Why are all Dungeon and Dragon Relate Movies Terrible?

[Tough_Tonka]

I just finished watching the Dragonlance Animated movie and I have to say its one of the worst things I've watched for a long time. I loved the book series and I found the comics pretty good reads, although I never bought them, but that thing was just awful on so many levels. Then I started thinking I can't really think of any D&D movie of even passable that exists. Can anyone prove me wrong on this matter?

[Amotis]

At the sound of the beep every single D&D related movie will be a work of satire.

Annnd go. *beep*

Now watch 'em again. :smalltongue:

[bosssmiley]

Ah, D&D2 was on ITV4 last night in the UK, wasn't it?

Why the movies suck:

1) Generic fantasy like D&D is, well, generic. And generic sucks.
2) Over-inflated expectations. We expect LOTR, we get Willow.
3) Insufficient budget to match the ambition, resulting in FX narm.
4) Hack writers who did not do the research.
5) Crappy actors.

As Amotis says, think of them with the MST3K robots snarking in the foreground. Suddenly they become watchable.

[Bayar]

The first D&D movie was actually good. I wanna watch it again. The second one...not so much.

[Player_Zero]

Ah, D&D2 was on ITV4 last night in the UK, wasn't it?

Why the movies suck:

1) Generic fantasy like D&D is, well, generic. And generic sucks.
2) Over-inflated expectations. We expect LOTR, we get Willow.
3) Insufficient budget to match the ambition, resulting in FX narm.
4) Hack writers who did not do the research.
5) Crappy actors.

As Amotis says, think of them with the MST3K robots snarking in the foreground. Suddenly they become watchable.

Hey... Willow was a good movie. :smallannoyed:

Agree about t'e other stuff though. :smalltongue:

[BisectedBrioche]

Well, why are all movie based on video games terrible?

Its probably for the same reasons.

[bosssmiley]

Well, why are all movie based on video games terrible?

Its probably for the same reasons.

Two words: Uwe Boll. :smallfurious:

Seriously? It's because the game designers are working to a strict deadline making a game of something that's still in pre-production churn and will probably end up looking nothing like the concepts they were given to base their models on.

[Kyrian]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

Your post is proven incorrect by the LotR movies. The only thing that could have been better with the LotR movies is if they included Tom Bombadil.

[Kyrian]

I think you kind of prove my point right there dallas-dakota. Complaining about what was taken out, and not accepting the movies as another source of entertainment.

But that's just me stating it how it is...

[Felixaar]

Two words: Uwe Boll. :smallfurious:

I feel sorry for that guy. He must REALLY hate his parents.

[Gygaxphobia]

Hey... Willow was a good movie. :smallannoyed:

Agree about t'e other stuff though. :smalltongue:

Yeh Willow was awesome! So was Hawk the Slayer!

The expectation thing I understand, you expect to see gold and you get tin - so by comparison the film under-acheives.

But seriously Kyrian, most of those films were all really bad. I haven't read any of those books/comics and I hated every one.
I don't even think many people liked the Eragon book, it's nothing to do with differing media (book-screen conversions), it was just bad.
(Harry Potter might get away with that as an excuse, but the others were awful).

EDIT: maybe it's an age-related thing, I grew up with lots of cool stuff and now the modern films equivalents of those genres just seem poor. Halcyon days of nostalgia and all that.

[Kyrian]

But seriously Kyrian, most of those films were all really bad. I haven't read any of those books/comics and I hated every one.
I don't even think many people liked the Eragon book, it's nothing to do with differing media (book-screen conversions), it was just bad.
(Harry Potter might get away with that as an excuse, but the others were awful).

EDIT: maybe it's an age-related thing, I grew up with lots of cool stuff and now the modern films equivalents of those genres just seem poor. Halcyon days of nostalgia and all that.

Just to address this, I didn't rate any of the Uwe Boll films (unless one of them in my list is one, in which case *shrug*) because I haven't seen them. Not because I stayed away from them, but because I just didn't get the chance to see them yet.

As for Eragon, and actually all the others in my list: The only real bad reviews I ever hear for them? Are people complaining that the movies sucked because of how they're different from the forms of media already out there on it.

Now, if someone were to give me an actual review, stating why you felt the movie was bad, and it's not just a bunch of fanboy/girl "This was taken out!" or "He's supposed to be doing it this way!" then yea, I'll give you that. But like I said, the only bad reviews I've ever heard from everyone on these things is that they're not the exact same way that the comics, or the books, or the old tv series, or the old movie is.

[Artemician]

Now, if someone were to give me an actual review, stating why you felt the movie was bad, and it's not just a bunch of fanboy/girl "This was taken out!" or "He's supposed to be doing it this way!" then yea, I'll give you that. But like I said, the only bad reviews I've ever heard from everyone on these things is that they're not the exact same way that the comics, or the books, or the old tv series, or the old movie is.

There's always a first.

I disliked Eragon. I disliked it not because it was different from the book, but primarily because of bad casting.

I've gone into great detail about my dislike of Transformers on other threads, but suffice to say that I haven't seen the Transformers cartoon in my entire life, love watching corny action flicks, and I totally disliked Transformers due to how it *wasn't* corny and action enough.

[Kyrian]

There's always a first.

I disliked Eragon. I disliked it not because it was different from the book, but primarily because of bad casting.

I've gone into great detail about my dislike of Transformers on other threads, but suffice to say that I haven't seen the Transformers cartoon in my entire life, love watching corny action flicks, and I totally disliked Transformers due to how it *wasn't* corny and action enough.

Thank you! :smallsmile:

I'd hug you but I don't know you. :smallwink::smalltongue::smallbiggrin:

[DigoDragon]

Personally I find D&D movies (and lots of fantasy movies in general) to have a lot of generic writing (ex: Here's a dungeon and... a dragon is in it... with a princess...). D&D has a lot of great stuff in it for characters, monsters, locations, etc., but there's no specific story to it-- that's something a Dungeon Master has to put together and from personal experience that takes a LOT of work. So making a movie about D&D is probably just as hard, if not harder since you got budgets and effect limitations to consider. Even if they did something in a specific campaign setting like Forgotten Realms it's still a lot of ground to cover since the setting covers a lot of material about the world, but not a lot of plots and developments other then a high-level overview.

So to write a specific story you have a lot of objects and concepts to play with, but plotwise you got nearly nothing. So it takes a really good writer to put something together that isn't a trope like "hero with sword kills dragon, saves princess". There are some good fantasy movies, but there's a number of not good ones too. So in conclusion my opinion is that the movies are bad due to poor story writing.:smallsmile:

[Dhavaer]

I actually really, really liked the second D&D movie. The first one was awful, though.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I liked D&D The Movie 2. It was exactly like a D&D campaign: generic, dully acted, and half-baked, but you had to love it for the sheer "I've been there" factor (if you are a D&D player). I could practically hear the actors shouting for Cheetos and Mountain Dew when they weren't on-camera.

[Freshmeat]

I didn't like Eragon, even though I never read the books. The acting in that movie was simply horrific, the plot was cheesy, the pacing was off, but most of all, it was horrifically predictable. You could foresee everything half an hour in advance. It was worse than a soap opera.
The characters are also incredibly cliché. I mean, that emo ranger that proves himself in the final battle? The Obi-Wan type of wise warrior? The staff chick? The farmboy-with-a-destiny? Come on!

The first line of the movie already struck true on the comedy gold scale. An immensely-lame 'villain' with a name that makes you think he's a character from Asterix & Obelix groaning: "I suuuuuuuuffer without my stooooone. Do not prolong my suuuuuuufferiiiing."
If your movie starts with a line like that, you might just as well call Uwe Boll and tell him to move over, because there's a new kid to pick on in town.

Movies based on games tend to fail because you're already aiming at a select demographic (i.e. "those who have played the game you're making a movie about", rather than the much broader demographic of "those that like action movies"). Thanks to Uwe Boll, video game movies are maligned by default. Who would take the risk to pour money into a project that's completely hit-or-miss? So most directors end up with a budget that could barely cover the costs of juxtaposing some sort of CGI alien werewolf next to your B-movie actress who's dual-wielding bazooka's for no readily apparent reason.

Yet still, I think that (purely technically speaking), it's possible to make a good videogame movie. It worked with comic books, why not with other forms of media? It won't be easy, obviously, but making sure that the movie is (somewhat) accessible to non-gamers and isn't centered around mindless action 90% of the time would go a long way.

[Zeta Kai]

I haven't seen either D&D movie yet, but I did watch the Dragonlance cartoon piece of garbage, & I can vouch for its lack of quality. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that it is a good effort, or that it is the audience's inability to accept a change in media that is to blame for the bad press it has recieved. The "film's" flaws include (but are not limited to):

The movie crammed 448 pages of story into a 90 minute movie. This caused the film to move at a breakneck pace that left sub-plots, clarifying exposition & entire characters discarded. Also, basic characterization & narrative flow were casualties of the all-consuming need to tell the whole main story in an hour & a half, with confusing & rushed-feeling results.
The tone of the movie was radically inconsistent. For the most part, the story came off as a fairly generic fantasy epic, with the action being relatively tame compared to some bloodier quest stories. It sometimes becomes light-hearted or even silly, especially when Tasslehoff or Fizban are on-screen. Then Raistlin glowers & clutches his chest, reminding everyone that he's sacrificing his very soul for arcana power. Or Tanis casually mentions how he was born as the product of rape (at least the movie doesn't try to explain away the rape & say it never really happened, unlike later writers of the Dragonlance novels). Or the good guys walk around the battlefield, stabbing helpless enemies without a second of remorse or even acknowledgement of what modern audiences would see as a war crime. The entire feel of the movie was so different from scene-to-scene that most of the movie would qualify as PG, while a few parts creep into R territory.
The 2-D animation was poor in most parts, looking about on par with late-80's/early-90's Saturday-morning cartoon quality. The frames-per-second was just really low. Disney animation is usually really high-quality, with most of their animated features having a full 24-frames-per-second. This movie would have benefitted from having half of that. What made the poor 2-D animation even more jarring was seeing the 3-D animation bizarrely blended in with it. Although the 3-D animation wasn't of the best quality (it had the look of test animations done by a college student, mostly), it had a much better frame rate, & therefore looked much smoother than the 2-D cells. This didn't so much make the 3-D look better as much as it made the 2-D look worse.

I could probably go on (& on, & on), but I think I've made my point. This movie's bad reviews have nothing to do with some source-material-elitism on the part of the audience. As someone who's never read the original novels, I can attest that this movies many crippling problems are inherent & not relative.

[The Extinguisher]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

For the record, not even keeping in mind the edits, the third Harry Potter movie was a horrible movie.

But yes, I agree with you. I've been saying this for years.

[Telonius]

Example of a RP-related movie that didn't suck, but was (in fact) awesome: The Gamers.

[Arioch]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

Eragon the film was bad because they tried to condense a thousand-page book into an hour and a half. If they'd made it longer, it may have been better, but as it was, it was completely and utterly generic because they had to cut out almost everything. It was a completely standard fantasy story.

My favourite film is V for Vendetta, an adaptation of a graphic novel. It's completely different, but having read both, I have come to the opinion that the film is better for it's shorter length and simplification - the book gets dull, while the film is fantastic. It's a great example of what happens when adaptation is done well. Other examples (IMO): LotR, Beowulf.

It's hard to make a book into a movie. The two media don't mesh very well. However, it can be done well. But often it is done badly, and people who have read the book in question are going to be upset.

Here's the thing: they're not different stories. They're the same one. Which means they should fit together. It's also possible to make a new story from an old premise (eg many new superhero movies), and that's fine. I thought Iron Man was very good, for example.

Sorry if this doesn't seem very coherent: I didn't plan my argument out beforehand. Also, shouldn't this be in the Media section?

Finally, in answer to the actual question: People playing D&D want different things than someone reading a fantasy book. They often don't want an original setting. They want their dwarves and elves. This means that, however original your story is, some cliches are going to be inherent from the start. This isn't always true, but it often is. And some people don't want that onscreen.

[Tough_Tonka]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

I ain't complaining about comic book and book movies in genearal. I enjoyed the harry potter, LOTR, Iron Man, X-Men movies and many others like them. They weren't all good (fantastic 4 anyone), but there were definitely some good to awesome movies in this catagory.

But D&D movies just seem to suffer from horrible animation, acting, boring fight scenes, and many other problems.

[Trog]

1. Lack of decent screenplay which results in...
2. Lack of big name actors which results in...
3. Lack of funding which results in...
4. Lack of decent special effects.

Or the funding thing comes first. Not sure.

I blame the lack of a decent script.

[WalkingTarget]

My favourite film is V for Vendetta, an adaptation of a graphic novel. It's completely different, but having read both, I have come to the opinion that the film is better for it's shorter length and simplification - the book gets dull, while the film is fantastic. It's a great example of what happens when adaptation is done well. Other examples (IMO): LotR, Beowulf.

I liked all of the films you mentioned here as well. I also tend to prefer the books in all three cases (though I think Beowulf wouldn't work as a film at all without changes similar to what they did for this one, personally). This got me thinking about why there tends to be a lot of nerd-rage when dealing with adaptations. The problem people have with it is that in order to make the film more exciting/more accessible for a general audience, often the tone of the work is changed. It's more likely to be changes in characterizations and relationships between characters than just plot simplifications (unless the part they cut is something that's important for understanding a character's motivations, maybe).

LotR example: In the books, the time of the elves is ending and men must rise up to confront Evil, in the films it's hammered into the audience again and again how men are weak (everyone's hopeless before Helm's Deep until a bunch of elves show up to help). Even Aragorn, who has some doubts along the way, but it supposed to be a beacon of strength and nobility is tainted somewhat (his confrontation with Sauron via palantir doesn't show the strength of will the character has in the novels and in the extended version of the film he kills the emissary of the opposition, hardly noble, but it's there for catharsis). Now, the constant message of "men are weak" works to establish how much trouble the world is in without all of the history and whatnot that a book can give and by cutting out a large portion of the secondary armed forces available to the good guys they emphasize just how outnumbered they are, but it changes the overall tone of the work, which irks a lot of people. There are many such changes in these films, but I try to judge these things on their own merits as much as I'm able.

If the "tone" of the work in question is part of what makes the book enjoyable in the first place, and then it's changed in order to make a marketable film, then they're asking for trouble from the fan base. See Jibar's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4407147&postcount=121) about the Constantine film for an example. Sure it might be an entertaining movie, but they removed an important aspect of the character's base concept in order to make it more accessible to people in general. This is why I think the Watchmen film is probably a train wreck waiting to happen, but I'll still give it a shot.

None of this really addresses why "D&D movies" suck. I only saw the first one (in a theater on opening night :smalltongue:), but I went in expecting pretty much what I got (rather than MST3King my way through it I had more of a DM of the Rings mindset, although that comic wasn't around yet to give me a label for it). I agree with what some others have said in that it's hard to do a "D&D" film because there isn't a story (or even a real setting) to use as a template. You could go for FR, Eberron, or even Greyhawk I guess, but even so you'd need a lot of exposition to get the audience up to speed with that setting's base assumptions and whatnot (or how it differs from Generic Fantasy World #24601). And from what I gather, these don't seem to be the type of films that tolerate a whole lot of exposition.

[Inhuman Bot]

Response to Kyrian: The Eragon movie wasnt to good to me becuase:
1) stuff was taken out. Yeah,yeah I know what you said. But stayy witt me Some parts don't make sennne bcau
mke ybord is dien so I havv to finsh late

[Kyrian]

For the record, not even keeping in mind the edits, the third Harry Potter movie was a horrible movie.

But yes, I agree with you. I've been saying this for years.

Oh thank you for this! I'm really glad knowing I'm not the only one that is feeling this way.

I'd also like to thank everyone else that are giving reasons for why they felt some of these movies did bad that aren't "because this was left out" or "it was condesnsed" and what not.

All and all, I'm at fault here too, we all need to remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinion on all of these. So I apologize to anyone if they read my above rant and feel that I am personally attacking them.

[TRM]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

Objection!

All of the movies on your list that I had seen I didn't like, not because they weren't carbon copies of the books, but because they were simply bad movies. I agree with you in theory, that rabid fanbois are bad, but I think your list of flicks didn't support your position.
Note: I had a 2 page list of criticisms of almost all of those movies, but decided not to post it because it was off topic and unnecessarily aggressive towards Kyrian. :smallsmile:

On-Topic:
How many D&D movies are there??

[Kyrian]

The only ones I know of that physically have the Dungeons and Dragons name?

Dungeons and Dragons
Dungeons and Dragons 2: something about Dragons.

There could be more, but those are the only 2 I know.

[Arioch]

Objection! All of the movies on your list that I had seen were terrible.

No, they weren't terrible. You didn't like them. Not the same thing. I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily blunt, but a lot of arguments would be avoided if people used "I liked/disliked it." rather than "It was good/bad."

I liked Iron Man. I didn't like Ghost Rider. I loathed the Eragon and Harry Potter 3 movies.

Good and bad are entirely subjective terms.

[CrazedGoblin]

For the record, not even keeping in mind the edits, the third Harry Potter movie was a horrible movie.

But yes, I agree with you. I've been saying this for years.


they are ALL awfull

[Mauve Shirt]

Oooh, yay! A whole thread where I can rant about all of this stuff about movies I've been wanting to for so long...

Hindsight Edit: So after typing all of the following, I decided it should better go into a spoiler...

Warning: Spoiler does contain rant. You have been warned.

Why do D&D movies suck? Why do video game movies suck? Why do comic book movies suck? Why do book movies suck?

Because you fans won't give people a break and accept the movie as a new form of media. A new form of entertainment. A new view. A new side of an existing story. :furious:

I mean, seriously people, shut up and accept that it's a different author/artist's view already. I get sick and tired of movies that I see, all you people can do is complain about what was different. What was wrong. What was cut out. I mean, the most recent ones I can think of:

Eragon: Nearly EVERYONE that read the book complains and whines about the movie, where as nearly everyone that DIDN'T read the book enjoyed the movie for what it was. Personally, I didn't read the book. But after seeing the movie, I have planned on going back and reading it.

Harry Potter (any movie): Alright, seriously, I want to slap a bunch of people that complain about this one. I've read all seven books. And seen all five out of seven (eight technically, Deathly Hollows is going to be in two parts) movies. And you know what? I enjoyed every single one of them. Sure, parts got cut out. Sure, I was sad about that, but have any of you people that complain about all the stuff cut out even LOOK at how big those books are getting? Books four through seven were like freaking encyclopedias. They can't put all of that into the movie. We'd be there for a few days!

Transformers: All you die hard fans that complained about how different it was from the cartoon really were pissing me off about this one. So I watched the old cartoon, not religiously or anything, but I watched it. And I enjoyed it. And I enjoyed the movie because it was a new take on something I had watched growing up. And you know what, you can hate the storyline, the plot, the action, but you just TRY and deny that the transforming wasn't infinitly better than its boxy-transforming counter-part that was in the cartoons.

Ghost Rider: almost EVERYONE is saying this one sucked. Well, having not read a single Ghost Rider comic, I say bugger off on it. I thought the movie was pretty good. Worth the money spent to see in theatres. Worth the money to buy the DVD and be able to watch again and again. Once again, it may not follow the comics exactly. Hell it may not follow the comics at all, and I wouldn't even know, but once again, I'm able to accept this movie as a new take on an old story.

Iron Man: Still hearing some mixed reviews. Not the easiest for me to go on about as it's still out at the moment. But people, give it a rest, won't you? Iron Man has got to be one of my favorite Marvel Characters, and I don't even READ the shocking comic books. I know a little bit about Iron Man, I went into the movie KNOWING that I know little about Iron Man, and I ABSOLUTELY LOVED the movie. Hell, I'm buying the most special edition version I can find of it, assuming that it gets something other than what everyone's going for these days with regular and special edition 2-disc.

Dungeons and Dragons: Alright, so I haven't really seen the second one yet, but I have seen the first and I can tell you that I enjoyed it. Ridley first off is being played by Jimmy Olsen from the old Lois and Clark. That right there earned the movie points. Then you have Marlon Waynes, which only added more points. And I'm sorry if I don't know every little detail about D&D that would explain why this movie sucked to almost all of you, but I quite enjoyed it for what it was.

The Hulk: ....ok, so I think the world is pretty unanimous that this movie sucked. Here's hoping that The Incredible Hulk makes up for it.
(See? I can agree with you people. And here again, I have no background knowledge of the Hulk. I've seen some of the old show on TV Land and that's about it.)

And I already have money that all you die-hard Trek fans will find PLENTY to complain about the new Trek movie coming out either late this or next year.

Maybe if all you die-hard fans of anything would stop critically analyzing every single detail. "Oh...but it's supposed to be this." Or "This should have happened like this." or anything else. Just. STOP. Yes, you're allowed your opinions and all...but honestly, just accept these things as a new take on an old story? Because it's driving me insane how nothing seems to please you all.

Only spoilers if you haven't seen HP movies, and if you haven't seen the movies you probably don't care.
Eragon I never saw the movie because I thought the book was crap in the first place.

Only real problem I had with the harry potter movies is the third one. While it was a kick-ass movie and had awesome effects, they took out the explanation of moony/wormtail/padfoot/prongs, an entire chunk of the plot without which future movies will not make sense. The fourth and fifth, sure they left stuff out, but they were still good as movies, and didn't remove anything that important.

Transformers was kickass and one of my favorite movies now.

Ghost Rider I never saw

Iron Man = <3<3<3<3<3 Tony Stark built it in a cave with scraps etc.

D&D = eh

The Hulk = lamest hero ever. And they put the entire plot of TIH in the trailer, so I know exactly what to expect. Bleh.

And despite all appearances, I'm not a die hard trek fan. Just thought I'd say that.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Okay, boys and girls. Take a seat and Uncle Bor will give you a learnin' about movies.

Academy Award winning screenwriter William Goldman revealed in his book Adventures in the Screen Trade that many books don't fit into a movie. His example was All the President's Men. Many of you haven't seen it, I'm sure, and those who have probably don't know that it stops around the middle of the book. There's just too much source material. Thus, a writer has to pick and choose what goes into a screenplay.

Ah, but we can't blame the writer for everything. Peter Jackson was very lucky to be the writer, director, and producer of the LotR saga. If he had only been the writer...Well, here's what would have likely happened...

Good ole Pete sells his LotR scripts to a production company. Producer A and B sit down and review the script, and decide it would be too much work to make Hobbits look small, so they'll be normal height. What's more, Frodo should have a pup named "Nibbles" that is smarter than the average dog.

Okay...They contact Super Director and tell them the project they have on the table. Super Director is sent the script, reads it over, and has a few issues with the settings. "Too many sets. Too many props. Let's just film on location in Oklahoma." He also believes Hayden Christensen would be perfect for...Gandalf? :smallconfused: Denzel Washington as Aragorn, Rob Lowe as Frodo, and Martin Sheen as Saruman.

Now these actors are sent copies of the script, and each reports back with an agreement to do it IF a few changes are made. Hayden will play Gandalf if - and ONLY if - a love scene is written in. Denzel, having done too many cop movies, wants Aragorn to carry a gun and a badge. Rob Lowe insists that the remainder of the Fellowship be gorgeous women. Martin is pleased, but would like a few moments written in where he can get that vein in his head the pulse prominently on screen.

After a few rewrites to fit the desires of the actors, and the actors then agree to do it, it's off to the executive producers. These are the money men, people. They're the ones who go to the investors and say, "We have it all lined up. Look who's on board with it. Will you give untold millions to our project?" But before they do that, they see the Mines of Moria scene and decide it's too much. Gandalf will be killed in a spectacular explosion during a car chase through the streets of Los Angeles. Gollum will also be played by one of the executive producer's favorite cat.

The movie is made. It hits theaters. And in the end, the audience wants to know why Tom Bombadil wasn't in it. :smallconfused: :smallconfused: :smallconfused:

I have a general sense of these things because I have several screenplays I would love to market. I spent a few years researching the process, and what to truly expect from my work.

Like my script, The Summer of Magic (SoM). Magic, superheroes, drama...It's a tale full of win in terms of "marketability." Action figures, video games, books, etc. Should I sell it, and it's ever made, I will likely only recognize the names of the characters, as even the title will be changed along the way. :smallannoyed:

SoM, however, is a prime example of a writer's conundrum when it comes to converting a book into a screenplay. You see, it started as a novel. The opening chapter is filled with character introductions, and most of what occurs happens in the characters' heads. Like one guy contemplating his romantic life while feeding his fish. Unless there's going to be a very long voice over of his thoughts, which will bore an audience to tears, all you'd see is five minutes of him feeding and watching his fish swim about.

When I converted it to screenplay format, the story takes off shortly after the start of chapter two. I skipped the prologue and the first chapter completely.

Now, the topic here is a D&D movie. You can see the issue at hand when it comes to a film based on a novel. Now imagine ONE movie that relies on a virtual TON of source books. It's a creative nightmare. No one is EVER going to get exactly what they want. At best, a writer should simply write a fantasy movie and make no reference whatsoever to D&D. Otherwise, there will be little else but disappointment.

To Kyrian's displeasure, I will make a gripe about the Harry Potter movies, particularly The Goblet of Fire. It's about the misuse of the material of the book. For the most part, it was good. HOWEVER, there are a couple of things I didn't like.

1. The dancing lessons. Oh, I could gripe that such a scene wasn't in the book, but that's not my problem. No, my issue with that whole scene was that it did NOTHING to forward the story. It was a plotless wonder on the screen, and could have been better spent...

2. ...developing the Rita Skeeter plotline. Alternatively, since they didn't use her in the fifth movie, they could have skipped her character altogether. My hypothesis is that because they botched her character in the fourth, they COULDN'T use her in fifth. Use her properly, or don't use her at all. So, like the dance lessons, all scenes with her were a waste of film.

Of course, not everyone would have been happy if she didn't appear at all. "What happened to Rita?" My view: who cares? She was a side plot at best in the book.

Okay, children. Uncle Bor is done now. You can all go outside and play. :smallwink:

[Oregano]

I don't really regard any movies as bad, well maybe except the others, bleh, so predictable.

And Bor, I'm aspiring to be a director or producer when I'm older so If I make it I'd be glad to adapt your screenplay to the big screen, but that'll probably never happen:smallfrown:, and even if it does it's years off.

Personally, I thought the first D&D Movie was mediocrebut the second one was fantastic and I thought the acting was alright, especially the main guy but some people were quite weak(even Bruce Payne).

[Bayar]

The only ones I know of that physically have the Dungeons and Dragons name?

Dungeons and Dragons
Dungeons and Dragons 2: something about Dragons.

There could be more, but those are the only 2 I know.

The second one is : The revenge of the Black Dragon.

[TRM]

Hayden Christensen will play Gandalf if - and ONLY if - a love scene is written in.

You don't mind if I sig that do you?

edit: If you say no I'll take it out of my sig.

[Lord Blace]

The second one is : The revenge of the Black Dragon.

It was actually Wrath of the Dragon God. [/nitpick]
You know, the one with the black dracolich that had a breath weapon that seemed to be consisted of fireball spells. :smallannoyed:

[Gygaxphobia]

No, they weren't terrible. You didn't like them. Not the same thing. I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily blunt, but a lot of arguments would be avoided if people used "I liked/disliked it." rather than "It was good/bad."

...

Good and bad are entirely subjective terms.

You started by stating an absolute... "they weren't terrible."

It is fundamental that when someone says anything is it their opinion. They do not need to say "it is my opinion". It goes without saying.

All the arguments in the world would be more peaceful if people knew that.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

You don't mind if I sig that do you?

edit: If you say no I'll take it out of my sig.

I deem it an honor to be sig'd...my bad spelling and all. :smallsmile:

[Dryken]

You guys are TOTALLY not mentioning the masterpiece that is the animated series!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfif5DiGMYc

[averagejoe]

No, they weren't terrible. You didn't like them. Not the same thing. I'm sorry if this seems unnecessarily blunt, but a lot of arguments would be avoided if people used "I liked/disliked it." rather than "It was good/bad."

I liked Iron Man. I didn't like Ghost Rider. I loathed the Eragon and Harry Potter 3 movies.

Good and bad are entirely subjective terms.

So me buying a blank tape (or DVD, for you kids out there) produces exactly as good a moive as, say for example, The Godfather?

[Arioch]

You started by stating an absolute... "they weren't terrible."

It is fundamental that when someone says anything is it their opinion. They do not need to say "it is my opinion". It goes without saying.

All the arguments in the world would be more peaceful if people knew that.

Alright. First point conceded. I don't agree that it goes without saying, though. For some things, disagreement is necessary, especially if something actually hinges on the decision.

But for discussions that are entirely about personal taste, declaratives should be avoided.

[RicFule]

I can understand why every little piece of novel can't make it into a film. {Budget constraints, anyone?} What really gets me is when the adaption is altered as in LotR. First movie had scenes from the second book. And vice versa, if I'm not mistaken.

And as in the mention of Harry Potter: There is NO way under the sun all the plot from those books can make a complete translation into a film. As long as the major threads make it, it can potentially work.

[Gygaxphobia]

I can understand why every little piece of novel can't make it into a film. {Budget constraints, anyone?} What really gets me is when the adaption is altered as in LotR. First movie had scenes from the second book. And vice versa, if I'm not mistaken.

I can't really fault much of that work, and the changes that were made, so viewing the film in three part some changes were needed.
While I -as a fan of the book- don't like the way some things were cut/changed/disregarded, the entire pacing of a movie is different.
People will only sit still in the dark for a certain length of time to watch a movie, you have to acheive high and lows and climatic scenes within a few hours.
When I read LOTR it was on a bus over the coruse of 3 months. A very different setting and a very different medium.


But for discussions that are entirely about personal taste, declaratives should be avoided.

That declaration is your opinion...

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

RicFule: They key to the LotR saga on film was all about pacing.

The first cut of the movie was well over four hours long, and it was a mess, according to the excutive producer Mark Odesky. Remember that my previous post here is that the executive producer's job is all about the money. Well, a four hour film might run three times a day if you're lucky, and that's not going to bring the money in. What's more, an audience isn't going to sit for that long unless they have the ability to hit a pause button so they can take a little break. Once they started focusing the story more on Frodo, the film became managable.

The next issue is that the story in the books takes YEARS to take place. Frodo waits until he's in his 50's before finally setting out. It was a narrative nightmare. Thus, many things were cut out for that reason alone.

Yes, the first movie ends at the start of the second book. There was a reason for that. As a movie, it needed an ending. To stop the film while the Fellowship was still traveling would have had audiences walking away in anger. There would have been no proper cap to it, and not much to look forward to if some kind of cliffhanger wasn't present. So they killed Boramir, had Merry and Pippon kidnapped, and Frodo and Sam go off on their own. There, at the official breaking of the Fellowship, was a decent place to stop and let the audience wonder what will happen now.

Tolkien scholars - yes, there are such things - were consulted for a great deal of the film. Tolkien did things in his novels that no publisher today would allow. Take The Two Towers, for example. He split the entire thing in two, focusing on what remained of the Fellowship, then traveling back in time to tell Frodo and Sam's story. No audience could follow that, especially if they were unfamiliar with the written works.

What's more, Tolkien made errors in the timelines. He had events in the second book that should have been happening in the third. The film folk took it upon themselves to iron that out.

There are 18 hours of extra features on the extended cuts of the movies. What I've said here, as well as much more, is revealed in there. You might want to check them out if you get the chance.

In terms of Harry Potter, Rowling is a great fan of what is known as "the red herring." You see, she wrote more than a series of fantasies; she wrote mysteries within a fantasy setting. A red herring is a false clue designed to mislead the reader. Her greatest herring was Snape, whom we all believe to be a true villain in sheep's clothing until the last book.

It's unfortunate that they haven't done much to truly develope that through the films. Snape comes off as very unlikeable, but not hated as he is in the books.

But, again, it's all about the source material. Go read How Not to Write a Screenplay by Denny Martin Flinn, then take your favorite novel and see if you can convert it into a screenplay. If you have any hair left in your head by the end of this project, then you might be the greatest writer of all time. :smallwink:

[Mauve Shirt]

And as in the mention of Harry Potter: There is NO way under the sun all the plot from those books can make a complete translation into a film. As long as the major threads make it, it can potentially work.

But they took out THE major thread of the third movie! And didn't make any attempt to explain it in the fourth and fifth movies!!!

[Rockphed]

Denzel, having done too many cop movies, wants Aragorn to carry a gun and a badge.

Do you mean a real gun and badge(which totally breaks the Fantasy Genre), or a figurative gun and badge? The former is much funnier, but, in a way, Aragorn is a cop. He goes out into the wilderness and, though it isn't said explicitly, takes care of problems before anybody else notices that they exist.

On the other hand, I want to make an adaption of The Lord of the Rings set in the modern era. Now, for a good balrog what do we need?

[MandibleBones]

On the other hand, I want to make an adaption of The Lord of the Rings set in the modern era. Now, for a good balrog what do we need?

Very possibly, we need Mr. T.

[Arioch]

That declaration is your opinion...

Yes. It is. Do you instead feel that people should stick to their guns over their opinons on media and refuse to compromise or accept other views? Or are you arguing for the sake of it?

[pendell]

How about a third possibility, which includes all of Uncle Bor's thoughts:

1) Lack of respect for the Genre.
2) Lack of respect for the audience.

As an example, I give you

Building the Bomb (http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp15.Building.the.Bomb.html), an account by one screenwriter of his work to produce the unwatchable adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein's Puppet Masters.

Problems:
1) Very few people on the project had read the book.
2) Very few people on the project were SF fans in the first place.

This translates to : Lack of respect for the genre. These people didn't know anything about good SF , and didn't care enough to learn.

Which builds to:
3) Lack of respect for the audience.

Who do you think they figured would watch these movies? Well, SF fanboyz like me. You know, the creepy people who show up at Star Wars conventions dressed like Boba Fett or hitting each other with plastic lightsabers in front of the opening of 'The Revenge of the Sith'. People who made 'The Phantom Menace' a commercial success, despite the fact that if it didn't have the Star Wars label it would probably have gone direct to video.

There are people in Hollywood who know how to make good movies. But I guess they figured that SF fans would watch it no matter how bad it was, and no one else would no matter how good it was, so there was no point in making it better.

And I think it is the *opposition* of precisely these two factors that make LOTR a runaway success. Because the fact that Peter Jackson loved the subject matter and the work shines through every frame. He loved what he was working on, and did his best to make it the best it could be. AND, he retained creative control so no one else could *** it up.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[jkdjr25]

I would, respectfully, disagree with the notion that ALL D&D related movies are terrible. I'll grant you that the first movie was just horrid, entertaining in an MST3K way but horrid. It would have been more tolerable without Marlon Wayans though.

Anyway I point to Record of Lodoss War and Slayers as my evidence. Both series, from original novels to manga to anime, were based on Dungeons and Dragons campaigns. Both are among the best in fantasy anime, at least in my opinion.

[bobothegoat]

Kyrian mentioned stuff being removed from LOTR, with people still loving those movies. But that's also because, despite LOTR being a fairly popular set of books, the majority of viewers still hadn't read it in the first place. Despite some people being upset about their favorite scene being removed or whatever, HP was still only liked by people that had read the books. It did okay anyway though, because pretty much everyone has already read the books. Had someone not read the books beforehand, there's almost no way one could like any of the movies past maybe the first two. Without prior knowledge of the Harry Potter books, the movies seem to lack any narrative focus. It isn't so much about all the stuff they left out, but that even the stuff they kept in wasn't adapted to work for a movie format, or to be able to work without the details that the removed stuff had been providing in the books.

As for Eragon... well, a bad movie was made out of an even worse book. Nothing unexpected here, besides its popularity. Maybe it's a case of "so bad it's good" or something.

[RicFule]

But they took out THE major thread of the third movie! And didn't make any attempt to explain it in the fourth and fifth movies!!!

Which is that again? I haven't seen the movies recently.