|
Post by geneweigel on May 7, 2013 22:23:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 8, 2013 10:40:08 GMT -5
I'm sure I'll go check it out.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 8, 2013 12:42:08 GMT -5
I checked out all the other crap (except for the Dragonlance cartoon I figured it'd just be Dragonlance.) so why not? I think that this part is the sketchy part: Johnson's screenplay is said to have started its existence as an adaptation of Gygax and Jeff Perren's Chainmail, a 1971 game that preceded D&D. With the rights to the more famous game now at Warner, the script is being rewritten to encompass the broader and more well-known fantasy universe. I hope this means "LETS ADD SOME GREYHAWK" and not "HOW CAN WE REMAKE THE LAST AIRBENDER"?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 8, 2013 14:26:27 GMT -5
Nah, I can't see Greyhawk being done right. I read that statement as using more D&D terminology, spell names, etc, and more archetype character types.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 8, 2013 14:28:12 GMT -5
I liked the scifi channel movie. Good ammount of game references without overdoing it, and an OK story. Effects were limited, but overall, I liked it.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 8, 2013 18:11:20 GMT -5
I was making reference to GREYHAWK the supplement! Oops! I was implying because they said it was going to be this austere attempt at keeping it simple like CHAINMAIL but doctoring it to be "updated" somehow.
Of course, I can see what you mean though if they tried any "world" because they've already shown us no one can do a "D&D world" without getting bland and fearful of trodding on something "canon". Bleargh!
On an aside, in regards to the trends that arise around "D&D" there is one thing good all these D&D negative products have done since the early 80's or so to the present. It is that they've sent all the bizzaro folks to defend something called "D&D" that isn't "D&D" and all the potential and wannabe saviors have played their hands so eventually it'll be dumped into the hands of people like you and me who just like the original styles while the new beast moves on proclaiming its still "D&D". Thats the one big positive that I hold on to regardless of what happens to the name "D&D". That said I'll probably watch the movie and hope they do some justice to Gygax but my expectations will be real low.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on May 9, 2013 8:04:56 GMT -5
The problem with making a D&D movie is that D&D isn't a world or set of stories, it is just a system. The same applies to Chainmail Fantasy Supplement. It just seems like a wrongheaded basis to start from.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 9, 2013 8:56:52 GMT -5
Yeah its hard to defend a script called CHAINMAIL but I've got a feeling that must be what we've been waiting for e.g. something that would make D&D attractive again. That sucks that the corrections are most likely going to recreate the then new CGI/ serious star (Jeremy Irons) mess of 2000.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 9, 2013 8:59:59 GMT -5
Also lets not forget it had Tom Baker and Dave Arneson so its not like there wasn't some nuance of keeping it in the zone. Its the overbaking and Hollywood scrpt doctoring that are going to turn it into a Will Smith dog turd.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 13, 2013 8:41:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 13, 2013 13:03:55 GMT -5
"You are in a courtroom. The rival studio’s attorney is here. What will you do?" That's a great line!
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on May 14, 2013 10:12:08 GMT -5
So, the guy responsible for the year 2000 D&D movie still holds the rights to it -- or at least has a precedent of holding the rights? That's just great.
I don't have a lot of hope.
The more I think about it, D&D isn't any basis for a movie -- it's just a system with a hodgepodge of ingredients. There is no guidance here, nothing to adapt, even for a good scriptwriter.
"Here's some D&D rule books. And some funny looking dice. Turn this into next summer's blockbuster!"
If they picked a D&D novel to adapt, that would at least be some structure to base it off of.
I keep imagining a Chainmail Fantasy Supplement movie as just a big fantasy battle, like the "Battle of the Pelennor Fields" from Return of the King. Now that actually would be something I'd like to see: a dragon showing up on the field of battle, incinerating Swiss pikemen and Landsknecht, countered by a wizard casting a lighting bolt at the dragon, which then flies off. Someone casting an earth elemental to ram a castle gate. French cavalry charging at trolls. Sure, I always want to see more of that sort of thing. But it still needs a decent plot and characters or it won't be any good.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 14, 2013 11:30:29 GMT -5
Thats an interesting expression of what a CHAINMAIL movie might be like but knowing Hollywood it could totally be some forgettable fest if its a Jackson-ized "film ride" as a star vehicle (e.g. Jason Statham and IN THE NAME OF THE KING A DUNGEON SIEGE TALE)
Speaking of of the "Damodar film", I think I might have tossed my D&D dvd but I'm not sure. All of a sudden, I'm intrigued by it because its been so long since I watched it. However I don't know about watching it in this household these days. As my daughter's are kind of aware that I was once well known as a "DM of Quality of the Polyhedral Table", I automatically redirect them away on a routine basis to spare them from low grade fantasy. So watching that crapfest for unintentional Arneson laughs might not be the best idea if they start apologizing for the film.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 14, 2013 12:26:23 GMT -5
Stifle that urge. It's terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 14, 2013 12:42:38 GMT -5
That bad? I recall me and Taylor going downtown without even a few drinks (big mistake) and then apologizing for the film to each other for about a week before eventually just admitting we wasted our entire lives waiting for a D&D movie....
|
|
|
Post by Scott on May 14, 2013 14:50:18 GMT -5
I liked the second one, the one and only time I watched it. Maybe my perception was skewed by how terrble the first one was. I need to watch it again, going into it thinking it is good, and see if it holds up. I have not seen the third one.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on May 14, 2013 18:56:44 GMT -5
I first saw the second one, Wrath of the Dragon God, at your place. I bought it soon after for the Gygax interview. It wasn't a good movie but I appreciated the effort they put into it. They really tried to make it true to D and D and even threw in a few old school references. But some of it was just damn silly.
"The barbarian is very beautiful."
Yeah I agree but I've never seen a barbarian with that much eyeliner before.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 15, 2013 6:26:20 GMT -5
Keep in mind as an example that the movie that I mentioned above (NAME OF THE KING) was adapted from the DUNGEON SIEGE game which had all the generic elements of D&D and the film completely ignored all of it. Mixed class parties, magical weapons, tactical spell casting, D&D-like monsters (even a beholder-like creature, etc.), healing, etc.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on May 20, 2013 9:22:04 GMT -5
I finally got a chance to see SNOW WHITE AND THE HUNTSMAN (2012). It was full of a lot of material that I wanted to see in a fantasy movie so why didn't it sink in?
The FAIL?
Scottish dwarves!!!!
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on May 20, 2013 11:54:17 GMT -5
You would think that the standard accent for dwarves would be Norse or German.
I am imagining some goofier interpretations with Midwestern Scandinavian "Fargo" dwarves or the Swedish chef from the Muppets.
But even that would be better than yet more Scottish dwarves.
Where does the association of Scottish accents with dwarves even come from? I can't think of any Scottish stories or mythologies with dwarves in them.
|
|