Have any of you seen this movie?
Recently I learned of changes on the wikipedia section on this movie which suggests the Sci Fi Channel are developing a mini series either based on this or on characters from this movie however I have found nothing to back it up.
Have you heard anything?
Whether this is actually true or is someone messing around with wikipedia?
And the reason I posted it here is because I have no idea where this should go so if you do let me know, please.
Thanks
Have any of you seen this movie?
Recently I learned of changes on the wikipedia section on this movie which suggests the Sci Fi Channel are developing a mini series either based on this or on characters from this movie however I have found nothing to back it up.
Have you heard anything?
Whether this is actually true or is someone messing around with wikipedia?
And the reason I posted it here is because I have no idea where this should go so if you do let me know, please.
Thanks
ooh I dunno, but I have a suspicion this may be wishful thinking (the movie was pretty decent, considering what preceded it).
That said, it would fit very neatly into a WotC 4th Edition launch schedule, with an announcement at GenCon and fitting into the Fall lineup shortly after. Those kind of fantasy shows do pretty okay in syndication I believe and SciFi needs something to make up for Flash Gordon.
I didn't see anything on Sci-Fi, Google, or IMDB.
Awhile back, there was talk of a FR TV series through Fireworks studio (announced on WotC's site), but it fell through.
|
Have any of you seen this movie?
Unfortunately, you chose a difficult media through which to pose your inquiry.
To ascertain the answer to this particular question, it is better to ask people in real life. Once you speak the movie's name, you will know those who have seen it by several signs:
- twitching, specifically around the face.
- language so vulgar it would make a sailor or rap star blush.
- the use of the phrase, "Oh God, not that movie...."
- sudden screaming of, "the horror, the horror."
- a dazed look, followed by an attempt to gouge out the eyes in hopes that they could then forget what they had seen.
Hope this helps.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! GOD NO GOD PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have any of you seen this movie?
Unfortunately, you chose a difficult media through which to pose your inquiry.
To ascertain the answer to this particular question, it is better to ask people in real life. Once you speak the movie's name, you will know those who have seen it by several signs:
- twitching, specifically around the face.
- language so vulgar it would make a sailor or rap star blush.
- the use of the phrase, "Oh God, not that movie...."
- sudden screaming of, "the horror, the horror."
- a dazed look, followed by an attempt to gouge out the eyes in hopes that they could then forget what they had seen.Hope this helps.
Oh not the Marlon Wayans version the one where they actually had a competent rogue... and the female barbarian... the lead did an argos advert something about jumping up into the sky and picking up a star so he could go down to argos to get his son the present he wanted... a scaletric if I remembered right.
It was also the one where the cleric got frozen solid and swallowed by a white dragon, that they then blew up along with cleric it had swallowed...Should i have used a spoiler there?
|
|
Oh not the Marlon Wayans version the one where they actually had a competent rogue... and the female barbarian... the lead did an argos advert something about jumping up into the sky and picking up a star so he could go down to argos to get his son the present he wanted... a scaletric if I remembered right.
It was also the one where the cleric got frozen solid and swallowed by a white dragon, that they then blew up along with cleric it had swallowed...Should i have used a spoiler there?
Actually, I'm pretty sure most people you ask would agree that my assessment is equally relevant to both movies.
That is, if they could stop smacking their heads into walls long enough to answer.
Oh not the Marlon Wayans version the one where they actually had a competent rogue... and the female barbarian... the lead did an argos advert something about jumping up into the sky and picking up a star so he could go down to argos to get his son the present he wanted... a scaletric if I remembered right.
It was also the one where the cleric got frozen solid and swallowed by a white dragon, that they then blew up along with cleric it had swallowed...
Should i have used a spoiler there?Actually, I'm pretty sure most people you ask would agree that my assessment is equally relevant to both movies.
That is, if they could stop smacking their heads into walls long enough to answer.
And here I was thinking it was Wayans playing a rogue that did that...
Then again I have been rewatching the lord of the ring movies so perhaps my memories have been dulled somewhat...
Still think the second movie was much better than the first, not that helps though!
- twitching, specifically around the face.
- language so vulgar it would make a sailor or rap star blush.
- the use of the phrase, "Oh God, not that movie...."
- sudden screaming of, "the horror, the horror."
- a dazed look, followed by an attempt to gouge out the eyes in hopes that they could then forget what they had seen.
Thats the first movie that you're thinking about [shudder].
The second one.... the acting was just as appalling (if not worse), the storyline was still shoddy as was the dialogue, the action, the graphics, all pretty poor. And yet, it still feels better than the first film.Why is that? It can't all be because of the distinct lack of blue lipstick. (thank the gods for that small mercy!)
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Oh not the Marlon Wayans version the one where they actually had a competent rogue... and the female barbarian... the lead did an argos advert something about jumping up into the sky and picking up a star so he could go down to argos to get his son the present he wanted... a scaletric if I remembered right.
It was also the one where the cleric got frozen solid and swallowed by a white dragon, that they then blew up along with cleric it had swallowed...Should i have used a spoiler there?
Actually, I'm pretty sure most people you ask would agree that my assessment is equally relevant to both movies.
That is, if they could stop smacking their heads into walls long enough to answer.
Oh, the second movie is better, though that's like saying that being punched in the face is better than being kicked in the genetalia.
I jest; I actually liked the second movie. The movie's definitely not ranking on Ebert's, but it's a good, serious adventure. Plus it has a bunch of good references to past D&D adventures, creatures, and other small things
The series thing is a new one, but I'd like to see it if it's, at the very least, at the level of the second movie. And has Steven of Tyler.
Hypothetical Question (obviously):
So, it's gone and happened. You're dead and find yourself in Hell. Maybe it's because of you didn't help the old lady across the road, didn't say 'Bless You' once when a nun sneezed, maybe it's because you set fire to a cat or because you participated in the great Logue Vs Prett war in 2009, but now you're here and it's baking time.
You're given a choice as to the instrument of torture which you shall suffer for all eternity. Strapped down and forced to watch one of two films, again and again and again. No turning away, no closing your eyes, no drowning out the sound.
The two films are:
Dungeons & Dragons (the first one)
or
From Dusk Till Dawn 2 (Texas Blood Money)
Well, which one will you pick?
|
Oh not the Marlon Wayans version the one where they actually had a competent rogue... and the female barbarian... the lead did an argos advert something about jumping up into the sky and picking up a star so he could go down to argos to get his son the present he wanted... a scaletric if I remembered right.
It was also the one where the cleric got frozen solid and swallowed by a white dragon, that they then blew up along with cleric it had swallowed...
Should i have used a spoiler there?Actually, I'm pretty sure most people you ask would agree that my assessment is equally relevant to both movies.
That is, if they could stop smacking their heads into walls long enough to answer.And here I was thinking it was Wayans playing a rogue that did that...
Then again I have been rewatching the lord of the ring movies so perhaps my memories have been dulled somewhat...
Still think the second movie was much better than the first, not that helps though!
Come on. The second movie wasn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. It certainly was better than the first. At least they had some decent special effects for the dragons, and the female barbarian was easy on the eyes.
|
|
To each his own I guess. Although I agree that the first movie was far beneath the worst words that can be used to describe it, the second was not much better. The only thing it really had going for it was better special effects.
And I'm sorry, the female barbarian, while definitely easy on the eyes, was as bad as Denise Richards playing a scientist in that crappy James Bond movie.
|
|
I didn't think the second was that bad...far better than the first. Its not Lord of the Rings but I suspect those making it had no illusions about what they were making. Unlike those involved in the first movie. I remember reading comments from some of the actors (and WOTC employees) involved with the first movie who were convinced they were making something true to the actual game. What they made was a big budget disaster.
The second on the other hand was a servicable mid-grade Sword and Sorcery flick.
Wrath of the Dragon God was called 'The Elemental Might' I think in the UK.
It was slightly better than the first movie, but to be fair that is not saying much.
I do think there's an animated Dragonlance in production. Vaguely recall Keifer Sutherland being cast as Raistlin.
To each his own I guess. Although I agree that the first movie was far beneath the worst words that can be used to describe it, the second was not much better. The only thing it really had going for it was better special effects.
And I'm sorry, the female barbarian, while definitely easy on the eyes, was as bad as Denise Richards playing a scientist in that crappy James Bond movie.
I thought D&D2: WotDG was an Excellent movie! Of course, that was with the audio commentary on. Otherwise, it was OK.
I do think there's an animated Dragonlance in production. Vaguely recall Keifer Sutherland being cast as Raistlin.
Yeah, but I doubt it will see the light of day. It's been delayed MANY times. "Official Site"
|
|
Come on. The second movie wasn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. It certainly was better than the first. At least they had some decent special effects for the dragons, and the female barbarian was easy on the eyes.
It's certainly no worse than some of the other Sci Fi Originals, and better than most I've watched. While I wouldn't call D&D2 a great movie, I still enjoy watching it because at least they were trying to get it right. Which is definitely more than you can say for the first one.
I do think there's an animated Dragonlance in production. Vaguely recall Keifer Sutherland being cast as Raistlin.Yeah, but I doubt it will see the light of day. It's been delayed MANY times. "Official Site"
I'm not exactly sure how much it means, but it has been "guaranteed" video release.
And I liked both films, the second more in some ways, and felt both were "True D&D Experiences" in most ways...
... I mean.. come on - the pulling the dark cloaks over their heads to "hide" in the crowd? Classic.
Says here that the dragon lance DVD will be released Jan 15th 2008.
|
|
To each his own I guess. Although I agree that the first movie was far beneath the worst words that can be used to describe it, the second was not much better. The only thing it really had going for it was better special effects.
You just have to put it in perspective -- compared to Mazes and Monsters...
You just have to put it in perspective -- compared to Mazes and Monsters...
That was a totally awesome movie!!!
It changed my life!!!!It is why I started playing D&D!!!!
Sadly the black knight has yet come to visit me and spice my day up!!!!
And sadly the movie is more M&M then D&D. (See what I did there? Clever huh? Mazes and Monsters... Dungeons and Dragons...)
[/terrible attempt at joke]
Thats the first movie that you're thinking about [shudder].
The second one.... the acting was just as appalling (if not worse), the storyline was still shoddy as was the dialogue, the action, the graphics, all pretty poor. And yet, it still feels better than the first film.
Why is that? It can't all be because of the distinct lack of blue lipstick. (thank the gods for that small mercy!)
Ahh come on, it wasn't that bad- remember the source- the director of An American Haunting producing for the Network that brought us Mansquito and Chupacabra: Dark Seas? That we got anything that wasn't a squealing abomination, it's miracle. As it is, the second one is an above average TV movie
If you're expecting a sword and sorcery Citizen Kane, you're setting youself up for crushing disappointment.
And sadly the movie is more M&M then D&D.
MMmmmm. Tasty M&Ms.
Both D and D films are travesties, particularly in that they do damage to the percetion of the hobby which cannot be undone without the release of a D and D film of Citizen Kane proportions.
That having been said, I like the second film better than the first, in that it doesn't make me want to claw out my own eyes before pouring molten lead into my ear canals.
Director of Sales
|
I've never seen the second, in large part because of the abysmal nature of the first.
I hate the first movie for two reasons:
1) The merits (HA!) of the movie itself. Every individual aspect of the movie was atrocious in and of itself. When added together all of these little bits of suck had a synergistic effect that caused a chain reaction of ever-increasing crapulence, that finally reached a critical mass and collapsed in upon itself... creating a singularity of dark abhorrence from which nothing "good" or "quality" could escape.
AND...
2) The effects of the making of such a film. The existence of this piece of tripe means that no other film based on a D&D license can be made without relating to it. This has a chilling effect on the production of quality sword and sorcery movies in general, and on D&D movies specifically. Now, if someone were to try and make a quality film based on a D&D license, the producer will have to consider the previous D&D films. Most likely, he/she will just say "Naw... I don't want to get involved in another one of those movies."
If they had made a quality movie instead of a brainless knock-off.... If they had reached... if they had strived to make something better than the easy "pretty-girls-infantile-humor-bloodless-violence-and dragons"-trope, then maybe they could have opened the genre up a bit.
Thankfully, God gave us Peter Jackson and Fellowship (which, thankfully, was already in production when this dog came out) who proved that high quality fantasy, if it is well made, can be generally marketable and make a ton of money. After LoTR, we have (with widely varying levels of quality) Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, Series of Unfortunate Events, etc. We also have some movies that are NOT for kids, like Pan's Labyrinth. What we do NOT have is an adaptation of Drizzt's story (regardless of how overblown he is... those books would make an awesome movie or three). We won't be seeing a movie set Castle Ravenloft. Christian Bale is Batman, now, rather than playing Raistlin.
Sorry... rant over. It's just that crappy movies piss me off. Especially crappy movies dealing with my favorite subjects.
|
Director of Sales
|
Both D and D films are travesties, particularly in that they do damage to the perception of the hobby which cannot be undone without the release of a D and D film of Citizen Kane proportions.
David just boiled my entire rant down into one well-written sentence.
Kudos!
So... yeah... what he said.
As a naive waif eager to see the joy of DnD, I merrily raipsed to the theatres to see the marvelous spectacle of that first glorious DnD movie (wow, they got Jeremy Irons!)...
...
...
...
...
After that ... debacle ... which I simply could not walk out of, on the off chance that there might be one facet, one inconsequential mote, one quark of charm ...
Yeah...
...
Anyway, many years later someone convinced me to watch the second movie...
on DVD...
in a group...
with large quantities of alcohol...
for the express purpose of mocking it.
And in that context, the second movie was actually enjoyable. We even watched it again, with the commentary on, which is perhaps better than the movie by itself. For some months we had a running gag, "Three axes?" stolen from the commentary. I did not regret the time lost to my life for the second movie, and with that experience, may have even been willing (in hindsight) to lay out up to two U.S. dollars to have seen it. Er, luckily it was for free.
Anywho, a SciFi series of DnD... well, I like good movies adn realistic action, so I doubt I would be interested, but one would have to strive mightily to do worse than the first movie.
BTW, I do recommend [u]the Gamers[/u], which though dated still serves as a solid tale of RPers from the early years.
I've only seen the first one. I went with a group of gamers. We were expecting it to be bad, but...words cannot describe. It's bad when you go in with low expectations and even those were not met.
That said, I didn't even consider watching the 2nd straight-to-DVD movie. If you've smelled one pile of crap, you don't go around smelling others (at least on purpose).
I still enjoy watching it because at least they were trying to get it right.
I wanted to like it. It had heart; what it lacked was brains.
"Crapulence" - if ever a word need to be included in an official dictionary
Actually crapulence is in the the dictionary.
~laughter~ And the sad part is, I actually own BOTH of them on DVD. ~bows my head in shame~
I think (hope!) I'm now officially allowed to admit that D&D2: WotDG was an objectively bad movie. I watched it at Erik's house with a bunch of folks when it debuted, and there was much pained laughter.
That said, the DVD comes with a Juiblex-themed adventure that Wes, Mike, and I wrote together and Kyle Hunter of Downer illustrated. So that's pretty cool.
No. Not more! Please, no more!
I've seen both movies. The first one was indecribably awful. It was nauseating. It was painful. And I didn't even watch the whole thing. That said, the second one was infinitely better than the first and it was still terrible. The storyline was boring and I was unimpressed by the acting or characters (who I didn't give a rat's ass about).
A television series might be good, if it had good writers, actors and a plot which made it so that I could care about what happend to the characters.
People are willing to consider a series based off of that movie but Firefly got canceled after one fantastic season?! Something is very wrong with this screwed up world!
|
|
I still enjoy watching it because at least they were trying to get it right.I wanted to like it. It had heart; what it lacked was brains.
"Crapulence" - if ever a word need to be included in an official dictionaryActually crapulence is in the the dictionary.
Sweet!
That said, I didn't even consider watching the 2nd straight-to-DVD movie.
Actually, it was a Sci-Fi Pictures Original Movie.
|
That said, the DVD comes with a Juiblex-themed adventure that Wes, Mike, and I wrote together and Kyle Hunter of Downer illustrated. So that's pretty cool.
I did not know that. That might be enough to convince me to buy (let alone watch) the movie ... does anyone know if this adventure comes with any new copy of the movie, bought anywhere? Or only in the US, or there was only limited stock, etc?
I did not know that. That might be enough to convince me to buy (let alone watch) the movie ... does anyone know if this adventure comes with any new copy of the movie, bought anywhere? Or only in the US, or there was only limited stock, etc?
That said, the DVD comes with a Juiblex-themed adventure that Wes, Mike, and I wrote together and Kyle Hunter of Downer illustrated. So that's pretty cool.
Don't know... but the adventure PDF (a pretty interesting adventure, I must say) was indeed on the DVD I rented from my local movie store (here in Canada).
No. Not more! Please, no more!
I've seen both movies. The first one was indecribably awful. It was nauseating. It was painful. And I didn't even watch the whole thing. That said, the second one was infinitely better than the first and it was still terrible. The storyline was boring and I was unimpressed by the acting or characters (who I didn't give a rat's ass about).
A television series might be good, if it had good writers, actors and a plot which made it so that I could care about what happend to the characters.
People are willing to consider a series based off of that movie but Firefly got canceled after one fantastic season?! Something is very wrong with this screwed up world!
Nothing to apologise for had D&D being set up for a tv series had been the cause for Firefly being cancelled i would have chucked away all of my d&d stuff in disgust!
Still when I first heard about Firefly I didn't expect much, but then i watched the first episode and was absolutely gobsmacked but then you already know its THAT good...
And no I have no idea why they cancelled it.
And no I have no idea why they cancelled it.
I'm guessing Joss upset someone (I have nothing to back this up). Angel was cancelled at the same time and Buffy seemed to be rushed in the final season.
The best D&D movie is Conan the Destroyer. It absolutely sucks for a Conan film, but rocks for a D&D film.
As for these other two, yeah, wrath was better. And it was ok for what it was, a made-for-TV movie.
I once heard that D&D doesn't really make a great medium for books and movies because it is too much stop-go. You're traveling and a random encounter. You go to a castle, a fight. You talk to the king for a while and another fight with a dragon. The pace is more cyclic, while books and movies tend to be more steady increasing until you hit the climax.
|
|
The best D&D movie is Conan the Destroyer. It absolutely sucks for a Conan film, but rocks for a D&D film.
This could be the subject for another thread but I wonder how many would agree that Conan the Destroyer is the best D&D film. I have heard others suggest they think Big Trouble in Little China is one of the best D&D films out there. Personally I like 13th warrior as a DnD film.
I do not know what you all are talking about. There has never been a D&D movie made. NEVER! And anyone who says so is just fooling themselves *sage nod*. Now if you'll excuse me I have some eyes to gouge out.
and SciFi needs something to make up for Flash Gordon.
man people love to bash Flash
granted it's not exactly what I was hoping for, but it isn't terrible (remember the roger corman superhero show they had before?) I dont see why they made some choices they did in Flash Gordon and it is kinda hokey at times , but atleast it can be slightly entertaining which is more than I can say for "Battle Snore Galactica." I tried it during the miniseries, tried it when the first season started and occasionally after just because people raved about it. I dont get why people love it. I've seen tourist trap documentaries which are more interestingseriously that show is dull. Why do people like it?
|
|
I liked the second dnd movie.
As for firefly, according to interviews with Joss Whedon and the actors of the series, Fox cancelled the show 'cause they felt there was no money in it. Maybe if the show included shirtless fat dudes who are never surprised that the police just busted down there door, Firefly wouldn't have been cancelled. Bad boys, bad boys. What you gonna do? What you gonna do when the Alliance comes for you?
I think I came to the movies from the absolute opposite end. Each time I expected the worst thing ever captured on celluloid. Both times I came away somewhat less horrified than I thought. The same principle applies to bad 70's chop-socky movies. They're never as bad as you fear they're gonna' be so any good part seems wonderful.
Granted both were really embarrassing and disappointing--but at least they were watchable, which was really more than I'd expected.
Same with Eragon, by the way. You could really bundle those movies as a trilogy and I don't think anyone would know the difference (except why crappy Jeremy Irons is a good guy now...)
I would really like to see a series made from the second movie. The only character I really hated (the cleric who looked remarkably like the lead singer from Korn and carried the worlds fakest looking warhammer) got splorked so really I think something could be done with it that could be good. I actually kind of liked the old captain of the guard guy. I thought the rogue guy was campy fun.
The big thing I can honestly say I hated was the lich. I just wanted to crawl behind the couch and sniffle pathetically whenever he came onscreen. I still try to make a loud noise every time they say what he is, and try in my mind to pretend he's something else.
I actually thought the drow looked pretty good. I wish they'd had a bigger part in the movie.
|
|
The best Dungeons and Dragons movie is <em>Scourge of Worlds</em> (http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/dnd/greyhawk/sow/index.html). That said, the second film is much better than the first, but that really isn't saying much. The second is also good for a SciFi television movie, once again not saying much.
What matters to me, in this case, is whether the film is fun or not. The first film tried to be fun --and largely failed, even with Tom Baker as an elf and Jeremy Irons. Though the DVD includes a "fast play" adventure on DVD rom. The second one pretty much succeeded as funfare.
Back to <em>Scourge of Worlds</em>, the Greyhawk movie. That was repeatable fun. Try to find the special edition.
The best Dungeons and Dragons movie is <em>Scourge of Worlds</em> (http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/gaming/dnd/greyhawk/sow/index.html). That said, the second film is much better than the first, but that really isn't saying much. The second is also good for a SciFi television movie, once again not saying much.
What matters to me, in this case, is whether the film is fun or not. The first film tried to be fun --and largely failed, even with Tom Baker as an elf and Jeremy Irons. Though the DVD includes a "fast play" adventure on DVD rom. The second one pretty much succeeded as funfare.
Back to <em>Scourge of Worlds</em>, the Greyhawk movie. That was repeatable fun. Try to find the special edition.
-big fan of Scourge of Worlds-
-have both editions--DD2=bad movie but it's D&D-delighted to discover paizo adventure an DVD
-DD1-eyegougeing material for sure