|
Purple,
I think you're confusing Hasbro with better minds at Marvel. Especially since talking trees and racoons with space guns are in the next volume.
Anyways we'll just see when ever it comes out. Hopeful before 2020.
Hasbro looks at Marvel. Monkey see, monkey do! (you can bet that they'll go for multiple movies set in the same universe! ;) )
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want Beholders to not be taken by surprise by loud noises.
I HATED that.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope the D&D movie is FUN. I don't want it to be grim dark, I don't want it to be a wannabe GRRM. I want good and inspirational heroes. I want the heroes to win. I want them to be good examples.
I want there to be action and adventure. I want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose.
And no silly sidekicks.
No Wayan's brothers need to apply, that's for sure.
I could do without scenery chewing 'drama' on the scale of Profion and Damodar, for that matter.
But they might as well capitalize on the IP they've held onto and have a displacer beast and a mind flayer in the movie!
Aaannnd I'm back to wanting an Expedition to the Barrier Peaks movie. :)
I'd love a well-done Return to the Tomb of Horrors movie (or more properly, movies). Ideally it would be two movies, with the first film ending with a fade to black as the party crawls into the green devil face.
I hope the D&D movie is FUN. I don't want it to be grim dark, I don't want it to be a wannabe GRRM. I want good and inspirational heroes. I want the heroes to win. I want them to be good examples.
I want there to be action and adventure. I want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose.
And no silly sidekicks.
I don't totally agree with this, I guess. Specifically, this:
I want good and inspirational heroes.
For me, it doesn't feel like a real D&D story if the heroes aren't a little bit screwed up. I'm talking Nodwick, or Order of the Stick, or Princess Bride: Ultimately good people, perhaps, but also totally dysfunctional.
Nodwick is a more comedic example—in a serious story, Yeagar and Artax would be rather evil, but it's a different genre.
All I know is well done movies aren't something that Hollywood cares about any more than Hasbro sees Marvel and thinks about what it's doing.
That being said I'd think a Dark Fantasy thing COULD work. I mean look at Underworld series.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Red Hand of Doom, Four from Cormyr, Haunted Halls of Eveningstar and many others that spawned out of the late 80s and early 90s during the full growth of the Forgotten Realms. I know RHoD is much later but it was such a good module. I have a wait and see attitude about this one at the moment so I am not getting my hopes up. When I hear more solid information or updated information on this project will tell if I like it or not. Oh and I dont recall who said it above but I have to agree totally, NO Wayans bros.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind seeing Haunted Halls of Eveningstar myself.
But yes, Raven NO WAYANS!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(And sorry, I couldn't handle the Blair Witch Project. I spent far too much of the movie (mentally) screaming at the screen: you're lost in the woods in Maryland? Oh look, a river? Follow it downstream to civilization. You'll be home for dinner.)
The recent remake/reboot/sequel whatever actually does a pretty good job of explaining why this doesn't work. Hint: the space-time continuum doesn't work that great around the Blair Witch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Horror movies do "fine" with horror movie budgets, not fantasy movie budgets, especially not "shake of negative stereotype of bad D&D movies that bomb at the box office" "fine." You need to do to D&D movies what Baldur's Gate did to D&D games when it came out, or what the first X-MEN movie did to superhero films. A horror movie won't cut it.
Exactly
Most successful theatrically released horror films have relatively small budgets, since they don't generally have high star power casts, only have modest special effects, and limited sets. Their able to make a lot of money because they have minimal investments. This is also why there is so much indie/limited release/direct to dvd horror produced as well, but barely any fantasy/space opera.
Any theatrically released DnD movie is going to have a probably pretty big budget, and taking the horror route might prevent a profit from being made. A horror-focused DnD movie could definitely work, but only as a later release once they establish there brand. Kind of like how Marvel could probably build a movie around any character they want, and count on previous good will from fans to let it make a profit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is budgets only affect the story telling when you need great visuals.
I cite the difference between Crimson Peak and Ghostbusters reboot.
I hope the D&D movie is FUN. I don't want it to be grim dark, I don't want it to be a wannabe GRRM. I want good and inspirational heroes. I want the heroes to win. I want them to be good examples.
I want there to be action and adventure. I want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose.
And no silly sidekicks.
I don't totally agree with this, I guess. Specifically, this:
I want good and inspirational heroes.For me, it doesn't feel like a real D&D story if the heroes aren't a little bit screwed up. I'm talking Nodwick, or Order of the Stick, or Princess Bride: Ultimately good people, perhaps, but also totally dysfunctional.
Nodwick is a more comedic example—in a serious story, Yeagar and Artax would be rather evil, but it's a different genre.
... all of those are comedies and parodies, though.
Literally every one of those sets out to parody genre conventions.
And even then, both Order of the Stick and The Princess Bride end up with good people who prove to be good examples - "inspirational heroes" -, regardless of their flaws.
Here's the thing: what you're suggesting isn't actually opposed to SmiloDan's proposition - they're too faces of the same coin.
I mean, the first and third Dungeons & Dragons movies actually had the exact kinds of characters you were talking about - and, while the third one was actually kind of okay, no one would accuse any those of being "good" films (I opt out from commenting on the second, until I've seen it all).
Compare, however, Lord of the Rings - every one of the fellowship, and other heroes besides, was flawed, but every one of them as a good and inspirational person. Similarly, The Incredibles or Mulan or Hunchback of Notredame or Kung Fu Panda (pick one), or Tangled, or Star Wars, or E.T., or Indiana Jones, or One Punch Man, or <the English version of> Dragon Ball. Each of these fit into the exact thing that Smilo was talking about and what you were talking about: they all find a balance of fun (though LotR is much more dramatic) and good, inspirational (if flawed) heroes.
All that said, while I agree that both ideas (flawed people, but genuinely good and inspirational people as the good guys) just those things alone won't make the film. Both the 2000 D&D film and the Star Wars prequels went for exactly that and failed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the second D&D movie a lot. It just needed a slightly better crop of actors and effects.
The Third movie was crap.
No Wayan's brothers need to apply, that's for sure.
Oh and I dont recall who said it above but I have to agree totally, NO Wayans bros.
But yes, Raven NO WAYANS!
It is not a popular opinion, but I must say: Marlan Wayans was not the worst actor* in that film. Point in fact, as annoying as his character could be - and it was annoying - I would actually cite him as one of (if not the) best actors in that film.
Dude chewed less scenery, but turned in a more sincere performance, than daggum near everyone else - and I am including quite a number of excellent actors, who's sheer presence should have outshone him.
The character was a Wayans Brother character, but in terms of performance, the guy was one of the few who genuinely stepped up to the challenge presented him.
It was still a frustrating addition to the film, but I posit that it was not his fault.
*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tact,
That might be but the fact is I still don't get how an idiot like him and his friends get past a beholder by just TOSSING a rock behind it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the second D&D movie a lot. It just needed a slightly better crop of actors and effects.
The Third movie was crap.
In comparison to the first, the third was far and away the better film.
As noted, I haven't seen the second to compare it with.
But the acting in III (while I did not like the principal characters) was actually better over-all.
Was it a made-for-tv film?
Oh, heck yeah: we're talking low-budget and not-stellar directing, with television-esque special FX and scripting.
But it was vastly superior to the first, and actually mostly watchable.
(At least the edited version I saw. I understand there were some party scenes or something that were deleted from the one I saw, but, eh, I don't think I missed much.)
Tact,
That might be but the fact is I still don't get how an idiot like him and his friends get past a beholder by just TOSSING a rock behind it...
Totally not his fault!
That, my friend, is entirely the fault of script and direction!
In this, not only was the guy blameless, but he was solidly doing the right thing by trying to sell that scene with all the serious he could muster.
I absolutely do not and cannot blame him for that, any more than I can blame Ahmed Best for George Lucas' use of Jar Jar Binks at inappropriate moments. Dude just did what he was told, and worked it hard. He did good.
EDIT: And it wasn't even Snails (his character) who tossed the rock! XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tact,
I'm not saying the third was terrible. It had moments, sure. But compared to the Second...I liked it better.
Second was more direct to Video than made for TV IMHO.
Fair enough! I didn't actually like the protagonist(s?) of the third - you kind of weren't supposed to? - and I thought it hilariously off that the...
*
... and I found a number of other elements questionable, at best. It was just a "kind of okay" film - as good or better than some of the Syfy stuff. XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I know is budgets only affect the story telling when you need great visuals.
I cite the difference between Crimson Peak and Ghostbusters reboot.
I just started a new campaign, and the introductory adventure is totally based on Crimson Peak, and especially its architecture and set design. I think I watched the rented DVD twice just to appreciate the set design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Blair Witch Project did pretty well for itself. :-)
I wouldn't know. the First Blair Witch movie maybe a deacade ago, was one of only two movies that actually sent me to sleep in the theatre, the other being Ishtar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drah,
Don't you mean Fishtar? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drah,
Don't you mean Fishtar? ;)
I'd fallen asleep before seeing any fish.
??
(I think you made that comment in the wrong thread, my friend.)
EDIT: You got it! I'm leaving my comment, though, because now it just looks weird, lacking all context, and I find that funny!
XD
I'd fallen asleep before seeing any fish.Drah,
Don't you mean Fishtar? ;)
I didn't exactly fall asleep but I kept waiting for Kevin Costner to drown...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked the second D&D movie a lot. It just needed a slightly better crop of actors and effects.
The Third movie was crap.
The second one was the only one I remotely enjoyed...well...in and of itself.
The first one, after about a quarter of the way through, I looked at my buddy I was watching it with and decided there was no way to take it seriously...we mocked it the rest of the way through. Mocking it was actually fun, but that wasn't because we were enjoying the movie in and of itself.
Third one was better then the first, but I still didn't enjoy it in the least. I'd agree, it was crap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grey,
Third was crap because it didn't make sense to have a guy that did those things and Pelor made the light shine for him. :p That and no beholder either.
Otherwise I agree with you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... all of those are comedies and parodies, though.I hope the D&D movie is FUN. I don't want it to be grim dark, I don't want it to be a wannabe GRRM. I want good and inspirational heroes. I want the heroes to win. I want them to be good examples.
I want there to be action and adventure. I want the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose.
And no silly sidekicks.
I don't totally agree with this, I guess. Specifically, this:
I want good and inspirational heroes.For me, it doesn't feel like a real D&D story if the heroes aren't a little bit screwed up. I'm talking Nodwick, or Order of the Stick, or Princess Bride: Ultimately good people, perhaps, but also totally dysfunctional.
Nodwick is a more comedic example—in a serious story, Yeagar and Artax would be rather evil, but it's a different genre.
Sure. Comedy, but not spoof. I do think the D&D movie would be seriously remiss to try to take itself too seriously. D&D is not a super serious game. The Princess Bride is pretty much the closest match to a D&D feel you will find, except maybe the first Hobbit movie.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And remember, guys, I don't exactly love the Hobbit movies. But the first one has the right tone. Remember the singing goblin king? Remember the stoner with the rabbit sled? The wacky chase out of the goblin tunnels? That's pretty damn D&D. Hell, describing it, two out of three of those sound like they come right out of Burnt Offerings. ;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the first movie was the best in just capturing the The Hobbit feel, even though it's a bit of a hot mess.
Oh, and don't forget the scene with Gollum and Bilbo. That was probably the best scene of the whole movie, and it feels so much like a D&D encounter: the GM doing his shrill voice as he demands the player answer his riddles, the players half-laughing, half-terrified that their unoptimized rogue is about to get eaten.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chase scenes for the win! :D
And remember, guys, I don't exactly love the Hobbit movies. But the first one has the right tone. Remember the singing goblin king? Remember the stoner with the rabbit sled? The wacky chase out of the goblin tunnels? That's pretty damn D&D. Hell, describing it, two out of three of those sound like they come right out of Burnt Offerings. ;P
The goblin sequence is bad in my opinion. I know what Jackson wanted to show, but the execution is too smooth. It feels studied; at no point you get the impression that the group is in any danger. Compared to the Moria sequence, there is no tension.
And the goblin king speaking with a posh English accent was utter b&@+*!$!.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Hobbit is very different in style and atmosphere from Lord of the Rings. It was always a much less serious story—and a story for kids, not just adults and kids who like etymology. Jackson's greatest mistake was in forgetting that in the next two movies. Also, in making two more movies at all, but that wasn't his call.
The posh goblin king? That fit the tone The Hobbit should have had all the way through. Same with the Pirates of the Caribbean-style chase scene. Remember, in the original story, the dwarves were just a step above comic relief—the bumbling, slightly cowardly lot who Bilbo pretty much carries through the "campaign". They were still fairly likable and respectable, but The Hobbit always presented itself as a bit comedic. Jackson was right to mimic that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll never understand the issues people have with Hobbit being a trilogy. Every time I've seen ANY of Jackson's Tolkien shows I've wanted to see more. The idea that he GAVE us more... Always awesome in my book.
As for the 'shortest book turned into 3 movies'... So what?? Isn't that how the world works right now? Every time I hear any book mentioned, the first thing people say is 'A movie can't do that justice... it should be 13 episode season on XXXXX'
If someone had said that they were making Hobbit as a TV series, I don't think it would have gotten such grief. Instead we got about a 9 hour movie instead of a 13 hour series... Nothing at all was cut out, and some appendix stuff was added in to clean up the franchise ties better.
Honestly, I have no complaints at all with how they handled it. Especially when Del Toro dropped out and Jackson stepped back in. I was over the moon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be very careful with conflating overly long movies and normal-length TV miniseries. They are entirely different animals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually...I kind of hope they shoot for a Guardians of the Galaxy tone. That always seemed very "DnD-ish"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be very careful with conflating overly long movies and normal-length TV miniseries. They are entirely different animals.
True, but at the same time I sat through a LOT of movies... 7 Harry Potters at least listening to fans complain about all the parts they cut out and how the books were so much better... There's a fine line between 'Getting all the good stuff' and 'Overly long'. Five armies is the only one I THINK may have hit that line for me.
Myself, I love extended cuts, director cuts, Deleted scenes.. whatever I can get on MOST movies. Something like LOTR and Hobbit which are so rooted in my RPG lifestyle... The more the merrier. I have the extended cuts of all 6... and if they announced an even longer cut, I'd go get them too.
That's not to say they were perfect or anything. I thought the special effects were just so much more... REAL in LOTR and the CGI looked too 'cartoony' in Hobbit. Filming the dwarves separate from Gandalf annoyed me because I loved the forced perspective 'movie magic' that they did in the first set...
However, overall length was never on my list of complaints.
The Hobbit is very different in style and atmosphere from Lord of the Rings. It was always a much less serious story—and a story for kids, not just adults and kids who like etymology. Jackson's greatest mistake was in forgetting that in the next two movies. Also, in making two more movies at all, but that wasn't his call.
The posh goblin king? That fit the tone The Hobbit should have had all the way through. Same with the Pirates of the Caribbean-style chase scene. Remember, in the original story, the dwarves were just a step above comic relief—the bumbling, slightly cowardly lot who Bilbo pretty much carries through the "campaign". They were still fairly likable and respectable, but The Hobbit always presented itself as a bit comedic. Jackson was right to mimic that.
Oh, yes! Those are totally movies for kids: dismembered goblins, people being burned and crushed and let's not forget almost an hour of wholesale slaughter at the end of the trilogy.
The tone is all over the place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fairy tales are f~$%in' full of dismembered monsters.
That said, the second movie was alright, but failed to match the tone, and the last movie was just Not Very Good. I'm talking solely about the first movie. I'm not even saying the first movie was objectively good, but it ran like a D&D movie.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Fairy tales are f#++in' full of dismembered monsters.
That said, the second movie was alright, but failed to match the tone, and the last movie was just Not Very Good. I'm talking solely about the first movie. I'm not even saying the first movie was objectively good, but it ran like a D&D movie.
KC, I don't think it was objectively good at all. Obviously you loved it so it was subjectively good. I on the other hand couldn't stand it. It felt like watching a cartoon disconnected from reality, with characters falling 50 feet and standing up brushing a bit of dust off and carrying on like nothing happened, video gamesque chases in the mine, and a jumbled plot which was hard to follow, even though I know the book well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I...didn't say I loved it? Please don't put words in my mouth. It just understood the source material the best.
Fairy tales are f$%$in' full of dismembered monsters.
They are, but mostly in small doses, in a poetic justice sort of way. They are also stories to be read. You wouldn't show stuff like that to a child.
The silliness in the first Hobbit movie really doesn't mesh well with the violence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fairy tales are f$%$in' full of dismembered monsters.
They are, but mostly in small doses, in a poetic justice sort of way. They are also stories to be read. You wouldn't show stuff like that to a child.
The silliness in the first Hobbit movie really doesn't mesh well with the violence.
Every parent has different views and opinions on what their children should or should not watch. Americans tend to be more lenient on violence and language and less so on nudity, whereas some in Europe tend to be more lenient on nudity (and sometime language) but less so on violence (in some nations, some nations are different).
BOTH the Hobbit AND The Lord of the Rings were written for children and teenagers.
During Tolkien's time (remember, censorship on movies was going strong at that time, and violence was a LOT less tolerated, especially graphic violence) any of those movies would have been deemed inappropriate for the audiences the books were written for.
But, this is not Tolkien's time.
The movies are not made in the same spirit of his books (or they would have possibly done all they could to get Christopher Tolkien's Approval and the grand applause of the Tolkien estates).
We, in Western Society have changed and with that, come changes in what one may view as appropriate or inappropriate for their children.
I know I've seen kids as young as 3 or 4 watching those movies in the theater when I saw them. The kids didn't seem to turn out violent sociopaths.
Others (for example, I probably would think the movies were a tad too violent for kids) have thought that the movies are not made for kids.
Each parent is different, what one parent might approve, another would disapprove. For some, the Hobbit and LotR (and ironically, Deadpool had some kids under 10...some are WAAAAY more lenient than I) are kids movies...whereas for others, they are not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are, but mostly in small doses, in a poetic justice sort of way. They are also stories to be read. You wouldn't show stuff like that to a child.Fairy tales are f$%$in' full of dismembered monsters.
I never said the movie is like a kids' story. I said the book was, and the first movie captured that better than the rest.