I honestly got bored at times... It seemed more fun to pick out the spells and abilities then actually pay attention to whatever the story was. For the record, I liked it... Easily the best DnD movie in a long time. The Bradley Cooper gnome scene was worth the price of admission all by itself looool...
the movie felt mostly like it was trying to cram in a lot of superficial references to locations within the Forgotten Realms and it's inhabitants without any substantive references to the ruleset and items within it.
Its a movie, not a regurgitation of the game. They honored plenty of things from the game - Players failing saves, initiative based combat (watch how it seems only one persona cts at a time in alot of the battles), spell components, classes, and more.
You might need to give some examples of this.
Players failing saves in a movie just translates to the character failing to do something which is something that happens and is expected to happen in almost every movie and would be nearly impossible to know whether the director meant it as a conscious choice to represent a failed save or just a normal part of natural story writing.
Initiate based combat, I did not recognize anything in the movie that represented this at all, unless you are talking about the part where the Paladin took on all the assassins by himself while the rest of the party just watched, in that case I would say it was more the Paladin taking multiple actions in a single turn and the rest of the party just using the wait action on their turn.
Don't really remember any spell components either, at best all I can remember was that dial thing attached to the Sorcerers belt which I suppose you could argue is some sort of arcane focus but other than that it seemed most of the magic he did (apart from the fight at the end) came from magic items. (hither tither staff, that amulet that allows him to speak with the dead, the helm of disjunction ect)
As for classes I know the characters represented certain classes in the game (Edgin/Bard, Holga/Barbarian, Doric/Druid and Simon/Sorcerer) but I don't think they were the best and most accurate representation of those classes rules as written, you can handwave Doric's shapechanging abilities as rule of cool for the sake of the movie but they are not very representative of the Druid rules as written, the portrayal of a Druid in Doric is only a very superficial portrayal of the Druid as it appears in the lore and rules as written and the same applies to the other characters as well.
The movie also felt very disjointed with them sometimes trying to cram too much information into a short scene (Chris Pine's character explaining his backstory at the start as if he is recapping the first movie that does not exist, feels like this should have been the first movie in a trillogy or at least get more time devoted to it
This is the PC giving us his Tragic Backstory in session 0 or the beginning of Session 1. Least thats the feel I and my players who were all there got.
I already kind of covered this in a previous post but the problem I have with this is that this is more than just Edgin's backstory but pretty much the plot hook that sets up the entire story, it sets up Edgin's reason for going for the treasure, how the Red Wizard got her hands on that item of incredible power, how the group met, it outlines the events that set the whole story in motion and it is relegated to an exposition dump at the start of the movie.
If it was just one character's sad backstory then yeah I would kind of get what they were going for here even if I might argue if it is really the best fit for a movie but it is more than just one character's backstory but something that sets up some really vital plot points that really needed more fleshing out.
escaping from Revels End and surviving the wilds of Icewind Dale should be an adventure in itself but they just escape like it is nothing and with a click of their fingers they are back south in the vicinity of Neverwinter, same thing with the Underdark, they just go for a day trip like it is nothing and then they are back in time for dinner, feels like they were just trying to cram in as many references to locations within the world without really giving these locations the relevance they are due
The CAMPAIGN of the movie is a Neverwinter Campaign. All the escaping from Icewind dale and getting the druid is setup for the real campaign. Many a game brush4es over the survival in the wild part. I'm beginning to think that isntead of a D&D based movie, you were looking for exactly how you play D&D to be on screen. Many gaming groups brush over travel from point A to Point B to get to the meat of their campaigns. Obviously, you, and I assume your players, enjoy playing out travel and survival. Lord knows how many people complained Fellowship of the Ring was too much time spent walking.
That is kind of my point though, it IS a Neverwinter campaign, Icewind Dale is pretty far from Neverwinter and for how much the scene adds to the overall movie was it really necessary? Are there no jails closer to Neverwinter? To include Icewind Dale and Revels End in this capacity kind of just trivializes both the dangers and vastness of Icewind Dale and Revels End as a high security prison with how easy their escape was.
Now I know judging by the rest of the comments I have yet to go through that some smart arse is going to say "But... but that was just the director's commentary on how busted the Aaracokra flight speed is and how it ruins level 1 campaigns!" but I mean cmon, Revels End is supposed to be a high level prison with magical enchantments to make escape very difficult, you really don't think they would have considered a contingency against flying speed? Also it's remoteness in Icewind Dale is also part of it's design so that if a Prisoner did manage to escape they would have to contend with the unforgiving weather of the tundra with limited supplies and likely freeze to death before they reach any sort of civilization or shelter.
Now I know that many groups do trivialize and handwave travel time and depending on the location of the adventure nothing wrong with that however if you want to do the forgotten realms justice which is what the movie should aim to do just trivializing the dangers of such areas like Icewind Dale and the Underdark just makes the world feel so much smaller and insignificant.
Also people complained about the walking and travel time in Lord of the Rings? Just thinking about those movies and if they just handwaved the travel time between locations, just had Frodo and Sam at Rivendell then cut scene and they are at the gates of Mordor that would feel like such an injustice to Middle Earth, really hard to capture the majesty and danger of the locations of Middle Earth if you just handwave the travel and the troubles they face along the way, just feels so wrong to me.
Also, no offense, but Icewind Dale is a fairly boring locale to place an entire movie in.
I would say they could make it work, Icewind Dale was the setting of 2 video games and the initial setting of the Drizzt books, I think you are underestimating the variety the setting offers and the stories that could be told.
But that said I am not saying that the movie should have taken place in Icewind Dale and focus on Edgin and Holga escaping Revels End, I am saying that this part of the movie is probably some of the fat that could have been cut.
In regards to your other criticisms, again, it was not a TTRPG, but a movie based on the Forgotten Realms and the game. It like GOT or LOTR...both do things not in the books and drop some things from the books, because its a movie. The sorcerer flubs. Wild Magic only surges on a roll of a 1 9or is it a 20? I don't recall right now). The Barbarian rages...when she's single handedly neating the crap out fo guards in two seperate parts of the movie. As for the bard, what, should he have seduced the dragon? And they've already said the druid has a special case for owlbear, go see her sheet - though I am told that its doable under D&D Next.
Again this is not my major criticism of the movie, I was not expecting the movie to be 100% accurate to the tabletop or the lore, would have been nice to see as a fan but I know concessions need to be made, but as I said before even if I was not a fan of the Forgotten Realms or Dungeons and Dragons I think the movie still has a lot of issues, I can get into these in another post but at the moment I still got a few other posts to respond to so I will list these in another post
In my group of 5 I was the only DnD player and I probably liked it the least. That being said I still had a great time. But I can kind of see where you are coming from. For those of us that are fans there is disappointment in things like, “Hey, let’s do a quest to the Underdark…”
And that is like 15 minutes. So, I am sitting there thinking, “This isn’t the fricken Underdark…”
But they wanted the pace fast and they wanted the jokes and action to keep hitting. To be honest the pace was really good. Everyone I watched it with really enjoyed it and, again, not dnd players. But totally get where you are coming from because I had that little voice in my head also saying, “That isn’t the Underdark…” (or whatever)
Why wasnt it the underdark? It had the lichen...they ran into Intellect Devourer's, and they found ruins. Its not like they were going to freaking Menzo or something. It was a small part of the underdark to retrieve a single item. In game terms, a 1-2 session jaunt.
These are probably the most superficial aspects of the Underdark, the Underdark isn't simply a place you go for a 1 or 2 session jaunt, it is not merely an underground cave system or mineshaft, it is the deep underground where light rarely shines and all manner of deadly creatures who have never seen the sun live, it is not the sort of place you go lightly.
OP, I think your real problem with the movie is that you fundamentally do not understand it. It is not trying to be a movie about D&D—it is trying to be a D&D movie.
Every single thing you complain about - things like bad dialogue, exposition ramblings, and frenetic pacing… those are all staples of playing D&D. They often were so exaggerated and over the top, that it was clear those “flaws” were very much intentional and that the writers put capturing how D&D feels over trying to make a technically “good” movie.
Changing the lore and some of the mechanics. Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons. Just as a basic understanding of filmmaking dictates some changes are necessary, DMs adjust lore all the time to fit with the needs of their players and their homebrew. Being stuck on the lore is one of those nitpicks that seems to scream “oh goodness, glad I don’t DM for that person.”
All told, I thought it was exactly the movie it needed to be. There was not a single second where I wasn’t thinking “yep, seen that kind of thing in a game before,” and that’s exactly what I wanted out of the film.
If that isn’t your cup of tea, that’s fine. But it should be pretty easy to recognise why folks like it - it was a movie clearly made by people who have played D&D and fully recognise that D&D is stupid and flawed, and who chose to embrace those imperfections rather than shy away from them.
I think this is an extremely charitable take on the movie bordering on wilful ignorance, as if you so desperately want the movie to be good you are willing to create the most ridiculous justifications to try and make sense of it, now I hate to strawman people so please correct me if you feel I have done so but your argument condensed down seems to be "the writing of the movie is intentionally bad and makes little sense to capture the essence of a D&D game ran by an inexperienced dungeon master which is what makes the movie good"? I mean that is one interpretation but I am not sure that is what the movie director was going for here. Besides there seem to be people in this thread claiming I did not get the movie because I was expecting it to be too much like a D&D game yet here you are claiming the opposite and that I did not get it because I do not know how a D&D game usually plays out? Clearly it seems we have 2 conflicting interpretations of why the movie is good and while value judgements like this are generally in the eye of the beholder I don't think it is possible that both interpretations fit the intention of the director indicating that at least one person seems to be seeing things in the movie that simply was not intended by the director.
Now I am sure you can argue that inconsistencies in the plot and character motivations are to capture the essence of a story told by an inexperienced dungeon master and inconsistencies in the ruleset and lore are due to things like Dungeon masters putting their own spin on things and homebrew and whatnot but the thing is this is an official dungeons and dragons product and regardless of whether you are a fan of Dungeons and Dragons or not I would expect a much higher level of competency in the storytelling in official Dungeons and Dragons modules and from professional film makers than the DM at your local game store.
I mean if the intention truly was to capture the essence of an inexperienced dungeon master then this movie would only really appeal and be understood by people who are already Dungeons and Dragons fans (and even then only a subsection of Dungeons and Dragons fans) and I am pretty sure the one of the major goals of the movie was to bring new fans into the hobby. Besides if you actually read the official modules published by Wizards of the Coast they show a far more competent level of storytelling and world building than what is shown in the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Usually they have character profiles with descriptions, backgrounds, personalities and motivations that give a clear indication to the dungeon master what sort of actions they would and wouldn't do and how to run these characters, sure some stuff can be a little handwavy but nowhere near to level it is in the movie. If I was given the character sheet for Forge Fitzwilliams I would not be able to reconcile a lot of the actions taken by the character with what I know about his goals, motivations and personality, there are just so many things like this in the movie that even with a generous attempt at suspension of disbelief I really can't reconcile with good storytelling.
OP, I think your real problem with the movie is that you fundamentally do not understand it. It is not trying to be a movie about D&D—it is trying to be a D&D movie.
Every single thing you complain about - things like bad dialogue, exposition ramblings, and frenetic pacing… those are all staples of playing D&D. They often were so exaggerated and over the top, that it was clear those “flaws” were very much intentional and that the writers put capturing how D&D feels over trying to make a technically “good” movie.
Changing the lore and some of the mechanics. Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons. Just as a basic understanding of filmmaking dictates some changes are necessary, DMs adjust lore all the time to fit with the needs of their players and their homebrew. Being stuck on the lore is one of those nitpicks that seems to scream “oh goodness, glad I don’t DM for that person.”
All told, I thought it was exactly the movie it needed to be. There was not a single second where I wasn’t thinking “yep, seen that kind of thing in a game before,” and that’s exactly what I wanted out of the film.
If that isn’t your cup of tea, that’s fine. But it should be pretty easy to recognise why folks like it - it was a movie clearly made by people who have played D&D and fully recognise that D&D is stupid and flawed, and who chose to embrace those imperfections rather than shy away from them.
I think this is an extremely charitable take on the movie bordering on wilful ignorance, as if you so desperately want the movie to be good you are willing to create the most ridiculous justifications to try and make sense of it, now I hate to strawman people so please correct me if you feel I have done so but your argument condensed down seems to be "the writing of the movie is intentionally bad and makes little sense to capture the essence of a D&D game ran by an inexperienced dungeon master which is what makes the movie good"? I mean that is one interpretation but I am not sure that is what the movie director was going for here. Besides there seem to be people in this thread claiming I did not get the movie because I was expecting it to be too much like a D&D game yet here you are claiming the opposite and that I did not get it because I do not know how a D&D game usually plays out? Clearly it seems we have 2 conflicting interpretations of why the movie is good and while value judgements like this are generally in the eye of the beholder I don't think it is possible that both interpretations fit the intention of the director indicating that at least one person seems to be seeing things in the movie that simply was not intended by the director.
Now I am sure you can argue that inconsistencies in the plot and character motivations are to capture the essence of a story told by an inexperienced dungeon master and inconsistencies in the ruleset and lore are due to things like Dungeon masters putting their own spin on things and homebrew and whatnot but the thing is this is an official dungeons and dragons product and regardless of whether you are a fan of Dungeons and Dragons or not I would expect a much higher level of competency in the storytelling in official Dungeons and Dragons modules and from professional film makers than the DM at your local game store.
I mean if the intention truly was to capture the essence of an inexperienced dungeon master then this movie would only really appeal and be understood by people who are already Dungeons and Dragons fans (and even then only a subsection of Dungeons and Dragons fans) and I am pretty sure the one of the major goals of the movie was to bring new fans into the hobby. Besides if you actually read the official modules published by Wizards of the Coast they show a far more competent level of storytelling and world building than what is shown in the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Usually they have character profiles with descriptions, backgrounds, personalities and motivations that give a clear indication to the dungeon master what sort of actions they would and wouldn't do and how to run these characters, sure some stuff can be a little handwavy but nowhere near to level it is in the movie. If I was given the character sheet for Forge Fitzwilliams I would not be able to reconcile a lot of the actions taken by the character with what I know about his goals, motivations and personality, there are just so many things like this in the movie that even with a generous attempt at suspension of disbelief I really can't reconcile with good storytelling.
Great post!
This is how the internet is in general now... No matter how good or bad something is you're not allowed to have a negative opinion on it. Either you get harassed into oblivion or outrageous attempts at justifying the criticism are made. Andor, Mandalorian, MCU movies and TV... Pop Culture in general. Studios create these divisions on purpose simply for attention, clicks, and marketing.
Notice how The Inquisitor in the Obi Wan series got "death threats" before the show even aired... Emasculating characters in this movie... The unnecessarily slow pace of Andor, especially the first 2 episodes... Etccc... Being a "true fan" of something means you enjoy it no matter what and defend it as such.
Overall I thought it was decently good. It held my attention and I really liked the references to the game. Leaving the theater though I did feel a bit underwhelmed and was asking myself if maybe I wasn't in the right mood. I think I would have preferred waiting to watch it as a home rental than spending theater dollars.
Just got out of the theater - I really enjoyed it on a surface level. Good, funny action fantasy movie.
I was a bit bothered by the lack of bard magic and the liberties taken by Wildshape magic. I would really like to see another DnD movie in the future that delves a little deeper into the world and maybe focuses more on the political aspects? Script was 3/5, effects 3/5, acting 4.5/5. Absolutely loved the Paladin, wish we had gotten a bit more of him with the main bunch.
Edited to add - I did miss a lot of the names of things because I couldn't hear/understand them. Looking forward to watching it again with captions to get the full effect of the film.
Please name 3 fantasy movies you think are good and 3 other fantasy movies you think are bad so we understand your scale.
That is a good and fair question however I am not sure I am able to answer in a way that would give you a clear indication of what I consider a good movie and what I consider a bad one, naming 3 fantasy movies that I think are bad is kind of tough as generally unless they are spectacularly bad they don't really occupy much space in my memory. When it comes to medieval fantasy movies especially apart from the Lord of the Rings movies there really aren't many notable movies released in the recent decades that I can recall that really fit into this category, most of the medieval fantasy movies that come to mind are generally 80s and early 90s and I have a hard time rating them objectively due to being a kid when I watched them last. But that said I will give it a shot
Obviously when it comes to good fantasy movies the Lord of the Rings trillogy is at the top of that list as I assume it is for a lot of people, I would also consider the Hobbit movies good (the first 2 movies more so, the last movie maybe not so much) even if they were nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trillogy, would not consider the Hobbit movies to be great movies however.
Pirates of the Carribean, not sure it counts, definitely not medieval fantasy, but I absolutely love the first movie, the rest of the movies in the franchise is a hard pass for me but the first movie is an absolute banger
Again it may be cheating as technically not a movie but the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones, these seasons had me hooked and to prove I am not just a stubborn lore nerd I will even defend one of the more controversial choices in the TV series which was to replace Tysha with Shae (or more accurately to downplay and cut out the exposition of Tysha in the show), fite me IRL nerds! The last 4 seasons of the show however were a major let down and although there were some good moments for the most part I would say they were pretty bad (especially the last season).
Also since it was mentioned earlier in this thread I also think the Green Knight was a good movie, definitely not a movie for everyone and the film does have it's problems but I thought it was really interesting, a much more psychological test of honour and courage than the traditional action oriented approach that I thought was really good.
And while I don't know if it counts as fantasy I suppose I should mention Guardians of the Galaxy as it is pretty clear that Honor Among Thieves took a pretty heft dose of inspiration from Guardians of the Galaxy and Marvel movies in general, I don't think there is anything wrong with Honor Among Thieves taking inspiration from these movies but I do feel they fell short of the mark
As for bad movies I would say the Warcraft movie was not a good movie, enjoyable in parts but ultimately not very good, it is a shame too because they probably started with the least interesting part of the story that establishes the conflict between orcs and humans, I get that this is a pretty important part of the lore if you are trying to introduce new people into the series but there are far more interesting stories in that world, it would have been nice to see the movie do better than it did as it was pretty clear they were trying to set up lord of the clans and I would have loved to see a movie surrounding the events of Warcraft 3 especially the corruption of Arthas but alas it wasn't meant to be.
Eragon, don't remember much about the film, only thing I can remember is that it sucked
And since I mentioned Marvel movies in the mostly good category I will put the DC cinematic movies in the mostly bad category, DC has some really good animated stuff but their cinematic universe is dogwater.
Based on the trailers, I went into the movie expecting something fun but not particularly deep or serious, and the movie delivered on that expectation; not a great work, but eminently watchable.
I got bored at times, really. I liked the references to the actual game, and it has some funny gags. But it's a predictable movie, and the script is lazy. I didn't see any big holes in the script either, although there are some inconsistencies here and there. But in general, nothing very serious. In any case, it is a script that does not risk, that bets on the safe side. It applies the Marvel formula, which we already know works, and stays out of trouble.
In the audiovisual section it is correct. The soundtrack will not go down in the annals of film history, but it does the job without being annoying. The special effects are good, and follow the standard in this type of cinema.
The performances are not going to win an Oscar, which is to be expected. But they don't fail. No Jeremy Irons-type overacting.
In conclusion, it is a correct film with nothing that stands out, neither in the good nor in the bad. To see and forget. It really is what I expected. IT didn't give me more, but It didn't give me less either. The only "but" that I attribute to it is that it was a bit long for me.
That's why I think the fair grade is a 5. It's an honest film with no pretensions to being more than what it is.
We loved it. Party of 7 - 3 started playing D&D last fall the other 4 don't play. All enjoyed except one of the non-players. He likes sci-fi but thought this was boring and too many escapes just in the nick of time. He is a big Dr. Who fan but couldn't wrap his head around this. The others enjoyed immensely. It was easy, fun, a good mix of action and then backstory, happy and sad.
I loved seeing the references to D&D and easter eggs - especially the maze and the 1980's cartoon characters. Many of the responses here are very technical in nature is respect to D&D. For us, it was just an easy fun movie that was enjoyable. A great escape for an afternoon. The best part - 3 of the non-players would like to start playing and see what the game is truly about - WIN! We went to my house and spent 2 hours rolling characters and learning how the basics of the game is played. Looks like I will be DM"ing a game for us in the future.
I saw it this Saturday, with a party of 3. We all loved it! (We play D&D). I decided on bringing my D&D plushes, because, fightingly, D&D movie-D&D plushes. I have a displacer beast plush and A Red dragon plush. We loved it, 8/10 or 10/10! Great movie. I'd watch it again if I could.
I appreciate the beasts that were represented. That was awesome!
also, did anyone else watch until after the credits? There was a bonus scene.
Easily the best D&D movie (low bar, I know) and a solid fantasy movie for non-D&D fans. Also a decent introduction to some key FR locations and factions for non-fans.
I got bored at times, really. I liked the references to the actual game, and it has some funny gags. But it's a predictable movie, and the script is lazy. I didn't see any big holes in the script either, although there are some inconsistencies here and there. But in general, nothing very serious. In any case, it is a script that does not risk, that bets on the safe side. It applies the Marvel formula, which we already know works, and stays out of trouble.
In the audiovisual section it is correct. The soundtrack will not go down in the annals of film history, but it does the job without being annoying. The special effects are good, and follow the standard in this type of cinema.
The performances are not going to win an Oscar, which is to be expected. But they don't fail. No Jeremy Irons-type overacting.
In conclusion, it is a correct film with nothing that stands out, neither in the good nor in the bad. To see and forget. It really is what I expected. IT didn't give me more, but It didn't give me less either. The only "but" that I attribute to it is that it was a bit long for me.
That's why I think the fair grade is a 5. It's an honest film with no pretensions to being more than what it is.
Yes that good old 'Marvel formula'...what with Captain America Winter Soldier being so similar to Guardians of the Galaxy. Or Dr. Strange being so similar to the Black Panther. That is all they did was rinse and repeat.
Making a crowd pleaser is not easy. Not even Marvel could repeat this mythical 'Marvel formula' to keep giving them hits in Phase 5. The D&D movie had a lot of jokes.... which might seem safe, but every one they threw had the danger of *not* landing with the general audience. I personally was expecting something like Guardians of the Galaxy and was surprised to find it closer to Princess Bride in tone. I liked the movie, but liked it less than my wife who does not play D&D and couldn't care less about the game. Which means the directors successfully bridged the gap to a general audience appeal. Which they *had* to do because it needs to make back $150 million plus marketing budget plus deliver a profit. The very idea of a D&D movie at all was a huge risk and it remains to be seen if this movie will have the legs to be profitable.
Keep seeing positive reviews for this movie and I have to wonder if I watched the same movie? As much as I was looking forward to the movie I don't think I went in with high expectations, of course I was hoping it would be good but the current state of modern movies kept my expectations quite low. In the end I thought it was just a bad movie, badly written, poorly paced, there are things to enjoy about the movie sure but for the most part it just wasn't a good movie and pretty sure the only reason I enjoyed some parts of the movie is because I am a fan of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms setting, if it wasn't for this I really can't see this movie appealing outside of the D&D fanbase and even inside the D&D fanbase I can't see many people coming back for seconds.
In the end I am just curious of what everyone else thought, not knocking anyone who did enjoy the film as this is just my opinion but just curious what everyone else thinks? Am I alone in thinking the movie bad or does anyone else feel the same way?
I wouldn't say it was bad. I too was disappointed, I actually left it feeling, that the 2000 version of Dungeons and Dragons ahd a better plot, and pacing, and Had it the same degree of CGI/graphics and action sequencing as this one that it might actually have been a better movie... But overall, the movie, despite being PG-13, was geared towards children I felt. No blood, just the barely one scene of faces kinda changing, not even melting, and seizure towards the end. But the Language was why it was PG-13 and not PG. (the son of a *****) comment said to the paladin.
It'd be a good movie for kids, and/or people unfamiliar with playing Dungeons and Dragons. But to experienced D&D'ers. You would have more people feeling the same feelings you felt more so than amongst kids or newer players or people who hadn't played at all.
I'm still annoyed that the directors basically made Edgin a mastermind rogue with an entertainer background, vs being an actual bard. It was a weird bold choice.
Easily the best D&D movie (low bar, I know) and a solid fantasy movie for non-D&D fans. Also a decent introduction to some key FR locations and factions for non-fans.
You must not have seen Conan The Destroyer, the 2nd Conan the Barbarian movie. It is 100% a D&D movie.
I saw the movie Saturday and I liked it. I watched it with a group of friends that does not play D&D though, but they all enjoyed it. I am going to watch it again with another group of friends who I am closer with, and some of them do play D&D, so we will have more discussions about it after the movie.
I really like Xenk, Doric, and Sofina. I think I have a mancrush on Xenk. Like, damn, if I was drowning, I would not mind being rescued by him and getting CPR from him. I do not swing that way, but I certainly would not mind his lips. Goody-two-shoes paladins never really appealed to me, but Xenk's kindness, wisdom, and good looks certainly won me over. Doric is super duper freaking cute and she is kind of my type. I really like the "what the **** am I doing here with these idiots" vibe when she is interacting with the rest of the party, feels like she is the only competent one. Sofina is a total ******* badass and I love it, I just wish they made her more powerful to fully showcase the full might of wizards. Like, she should have been a level 20 wizard with Boon of High Magic and Spell Recall, so she can cast Wish three times in a row. I guess they are saving all that wizardry awesomeness for Szass Tam.
I honestly got bored at times... It seemed more fun to pick out the spells and abilities then actually pay attention to whatever the story was. For the record, I liked it... Easily the best DnD movie in a long time. The Bradley Cooper gnome scene was worth the price of admission all by itself looool...
Beast Master = Good
Conan the Barbarian = Good
LotR Trilogy = Good
Warcraft = Bad
Dungeons and Dragons (2000) = Bad
Dragonheart franchise = Bad
You might need to give some examples of this.
Players failing saves in a movie just translates to the character failing to do something which is something that happens and is expected to happen in almost every movie and would be nearly impossible to know whether the director meant it as a conscious choice to represent a failed save or just a normal part of natural story writing.
Initiate based combat, I did not recognize anything in the movie that represented this at all, unless you are talking about the part where the Paladin took on all the assassins by himself while the rest of the party just watched, in that case I would say it was more the Paladin taking multiple actions in a single turn and the rest of the party just using the wait action on their turn.
Don't really remember any spell components either, at best all I can remember was that dial thing attached to the Sorcerers belt which I suppose you could argue is some sort of arcane focus but other than that it seemed most of the magic he did (apart from the fight at the end) came from magic items. (hither tither staff, that amulet that allows him to speak with the dead, the helm of disjunction ect)
As for classes I know the characters represented certain classes in the game (Edgin/Bard, Holga/Barbarian, Doric/Druid and Simon/Sorcerer) but I don't think they were the best and most accurate representation of those classes rules as written, you can handwave Doric's shapechanging abilities as rule of cool for the sake of the movie but they are not very representative of the Druid rules as written, the portrayal of a Druid in Doric is only a very superficial portrayal of the Druid as it appears in the lore and rules as written and the same applies to the other characters as well.
I already kind of covered this in a previous post but the problem I have with this is that this is more than just Edgin's backstory but pretty much the plot hook that sets up the entire story, it sets up Edgin's reason for going for the treasure, how the Red Wizard got her hands on that item of incredible power, how the group met, it outlines the events that set the whole story in motion and it is relegated to an exposition dump at the start of the movie.
If it was just one character's sad backstory then yeah I would kind of get what they were going for here even if I might argue if it is really the best fit for a movie but it is more than just one character's backstory but something that sets up some really vital plot points that really needed more fleshing out.
That is kind of my point though, it IS a Neverwinter campaign, Icewind Dale is pretty far from Neverwinter and for how much the scene adds to the overall movie was it really necessary? Are there no jails closer to Neverwinter? To include Icewind Dale and Revels End in this capacity kind of just trivializes both the dangers and vastness of Icewind Dale and Revels End as a high security prison with how easy their escape was.
Now I know judging by the rest of the comments I have yet to go through that some smart arse is going to say "But... but that was just the director's commentary on how busted the Aaracokra flight speed is and how it ruins level 1 campaigns!" but I mean cmon, Revels End is supposed to be a high level prison with magical enchantments to make escape very difficult, you really don't think they would have considered a contingency against flying speed? Also it's remoteness in Icewind Dale is also part of it's design so that if a Prisoner did manage to escape they would have to contend with the unforgiving weather of the tundra with limited supplies and likely freeze to death before they reach any sort of civilization or shelter.
Now I know that many groups do trivialize and handwave travel time and depending on the location of the adventure nothing wrong with that however if you want to do the forgotten realms justice which is what the movie should aim to do just trivializing the dangers of such areas like Icewind Dale and the Underdark just makes the world feel so much smaller and insignificant.
Also people complained about the walking and travel time in Lord of the Rings? Just thinking about those movies and if they just handwaved the travel time between locations, just had Frodo and Sam at Rivendell then cut scene and they are at the gates of Mordor that would feel like such an injustice to Middle Earth, really hard to capture the majesty and danger of the locations of Middle Earth if you just handwave the travel and the troubles they face along the way, just feels so wrong to me.
I would say they could make it work, Icewind Dale was the setting of 2 video games and the initial setting of the Drizzt books, I think you are underestimating the variety the setting offers and the stories that could be told.
But that said I am not saying that the movie should have taken place in Icewind Dale and focus on Edgin and Holga escaping Revels End, I am saying that this part of the movie is probably some of the fat that could have been cut.
Again this is not my major criticism of the movie, I was not expecting the movie to be 100% accurate to the tabletop or the lore, would have been nice to see as a fan but I know concessions need to be made, but as I said before even if I was not a fan of the Forgotten Realms or Dungeons and Dragons I think the movie still has a lot of issues, I can get into these in another post but at the moment I still got a few other posts to respond to so I will list these in another post
These are probably the most superficial aspects of the Underdark, the Underdark isn't simply a place you go for a 1 or 2 session jaunt, it is not merely an underground cave system or mineshaft, it is the deep underground where light rarely shines and all manner of deadly creatures who have never seen the sun live, it is not the sort of place you go lightly.
I think this is an extremely charitable take on the movie bordering on wilful ignorance, as if you so desperately want the movie to be good you are willing to create the most ridiculous justifications to try and make sense of it, now I hate to strawman people so please correct me if you feel I have done so but your argument condensed down seems to be "the writing of the movie is intentionally bad and makes little sense to capture the essence of a D&D game ran by an inexperienced dungeon master which is what makes the movie good"? I mean that is one interpretation but I am not sure that is what the movie director was going for here. Besides there seem to be people in this thread claiming I did not get the movie because I was expecting it to be too much like a D&D game yet here you are claiming the opposite and that I did not get it because I do not know how a D&D game usually plays out? Clearly it seems we have 2 conflicting interpretations of why the movie is good and while value judgements like this are generally in the eye of the beholder I don't think it is possible that both interpretations fit the intention of the director indicating that at least one person seems to be seeing things in the movie that simply was not intended by the director.
Now I am sure you can argue that inconsistencies in the plot and character motivations are to capture the essence of a story told by an inexperienced dungeon master and inconsistencies in the ruleset and lore are due to things like Dungeon masters putting their own spin on things and homebrew and whatnot but the thing is this is an official dungeons and dragons product and regardless of whether you are a fan of Dungeons and Dragons or not I would expect a much higher level of competency in the storytelling in official Dungeons and Dragons modules and from professional film makers than the DM at your local game store.
I mean if the intention truly was to capture the essence of an inexperienced dungeon master then this movie would only really appeal and be understood by people who are already Dungeons and Dragons fans (and even then only a subsection of Dungeons and Dragons fans) and I am pretty sure the one of the major goals of the movie was to bring new fans into the hobby. Besides if you actually read the official modules published by Wizards of the Coast they show a far more competent level of storytelling and world building than what is shown in the Dungeons and Dragons movie. Usually they have character profiles with descriptions, backgrounds, personalities and motivations that give a clear indication to the dungeon master what sort of actions they would and wouldn't do and how to run these characters, sure some stuff can be a little handwavy but nowhere near to level it is in the movie. If I was given the character sheet for Forge Fitzwilliams I would not be able to reconcile a lot of the actions taken by the character with what I know about his goals, motivations and personality, there are just so many things like this in the movie that even with a generous attempt at suspension of disbelief I really can't reconcile with good storytelling.
Great post!
This is how the internet is in general now... No matter how good or bad something is you're not allowed to have a negative opinion on it. Either you get harassed into oblivion or outrageous attempts at justifying the criticism are made. Andor, Mandalorian, MCU movies and TV... Pop Culture in general. Studios create these divisions on purpose simply for attention, clicks, and marketing.
Notice how The Inquisitor in the Obi Wan series got "death threats" before the show even aired... Emasculating characters in this movie... The unnecessarily slow pace of Andor, especially the first 2 episodes... Etccc... Being a "true fan" of something means you enjoy it no matter what and defend it as such.
I liked the movie, but the criticism is valid
Overall I thought it was decently good. It held my attention and I really liked the references to the game. Leaving the theater though I did feel a bit underwhelmed and was asking myself if maybe I wasn't in the right mood. I think I would have preferred waiting to watch it as a home rental than spending theater dollars.
His name is Szass Tam, and he's been canon to the Forgotten Realms for decades.
Just got out of the theater - I really enjoyed it on a surface level. Good, funny action fantasy movie.
I was a bit bothered by the lack of bard magic and the liberties taken by Wildshape magic. I would really like to see another DnD movie in the future that delves a little deeper into the world and maybe focuses more on the political aspects? Script was 3/5, effects 3/5, acting 4.5/5. Absolutely loved the Paladin, wish we had gotten a bit more of him with the main bunch.
Edited to add - I did miss a lot of the names of things because I couldn't hear/understand them. Looking forward to watching it again with captions to get the full effect of the film.
That is a good and fair question however I am not sure I am able to answer in a way that would give you a clear indication of what I consider a good movie and what I consider a bad one, naming 3 fantasy movies that I think are bad is kind of tough as generally unless they are spectacularly bad they don't really occupy much space in my memory. When it comes to medieval fantasy movies especially apart from the Lord of the Rings movies there really aren't many notable movies released in the recent decades that I can recall that really fit into this category, most of the medieval fantasy movies that come to mind are generally 80s and early 90s and I have a hard time rating them objectively due to being a kid when I watched them last. But that said I will give it a shot
Obviously when it comes to good fantasy movies the Lord of the Rings trillogy is at the top of that list as I assume it is for a lot of people, I would also consider the Hobbit movies good (the first 2 movies more so, the last movie maybe not so much) even if they were nowhere near as good as the Lord of the Rings trillogy, would not consider the Hobbit movies to be great movies however.
Pirates of the Carribean, not sure it counts, definitely not medieval fantasy, but I absolutely love the first movie, the rest of the movies in the franchise is a hard pass for me but the first movie is an absolute banger
Again it may be cheating as technically not a movie but the first 4 seasons of Game of Thrones, these seasons had me hooked and to prove I am not just a stubborn lore nerd I will even defend one of the more controversial choices in the TV series which was to replace Tysha with Shae (or more accurately to downplay and cut out the exposition of Tysha in the show), fite me IRL nerds! The last 4 seasons of the show however were a major let down and although there were some good moments for the most part I would say they were pretty bad (especially the last season).
Also since it was mentioned earlier in this thread I also think the Green Knight was a good movie, definitely not a movie for everyone and the film does have it's problems but I thought it was really interesting, a much more psychological test of honour and courage than the traditional action oriented approach that I thought was really good.
And while I don't know if it counts as fantasy I suppose I should mention Guardians of the Galaxy as it is pretty clear that Honor Among Thieves took a pretty heft dose of inspiration from Guardians of the Galaxy and Marvel movies in general, I don't think there is anything wrong with Honor Among Thieves taking inspiration from these movies but I do feel they fell short of the mark
As for bad movies I would say the Warcraft movie was not a good movie, enjoyable in parts but ultimately not very good, it is a shame too because they probably started with the least interesting part of the story that establishes the conflict between orcs and humans, I get that this is a pretty important part of the lore if you are trying to introduce new people into the series but there are far more interesting stories in that world, it would have been nice to see the movie do better than it did as it was pretty clear they were trying to set up lord of the clans and I would have loved to see a movie surrounding the events of Warcraft 3 especially the corruption of Arthas but alas it wasn't meant to be.
Eragon, don't remember much about the film, only thing I can remember is that it sucked
And since I mentioned Marvel movies in the mostly good category I will put the DC cinematic movies in the mostly bad category, DC has some really good animated stuff but their cinematic universe is dogwater.
Hope that gives some insight.
Based on the trailers, I went into the movie expecting something fun but not particularly deep or serious, and the movie delivered on that expectation; not a great work, but eminently watchable.
I had too... :)
Hither-Thither Staff
Comment in the Homebrew page to help me make it perfect :)
Short and sweet ... LOVED IT and can not wait for what they bring to us next!!!
I got bored at times, really. I liked the references to the actual game, and it has some funny gags. But it's a predictable movie, and the script is lazy. I didn't see any big holes in the script either, although there are some inconsistencies here and there. But in general, nothing very serious. In any case, it is a script that does not risk, that bets on the safe side. It applies the Marvel formula, which we already know works, and stays out of trouble.
In the audiovisual section it is correct. The soundtrack will not go down in the annals of film history, but it does the job without being annoying. The special effects are good, and follow the standard in this type of cinema.
The performances are not going to win an Oscar, which is to be expected. But they don't fail. No Jeremy Irons-type overacting.
In conclusion, it is a correct film with nothing that stands out, neither in the good nor in the bad. To see and forget. It really is what I expected. IT didn't give me more, but It didn't give me less either. The only "but" that I attribute to it is that it was a bit long for me.
That's why I think the fair grade is a 5. It's an honest film with no pretensions to being more than what it is.
My two cents
We loved it. Party of 7 - 3 started playing D&D last fall the other 4 don't play. All enjoyed except one of the non-players. He likes sci-fi but thought this was boring and too many escapes just in the nick of time. He is a big Dr. Who fan but couldn't wrap his head around this. The others enjoyed immensely. It was easy, fun, a good mix of action and then backstory, happy and sad.
I loved seeing the references to D&D and easter eggs - especially the maze and the 1980's cartoon characters. Many of the responses here are very technical in nature is respect to D&D. For us, it was just an easy fun movie that was enjoyable. A great escape for an afternoon. The best part - 3 of the non-players would like to start playing and see what the game is truly about - WIN! We went to my house and spent 2 hours rolling characters and learning how the basics of the game is played. Looks like I will be DM"ing a game for us in the future.
I saw it this Saturday, with a party of 3. We all loved it! (We play D&D). I decided on bringing my D&D plushes, because, fightingly, D&D movie-D&D plushes. I have a displacer beast plush and A Red dragon plush. We loved it, 8/10 or 10/10! Great movie. I'd watch it again if I could.
I appreciate the beasts that were represented. That was awesome!
also, did anyone else watch until after the credits? There was a bonus scene.
worth the money.
What did everyone else think of it?
Moon
No need to homebrew, all the items were officially statted up in the free Legendary Magic Items supplement. Ex: Hither-Thither Staff
Easily the best D&D movie (low bar, I know) and a solid fantasy movie for non-D&D fans. Also a decent introduction to some key FR locations and factions for non-fans.
Yes that good old 'Marvel formula'...what with Captain America Winter Soldier being so similar to Guardians of the Galaxy. Or Dr. Strange being so similar to the Black Panther. That is all they did was rinse and repeat.
Making a crowd pleaser is not easy. Not even Marvel could repeat this mythical 'Marvel formula' to keep giving them hits in Phase 5. The D&D movie had a lot of jokes.... which might seem safe, but every one they threw had the danger of *not* landing with the general audience. I personally was expecting something like Guardians of the Galaxy and was surprised to find it closer to Princess Bride in tone. I liked the movie, but liked it less than my wife who does not play D&D and couldn't care less about the game. Which means the directors successfully bridged the gap to a general audience appeal. Which they *had* to do because it needs to make back $150 million plus marketing budget plus deliver a profit. The very idea of a D&D movie at all was a huge risk and it remains to be seen if this movie will have the legs to be profitable.
I wouldn't say it was bad. I too was disappointed, I actually left it feeling, that the 2000 version of Dungeons and Dragons ahd a better plot, and pacing, and Had it the same degree of CGI/graphics and action sequencing as this one that it might actually have been a better movie... But overall, the movie, despite being PG-13, was geared towards children I felt. No blood, just the barely one scene of faces kinda changing, not even melting, and seizure towards the end. But the Language was why it was PG-13 and not PG. (the son of a
*****) comment said to the paladin.It'd be a good movie for kids, and/or people unfamiliar with playing Dungeons and Dragons. But to experienced D&D'ers. You would have more people feeling the same feelings you felt more so than amongst kids or newer players or people who hadn't played at all.
I'm still annoyed that the directors basically made Edgin a mastermind rogue with an entertainer background, vs being an actual bard. It was a weird bold choice.
Blank
You must not have seen Conan The Destroyer, the 2nd Conan the Barbarian movie. It is 100% a D&D movie.
Blank
I saw the movie Saturday and I liked it. I watched it with a group of friends that does not play D&D though, but they all enjoyed it. I am going to watch it again with another group of friends who I am closer with, and some of them do play D&D, so we will have more discussions about it after the movie.
I really like Xenk, Doric, and Sofina. I think I have a mancrush on Xenk. Like, damn, if I was drowning, I would not mind being rescued by him and getting CPR from him. I do not swing that way, but I certainly would not mind his lips. Goody-two-shoes paladins never really appealed to me, but Xenk's kindness, wisdom, and good looks certainly won me over. Doric is super duper freaking cute and she is kind of my type. I really like the "what the **** am I doing here with these idiots" vibe when she is interacting with the rest of the party, feels like she is the only competent one. Sofina is a total ******* badass and I love it, I just wish they made her more powerful to fully showcase the full might of wizards. Like, she should have been a level 20 wizard with Boon of High Magic and Spell Recall, so she can cast Wish three times in a row. I guess they are saving all that wizardry awesomeness for Szass Tam.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >