Dungeons & Dragons movie

>>46457208
If it bombs, it'll be because of the writing.

Only if we get scenes with the players too

File: david_leslie_johnson.jpg (48KB, 768x491px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 768x491px

>>46457510
Probably.

>>46457533
>producer of The Lego Movie

We can only hope.

>>46457565
Jesus Christ.
This thing is gonna bomb, isn't it?

>>46457208
That guy with the hat, you know its a comedy.

File: 1422386216768.jpg (23KB, 223x224px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 223x224px

>directed by Rob Letterman (Goosebumps, Monsters vs. Aliens, Shark Tale)
>scripted by David Leslie Johnson (Wrath of the Titans)

>Is there ANY chance this will be good, /tg/?

You're kind of answering your own question there.

>>46457565
Why do people like orphan?

>>46457588
It will make money because of the name.

Hasbro also developed the Transformers and G. I. Joe movies, which did really well at the box office despite not being very good.

Not to mention Battleship and Ouija which I guess Hasbro had the rights to, those earned a lot (twenty times its budget, in Ouija's case).

I think Jem and the Holograms has been their only flop. Thank god.

>>46457627
MvA was ok. Not great, but not bad. I enjoyed it, and so did the kids I was babysitting. It's a fun time killer.

Shark Tale, I have no opinion on, because I don't remember it all that well.

I haven't seen Goosebumps.

As someone pointed out, David Lee Johnson... Oh, God.

Rob Lee's good, though, so...

I think this film will be bad, but not as bad as the original Dungeons and Dragons film. I just hope it's actually a campaign where the characters are characters, and not "Players get sucked into Fantasy World, and Pop Culture references medieval people don't get! Adventure!" Type-thing.

>>46457208
Doing it as a buddy comedy with a focus on the adventuring party as a tight circle of friends is the right way to go here. The writer is shite, but these things seldom have only one writer. In Wrath of the Titans there were like three other screenwriters.

>>46457565
Honestly Directors-for-hire aren't necessarily a forecasting of the movie being shit.

But this movie is probably going to be shit.

>>46458285

It's set in the Forgotten Realms so there is the Earth connection, but I doubt they'll take the D&D cartoon route.

I wouldn't mind some meta-jokes here and there, the Syfy sequels to the original D&D film were almost entertaining for this (almost).

But if it's too wacky and quippy, it will get tiresome pretty quickly. A lot of classic fantasy/adventure films are like this (e.g. The Adventures of Robin Hood), but it's getting grating now that every single superhero film has zingly one-liners every few seconds.

Goosebumps wasn't terrible. I could see the same kind of approach to that material working for Dungeons and Dragons. Besides, it's not like it's the first time anyone wanted to do something silly with (I assume) The Forgotten Realms.

>>46458361
Yeah...

Meta-Jokes and Pop-Culture references are good if Done Right, but if done wrong or too much it's just bad.

And yeah, and so many of the one liners are so cringeworthy as well....

File: goblin_011.jpg (476KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1600x1280px

>>46457208
The more important question:
Is there ANY chance us fa/tg/uys won't be incredibly butthurt because "normies now flock to D&D because of this movie despite knowing nothing about it!"

Either this movie will change the hobby, or the majority of us will think it changed the hobby and complain about it all the time.

>>46458285
MvA was bad in my book, and his other movies go from mediocre to just plain awful (Gulliver's Travels was like chewing tinfoil for an hour and a half).

How Johnson still gets work is amazing to me. I have no idea how Hollywood works, because I don't understand how someone responsible for Red Riding Hood doesn't get dragged behind a chariot for twelve days.

>>46458570

The original movie was actually my first exposure to D&D so I can't complain.

I think most people know what D&D is and get the gist. There might be a tie-in sourcebook or something, but the hobby isn't at risk.

>>46458669
Of course most of them know, but have they also tried it? If there is an awesome mainstream movie about it and you get to see all the juicy excitement on screen, wont they try it?

But that's actually not my point, I don't mind more people trying RPing. And I shouldn't have phrased it as 'the hobby is at risk' but actually 'this board is at risk'. Because whether or not there will be new people joining the hobby, there will be fa/tg/uys complaining about those possibly non-existent people.

>>46458643
As I said, MvA was just OK to me, but I know you think it was bad, and that's cool. His other films are terrible, though, so unless they get a better writer, I don't have too much hope.

Anyway, this was slightly off topic, so let's get back to discussing the D&D film.

>>46458800
There will always be that, Anon. The board isn't at risk, because the board has always had that. Maybe it'll be particularly bad for a day or a week or a month, depending on the scale of it.

But it'll eventually fade to just another one of the things that get occasionally brought up as another symptom and normies reeee.

>>46458285
>not as bad as the original Dungeons and Dragons film

That film is actually a masterpiece once you realize it's not set in a D&D-style universe, but is actually set in the real world and all we see is the campaign. It explains so many things!

Two players start dating in between sessions, so suddenly they have an offscreen adventure together and come back with romantic tension. The plot makes no sense and is filled with random monsters, like beholders patrolling a castle, because the DM is new. The black guy's player moved away for college or something, so they had to write him out of the campaign.

The only unrealistic part is that there is no way the DM actually acted out Jeremy Irons' part that amazingly.

>>46459014

I... I actually haven't looked at it that way. I may give it a watch again, and look at it that way. Thanks for the new way to watch it, Anon!

>>46459014
>The only unrealistic part is that there is no way the DM actually acted out Jeremy Irons' part that amazingly.

I don't know. Have you ever TRIED to do a BBEG voice with accompanying actions and gestures?

Your theory makes too much sense when you consider that Jeremy Irons is actually a good actor.

>>46458570
The original movie did nothing for the hobby but give us something new to bitch about.

>>46457208
can't be worse than the 2000 movie

>>46458361
>It's set in the Forgotten Realms so there is the Earth connection

Have we forgotten that Elminster canonically holds meetings of his wizards' club in Ed Greenwood's kitchen in Canada? And the whole reason they're called the Forgotten Realms is because of the conceit that it used to be a lot easier for Earthlings to access realms of fantasy via planar portals, but now such contact has been forgotten.

>>46459321
Isn't there one setting where there's a Paladin that dresses like a Cowboy because he got teleported to the Old West?

I know it's not FR, but I know there is a setting with that.

>>46459321

That's what I meant by

>so there is the Earth connection

I just doubt they'd do the whole "visitors from Earth" thing. Maybe a few Easter eggs like an iPad in the wizard's shop or something, nothing more.

>>46459371
That's Greyhawk. Murlynd the Cowboy was the PC of one of the first players ever to play D&D.

>>46459402
Ah. That's it. Thanks for reminding me.

That's actually sort of a great example of the places DnD could go. That it's not just set to a Knight or whatever, but a cowboy can join the party.