have D&D (shivers) and D&D 2 is on the works (I curse them for it) so what is anyone with the rights to Dragonlance waiting for to pitch it as a movie?? Tolkien's work wasn't **** to hell; the movies were good despite discrepancies. I'm sure justice can be done to Dragonlance on the big screen.
if "new line cinema" or "white wolf" has an email or messgeboards we can flood them with: "we want DL movie" 'D&D movie worse than hell, I know! make a DL movie", "Come on DL rules! make a movie about it" nad that sort of stuff...
Originally posted by iltharanos
Sci-Fi Channel is actually doing just such a thing this December with Earthsea. Woot!
Yeah...I saw commercials for that during Stargate last week...what is Earthsea? Is it an adaptation of some sort...or is it an original show?
Originally posted by Ranger REG
[b]Gee. You made it sound like Vampire: The Masquerade is the original source.
Mark Rein-Hagen credited Anne Rice and countless other sources for his inspiration for Vampire: The Masquerade. Vampire: The Masquerade is not completely original but in the 13 odd years of its existence it evolved into something unique with its own mythologies for the curse of vampirism. The fact is there is no other source for the vampire genre that is as detail as White Wolf’s Vampire: The Masquerade. That is why I believe most of the ultra-modern vampires on film that have a complicated hierarchy with bloodlines and sect warfare are most likely inspired from Vampire: The Masquerade. There is no other source that has White Wolf’s 13 years experience with the genre on a consistent level.
Ranger, what did you mean when you said “Why, it’s a Tolkein rip-off?” Are you implying Dragonlance is a rip-off?
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Ranger, what did you mean when you said “Why, it’s a Tolkein rip-off?” Are you implying Dragonlance is a rip-off?
It's kind of an ol' on-line joke/debate thingy.
On the surface...if people don't look beyond that, the two stories can seem very similar. Especially with the way Peter Jackson did some of the design for his movies.
That's my biggest concern about doing a DL movies...that critics won't look past the asthetic similarities...and the movie will be a laughing flop.
Originally posted by Brimstone
On the surface...if people don't look beyond that, the two stories can seem very similar. Especially with the way Peter Jackson did some of the design for his movies.
It's no accident that they're similar. Tracy looked to the Lord of the Rings for inspiration when coming up with a lot of the plotlines for the Dragonlance campaign, because nothing had been done like this before in D&D and it always pays to look at the classics of the genre before you venture into the open space of literary experiment.
So, there are many resonances between Tolkien's work and Dragonlance, from palantirs/dragon orbs, kender/hobbits, Alhana and Sturm/Arwyn and Strider, Tanis/Strider, Laurana/Eowyn... it's a long list.
What's important, though, is that Dragonlance became something else entirely, a different sort of fantasy, even when acknowledging the Tolkien roots (which are more prevalent in Dragonlance than D&D itself). It became a romantic wartime fantasy opera with a lot of heart, and even though it's 20 years old it still attracts new readers every year. That's got to be one of the biggest success stories in the fantasy market.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Brimstone
Yeah...I saw commercials for that during Stargate last week...what is Earthsea? Is it an adaptation of some sort...or is it an original show?
Earthsea was originally a trilogy of novels written by Ursula K. Le Guin back in 1968. There have since been other novels written about the series (not sure how many), but the setting itself is very cool. Earthsea is essentially a world filled with islands, both large and small, but no continents. There really is only one kind of Magic, which involves knowing the true names of objects and is very much akin to Sorcerers in the Age of Mortals in that it's widely available to the comman man. Magic is more commonly available, but it's not as if every peasant is hurling fireballs, it's more subtle. Examples include peasant women casting spells that ease childbirth or make the crops grow faster ... things of that sort.
The original trilogy focused on Ged (i.e. Sparrowhawk), who's this wide-eyed bumpkin from a remote island that ends up being quite powerful.
If Sci-Fi can do Earthsea justice, then it's not too much to hope that Dragonlance could be done justice on the small screen as well.
EDIT: Interestingly enough, the Earthsea books were the reason I got into Dragonlance. My 9th grade teacher made us read Wizard of Earthsea, which was my very first exposure to the whole D&D/fantasy genre. After that, I read the other 2 books in the trilogy. Soon after I was wandering my local public library looking for more Earthsea books when I came upon this freakishly cool looking Collector's edition trilogy featuring a golden-skinned hour-glass eyed black robed mage ... and the rest is history.
As for an animated movie... please god no. Final Fantasy was a flop and I couldn't stand see DL butchered.
Will there ever be a DL movie? I think so. But not anytime soon. I think D&D is starting to overcome its geekiness factor to some degree (re: famous movie stars who admit playing it) and some day Hollywood will make DL a reality.
Originally posted by Hatrel
So the bajillion novels in the DL Line and 20 years of gaming material and the fact that the writers are still alive are not good enough for screenplay writers?
Unless you give them creative license. I woudn't, IMHO. Look what Courtney did.
I mean, where's the appendix of Qualinesti and Silvanesti languages? It would be nice to have a choral arrangement using elven words or dwarven words to set the mood of certain scene in the film.
Here's a question that I would want an honest answer. Which level of quality do you want for a Dragonlance film: Courtney Solomon version or Peter Jackson version?
My answer? As close to what we can to Peter Jackson who pretty much raise the bar, if we can't hire him to direct it. I'm sorry, but the "Ehh, good enough" quality does not really cut it for me, except perhaps a comedic fantasy film, like Monte Python's Quest for the Holy Grail or Pirates of Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.
Originally posted by wolffenjugend
I think the biggest obstacle is cost and projected revenue. Let's be honest, DL is not a classic like LotR is, so the audience is going to be much smaller. On the plus side, the success of the LotRs movies may assist a DL movie in being made. The problem with making Dragons of AT first is that they would be making 3 seperate movies; LotR was made for $100 million (or whatever it was) b/c it was all filmed at once. The costs would have skyrocketed if they had tried to do them all seperately. I think movie producers would be hesitant to jump onboard b/c it's just too risky.
I believe the final cost for LotR was something in the neighborhood of $230 million. That's including reshoots and everything. Yeah, I know, the first money made way more than that.
Originally posted by stige
if "new line cinema" or "white wolf" has an email or messgeboards we can flood them with: "we want DL movie" 'D&D movie worse than hell, I know! make a DL movie", "Come on DL rules! make a movie about it" nad that sort of stuff...
I'm with you Stige! We can bring those
to there knees! They don't know who they're messing with. We deliver their mail, cook their food, we guard them while they sleep. Do not with us! (Thank you Fight Club)Viva revolution!!
Originally posted by Insancipitory By Nature
They're waiting for Marlon Waynes' scheduel to open up. How that guy keeps getting jobs.... That there is a puzzle for the ages.
The ENTIRE cast was horrible. Especially the guy that was supposed to be the villain and his henchmen with that blue lipstick on.
~~~
Originally posted by Insancipitory By Nature
They're waiting for Marlon Waynes' scheduel to open up. How that guy keeps getting jobs.... That there is a puzzle for the ages.
[Edit: Double Post]
~~~
Originally posted by iltharanos
Interestingly enough, the Earthsea books were the reason I got into Dragonlance. My 9th grade teacher made us read Wizard of Earthsea, which was my very first exposure to the whole D&D/fantasy genre. After that, I read the other 2 books in the trilogy. Soon after I was wandering my local public library looking for more Earthsea books when I came upon this freakishly cool looking Collector's edition trilogy featuring a golden-skinned hour-glass eyed black robed mage ... and the rest is history.
Whoa weird!!! Same with me, Wizard of EarthSea was one of the only other novels I have ever read other than dragonlance...
Originally posted by dzombiex
Lotr Trilogy cost 190 million for all three. Which is just over 63 million appiece.
According to www.boxofficemojo.com the budget was $281 million (and $145 million for Marketing).
Just FYI.
Crap. That entire paragraph could've been worded so much better. *shrug*
Originally posted by Apocalyp$e
Whoa weird!!! Same with me, Wizard of EarthSea was one of the only other novels I have ever read other than dragonlance...
Nice! Earthsea breaking in new Dragonlance fans. ;)
As far as movies go ... I'd be pleasantly surprised if there were a Dragonlance movie, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If one came out in the next 10 years I'd be surprised. There just doesn't seem to be enough of a fan base for it to be economically viable. *shudder*, if anything they'd probably make a Forgotten Realms movie before they made a Dragonlance one.
Originally posted by zook the gnomee
if they did do a movie waht actor should play tassolehoff
Whatever actor they pick, I'd hope they'd opt for the LoTR approach and not use little people.
[shudder]
Willow
[/shudder]
Originally posted by iltharanos
Whatever actor they pick, I'd hope they'd opt for the LoTR approach and not use little people.
[shudder]
Willow
[/shudder]
Hey, little people need jobs too.
I think Warwick Davis could probably do a really cool gully dwarf.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
Hey, little people need jobs too.
I think Warwick Davis could probably do a really cool gully dwarf.
As for Warwick Davis and gully dwarves, that's true enough.
But I was mainly talking about the Tas/kender thing. ;)
Originally posted by iltharanos
Whatever actor they pick, I'd hope they'd opt for the LoTR approach and not use little people.
[shudder]
Willow
[/shudder]
LotR used little people.....
Only for wide shots however....and Id actually like to see it done this way....scale doubles would do nicely for this so that they wouldnt need to actually hire "short guy" actors.
~~~
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
LotR used little people.....
Only for wide shots however....and Id actually like to see it done this way....scale doubles would do nicely for this so that they wouldnt need to actually hire "short guy" actors.
Bah. That's like saying LotR featured the acting skills of "stunt guy bob" because he fell down some rocks as Frodo, or that "body double number 1" was the star of Pretty Woman because they showed her butt in place of Julia Robert's butt. The little people played no significant part in LotR, and were not "used" as actors.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Bah. That's like saying LotR featured the acting skills of "stunt guy bob" because he fell down some rocks as Frodo
He didn't say anything about acting skills. He's talking about a style. He said it's better to used forced perspective on average sized actors in close ups and scale doubles in wide shots than using a little person as the character and not worrying about trick shots.
It's a preference of filming style...not acting ability.
Originally posted by Brimstone
He didn't say anything about acting skills. He's talking about a style. He said it's better to used forced perspective on average sized actors in close ups and scale doubles in wide shots than using a little person as the character and not worrying about trick shots.
It's a preference of filming style...not acting ability.
Last I checked, Serena was a "she", not a "he."
You completely missed the point of my post.
Look at my original post, I'm talking about actors and how no little people actors should be used in a Dragonlance Movie just like no little people actors were used in the LotR Movie, so the fact that LotR used little people for filming style is irrelevant, for it does not change the fact that little people were not used as actors in LotR. A little person being used as a scaled double does not equate to that little person being an actor in the movie.
Originally posted by Dusty Traveler
I'm with you Stige! We can bring those
Viva revolution!!
Yeah!!! That the spirit!!!
now we only need to find a liitle support....
Originally posted by iltharanos
Look at my original post, I'm talking about actors and how no little people actors should be used in a Dragonlance Movie just like no little people actors were used in the LotR Movie, so the fact that LotR used little people for filming style is irrelevant, for it does not change the fact that little people were not used as actors in LotR. A little person being used as a scaled double does not equate to that little person being an actor in the movie.
Okay, I know you do not mean to discriminate little actors and actresses, nor question their competencies and performance skills.
But AFAIC, those "scaled doubles" in LOTR, they have to physically emulate their "larger" personas. They may not have the dialogue, but they are just as important to the production of the film as the main cast, nonetheless.
Sorry, but I gotta stand up for the small folk.
Originally posted by iltharanos
Last I checked, Serena was a "she", not a "he."
You completely missed the point of my post.
Look at my original post, I'm talking about actors and how no little people actors should be used in a Dragonlance Movie just like no little people actors were used in the LotR Movie, so the fact that LotR used little people for filming style is irrelevant, for it does not change the fact that little people were not used as actors in LotR. A little person being used as a scaled double does not equate to that little person being an actor in the movie.
Actually...Serena is a "he." Well...Serena the avatar is a "she" but Serena the person sitting at the computer is a "he." (I didn't realize until a year or so ago when he came on to say that he and his wife had a kid...or mentioned that he was a father or something like that...surprised me!)
Anyway...I guess we're really getting our wires crossed here. We are agreeing. I was saying that little people were not used as actors in LotR, they were used as doubles...and that's what Serena said, too. All three of us are in agreement. He wasn't saying the doubles were acting better...he said it looked more realistic (fantasy wise) to do it the way LotR did.
Originally posted by Ranger REG
Okay, I know you do not mean to discriminate little actors and actresses, nor question their competencies and performance skills.
But AFAIC, those "scaled doubles" in LOTR, they have to physically emulate their "larger" personas. They may not have the dialogue, but they are just as important to the production of the film as the main cast, nonetheless.
Sorry, but I gotta stand up for the small folk.
The sad fact of the matter is that movies with little people in the starring roles almost never do well in the box office (so far as I know). Besides that, when little people have been placed in movies, they are invariably typecast into the fantasy/sci fi role of "dwarf" or "gnome" or "ewok". Even when little people are in starring roles in movies, the movie always focuses in on their small stature ... usually in some condescending way, such as, "Oh little Billy, he's so brave to want to become an astronaut, even though he's only 4 feet tall." If we lived in a truly discrimination-free society, little people would star in ALL kinds of movies and the focus would not be on their small stature. In such a society, the fact that an adult actor is only 4 feet tall would merit no more comment then an actor that has freckles, or hazel eyes, or curly hair. Any little person cast in a starring role in a Dragonlance movie would inevitably be typecast as "kender" or "dwarf" or "gnome".
I have nothing against little people. But the preceeding gives you two reasons (one practical, one moral) as to why little people should not be used in starring roles in a Dragonlance Movie.
Actually...Serena is a "he." Well...Serena the avatar is a "she" but Serena the person sitting at the computer is a "he." (I didn't realize until a year or so ago when he came on to say that he and his wife had a kid...or mentioned that he was a father or something like that...surprised me!)
Well, you learn something new every day.
Anyway...I guess we're really getting our wires crossed here. We are agreeing. I was saying that little people were not used as actors in LotR, they were used as doubles...and that's what Serena said, too. All three of us are in agreement. He wasn't saying the doubles were acting better...he said it looked more realistic (fantasy wise) to do it the way LotR did.
So we agree ... to agree. Works for me!
The sad fact of the matter is that movies with little people in the starring roles almost never do well in the box office (so far as I know). Besides that, when little people have been placed in movies, they are invariably typecast into the fantasy/sci fi role of "dwarf" or "gnome" or "ewok". Even when little people are in starring roles in movies, the movie always focuses in on their small stature ... usually in some condescending way, such as, "Oh little Billy, he's so brave to want to become an astronaut, even though he's only 4 feet tall." If we lived in a truly discrimination-free society, little people would star in ALL kinds of movies and the focus would not be on their small stature. In such a society, the fact that an adult actor is only 4 feet tall would merit no more comment then an actor that has freckles, or hazel eyes, or curly hair. Any little person cast in a starring role in a Dragonlance movie would inevitably be typecast as "kender" or "dwarf" or "gnome". I have nothing against little people. But the preceeding gives you two reasons (one practical, one moral) as to why little people should not be used in starring roles in a Dragonlance Movie.
I do tend to agree with this line of thinking....Id hate to see a movie made about DL become a "Oh goodness look at little Tas.....he's such a trooper!" kind of thing. That would really spoil it.
Anyway...I guess we're really getting our wires crossed here. We are agreeing. I was saying that little people were not used as actors in LotR, they were used as doubles...and that's what Serena said, too. All three of us are in agreement. He wasn't saying the doubles were acting better...he said it looked more realistic (fantasy wise) to do it the way LotR did.
Precisely what I was saying...The scale doubles didnt do much acting dialogue wise, but they definitely added to the movie's overall appearance and suspension of disbelief. Truly something I hope to see done with the myriad races of Krynn if a film is made.....and Im thinking thats a pretty big if anyways...
So we agree ... to agree. Works for me!
Nine hells! That's a rare thing on this boards......mark your calendars gents!
Actually...Serena is a "he." Well...Serena the avatar is a "she" but Serena the person sitting at the computer is a "he." (I didn't realize until a year or so ago when he came on to say that he and his wife had a kid...or mentioned that he was a father or something like that...surprised me!)
Ya got me......yes...I'm a guy...."Serena" is the absolute best character I ever played...as a matter of fact....many years later I still play her...and the most humorous thing of all is that she was a PC made for a one time adventure.....I didnt much develop her...she was just a quickly made thief (a la 2E) who went through the Return to the Tomb of Horrors module/campaign. (transplanted into Dragonlance of course) So I named the account after her....I hadnt planned on spending near as much time here as I ended up doing, so I didnt think much of it......now that I look back I should have really picked a different name...but to make things simple for people I just shrug off the "she"..."her" pronoun thing.....lol......Im all about the posting anyways.
So....anyways......as has been said many times before....lol....back to the topic at hand!:D
Originally posted by Amaron Blackthorn
Is there an actor out there that is worthy to play the Master of Past and Present?
Both Tracy and Margaret have said they'd like to see James Marsters play Raistlin. For those who don't know, he's the guy on Buffy, the Vampire Slayer who plays the vampire, Spike.
EDIT: Changed "Marsden" to "Marsters." Heh heh...James Marsden is Cyclopes from X-men...I meant James Marsters.
Originally posted by Amaron Blackthorn
He played Spike didnt he? Why him if I might ask?
Well...Margaret is an admitted Buffy fan (Firefly too...I wonder if she likes Angel). Anyway, she said it in an interview on Tracy Hickman's preview DVD for Mystic Warrior...she doesn't really say why...just that she thinks he could do it well.
I think he could look the part, and he's a good actor...but he's awfully tall...
Originally posted by iltharanos
The sad fact of the matter is that movies with little people in the starring roles almost never do well in the box office (so far as I know).
Star Wars employed little actors for the R2 units and ewoks. ROTJ did well in the box office even though it earned less than the ANH and TESB.
Chucky film series did enjoy a cult following. So's another horror film series, Leprechaun.
As for Willow, I enjoyed Warwick Davis performance. It ain't a bad film. When compared to D&D: The Movie, it wins by a landslide.
BTW, that "dwarf" in D&D: The Movie? He happens to be in one of the most successful summer films, Pirates of the Caribbeans: Curse of the Black Pearl. I can easily pick him out.
Also straight from Maragret to me she said the company that had the rights to the movie lost them but the script is still floating around out there, so we have a wait, and by then movies will evolve and hieght will be even less of an issue. By the way I say Lyndsey Lohan as Tika (wow shes hotter than i used to think she was)right age too
GCS
Originally posted by Green_Cloaked_Sorcerer
By the way I say Lyndsey Lohan as Tika (wow shes hotter than i used to think she was)right age too
Maybe it's the old man speaking here, but I don't understand the Lindsay Lohan thing. I get Britney, but I don't get her.
Cheers,
Cam
Originally posted by Cam Banks
Maybe it's the old man speaking here, but I don't understand the Lindsay Lohan thing. I get Britney, but I don't get her.
Cheers,
Cam
Well to be honest Cam I was on your side until I went and saw "Mean Girls" a movie of Lindsay's.(sorry bout the bad spelling in the other post tired) But some of the outfits that she wore and with the make up I was blown away. Shes got some great legs, look strong enough to kill a anaconda. Plus i got some other pics that might change your mind
. Plus she did pretty good acting in it, I personally went with a female friend just to see the girls but enjoyed the movie as a whole, I think mostly it was her acting.. err and legs.See now Brit I don't get she was hot back in the day when she started out, just playing the whole school girl thing, now i just think shes trashy, no better than Madonna or well some other person who changes thier looks every other week(Michael Jackson??) I've totally lost all interest in Brit.
GCS
Originally posted by Green_Cloaked_Sorcerer
James Marsters would be a kick ass Raist. And sure hes tall but as LoTR has proven that doesn't matter anymore you can change anyone to the size you need now adays. I fully agree with Maragret's choice and to be honest I bet Marsters would be all about it.
Just as long we don't cast David Boreanaz as Caramon, even though it is an eerie resemblance.
Not to mention "Buffy" kicks ass and as much as I hate to say it Sarah Michelle Gellar would be a good Laurana, she looks young shes short long blonde hair kinda elfish. (I know I just said Elfish)
Wavy curls make her ... "elfish"???
Personally, she's too old. You need a "barely legal" to cast someone that is so young and naive in the beginning but later matured. I have to admit, Lindsey Lohan(?) fit the mold (just highlight her hair).
For Goldmoon, I'd go with her Meangirl co-star, Rachel McAdam, who look better in the romantic Notebook film. Second choice would have been SMG, if she prefers a less combative character.
Despite what others said in other threads I stand by my anger at no "Scouring" in LotR. It was a vital part of the story to show how much the hobbits have grown through out thier journey and the end to Sauramon(sorry i know not spelled right). So thats my reasoning for that. I am just afraid they will leave out some part they deemed minor but maybe the fans found important. But once again they make movies for stupid people not for the hard-core fans.
GCS
So what does your business sense tell you?
As much as I admire people with creative integrity, if they don't know how to bend just a little, then this world is not for you.
Makes sense since such artists have often -- though sadly -- end up dying before their time.
I would hate to hear his take on Dragonlance.
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I would say must movie goers these days have a low attention span. Not so much stupid. Although I know a co-worker that doesn’t understand why the last LotR is titled the “Return of the King” and after watching all three movies he thinks Frodo is “stupid” for not immediately tossing the ring in the volcano. The whole “The One Ring to Rule Them All” can corrupt it’s wearer concept just flew pass him.
I would hate to hear his take on Dragonlance.
While I stick by my saying movies are made for stupid people, you could also say for ignorant people. The sad part is your friend isn't a one in a million guy, as I am the local geek in the Hotel I work for people constantly come to me asking certian reasoning for things that happen in fantasy movies. (ie Matrix, LotR, Spider-Man, Star Wars) Sometimes they are simple questions, one time I took almost 8 hrs to explain to my friend how the force worked and had to go through and explain how Lucas messed stuff up and then he wanted to know what happened after Jedi, 8hrs you say, well the kids from Lithuania so he doesn't fully understand American thinking yet and has hardly seen the movies, its so hard to explain without going into deep detail into the books as he asks what happened to each character. And I guess I should have just said, "They live happily ever after!" But I'm a geek and that goes against the code.
Anywho, back to what I am meaning to post, I too am afraid of this take on DragonLance, hence why I am not totally thrilled about a movie.
GCS
Originally posted by Baron the Curse
I would say most movie goers these days have a low attention span. Not so much stupid.
Well, that explains why many of them aren't watching Catwoman.
I like that Paul is not as 'pretty' as James.
He looked good portraying the ship's doctor of HMS Surprise in Russell Crowe's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World.
James Marster portrayed Spike in Buffy and Angel. He also portrayed a Nietchzean by the name of Charlemagne in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda.
Both of them would give each other a run for the money, IMHO.