I just hope they'll actually put effort into telling a good story instead of churning out some terrible dreck while counting on brand recognition and the named stars in it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Though the movie is getting the most attention right now, it was also announced that a live action spin-off television show is also in the works, announced back in February. I suspect that this survey is trying to garner some information about what kinds of things viewers would like to populate the TV show.
I really dread a goofy comedie with just some one liners and cgi. I hope they have a good story first that works without DnD attached. It doesn’t have to be LotR but Peter Jackson was able to present a believable fantasy world and relatable characters with flaws and strengths that slowly developed as a group, which a DnD group is too. I also hope it having a more serious vibe like the Witcher. What I really would hate is things like dice rolling or a switching between our world and the made up DnD world.
I think it is a very difficult task as so many people want so many different things. I just hope it’ll be ok.
You're pronouncing the problem or challenge of adapting D&D into a movie and not seeing it. Peter Jackson and the Witcher crew were adapting composed and contained _stories_. It's using film in its most basic linear narrative form and using it to capture a linear narrative (with a long long tradition of film adapting prose fiction).
With D&D they need to make up a contained story that captures "all the things" or figure out what are the "essential" things to capture D&D. That's a very different undertaking,
The survey is basically "we made the movie already, but tell us what to highlight to make it look good."
Re: TV. I think the questions on details were specifically formulated as "in a D&D movie, would you want to see..." They wouldn't frame it like that if they were really asking about the TV development, the Amazon development deal is no secret. A lot of the details (like displacer beast) are stuff that have been floated in the press for the movie for a while now. I'm telling ya, this is work to edit a trailer that will get buzz not disappointment. Summer's almost here and for a Marchish 2023 date, teasers come out now, full trailers in the Fall.
The movie is quite literally in the can. Shooting is wrapped. The only logical reason for the poll is for a 2nd movie, or molding trailers that deceive the viewer into thinking the movie is one thing or another.
It is truly a cynical move by WOTC (let's be clear, in less than 72 hours this site is WOTC property. But, I am sure there are a ton of "fans" who will plunk down cash to see the movie asap.
Polling your perspective audience when you are in the process of writing a television show is hardly "cynical"--that is just how one gets the best information about what folks might want to see. It's pretty basic marketing research that anyone adapting a new franchise is going to want to do--particularly a franchise that is so open-ended, so it could be easy to go down a path the creators might find interesting, but which does not appeal to the majority of D&D players.
Could it be that they are trying to deceive viewers? Perhaps... but let's use a bit of common sense. As you point out, D&D fans are going to drop money to go see it in theatres, likely regardless of the trailer--if Wizards/Hasbro want to make money, they are not going to want to tailor the trailer to those they already are likely to sell tickets to, they're going to tailor it to those who are not invested enough in D&D to respond to a poll on a D&D site.
The "cynical" interpretation is a rather nonsensical one--though one that is easy to jump to if one is cynical themselves.
I'm wondering if they'll go the Jumanji route. It would explain the questions about musicless Bards and unsneaky Rogues.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I just hope they'll actually put effort into telling a good story instead of churning out some terrible dreck while counting on brand recognition and the named stars in it.
That's exactly what they did in 2000, and their "named stars" were Jeremy Irons and Marlon Wayans...that movie was an insult to anybody that is actually a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. They just made a bad fantasy movie with a half-assed plot and bad acting, threw in some gratuitous high-end special effects and the most cliched nerd jokes they could find then slapped the D&D label on it. Their idea of a "dungeon" was a knockoff Jim Henson Studios version of an American Gladiators obstacle course and "Oh yeah the title says dragons so we're going to throw in literally a thousand actually appearing out of nowhere for the big climax."
I'm hoping they don't do that again (more like haven't done) but a some of the questions seem to indicate seeking validation more than information and also suggest that the person writing it didn't know the material. Little things that someone unfamiliar wouldn't even notice but just about anybody who's played the game to a serious extent (aka "a fan of the game") would recognize instantly. Things like "magic suppression spell" instead of "dispel magic" in the list of spells, or "berserker rage" instead of "barbarian rage" as a class ability (yes I know berserker is a subclass with extra rage features but I seriously doubt that whoever wrote that even knows what a subclass is).
The thing that worried me the most, in the beginning they were asking about how much we like various movie genres and one of the questions was if we like comedies. 😟 Anyone else getting flashbacks to this travesty?
Yeah that's why I answered on the open questions Not a Comedy! Seems I'm skipping the movie.
If a story is strong enough on its own, it doesn't need expectations to distract people. If D&D in the title is necessary to drag people to the theaters/theatres, the story is usually very weak, and nothing saves a weak story except a cult following that comes far too late in the monetary schedule.
All they need to do is inspire people about the D&D world and use a few proprietary things. They won't need to stick "D&D" in the title or directly in the movie. People will go online to learn more and find out about it and see how they can get it for themselves. I know the primary purpose is advertising, but there are better ways to advertise a good impression that sticks with potential customers than just slapping on a label and hoping star power will sell it for you.
D&D comes with expectations and given the broad range of playstyles and interpretations, no one production will ever meet the expectations of "D&D". A non-denomination fantasy film of excellent quality will lead them to D&D if there are no expectations as long as you don't tell them that "this is D&D".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
Just follow a loved module. Tweak the spellcasting so it works for screen where needed and follow the very well defined structure.
In the advice bit, I put stay faithful to the existing product as that is what has made it sucessful. Don't go down the ignoring everything that brought it a fanbase in order to 'mainstream' it and thereby guarenteeing disappointment amongst existing fans and a shrug of the shoulders by everyone else. Hopper/Hoskins Super Mario Bros, the 2000 D&D movie, the run of mid-2010's 80's TV reboots as comedy vehicles etc..
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
Just follow a loved module. Tweak the spellcasting so it works for screen where needed and follow the very well defined structure.
In the advice bit, I put stay faithful to the existing product as that is what has made it sucessful. Don't go down the ignoring everything that brought it a fanbase in order to 'mainstream' it and thereby guarenteeing disappointment amongst existing fans and a shrug of the shoulders by everyone else. Hopper/Hoskins Super Mario Bros, the 2000 D&D movie, the run of mid-2010's 80's TV reboots as comedy vehicles etc..
Yeah, one of the first set of questions included one about "adding never before seen things" or something along those lines. No, a thousand times no. You don't advertise something as an existing IP then say "but it's different!" People are not going to watch a D&D movie because they want to see something that has never been associated with D&D. That is the exact opposite of why you label something as a pre-existing IP.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
You got all that from a survey, huh
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Oh, come on. The movie was so bad it was accidentally hilarious! I absolutely loved how awful it was. Like every scene had me laughing my ass off at it.
Oh, come on. The movie was so bad it was accidentally hilarious! I absolutely loved how awful it was. Like every scene had me laughing my ass off at it.
My take was that is was just bad and flat out insulting to people that actually play the game. Half of the jokes were the dumbest things that were vaguely D&D related memes in 2000 and the other half were just making fun of idiot nerds with no social skills. There wasn't a single spell cast that resembled anything from D&D. Then there was Marlon Wayans' character, which was poorly written, poorly directed, and even more poorly acted (which made Snails a concentrated microcosm of the entire movie).
Since when was their a D&D movie and how does it actually relate to D&D?
Since 2000, and it was terrible in ever possible unironic way except for some (at the time) state of the art special effects for the huge swarms of dragons that appear at the end because dragons are in the title and they needed dragons. I love corny movies and this was not "so bad it's good" it's just bad. There have been two more movies since labeled with the official D&D IP that were not theatrical releases; one was a half decent low budget fantasy B movie but generally unspectacular and I never got around to seeing the other one.
More immediately there has been a new official Dungeons and Dragons movie in production since pre-pandemic that's scheduled to be finally released next year, titled Dungeons and Dragons: Honor A,ong Thieves." It stars Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez which has a lot of people feeling optimistic. Personally I'm hoping for something decent and still preparing for another Hollywood grade big budget $&%@ show.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
You got all that from a survey, huh
Rest assured, the movie will manage to be worse than everyone's worst fears. Look at the credits of the two co-directors. Daley and Goldstein. Yes, they were heavily involved with Spiderman_Homecoming, which was excellent. Other than that, oh man...their track record is NOT one of fantasy, but of dark comedy. This movie is simply the standard trope of corporations cashing in on a fad.
If the decision-makers were serious about making a real D&D move, they would have lined up Del Toro or Jackson.
**** no, not Del Toro, anyone but Del Toro. I’d take Tarantino over Del Toro and I don’t even like half his movies. ****, Shumacher over Del Toro and I can’t stand Shumacher at all after what he did to poor Batman.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
You got all that from a survey, huh
Rest assured, the movie will manage to be worse than everyone's worst fears. Look at the credits of the two co-directors. Daley and Goldstein. Yes, they were heavily involved with Spiderman_Homecoming, which was excellent. Other than that, oh man...their track record is NOT one of fantasy, but of dark comedy. This movie is simply the standard trope of corporations cashing in on a fad.
If the decision-makers were serious about making a real D&D move, they would have lined up Del Toro or Jackson.
**** no, not Del Toro, anyone but Del Toro. I’d take Tarantino over Del Toro and I don’t even like half his movies. ****, Shumacher over Del Toro and I can’t stand Shumacher at all after what he did to poor Batman.
Del Toro is a genius. Forget about the dinosaur vs giant robot movie. Watch Pan's Labyrinth. He at least grasps fantasy. Clowns who did Horrible Bosses II should never ever be allowed within 100 miles of a D&D movie set.
I hated Pan’s Labyrinth. I’ve never heard about any Dino Vs. Giant Robot movie of his because I can’t stand Del Toro’s aesthetics, his Hellboy was barely watchable. (Of course, I’ve never heard of Horrible Bosses, let alone Horrible Bosses II either.)
I just hope they'll actually put effort into telling a good story instead of churning out some terrible dreck while counting on brand recognition and the named stars in it.
That's exactly what they did in 2000, and their "named stars" were Jeremy Irons and Marlon Wayans...that movie was an insult to anybody that is actually a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. They just made a bad fantasy movie with a half-assed plot and bad acting, threw in some gratuitous high-end special effects and the most cliched nerd jokes they could find then slapped the D&D label on it. Their idea of a "dungeon" was a knockoff Jim Henson Studios version of an American Gladiators obstacle course and "Oh yeah the title says dragons so we're going to throw in literally a thousand actually appearing out of nowhere for the big climax."
I'm hoping they don't do that again (more like haven't done) but a some of the questions seem to indicate seeking validation more than information and also suggest that the person writing it didn't know the material. Little things that someone unfamiliar wouldn't even notice but just about anybody who's played the game to a serious extent (aka "a fan of the game") would recognize instantly. Things like "magic suppression spell" instead of "dispel magic" in the list of spells, or "berserker rage" instead of "barbarian rage" as a class ability (yes I know berserker is a subclass with extra rage features but I seriously doubt that whoever wrote that even knows what a subclass is).
Yes, I remember that movie and that's what I was thinking of when I said that. I've never had high hopes for this film.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
You got all that from a survey, huh
Rest assured, the movie will manage to be worse than everyone's worst fears. Look at the credits of the two co-directors. Daley and Goldstein. Yes, they were heavily involved with Spiderman_Homecoming, which was excellent. Other than that, oh man...their track record is NOT one of fantasy, but of dark comedy. This movie is simply the standard trope of corporations cashing in on a fad.
If the decision-makers were serious about making a real D&D move, they would have lined up Del Toro or Jackson.
**** no, not Del Toro, anyone but Del Toro. I’d take Tarantino over Del Toro and I don’t even like half his movies. ****, Shumacher over Del Toro and I can’t stand Shumacher at all after what he did to poor Batman.
Del Toro is a genius. Forget about the dinosaur vs giant robot movie. Watch Pan's Labyrinth. He at least grasps fantasy. Clowns who did Horrible Bosses II should never ever be allowed within 100 miles of a D&D movie set.
I hated Pan’s Labyrinth. I’ve never heard about any Dino Vs. Giant Robot movie of his because I can’t stand Del Toro’s aesthetics, his Hellboy was barely watchable. (Of course, I’ve never heard of Horrible Bosses, let alone Horrible Bosses II either.)
If you hated Pan's Labyrinth, and you don't know of his Dino vs Giant Robot movie, I don't think your opinions on movies bear a lot of weight. Same goes for HB I and II. Or Game Night, another one of the movies the newly christened stewards of D&D movies created.
Pan’s Labyrinth was so ugly to look at and so hard to follow I checked out less than halfway through. I tried to give it a second chance once and it only reaffirmed my previous opinions. Everyone keeps saying what a genius Del Toro is and I just don’t see it. 🤷♂️ (Of course, everyone said Emeril Lagasse is a genius too and I think he’s a total hack with an annoying gimmick. And I was a professional chef for years, so I’ma take my word for it.)
I heard excellent things about Game Night however, mostly from the actors I currently work with. So I’m planning on giving it a go when it comes up on Netflix. I’ll give you a review of that after I watch it if you want.
I just hope they'll actually put effort into telling a good story instead of churning out some terrible dreck while counting on brand recognition and the named stars in it.
That's exactly what they did in 2000, and their "named stars" were Jeremy Irons and Marlon Wayans...that movie was an insult to anybody that is actually a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. They just made a bad fantasy movie with a half-assed plot and bad acting, threw in some gratuitous high-end special effects and the most cliched nerd jokes they could find then slapped the D&D label on it. Their idea of a "dungeon" was a knockoff Jim Henson Studios version of an American Gladiators obstacle course and "Oh yeah the title says dragons so we're going to throw in literally a thousand actually appearing out of nowhere for the big climax."
I'm hoping they don't do that again (more like haven't done) but a some of the questions seem to indicate seeking validation more than information and also suggest that the person writing it didn't know the material. Little things that someone unfamiliar wouldn't even notice but just about anybody who's played the game to a serious extent (aka "a fan of the game") would recognize instantly. Things like "magic suppression spell" instead of "dispel magic" in the list of spells, or "berserker rage" instead of "barbarian rage" as a class ability (yes I know berserker is a subclass with extra rage features but I seriously doubt that whoever wrote that even knows what a subclass is).
Yes, I remember that movie and that's what I was thinking of when I said that. I've never had high hopes for this film.
Oh yeah, one I forgot at the time, but the survey also asks for opinions on, and I quote, "a powerful magic item." Not any specific magic item, several of which were also asked about, but they specifically want opinions on the inclusion of something that is completely undefined and basically screams "macguffin that renders everything else pointless" like the absurd dragon staves in the 2000 movie. So while I still want something good to come of this movie I won't be surprised if it's another mockery of the hobby resulting from Hollywood idiots trying to cash in on something they don't understand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just hope they'll actually put effort into telling a good story instead of churning out some terrible dreck while counting on brand recognition and the named stars in it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'm really hoping for a movie about the Lost Mines of Phandelver, Reavers of Harkenwold, or Keep on the Shadowfell.
Thanks Linklite and IamSposta!
Though the movie is getting the most attention right now, it was also announced that a live action spin-off television show is also in the works, announced back in February. I suspect that this survey is trying to garner some information about what kinds of things viewers would like to populate the TV show.
You're pronouncing the problem or challenge of adapting D&D into a movie and not seeing it. Peter Jackson and the Witcher crew were adapting composed and contained _stories_. It's using film in its most basic linear narrative form and using it to capture a linear narrative (with a long long tradition of film adapting prose fiction).
With D&D they need to make up a contained story that captures "all the things" or figure out what are the "essential" things to capture D&D. That's a very different undertaking,
The survey is basically "we made the movie already, but tell us what to highlight to make it look good."
Re: TV. I think the questions on details were specifically formulated as "in a D&D movie, would you want to see..." They wouldn't frame it like that if they were really asking about the TV development, the Amazon development deal is no secret. A lot of the details (like displacer beast) are stuff that have been floated in the press for the movie for a while now. I'm telling ya, this is work to edit a trailer that will get buzz not disappointment. Summer's almost here and for a Marchish 2023 date, teasers come out now, full trailers in the Fall.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Polling your perspective audience when you are in the process of writing a television show is hardly "cynical"--that is just how one gets the best information about what folks might want to see. It's pretty basic marketing research that anyone adapting a new franchise is going to want to do--particularly a franchise that is so open-ended, so it could be easy to go down a path the creators might find interesting, but which does not appeal to the majority of D&D players.
Could it be that they are trying to deceive viewers? Perhaps... but let's use a bit of common sense. As you point out, D&D fans are going to drop money to go see it in theatres, likely regardless of the trailer--if Wizards/Hasbro want to make money, they are not going to want to tailor the trailer to those they already are likely to sell tickets to, they're going to tailor it to those who are not invested enough in D&D to respond to a poll on a D&D site.
The "cynical" interpretation is a rather nonsensical one--though one that is easy to jump to if one is cynical themselves.
I'm wondering if they'll go the Jumanji route. It would explain the questions about musicless Bards and unsneaky Rogues.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's exactly what they did in 2000, and their "named stars" were Jeremy Irons and Marlon Wayans...that movie was an insult to anybody that is actually a fan of Dungeons and Dragons. They just made a bad fantasy movie with a half-assed plot and bad acting, threw in some gratuitous high-end special effects and the most cliched nerd jokes they could find then slapped the D&D label on it. Their idea of a "dungeon" was a knockoff Jim Henson Studios version of an American Gladiators obstacle course and "Oh yeah the title says dragons so we're going to throw in literally a thousand actually appearing out of nowhere for the big climax."
I'm hoping they don't do that again (more like haven't done) but a some of the questions seem to indicate seeking validation more than information and also suggest that the person writing it didn't know the material. Little things that someone unfamiliar wouldn't even notice but just about anybody who's played the game to a serious extent (aka "a fan of the game") would recognize instantly. Things like "magic suppression spell" instead of "dispel magic" in the list of spells, or "berserker rage" instead of "barbarian rage" as a class ability (yes I know berserker is a subclass with extra rage features but I seriously doubt that whoever wrote that even knows what a subclass is).
Yeah that's why I answered on the open questions Not a Comedy! Seems I'm skipping the movie.
My concern is sticking D&D in the title.
If a story is strong enough on its own, it doesn't need expectations to distract people. If D&D in the title is necessary to drag people to the theaters/theatres, the story is usually very weak, and nothing saves a weak story except a cult following that comes far too late in the monetary schedule.
All they need to do is inspire people about the D&D world and use a few proprietary things. They won't need to stick "D&D" in the title or directly in the movie. People will go online to learn more and find out about it and see how they can get it for themselves. I know the primary purpose is advertising, but there are better ways to advertise a good impression that sticks with potential customers than just slapping on a label and hoping star power will sell it for you.
D&D comes with expectations and given the broad range of playstyles and interpretations, no one production will ever meet the expectations of "D&D". A non-denomination fantasy film of excellent quality will lead them to D&D if there are no expectations as long as you don't tell them that "this is D&D".
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yeah so of those questions have me concerned that either they are A) Directionless or B) they've gone for the 'unexpected turn the archetypes on the head' route and this is someones attempt to show how that may cause backlash.
Just follow a loved module. Tweak the spellcasting so it works for screen where needed and follow the very well defined structure.
In the advice bit, I put stay faithful to the existing product as that is what has made it sucessful. Don't go down the ignoring everything that brought it a fanbase in order to 'mainstream' it and thereby guarenteeing disappointment amongst existing fans and a shrug of the shoulders by everyone else. Hopper/Hoskins Super Mario Bros, the 2000 D&D movie, the run of mid-2010's 80's TV reboots as comedy vehicles etc..
Yeah, one of the first set of questions included one about "adding never before seen things" or something along those lines. No, a thousand times no. You don't advertise something as an existing IP then say "but it's different!" People are not going to watch a D&D movie because they want to see something that has never been associated with D&D. That is the exact opposite of why you label something as a pre-existing IP.
You got all that from a survey, huh
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Oh, come on. The movie was so bad it was accidentally hilarious! I absolutely loved how awful it was. Like every scene had me laughing my ass off at it.
I know that I may seem negligent, BUT WHAT?
Since when was their a D&D movie and how does it actually relate to D&D?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.My take was that is was just bad and flat out insulting to people that actually play the game. Half of the jokes were the dumbest things that were vaguely D&D related memes in 2000 and the other half were just making fun of idiot nerds with no social skills. There wasn't a single spell cast that resembled anything from D&D. Then there was Marlon Wayans' character, which was poorly written, poorly directed, and even more poorly acted (which made Snails a concentrated microcosm of the entire movie).
Since 2000, and it was terrible in ever possible unironic way except for some (at the time) state of the art special effects for the huge swarms of dragons that appear at the end because dragons are in the title and they needed dragons. I love corny movies and this was not "so bad it's good" it's just bad. There have been two more movies since labeled with the official D&D IP that were not theatrical releases; one was a half decent low budget fantasy B movie but generally unspectacular and I never got around to seeing the other one.
More immediately there has been a new official Dungeons and Dragons movie in production since pre-pandemic that's scheduled to be finally released next year, titled Dungeons and Dragons: Honor A,ong Thieves." It stars Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez which has a lot of people feeling optimistic. Personally I'm hoping for something decent and still preparing for another Hollywood grade big budget $&%@ show.
**** no, not Del Toro, anyone but Del Toro. I’d take Tarantino over Del Toro and I don’t even like half his movies. ****, Shumacher over Del Toro and I can’t stand Shumacher at all after what he did to poor Batman.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I hated Pan’s Labyrinth. I’ve never heard about any Dino Vs. Giant Robot movie of his because I can’t stand Del Toro’s aesthetics, his Hellboy was barely watchable. (Of course, I’ve never heard of Horrible Bosses, let alone Horrible Bosses II either.)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, I remember that movie and that's what I was thinking of when I said that. I've never had high hopes for this film.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Pan’s Labyrinth was so ugly to look at and so hard to follow I checked out less than halfway through. I tried to give it a second chance once and it only reaffirmed my previous opinions. Everyone keeps saying what a genius Del Toro is and I just don’t see it. 🤷♂️ (Of course, everyone said Emeril Lagasse is a genius too and I think he’s a total hack with an annoying gimmick. And I was a professional chef for years, so I’ma take my word for it.)
I heard excellent things about Game Night however, mostly from the actors I currently work with. So I’m planning on giving it a go when it comes up on Netflix. I’ll give you a review of that after I watch it if you want.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Oh yeah, one I forgot at the time, but the survey also asks for opinions on, and I quote, "a powerful magic item." Not any specific magic item, several of which were also asked about, but they specifically want opinions on the inclusion of something that is completely undefined and basically screams "macguffin that renders everything else pointless" like the absurd dragon staves in the 2000 movie. So while I still want something good to come of this movie I won't be surprised if it's another mockery of the hobby resulting from Hollywood idiots trying to cash in on something they don't understand.