I only question gnome v. halfling because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
A couple of things, and these go way back to before 5th edition.
Gnomes have Elf like Ears and large heads, hands, and feet, Halflings look like humans with human proportions at 3 feet tall.
And a Tiefling can look 100% human, it's only recently take they are forcing them to look more like fiends. Back in the day the trope was to play Damien (The kid from the Omen) when making a Tiefling, as you could make them look human but with a bunch of devilish perks. When 5th ed dropped they started getting really into the devil look in the description and removed the bit where you could pick and choose how devilish you look. I honestly hate that BG 3 forces them to have horns, purple skin, and tails. These were suppose to be optional bits not required bits.
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)
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)
To be honest I think it was a little more than me being a lore and rules nerd and nitpicking inaccuracies, of course I was looking out for this sort of thing hoping to see references to spells, items, character abilities and to see how accurate the director was in regards to following the ruleset but I am usually fairly forgiving with this sort of thing as I know not everything rules as written is going to work in a movie format and that there are probably going to be a few lore concessions to make things work in the movie, but as I said before I think even if I wasn't a fan of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms I do think the movie still has a lot of problems.
For me the biggest problems with the film were more related to pacing and the motivations and actions of the characters, I think part of it was they tried to fit too much into such a small runtime and did not have the time to really flesh things out but part of it was also that some of the actions of the characters (especially the villains) make no flipping sense even with the most generous attempt at suspension of disbelief. It just felt like the whole structure of the film was off with certain scenes having a really flimsy set up and others having no set up all which killed any emotional payoff and made the scene feel cheap and unearned.
As negative as my opinion on the film may be there were still parts of the movie I enjoyed and I do hope the film does well if only to get more Dungeons and Dragons content but I just did not think this was a good movie and I think they could have done a lot better than what they did.
They definitely crammed in a lot. And I agree with your points actually. Forge poisoning the daughter against her father felt very contrived for example.
However, I still felt the movie worked overall because they didn't lean into these sort of plot points too far. Tongue and cheek humor typically followed a beat later. It was very much Princess Bride rather than Guardians of the Galaxy. They knew the tone they were going for and stuck with it. I personally would have preferred Guardians of the Galaxy, but I actually like Princess Bride quite a lot as well.
Fortunately for Hasbro and the hobby in general most critics seem to think it is a fun film. I was not expecting a 90%+ critics' favorability rating on Rotten Tomatoes or all the generally favorable reviews I have seen. Hopefully that leads to box office $$ and between a successful film and how popular Critical Role and their animated series are we will see more DnD-related screen adaptations.
I enjoyed the glimpses of familiar monsters, races, and settings from the Forgotten Realms, but there was nothing that made me care about these characters, and - 24 hours later - I don’t remember much about the movie other than Jarnathan the Aracockra; how bland the Druid and the Sorcerer were; how bad the Halflings looked; and how mumbly the dialogue was (I was surprised by how many times I was like, “What the hell did they just say?”).
The high points were the Paladin and the Red Wizard - who, although archetypes, at least had distinct character traits, if not distinct personalities - and the part where the Barbarian was like, “I’ll tie a rope to my axe and throw my axe across the chasm,” because tying a rope to something and throwing it is every player’s solution to every problem.
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.
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.
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.
Also, no offense, but Icewind Dale is a fairly boring locale to place an entire movie in.
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.
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.
It felt very much D&D to me, the entire thing, and to all the friends I went to see it with, who happen to be my gaming group. My gaming group of 20+ years with some players, including me, who have been playing since the early 70s.
I honestly hate that BG 3 forces them to have horns, purple skin, and tails. These were suppose to be optional bits not required bits.
In Baldur's Gate 3 the NPC Tieflings range from red-skinned (most), to a few with blue, grey or purple skin. For eyes most have black sclerae and coloured pupils, even though this is against 5e descriptions (whole of eye as one colour). However, although inspired by 5th Edition, the game isn't trying to be an exact match and there's many differences.
For your own character the tail is the only non-optional bit. For horns you have several options and a hornless option. For the eyes you can have any "whole eye" colour, various black sclerae with coloured pupils options and you have "normal" eye versions like a human or elf. For skin tones you can have many from all human tones, pure white, pure black, various blues, purples, oranges, and reds. With the exception of "horn" options (for obvious reasons) all the skin and eyes options are available for every character. You can totes be a blue-skinned human, if you wanted.
Since these options were there from the beginning, I must assume you either didn't pay attention during character creation or never tried making a Tiefling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
Literally the only thing not consistent with actual D&D 5th Edition was her eyes. Everything else about her - including skin - was perfectly within the Tiefling description
From the Tiefling page with some boldness and colouring from me to highlight what you missed :
Tieflings are derived from human bloodlines, and in the broadest possible sense, they still look human. However, their infernal heritage has left a clear imprint on their appearance. Tieflings have large horns that take any of a variety of shapes: some have curling horns like a ram, others have straight and tall horns like a gazelle’s, and some spiral upward like an antelopes’ horns. They have thick tails, four to five feet long, which lash or coil around their legs when they get upset or nervous. Their canine teeth are sharply pointed, and their eyes are solid colors—black, red, white, silver, or gold—with no visible sclera or pupil.Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red. Their hair, cascading down from behind their horns, is usually dark, from black or brown to dark red, blue, or purple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I'd say Chris Pine's character was a Bard, but I poorly written one at that. He seemed worthless at most times with his only usefulness being persuasion and leadership. The Druid seemed OP at times and then weak at other times... The wild magic sorcerer was perfect. The Barbarian stole the movie, she was the best part even though you couldn't tell if she ever raged or not. The paladin was cool... The fat dragon was a little dumb...
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.
It felt very much D&D to me, the entire thing, and to all the friends I went to see it with, who happen to be my gaming group. My gaming group of 20+ years with some players, including me, who have been playing since the early 70s.
Things like the Underdark were treated like the Fireswamp in the Princess Bride. It would be mentioned in a flippant way, they would go there, land a few jokes, hit some action set pieces, then off to the next locale. The intellect devourers were the same. They were they to land the joke about “detecting intelligence’ and ‘well that is a bit insulting’.
None of this is an insult btw. I love the Princess Bride and I enjoyed the movie a bunch. Every single person I saw it with thought it was good as well. All I am saying is I can see where the thread starter is coming from. If you were expecting things like the Underdark, Neverwinter, Icewind Dale to be developed a bit you are going to be disappointed. The pace didn’t allow for it. Even something like the Highsun Games is just explained by a quick hand wave of, “So you reinstated these games no one has ever heard of?” “Why yes I have…”
BTW I really liked Forge. He was fun. BUT that same breezy pace that delivered actions and laughs COULD be annoying to some. I can see that.
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.
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.
I enjoyed the movie and put my critiques above. But I disagree with your take I quoted. I don’t think it is in the best interest of the game, to draw more people in, by making a so-so movie. If they wanted to make a movie only for D&D fans then they could have done straight to video or stream.
It’s like a Pixar movie, if they made Toy Story that was only enjoyable for little children then it wouldn’t have done so well. But they made it so it was enjoyable to a wider audience, adults and children, and was massively successful.
Make a good movie, and I think it was a good movie, and people will come and see it. Make a movie that isn’t “technically good” but captures a “feel” you are going for and it might just not make the money to keep the ball rolling with follow up entertainment (movies, shows, etc)
Overall I thought it was good. The effects were pretty good with some exceptions. The dialog was a bit clunky sometimes. I think the story was OK. I liked seeing some of the settings and creatures come to life. It had some humor. The characters interacted well with each other. I do agree the Bard was pretty useless and seeing more spells from him would have been nice and I wish the Paladin threw in at least one smite. The male characters were kind of weak but they didn't over play this. I think they had budget limitations and that limited the spells/special effects and that hurt the Bard which weakened the males in the party. I gave it a 7/10. Good, not great, but worth the time. It was a fun movie that knew what it was trying to do and did it pretty well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Played D&D many years ago (AD&D) and getting back into the game.
Overall I thought it was good. The effects were pretty good with some exceptions. The dialog was a bit clunky sometimes. I think the story was OK. I liked seeing some of the settings and creatures come to life. It had some humor. The characters interacted well with each other. I do agree the Bard was pretty useless and seeing more spells from him would have been nice and I wish the Paladin threw in at least one smite. The male characters were kind of weak but they didn't over play this. I think they had budget limitations and that limited the spells/special effects and that hurt the Bard which weakened the males in the party. I gave it a 7/10. Good, not great, but worth the time. It was a fun movie that knew what it was trying to do and did it pretty well.
I agree. I do wish we would have seen either Edgin or Doric cast some spells, but maybe it was a budget thing. Or they didn't want to take away from Simon's role in the film. Basically, Doric was just Wildshape and wrist slingshot. and Edgin, the face/planner.
I did miss a couple things that were in the trailer that didn't make it into the final cut.
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?
Please name 3 fantasy movies you think are good and 3 other fantasy movies you think are bad so we understand your scale.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Their NPC sheets
Doric CR 5 Druid
Edgin Darvis CR 5 Bard
Holga Kilgore CR 5 CG Humanoid (no listed class) probably barbarian
Simon Aumar CR 5 Sorcerer
Xenk Yendar CR 10 Paladin
Forge Fitzwilliam CR 8 Humanoid LE (seriously no listed class) probably rogue
Sofina CR 15 Wizard
A couple of things, and these go way back to before 5th edition.
Gnomes have Elf like Ears and large heads, hands, and feet, Halflings look like humans with human proportions at 3 feet tall.
And a Tiefling can look 100% human, it's only recently take they are forcing them to look more like fiends. Back in the day the trope was to play Damien (The kid from the Omen) when making a Tiefling, as you could make them look human but with a bunch of devilish perks. When 5th ed dropped they started getting really into the devil look in the description and removed the bit where you could pick and choose how devilish you look. I honestly hate that BG 3 forces them to have horns, purple skin, and tails. These were suppose to be optional bits not required bits.
It was intentional. After all they are remaking that series or something.
shoot, thought I quoted the thread creator…
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)
To be honest I think it was a little more than me being a lore and rules nerd and nitpicking inaccuracies, of course I was looking out for this sort of thing hoping to see references to spells, items, character abilities and to see how accurate the director was in regards to following the ruleset but I am usually fairly forgiving with this sort of thing as I know not everything rules as written is going to work in a movie format and that there are probably going to be a few lore concessions to make things work in the movie, but as I said before I think even if I wasn't a fan of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms I do think the movie still has a lot of problems.
For me the biggest problems with the film were more related to pacing and the motivations and actions of the characters, I think part of it was they tried to fit too much into such a small runtime and did not have the time to really flesh things out but part of it was also that some of the actions of the characters (especially the villains) make no flipping sense even with the most generous attempt at suspension of disbelief. It just felt like the whole structure of the film was off with certain scenes having a really flimsy set up and others having no set up all which killed any emotional payoff and made the scene feel cheap and unearned.
As negative as my opinion on the film may be there were still parts of the movie I enjoyed and I do hope the film does well if only to get more Dungeons and Dragons content but I just did not think this was a good movie and I think they could have done a lot better than what they did.
They definitely crammed in a lot. And I agree with your points actually. Forge poisoning the daughter against her father felt very contrived for example.
However, I still felt the movie worked overall because they didn't lean into these sort of plot points too far. Tongue and cheek humor typically followed a beat later. It was very much Princess Bride rather than Guardians of the Galaxy. They knew the tone they were going for and stuck with it. I personally would have preferred Guardians of the Galaxy, but I actually like Princess Bride quite a lot as well.
Fortunately for Hasbro and the hobby in general most critics seem to think it is a fun film. I was not expecting a 90%+ critics' favorability rating on Rotten Tomatoes or all the generally favorable reviews I have seen. Hopefully that leads to box office $$ and between a successful film and how popular Critical Role and their animated series are we will see more DnD-related screen adaptations.
agree
I enjoyed the glimpses of familiar monsters, races, and settings from the Forgotten Realms, but there was nothing that made me care about these characters, and - 24 hours later - I don’t remember much about the movie other than Jarnathan the Aracockra; how bland the Druid and the Sorcerer were; how bad the Halflings looked; and how mumbly the dialogue was (I was surprised by how many times I was like, “What the hell did they just say?”).
The high points were the Paladin and the Red Wizard - who, although archetypes, at least had distinct character traits, if not distinct personalities - and the part where the Barbarian was like, “I’ll tie a rope to my axe and throw my axe across the chasm,” because tying a rope to something and throwing it is every player’s solution to every problem.
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.
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.
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.
Also, no offense, but Icewind Dale is a fairly boring locale to place an entire movie in.
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.
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.
It felt very much D&D to me, the entire thing, and to all the friends I went to see it with, who happen to be my gaming group. My gaming group of 20+ years with some players, including me, who have been playing since the early 70s.
In Baldur's Gate 3 the NPC Tieflings range from red-skinned (most), to a few with blue, grey or purple skin. For eyes most have black sclerae and coloured pupils, even though this is against 5e descriptions (whole of eye as one colour). However, although inspired by 5th Edition, the game isn't trying to be an exact match and there's many differences.
For your own character the tail is the only non-optional bit. For horns you have several options and a hornless option. For the eyes you can have any "whole eye" colour, various black sclerae with coloured pupils options and you have "normal" eye versions like a human or elf. For skin tones you can have many from all human tones, pure white, pure black, various blues, purples, oranges, and reds. With the exception of "horn" options (for obvious reasons) all the skin and eyes options are available for every character. You can totes be a blue-skinned human, if you wanted.
Since these options were there from the beginning, I must assume you either didn't pay attention during character creation or never tried making a Tiefling. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Literally the only thing not consistent with actual D&D 5th Edition was her eyes. Everything else about her - including skin - was perfectly within the Tiefling description
From the Tiefling page with some boldness and colouring from me to highlight what you missed :
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I'd say Chris Pine's character was a Bard, but I poorly written one at that. He seemed worthless at most times with his only usefulness being persuasion and leadership. The Druid seemed OP at times and then weak at other times... The wild magic sorcerer was perfect. The Barbarian stole the movie, she was the best part even though you couldn't tell if she ever raged or not. The paladin was cool... The fat dragon was a little dumb...
The Bradley Cooper part was hilarious...
Things like the Underdark were treated like the Fireswamp in the Princess Bride. It would be mentioned in a flippant way, they would go there, land a few jokes, hit some action set pieces, then off to the next locale. The intellect devourers were the same. They were they to land the joke about “detecting intelligence’ and ‘well that is a bit insulting’.
None of this is an insult btw. I love the Princess Bride and I enjoyed the movie a bunch. Every single person I saw it with thought it was good as well. All I am saying is I can see where the thread starter is coming from. If you were expecting things like the Underdark, Neverwinter, Icewind Dale to be developed a bit you are going to be disappointed. The pace didn’t allow for it. Even something like the Highsun Games is just explained by a quick hand wave of, “So you reinstated these games no one has ever heard of?” “Why yes I have…”
BTW I really liked Forge. He was fun. BUT that same breezy pace that delivered actions and laughs COULD be annoying to some. I can see that.
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 enjoyed the movie and put my critiques above. But I disagree with your take I quoted. I don’t think it is in the best interest of the game, to draw more people in, by making a so-so movie. If they wanted to make a movie only for D&D fans then they could have done straight to video or stream.
It’s like a Pixar movie, if they made Toy Story that was only enjoyable for little children then it wouldn’t have done so well. But they made it so it was enjoyable to a wider audience, adults and children, and was massively successful.
Make a good movie, and I think it was a good movie, and people will come and see it. Make a movie that isn’t “technically good” but captures a “feel” you are going for and it might just not make the money to keep the ball rolling with follow up entertainment (movies, shows, etc)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Overall I thought it was good. The effects were pretty good with some exceptions. The dialog was a bit clunky sometimes. I think the story was OK. I liked seeing some of the settings and creatures come to life. It had some humor. The characters interacted well with each other. I do agree the Bard was pretty useless and seeing more spells from him would have been nice and I wish the Paladin threw in at least one smite. The male characters were kind of weak but they didn't over play this. I think they had budget limitations and that limited the spells/special effects and that hurt the Bard which weakened the males in the party. I gave it a 7/10. Good, not great, but worth the time. It was a fun movie that knew what it was trying to do and did it pretty well.
Played D&D many years ago (AD&D) and getting back into the game.
I agree. I do wish we would have seen either Edgin or Doric cast some spells, but maybe it was a budget thing. Or they didn't want to take away from Simon's role in the film. Basically, Doric was just Wildshape and wrist slingshot. and Edgin, the face/planner.
I did miss a couple things that were in the trailer that didn't make it into the final cut.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Please name 3 fantasy movies you think are good and 3 other fantasy movies you think are bad so we understand your scale.