Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Sparky takes a look at DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and finds out tons

Hmmm.. I don't think so... by ANGLACON	Jul 7th, 2000 06:37:08 AM
I saw pictures of the orcs... Big rubbery looking things. Might as well put a man in a godzilla suit and have him stomping around. Don't get me wrong, I WILL go and see this movie. But I am not holding out too much hope. Now LOTR, THAT is going to be a movie!
D'OH! by tylerdurden	Jul 7th, 2000 06:48:21 AM
Almost first...
Holy-schlamoly by Andymation	Jul 7th, 2000 06:59:58 AM
This film sounds like it's gonna' rock hard!
whats wrong with godzilla? by brush420	Jul 7th, 2000 07:47:36 AM
I saw the same shot... They look like orcs to me. A small, red, dark, still image is not something you want to make a decision with. I saw a close up of a dragons eye as well, and it looked fucking cool. The sets are fantastic, and its D&D for gods sake! I'm going to see it. If someone doesn't thats just one less person in front of me trying to get a ticket, and missing out to boot.
This film looks very tacky indeed. by Horus	Jul 7th, 2000 08:02:03 AM
What I've seen of D&D so far looks woefully tacky,less like Legend ..and more like Hawk the Slayer, crossed with Drwho !Hearing that the films main dwarf, is played by a 5 foot 8 inch actor , who has to squat down a lot but you won't really notice , doesn't ease my fears... that, this film is going to be cheap shit!
It is all the same by Mjshep	Jul 7th, 2000 08:05:58 AM
Just support sci-fi/fantasy, The producers are not at war. LOTR, Star Wars and DnD are not made so we can fight over if one kicks or not. Chill out, go see the damn movies,and enjoy them all. DnD will kick. LOTR is a monumental story. Star Wars is ground breaking.
Mea Culpa by El_Sparkinado	Jul 7th, 2000 08:21:54 AM
Hey folks...this is Sparky, the guy who posted this. My fault for making this mistake. Lee Arenberg is NOT 5'8, he's 5'4. And the squatting thing is a bowlegged walk that makes him just under 5'0 tall. So, my bad. Sorry again.
Dissent by Jed	Jul 7th, 2000 08:27:11 AM
it is my understanding the mr courtney solomon is something of a prick, actually--who screwed some of his original investors by not paying them up front but giving them back end points on the film--a deal that fell through. unfortunately, THIS WAS THE FX HOUSE DOING THE DRAGON FX and there is something of a question as to where the dragons are going to come from, now. I heard the guy spent a great deal of time arguing with actors/rewriting the script on the set, and that he has little to no film experience. Further more Mr Solomon proposes to create a new D&D world for the film to take place in--WHY? WHY, god, WHY? are there not about a MILLION differnt game worlds to set a story in? and isn't that a guarantee'd fanbase? greyhawk, ravenloft, planescape--hell, pick a forgotten realm--I think this guy just wants royalties if wizards(not TSR, but wizards, the pokemon/magic fuckos) decides to create a game module around his world. I think it's terrible that loyal D&D fans around the world are going to have THIS to represent them in the world of cinema. I'll take that dr demento radio sketch over this any damn day of the week.
Corey Soloman by Glaze	Jul 7th, 2000 08:51:08 AM
I've read a lot of the interviews with the actors in the film and everyone seems to have really enjoyed working with Corey Soloman. I don't know anything about what kind of experience that he has but I do know that he has invested over 10 years of his life into bringing this movie to life. That is the kind of passion that D&D needs to be done correctly. I agree that there are a lot of existing D&D worlds out there that could make great movies such as Dragonlance or Ravenloft (how cool would that be)but I think it is smart from TSR's point of view to make this an unknown world. If the movie ends up sucking then they haven't ruined the movie portrayal of an existing world in the fans' eyes and if the movies kick ass, they can move on to make Dragonlance or Ravenloft or Forgotten Realms or whatever. this movie does not have the huge budget of LOTR but it seems they are making the money they have go a long way. If we can overlook the things that are the direct result of the budget such as the quality of the orcs and judge the movie on its own merits then possibly the backers will give a lot more money for the future movies to fix the problems of the first. On a final note, I would like to request that whoever makes a future D&D movie get Boris Vallejo to design the female armor. Please!!!
D &D:the movie by LordZanthos	Jul 7th, 2000 09:04:31 AM
The thing I would find extremely amusing (were it not for the sad vileness of it) is the penchant of so many talk-back posters to be so implacably, violently against movies and ideas that they know next to nothing of. So you saw a couple production stills... so what, weren't you more aware of the fact that everthing looks crappy in the unlighted, badly photographed stills that are only put out to appeases the increasingly demanding fans. Until a film has been through the final edit, you will never ever have a true honest depiction of what to expect. Final edit will tell the story, not your excessivly opinionated but still entirely ignorant posts. Please give the film a chanc, and wait till you see a screening befor you attach yourself unshakeably to a belief based upon a crappy photo, and rumors. I think D&D will be good, at least there's a fan making the movie, and people involved in it that love the whole idea of fantasy. We should thank our lucky stars and be glad they didn't give the movie to a bloated basticth hack like Joel Schumacher (though he did well on Seven)who knows nothing of the history and doesn't care what current fans desire. I'm seeing D&D, you go too, then form your unmoveable opinion. Peace out True Believers!
hmmm by 41672	Jul 7th, 2000 09:22:09 AM
Lord Zanthos makes a pretty good point until...Joel Schumacher did not direct seven, David Fincher did. Schumacher is not a hack. He just has made the odd bad movie. Every director on earth is guilty of that. This is just a fact of life, with all that goes into make a film sometimes things go wrong. It's a two year project! As for DnD loved the game as a kid but I would rather see an original property brought to the screen. Why must any game or comic that sells more than two copies be made into a bloated peice of hollywood? Somebody just make something up! Till the release date I will suspend judgement. I love swords and wizards and all of that shit but...Ladyhawk, Dragonheart, Firstknight, etc,(o.k films but flawed.) have made me more than cautious. Its always the first timers with a tight budget that drops the ball. Lotr on the other hand I have no fear will infact be the fantasy film I / we have waited for....quietly.
The D&D Trilogy? by ___JonBoy___	Jul 7th, 2000 09:30:07 AM
The D&D Trilogy? Was I the only one who saw that little comment? Now let's see, what other fantasy series has a trilogy? LOTR! Unless I was brain dead, I'd say D&D really does want to enter the franchise movie competition. If it's true D&D is a trilogy, I think I'm going to skip the first episode. I'm sure the next two won't be written until they know what demographic turns out for this movie. (For real yuks, they could title the movies "Beginner", "Expert", "Companion"...) P.S. Don't fuck with Doctor Who and the Green Death!
You hear that, Disney? Room for more than one, you greedy f@cks by Wesley Snipes	Jul 7th, 2000 09:43:17 AM
Two groups with the enlightened idea that during the TWELVE months of a year, two similar films can be released without interfering with each other.
I hate to get into semantics. . . by Seymour Glass	Jul 7th, 2000 09:51:28 AM
but LOTR is not, strictly speaking, a trilogy. A trilogy, by definition, must be three independent works that come together to form a larger whole. In other words, if you must read the first book to understand the last two, the work you are reading is not a trilogy. Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy of _All the Pretty Horses_, _The Crossing_, and _Cities of the Plain_ is a good example of a trilogy. Tolkien in fact intended LOTR to be taken as a whole, not as a trilogy, and even made comments to that effect. Sorry this is off topic, but with all the talk of trilogies on this talk back so far, I had to vent on something that's been bugging me for the past few months that LOTR has been in production.
Actually Cybertooth, by BigBoy	Jul 7th, 2000 10:12:19 AM
Your argument completely backs up Seymour Glass's statement. He's saying that if you have to have read Fellowship to understand Two Towers, then its not a trilogy - its just one HUGE book broken up into smaller parts. Before telling him he's talking out of his ass, try to get what he's really saying because, well, you're saying it, too.
I thought I was fairly clear by Seymour Glass	Jul 7th, 2000 10:14:03 AM
The fact that the individual books of LOTR cannot be understood without having read the preceding books is precisely the reason why LOTR is not a trilogy. Like I said before, to be a trilogy, the three books must make sense independently of each other. The phrase "Frodo Lives" began appearing around America during the early sixties, nearly 4 years after the final volume's release in Britain. Up to the mid to late sixties, the book had only a cult following in America, hence the graffiti on subways, and the buttons that one can still find in some places, proclaiming "Frodo Lives." Tolkien wrote a single book, but he released them as three volumes, not, I reiterate, as three independent novels. My reference to McCarthy's Border Trilogy, I thought, made this point fairly clear. One can read Cities of the Plain without having read the previous two and still understand the plot and the characters. Do you lose some depth of understanding? Of course. That is why it works as a trilogy. But LOTR must be read sequentially to be understandable. Therefore it is a single work of three volumes. And by the way, I agree, D&D looks like it should be quite enjoyable from what I've heard.
Why not use an original world! by diverdan	Jul 7th, 2000 10:17:12 AM
I for one am relieved that the D&D movie will be an original world. That will save us from all the whiners who will piss and moan about the movie not staying true to (world of your choice here). And let's face it, it would be almost certain not to measure up to the devoted fans expectations. Personally I always thought that those prepackaged worlds were a crutch for those who didn't have the time or imagination to make up a world of their own.
That Dr. Demento sketch kicks ass... by Phreeform	Jul 7th, 2000 10:20:59 AM
"Dungeons and Dragons... Satan's game. You children are roleplaying their way into the hands of El Diablo... But don't blame them. Blame their gym teacher, who made fun of them when they couldn't do one single pull-up." That skit was done by the Dead Alewives, who's most prominent member is Rob Schrab, also the author of SCUD: The Disposable Assassin.
Cybertooth by Seymour Glass	Jul 7th, 2000 10:25:33 AM
Hey, that's okay. No big deal. I mean, to be perfectly honest the post didn't really belong in a D&D talkback, but, you know, what can I do about it now? Or as Homer Simpson always says, "Eh, what're ya gonna do?"
D&D and LOTR by Syd Mead	Jul 7th, 2000 11:04:25 AM
The D&D movie as I see it will be like "Wing Commander" was to Star Wars Ep.1" when it arrives the same year as LOTR. No brag just fact. As long as it's not Battlefield Earth bad I'll catch a matinee...--Syd.
Other stories will be made if we support this one by Eyegore	Jul 7th, 2000 11:33:24 AM
Dragonlance, Icewind Dale, Dark Elf Trilogy, Cleric's Quintet, Darksun, etc, etc... So many amazing stories waiting to be made into kick ass movies, but their fates all hang on this one possibly crappy first attempt. We all have to show up for it on the opening weekend dragging as many friends as possible. Hopefully it'll be a really good movie...but even if not we'll have cast our votes for more D&D movies.
Well I don't know much about D&D. by Prankster	Jul 7th, 2000 12:31:14 PM
I haven't played it a lot. I do have a pretty good understanding of it, but if someone wants to correct me, that's fine. Maybe the D&D stories are heartfelt, sweeping epics full of passion and emotionally rich characters. But generally I'm forced to conclude that D&D is based more on coldly mechanical statistics and elaborate rules (like +1 maces and all that gibberish) than the imagination and emotion that the genre should be based on. The mere fact that Solomon put so much stock in recreating "the rules of the game" in the movie strikes me as a bad sign. All D&D and it's ilk are just 5th-generation knock-offs of Tolkien anyway, and all they have to offer is superficial additions like "cool new creatures" and such. But emotionally and dramatically, Tolkien already said everything that can really be said with the "sword and sorcery" genre, so why do we need this movie? Just as Fantasy is preparing to become a legitimate genre on the screen at least, with the release of LOTR, we get this trashy tag-along to drag the genre back to the level it's been at for thirty years. Fantasy is the genre with the most possible room, it can be so much more than burly guys hacking away at "orcs". Orcs! Tolkien created Orcs! The current status quo of fantasy is as if every SF story featured "jedi" and "the force"! Use your imagination, guys!!!
In your dreams by Barash	Jul 7th, 2000 12:51:13 PM
How can these people even mention D&D in the same breath as LOTR you don't make a decent film with $30million nowadays, the damn thing is a board game they would have been better using the D&D cartoon as their model for the film Venger, Hank et al
don't believe the hype by JASPER	Jul 7th, 2000 12:58:18 PM
seen the film...it's a ripoff of the matrix, raiders and star wars a new hope...the effects will be good, but who cares....and one of the wayans brothers plays a live action Jar Jar! Oh my!
On a slightly irrelevant but still fantasy related note... by mephisto666	Jul 7th, 2000 01:49:32 PM
...Ridley, where is my fucking Legend DVD?!!
Fantasy Properties by DarthPaul	Jul 7th, 2000 10:09:51 PM
D&D may not turn out to be the greatest fantasy film ever...well actually it could quite easily...but I am definitely going to see it asa stop gap until LOTR Let me ask you all this; if you could buy any fantasy property rights, what would it be?
Typical... by Azeem	Jul 8th, 2000 04:09:16 AM
The film is going to be crap... The film will suck... How many of you were actually at the preview screening at DragonCon 2000? I was there and saw the tape. I have no doubts DnD will not make as much as LOTR, the Bone Church and that Opera House they used look absolutely killer. The dragons did look unfinished but to see a bunch of wizards launch fireballs from the balcony just kicked ass. Everyone who has seen the preview thought the DnD movie might actually have a chance. And which fantasy rights would I grab? No question, Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan. I think its the best fantasy series evey made.
On what fantasy property.... by Vance Castaway	Jul 8th, 2000 05:11:52 AM
If you can think of a fantasy series, or for that matter any singular fantasy work, I've probably read it. Not to boast, just a statement of fact. What fantasy series would I pick? Has anyone out there read The Fionavar Tapestry, by Guy Gavriel Kay? Simply one of the most beautiful works of fiction of any genre I have ever read. The foozle (supreme bad dude) goes by the monicker... The Unraveller. In a scene early on in the books, he performs an act of such brutal severity, you end up actually feeling real fear. The books are astonishingly well-written, and feature some of the most wonderfully developed characters you will ever encounter. Many, many, wonderful surprises too. Hope this answers your query DP.
Or... by Vance Castaway	Jul 8th, 2000 05:20:27 AM
For something completely different, you could never go wrong with the Icewind Dale books by R.A. Salvatore. Sure, they have more of a pulp novel feel to them, but does anyone actually not love Drizzt? They may be simple, D&D-based novels, but they would make wonderful movies. And, of course, you couldn't go wrong with The Wheel of Time. Have a great day!
Some of you guys know waaaaayyyy too much about this by Blair_jedi	Jul 8th, 2000 06:43:14 AM
Reading these posts I'm like, "Damn I stopped playing this game when I was about 16." I've heard of Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and some of what you guys are talking about but very little details. I can see a lot of you killing your parents because Tor Mudslinger used a 4th level fireball against a red dragon or a kill spell versus undead and neither work! People, people, people. Let's remember that this is likely to be, at best, a DECENT movie. This is not the D&D that you play every weekend until 4 a.m. nor is it truly based on any fantasy worlds you may have "gamed" in before. Take a deep breath and go back to your Dragon magazines. Myself I would love this to be a spoof in the vein of Ringo Star's "Caveman." Make it so stupid and lame that you bust your gut laughing. If it has the possibility of being a b-movie then have fun with it.
Support the D&D movie by Eyegore	Jul 8th, 2000 07:40:59 AM
regarding the previous post... Hey, so cool of you to pick on D&D and make fun of it and people who play it. 4th level fireball/kill spell indeed... Anyway, there's enough of that already, so the last thing we want to see is a parody that makes fun of itself. I ran a very good D&D game into my late 20's. I've seen that people's preceptions of the game depend entirely on the playing group. Some are played well and some not so well. Think of it like basing your opinion of TV entirely on all episodes of three's company vs star trek the next generation. Entirely different perceptions of the same medium. To some people it's the D&D cartoon and mortal combat, and to others it's braveheart and dragonslayer. This movie could go either way or in between. I don't think it'll come close to LOTR in ticket sales but that doesn't mean it's going to be a failure. I hope it does at least good enough for a sequal, hopefully with a much bigger budget. I'll be there on opening day to show my support because I really REALLY want to see some of those novels made into movies.
Fionavar Tapestry by Elliot_Kane	Jul 8th, 2000 10:17:22 AM
Brilliant story but the ending sucked. Kay was too desperate to have an unconventional ending, so created an unbelievable one instead. As for LOTR being so unbelievably good it can't be beaten, don't forget that they are changing bits of the story to fit in with the director's vision. This could be good or it could be truly appalling. Expanding the role of Arwen Undomiel might work,or may backfire spectacularly. Let's not get our hopes too high. The D&D film will not really be based on the game. Let's face it, everyone has their own definition of role playing, and their own idea of what the game is all about. I'm just glad that Hollywood have finally realised the main market for Sword & Sorcery adults not children.
Yes! A Guy Kay fan! by Alessan	Jul 8th, 2000 01:38:15 PM
Walk with me, brother, for we have huch to talk about... I'd prefer a filmed version of Arbonne or Tigana (of course) over Fionavar - they're shorter and more mature (and let's face it - less derivative. If Fionavar wasn't so damn good it would be horrible). But please, film the man!****** Cracky & co.: if you want to make a film based on Death Gate, do you mind writing an ending? The first five books were the best writing W&H ever did - and I'm a fan - but the last two are just white noise.They were so poorly written I honestly cannot remember what happened in them.****** Another writer who should be filmed, immediately, is Stephen R. Donaldson. True story: Eight years ago I was talking with an old friend of my father's, a VERY highly ranked studio executive. We were discussing the books I was reading now, and I mentioned the Thomas Covenant stories. He diplayed some interest and asked me what they were about, saying that maybe there was a film in there; I told him that no way that series could be filmed - it was too large-scaled, too emotionally intense. He dropped the subject. ****** I was pretty much a dork at the time. 18 years old, but a dork.
Seymour Glass & "trilogy" by Saragon	Jul 8th, 2000 03:24:27 PM
Funny...my dictionary defines "trilogy" as "a series of three dramas or literary works or sometimes three musical compositions that are closely related and develop a single theme". LOTR seems to be a trilogy indeed, although I can see how, with your definition, LOTR doesn't qualify as a trilogy. But where did your definition come from? Anyway.......as usual I'm completely off topic :) But that one really threw me, cuz I've never seen anyone protest that LOTR is a trilogy...
YOU KNOW YOU WILL by anime_guy	Jul 8th, 2000 06:04:43 PM
If you have ever played the game (and I bet most of us here have) you are going to have this conversation. "Oh come on what level is he that dice roll is impossible" "he can't make that saving throw" "the human can not possible make that shot in the dark they don't have inforvision" "What lv do you think he was at when the movie started ... Yeah but by the end he's what 25 lv no can get that much XP for what happened in this movie" "This movie is so UNREALISTIC"
You crazy cats by Hildago	Jul 8th, 2000 08:33:09 PM
I just think it's funny how everyone is getting into violent arguments about Lord of the Rings and Dungeons and Dragons. "I will fuck you up if you insult Frodo one more damn time!"
this movie will rock!!! by cird	Jul 8th, 2000 09:43:19 PM
I think this movie will be great and something complete different from LOTR....And I really want to see this trailer!!!! .............................. .Cheers, Cirdan.............. http://www.dungeons-and-dragon s.de
Fantasy series I'd like to see on the big screen by swavill	Jul 9th, 2000 01:06:17 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with the Death Gate idea. it would be cool to see the Labyrinth on screen.Some others that would adapt well would be Roger Zelazny's Amber series ,The Belgariad series by David Eddings ,The Riddlemaster of Hed by Patricia McKillip,and the Rift War Saga by Raymond Feist.
Tigana by Elliot_Kane	Jul 9th, 2000 04:59:28 AM
Alessan, you are so right about Tigana being not only more original but also a better bet for the big screen. As to the Deathgate Cycle, I think the sheer length of it makes it more suited to a television adaptation. It is way past time that the TV execs realised exactly what their medium is capable of. Back to films - David Gemmell's 'Legend'is surely made for the big screen?
Fantasy Series Winner..... by Ajjaxx	Jul 9th, 2000 12:53:33 PM
I feel compelled to mention the COLDFIRE TRILOGY by C.S. Friedman as one of the great Storyline/Settings/Magic Systems for its originality and maturity. Any one else here read it, think it would make a truly "Magic" movie?
Donaldson/Kaye by Lorrimer	Jul 10th, 2000 01:15:09 AM
After LOTR, Tigana would be my first choice for a sword movie. The Covenant series wouldn't make a good movie, but Donaldon's sci-fi Gap series (five novels comprising one big story, absolutely dependent on each other like LOTR) as a movie would make me so happy I would freak the fuck out.
by Alessan	Jul 10th, 2000 04:46:16 AM
Death Gate - the reason these books cannot be filmed is because, simply, they have no ending. I refuse to accept the last two books as part of this superior series - in fact, I have a feeling they were written because of contractual obligations, and not because they wanted to finish the series. Perhaps they even wrote the books poorly on purpose; perhaps they didn't even write them. Whatever the reason may be, the conclusion of the saga was just white noise, no more. Just like the last two books in Robert Jordan's misguided epic, the characters went here, they went there, they acted anguished, there was some sort of rushed resolution. I'm sorry, but why does the hero have to become a wimp in order to prove his redemption? Why were so many threads (dragons, titans etc.)left untied? And Maggie, Tracy: If you introduce a strangely familiar caracter in book 2, and use him to wink at all of us fans for the remainder of the series, insinuating at the end that he is actually NOT the same familiar character is not a "twist". It is a gyp.******** The Gap Cycle - Amen to that, although I doubt Hollywood has the balls to film such a complex, mature science-fiction movie. Just in case they do - how about Harvey Keitel fo Angus? Imagine him saying "Captain Sheepfucker". **** Tigana... may my memory of you be like a blade in my soul. Yes, friends, I'm a fanboy, albeit a very rarifed sort.
I'm sorry, CyberTooth... by Alessan	Jul 10th, 2000 09:58:18 AM
... but that just doesn't wash. Sure, I saw the wink, wink, nudge,nudge side of it, but I assumed that the character was there for a reason; in other words, Zifnab was indeed Fizban, and Fizban was really Paladine, and Paladine is a God. I therefore waited six books for him to manifest himself - because let's face it, what W&H do best is religeous fantasy - and instead I got a half-assed insinuation that he was some sort of brain-damaged Sartan. It's like Lucas filming EP3 without Anakin turning into Vader.
Book Characters by Elliot_Kane	Jul 10th, 2000 10:43:02 AM
It seems to me that any author who 'borrows' an entire character from their past work and transplants it whole into their new one is just being lazy. Or running out of ideas. Either way is not good.
No, No, No by Alessan	Jul 10th, 2000 11:04:20 AM
Still han't convinced me, pal. Why should I care who publihed the books? The character was there for a purpose, and if it wasn't supposed to be the same one from the earlier book, than there was no need to give him an identical description, identical personality and (nearly) identical name. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then I sure as hell expect it to be duck - or I expect a damn good reason why it's impersonating a duck. "Sorry, you were wrong" just dosn't cut it. As for your Clancy example: yes, of course I would. Why don't you try to convince Stephen King that the Flagg characters from the Stand and from the Dark Tower (not to mention the Eyes of the Dragon) have absolutely no connection between them?
Clarification by Elliot_Kane	Jul 10th, 2000 11:40:18 AM
Hmmm... I just read my last comment over, and it is not really clear. What I mean is that a new character on a new world (New publisher or not) will carry his or her own back history, which should make that character unique. Thus, it is lazy (not to mention inept) to use the personality of an old character - unless the two are really the same character. Is that clearer?
to jump in... by Swithin	Jul 10th, 2000 02:15:50 PM
First off, D&D looks to be developing nicely, and I don't think that mirroring the XP and play system will detract from the movie at all. --- Second, the only major modern fantasy series I can picture translating to screen well (TWoT can't - can one break the canon? No. So the producers would have to include a lot of shite and the back-story and history of randland is the most interesting part of the series -- how could a director include all of that?!?) is George R R Martin's A Song of Fire and Ice. So what if he's just finished book three of six? Martin's books are heavily based on the people and societies which inhabit his fantastic world, and all the elements of magic are treated with wonder and astonishment, for they are rare... and this is what a filmified fantasy series needs. Go light on the CGI, heavy on the characters, politics, and real world. At least that's what I would need to be sold...
My God! by Alessan	Jul 10th, 2000 02:55:01 PM
He's finished book no. 3? When's it coming out?
Tad Williams? by Silverloc	Jul 10th, 2000 03:03:54 PM
Does anyone think Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn set-of-three-(or four)-books-which-may-or-may-n ot-be-considered-a-trilogy would make a good series of movies? I thought the books were awesome, mostly because Williams' world seemed more complete than other fantasy worlds I've read about. I really admired the way he established different cultures, their languages, their customs, and their inter-relationships with one another even when those relationships didn't have a direct bearing on his story. I suppose that same complexity would be difficult to film clearly, though.... Oh well, just a thought.
D&D script by crye	Jul 10th, 2000 07:12:02 PM

D&D script by crye	Jul 10th, 2000 07:15:44 PM
The script for the D&D movie - and I've read two drafts - is so atrocious that those effects better kick ass if only to distract. Maybe the score will drown out the miserable dialogue. I think its hilarious that Corey, the director, had the nerve to think that LOTR and his film may be in competition. Peter Jackson should be just as nervous if USA Network plans a BEASTMASTER marathon for LOTR's opening night.
keitel by Lorrimer	Jul 11th, 2000 12:33:49 AM
I think Billy Bob Thornton would be a better Angus, actually, with Denzel Washington or Johnny Depp as Nick. This is a fun game. In my dreams, the Coens will adapt Donaldson's Gap series for the big screen. Dave Letterman as The Bill.
Have to agree by mier	Jul 12th, 2000 04:00:43 PM
I have to agree on the nominations for Tad Williams' and C.S. Friedman's work. Both would be amazing to see on film, though they would both need at least a trilogy of films to do them any sort of justice.

Talkbacks

Sparky takes a look at DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and finds out tons

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks