Definitely feels like something made that was intended to capitalize on DnD getting more popular from stuff like Critical Role/Stranger Things and people posting about it during the pandemic. Pretty skeptical that it will be anything but a generic fantasy film with the DnD brand slapped on it.
Without casting shade on the game? D&D has never really had a particularly strong internal background to my knowledge? Memorable Monsters and Original Tropes sure, but not a setting as such.
That’s one of the reasons it’s been so successful I think. It’s easily transposed to a setting, or gives the GM absolute freedom to create their own?
DnD has a few settings and some of them are very good. Eberon and Ravenloft come to mind. Lots of character and flavor in both.
This looks like the more generic/standard Forgotten Realms setting which is bland on purpose for the reasons Doc mentions. I hear people say it used to have more flavor but that predates my time.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Without casting shade on the game? D&D has never really had a particularly strong internal background to my knowledge? Memorable Monsters and Original Tropes sure, but not a setting as such.
D&D has had more than a few settings with in-depth backgrounds (e.g., Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance just off the top of my head).
Post trailer reaction: that's a lot of stuff, hope there's a story in there somewh... oh. Well, I guess 'we accidentally unleashed a dark lord' plot is a cliche for a reason. Gods know I've done that enough in D&D campaigns.
Dunno if the characters will be more than quips, though.
Not a bad party set up- bard, barbarian, paladin, sorcerer, druid.
So, a random Chris, that car franchise lady, and some kids? Bold choice.
----
Perhaps more interesting is there is apparently a spin-off series as well. That's likely to have a little more depth, and more than just monster cameos.
Wow... that's channeling some serious OG D&D movie feels and visuals channeled in that trailer which probably isn't a good thing. I suppose with all the humor that there is technically a non-zero chance of either purple lipstick or a Waynes brother cameo, either of which would fit in well.
Sadly, yeah. I don't know why they drew so much from the first attempts at D&D movies, but I had some bad flashbacks.
In fact, didn't they do this exact plot? Questionable heroes fetch artifact for 'secret' bad guy?
I'm of the opinion that a well done, well financed and cast trilogy based on the original Dragonlance trilogy could be every bit as successful as any other notable movie franchise. But then, I'll proudly admit to my bias and affection for those books as well.
This... is not that. There's some flashes of stuff in the trailer that looks decent enough, but so much of it manages to look cheap, even though it clearly isn't. Little things like the group running along a cliff, which is clearly just a cliff. I can't help but think if that scene was in the LOTR Jackson would have dropped a mountain range something into the background to remind the viewer they weren't in Kansas.
Kudos for apparently having a black dragon breathing acid, but many demerits for having the dragons look weird and looking like they escaped from a SyFy movie. It's probably called Land Of The Dragonkin or something.
But most of the things I didn't like the look of were FX based, so there's still a chance the final thing could be better. Probably heading for the same bin the WoW movie ended up in though, IMO.
Well, the trailer did what trailers are supposed to do, pique my interest.
Still, the trailer for the first D&D looked interesting too.
We'll file this one in the 'keep an eye on future developments' folder. Might be good in a cheesy way, might be good full stop, might be close to good but failed to stick the landing, might be 'first movie' bad...
Azreal13 wrote: I'm of the opinion that a well done, well financed and cast trilogy based on the original Dragonlance trilogy could be every bit as successful as any other notable movie franchise. But then, I'll proudly admit to my bias and affection for those books as well.
I agree completely. You get a ready-made, decently fleshed-out setting with a fairly simple story and a bunch of genuinely interesting characters. I think the terrible animated movie probably torpedoed any chance we had of getting that though, at least for a while.
Azreal13 wrote: This... is not that. There's some flashes of stuff in the trailer that looks decent enough, but so much of it manages to look cheap, even though it clearly isn't. Little things like the group running along a cliff, which is clearly just a cliff. I can't help but think if that scene was in the LOTR Jackson would have dropped a mountain range something into the background to remind the viewer they weren't in Kansas.
Kudos for apparently having a black dragon breathing acid, but many demerits for having the dragons look weird and looking like they escaped from a SyFy movie. It's probably called Land Of The Dragonkin or something.
But most of the things I didn't like the look of were FX based, so there's still a chance the final thing could be better. Probably heading for the same bin the WoW movie ended up in though, IMO.
I think part of the problem is that D&D isn't a setting or a universe, it's just a game system with a bunch of different settings attached. So making a D&D movie almost inevitably leads to quite a generic fantasy movie. That generic movie can be good if it's well written but I also worry they may just be trying to cash in on the success of Critical Roll and we'll get a glossy but forgettable movie. As someone already pointed out, even the plot seems recycled from a previous D&D movie. Not setting my expectations too high for this one.
Looks like fun, by the trailer. So it's done it's job and I'll go and see it. Some good portrayal of some classic D&D monsters (displacer beasts and black dragons in the mix there) with a dash of GotG thrown in. Cool.
Totally pumped for this, but I think the D&D cartoon had a great idea about it that would translate well onto the big screen. Bit like Marty McFly trying to get back home after taking a "drive" in the Delorean. OMG, it could be like Masters of the Universe but where Julie and Kevin have the adventure in Eternia instead of He-Man and Co in our world...oh, you guys know what I'm getting at!
Just realised that the young lady who turns into the owl bear is Sophia Lillis from IT! Loved that duology!
Chris Pine seems to have a lot going on these days - will they ever do another big screen star trek? Didn't like Into Darkness, but I think Cinema could always do with the odd Trek movie once in a while - so many different stories to chose from. Personally, if given a blank check and told to go wild, I'd do the Devil in the Dark kind of thing. Love that episode!
D&D, with Jeremy Irons? Bloody classic! Its one of those really awful movies that is also a guilty pleasure...
Aside from some D&D monsters, it was just incredibly bland. It's so painfully "Hollywood". If you can see the meeting that went into creating the trailer, I don't hold out much hope. I'm sure it will be watchable, but with so much to offer from D&D, this just falls flat.
Aside from some D&D monsters, it was just incredibly bland. It's so painfully "Hollywood". If you can see the meeting that went into creating the trailer, I don't hold out much hope. I'm sure it will be watchable, but with so much to offer from D&D, this just falls flat.
As far as the look goes it seems really modern D&D to me. I had no good expectations but over all it looks fun, not good but fun. I'm not a huge fan of the modern look in D&D. I prefer dark gritty fantasy as far as style.
I enjoyed the Book of Vile Darkness as the only other D&D movie I had seen was that first one with the dragons and the thieves guild which I did not enjoy at all.
As a genera I feel D&D is better as a low budget production as long as the script and story is there. It seems like a massive missed opportunity to not make loads of lesser quality D&D movies with lesser or unknown actors, imop.
It's all about the spectacle now days though right?
The old, "Oh I didn't really care I just wanted to turn off my brain and watch it'. over movies of more depth. But I do think this will be fun, which is a lot more than I had expected.
I don't watch gaming livestreamers like specifically Critical Role. Are those sessions filled with similar humor to entertain viewers live? Is that the style/tone they were going for?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Without casting shade on the game? D&D has never really had a particularly strong internal background to my knowledge? Memorable Monsters and Original Tropes sure, but not a setting as such.
That’s one of the reasons it’s been so successful I think. It’s easily transposed to a setting, or gives the GM absolute freedom to create their own?
Dragonlance? Forgotten realms?
D&d is the rules. Setting was separate things. Above are 2 big settings for d&d.
SamusDrake wrote: Chris Pine seems to have a lot going on these days - will they ever do another big screen star trek? Didn't like Into Darkness, but I think Cinema could always do with the odd Trek movie once in a while - so many different stories to chose from. Personally, if given a blank check and told to go wild, I'd do the Devil in the Dark kind of thing. Love that episode!
Star Trek 4 (for the lack of a better name) is already in production with a December 22, 2023 release date.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Without casting shade on the game? D&D has never really had a particularly strong internal background to my knowledge? Memorable Monsters and Original Tropes sure, but not a setting as such.
That’s one of the reasons it’s been so successful I think. It’s easily transposed to a setting, or gives the GM absolute freedom to create their own?
Dragonlance? Forgotten realms?
D&d is the rules. Setting was separate things. Above are 2 big settings for d&d.
I'll see your Krynn and The Realms, and raise you a Greyhawk (although still think Raven Loft and Dark Sun didnt quite fit and we'll pretend the Flying boats never was)
Given I just dont "get" Critical Roll Il be giving this a miss till a slow streaming day
warboss wrote: I don't watch gaming livestreamers like specifically Critical Role. Are those sessions filled with similar humor to entertain viewers live? Is that the style/tone they were going for?
I don't watch streamed games either but I did watch some of the Amazon animated show based on Critical Role (Legend of Vox Machina) and I would say that they are indeed having fun while playing and not just SRS BZNSS all the time. What clips I have stumbled on of people playing D&D often had laughing and smiling so I do think a somewhat lighthearted tone is common.
Then again most of the game groups I've played with over the decades also vacillated between serious and silly without having it to be for the benefit of an audience, so I'm not sure how it being humorous in some parts is a detriment. Obliviously humor will be subjective but that would be true of any genre so even if the film is, generally speaking, good it won't be to everyone's taste.
warboss wrote: I don't watch gaming livestreamers like specifically Critical Role. Are those sessions filled with similar humor to entertain viewers live? Is that the style/tone they were going for?
Depends on the episode. Or even parts of episodes. They can get super serious and dark, go lore heavy or delve real deep on emotional RP. Honestly the combat bits tend to drag, which is a mix of the group, the DM and just 5e.
Truthfully, for a hardcore emotional RP experience, their recent spin-off, Exandia Unlimited: Calamity was serious role-playing business. There isn't a chance in hell that this film will match that experience. Its a more manageable 4 parts as well (though still about 20 hours)
Well, that's not going to happen. I though Spelljammer was great.
I hope to get to play that at some point. I've thought it looked fun for a long time. I've only been playing for maybe 3 years now. Hope I get to play and don't have to run the game, I've not run a game in more than 20 ears... So I would be horrible at it.
Which brings me to Hollywood D&D stuff.
They could make a killing on their own movie setting, if this movie does well and can stick the next one in the same setting and so on. With the right plots and scripts they could shoot several movies almost at the same time and do crossovers. Obviously they will need the audience but to me it feels like a big money maker.
I'm not hugely up on critical role. I did watch the car toon and started to listen to campaign 1 but fell off.
About the humor again, My group has loads of it we're more like a sitcom with adventure and all the other stuff. Some weird twist up, It's always sunny, in the silver Marches. I'm sure lots of groups aren't too dissimilar. My main ,well the first thing that came to mind from the trailer was how well pressed his shirt looked. That crisp style of clothing is not really my thing when it comes to fantasy but once it becomes in universe cannon there's no reason to give it further though. It just is.
I'm feeling kinda good about what I've seen thus far from the trailer.
Not tough to do at all.
1) I play a game where we pretend to be elves & wizards & .
2) I've been completely ignoring Spelljammer since it debuted back in the '90s.
So what makes you think I can't pretend Spelljammer 2022 doesn't exist?
As for this movie?
●It'll probably be better than any previous D&D movie.
●It definitely won't be the worst movie I've seen (And enjoyed).
●I have fairly low expectations for it & no illusions about what I'm getting. So I doubt I'll be disapointed.
●Assuming I see it in the theater, I will NOT be paying evening prices....
I predict I'll be entertained for 2 hours.
Not as bad as the other preview when it was just the actors spinning around and posing in their costumes, but still pretty rough.
Paladin guy poses with his sword and the blade flies off like it's pulled by a string. This is a shot they decided to use in their trailer.
They're definitely going for a more light-hearted 'team of screwups band together to save the world' type of story, and I think the Vox Machina or Guardians of the Galaxy comparisons are apt - but I don't think it's going to measure up to either of those, maybe there's an element of raunchiness or emotional punches to the gut that they've wisely opted not to show in the trailer that can actually bump it up but so far I don't like what I see.
Big concern just looking at this trailer is there are a lot (a lot!) of different setpiece fights in this trailer alone which leads me to believe this is going to be a run from one place to the next type narrative that can get really tedious if not handled correctly. If anything it feels more like a trailer for an alarmingly high budget streaming TV show in that respect.
Mixed feelings, feels very close in tone to guardians of the galaxy, or the typical marvel movie style humor interspersed between action. It was cool to recognize some of the creatures in the trailer, but I sure hope the movie is more than whatever this trailer was.
We're getting a Druid that turns into an Owlbear on the big screen - ignoring how much that's already winding up some corners of the D&D fanbase, that's enough for me to watch it at some point.
whembly wrote: Guardians of the Dungeons Galaxy and Dragons?
Might be good.
You also need to tie in some Suicide Squad reference as well......
Guardian Squad of the Dungeon?
Well, they have been making Superhero movies in different genres for some time, so it makes sense that the Fantasy genre should try and steal from the superhero genre this time.
Thargrim wrote: Mixed feelings, feels very close in tone to guardians of the galaxy, or the typical marvel movie style humor interspersed between action. It was cool to recognize some of the creatures in the trailer, but I sure hope the movie is more than whatever this trailer was.
Dunno. Pretty much every TTRPG I’ve ever been involved in has involved silliness to rival Monty Python between bouts of kicking arse.
Even when we try to be serious, it gets daft and silly. Half baked plans pulled off against all rational expectations. Well planned..erm…plans, reduced to ashes by The Dreaded Dice. Often what seems the most far fetched, idiotic, “well they’re only kneecaps, I’m fairly sure those grow back” idea or action is conversely rewarded by those Naughty Dice.
And as the GM, I can absolutely guarantee you your players will find a novel and embarrassingly easy solution to cunningly crafted traps and plots - whilst also collectively failing to notice the Push sign, and spending an hour trying to Pull the door open.
Thargrim wrote: Mixed feelings, feels very close in tone to guardians of the galaxy, or the typical marvel movie style humor interspersed between action. It was cool to recognize some of the creatures in the trailer, but I sure hope the movie is more than whatever this trailer was.
Dunno. Pretty much every TTRPG I’ve ever been involved in has involved silliness to rival Monty Python between bouts of kicking arse.
Even when we try to be serious, it gets daft and silly. Half baked plans pulled off against all rational expectations. Well planned..erm…plans, reduced to ashes by The Dreaded Dice. Often what seems the most far fetched, idiotic, “well they’re only kneecaps, I’m fairly sure those grow back” idea or action is conversely rewarded by those Naughty Dice.
And as the GM, I can absolutely guarantee you your players will find a novel and embarrassingly easy solution to cunningly crafted traps and plots - whilst also collectively failing to notice the Push sign, and spending an hour trying to Pull the door open.
This is a lot of what I enjoy about D&D. It has a lot of layers going on. So I don't mind ridiculousness or humor when I think of what this D&D movie will be like. I doubt it will top any of the stuff players do in games but I hope it will also draw from what can happen in games as well.
Got me thinking about how my Wizard was in a tavern alone and near the wrong end of a shake down but things went sideways as "I" used charm person on ever person in the tavern except the guy trying to fight me. All while I was trying to get away and not get into a physical altercation. And as fun as that was it wasn't even the top of the levels of ridiculous.
Being "probably" an evil wizard is a lot of fun.
I had a lot of doubts about big name actors in D&D movies but I'm finding myself optimistic about this movie.
Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy and the embrace the seemingly unavoidable silliness that occurs in the games I get involved in - but that’s not to say I deliberately prat around for the sake of pratting around.
And with no suggestion anyone is “doing it wrong”, I’m not sure I’d take to a game played entirely straight and serious myself.
Even the LARP I do/used to do, there was mucking around, even during a battle, though granted less so as I’m not terribly fond of ending up all hacked and mangled. Just need to read the room is all, and know when Srs Bsns is in fact genuinely serious.
Tamereth wrote: So it sounds like I am the only person that liked the original D&D movie. Always suspected it, but at least i know now.
The new trailer actually feels a lot like the original, probably because it revolves around a band of theives.
Maybe but at the same time one of the complaints about the original was it didn't really draw much from D&D. I noticed a number of things in the trailer that is enchouraging in "this is at least grounded in D&D"
A short list:
- Black Dragons: If you didn't notice this when the dragon came, it was literally spitting acid, something D&D black Dragons do. a Nice touch
- Owl Bear
- Mimic
- Displacer beast
- Gelatanius cube
Easy E wrote: You forgot.... it also had Hugh Grant! Quintessential D&D right there!
I suspect that Vecna Actually is all around…
"Vecna That's the only name you'll hear. Vecna. It means the end and the death. Vecna. I am Vecna. Vecna is all around you. Vecna is the man beside you. Vecna will gnaw on your bones. Look out! Vecna is here"
Tamereth wrote: So it sounds like I am the only person that liked the original D&D movie. Always suspected it, but at least i know now.
It wasn't the best fantasy movie I've ever watched, but I didn't hate it.... And it's on my DVD shelf. Is that close enough to liking it?
Same, I didn't hate it but it certainly wasn't a best in class movie. I went to see it with my gaming group and we had a good time, as I recall it released shortly before we finished our AD&D campaign and switched to 3rd ed.
Easy E wrote: You forgot.... it also had Hugh Grant! Quintessential D&D right there!
I suspect that Vecna Actually is all around…
"Vecna That's the only name you'll hear. Vecna. It means the end and the death. Vecna. I am Vecna. Vecna is all around you. Vecna is the man beside you. Vecna will gnaw on your bones. Look out! Vecna is here"
That's the real tragedy of the first film that needs to be addressed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: This movie will bomb on opening weekend though. Sure everyone Says they can make it, but they’ll cancel at the last minute.
Lol. And here I thought I was the only GM to experience that! I used to not leave my house for the FLGS until the group text message had enough positive replies to meet the minimum threshold after too many false positive confirmations the night before/morning of.
Easy E wrote: You forgot.... it also had Hugh Grant! Quintessential D&D right there!
I suspect that Vecna Actually is all around…
"Vecna That's the only name you'll hear. Vecna. It means the end and the death. Vecna. I am Vecna. Vecna is all around you. Vecna is the man beside you. Vecna will gnaw on your bones. Look out! Vecna is here"
Azreal13 wrote: I'm of the opinion that a well done, well financed and cast trilogy based on the original Dragonlance trilogy could be every bit as successful as any other notable movie franchise. But then, I'll proudly admit to my bias and affection for those books as well.
This... is not that. There's some flashes of stuff in the trailer that looks decent enough, but so much of it manages to look cheap, even though it clearly isn't. Little things like the group running along a cliff, which is clearly just a cliff. I can't help but think if that scene was in the LOTR Jackson would have dropped a mountain range something into the background to remind the viewer they weren't in Kansas.
Kudos for apparently having a black dragon breathing acid, but many demerits for having the dragons look weird and looking like they escaped from a SyFy movie. It's probably called Land Of The Dragonkin or something.
But most of the things I didn't like the look of were FX based, so there's still a chance the final thing could be better. Probably heading for the same bin the WoW movie ended up in though, IMO.
I quite agree with your points.
Odds are though that a Dragonlance trilogy would not the screenwriters or actors it deserves.
I believe there is a Dragonlance animated movie for Dragon's of Autumn Twilight out there somewhere?
My group decided that we are going to go to this, and that we are going to all get dressed up in cheesy costumes too. Probably won't when the times comes, but I am pretty sure we will get there.
Easy E wrote: I believe there is a Dragonlance animated movie for Dragon's of Autumn Twilight out there somewhere?
There is. It sucks.
It's got a decent cast - Kiefer Sutherland and Lucy Lawless are hardly bad actors, and Sutherland's performance as Raistlin is actually pretty good. The animation is shockingly bad and the runtime is far too short to do justice to the story. It feels like one of those ideas that's probably done much more harm than good, as it's now much less likely we'll see any Dragonlance movies in the near future.
Easy E wrote: I believe there is a Dragonlance animated movie for Dragon's of Autumn Twilight out there somewhere?
There is. It sucks.
It's got a decent cast - Kiefer Sutherland and Lucy Lawless are hardly bad actors, and Sutherland's performance as Raistlin is actually pretty good. The animation is shockingly bad and the runtime is far too short to do justice to the story. It feels like one of those ideas that's probably done much more harm than good, as it's now much less likely we'll see any Dragonlance movies in the near future.
I don't think I watched beyond the first scene - the heroes meeting at the inn in Solace. I remember Caramon watching Tika's heaving chest for what felt like hours, to the point where even a dirty old man like me felt uncomfortable about it...
Voss wrote: Sadly, yeah. I don't know why they drew so much from the first attempts at D&D movies, but I had some bad flashbacks.
In fact, didn't they do this exact plot? Questionable heroes fetch artifact for 'secret' bad guy?
At least it's accurate to many many games played over the decades....
warboss wrote: Wow... that dragon right before the mimic (1:23 in the link above) looks really really rough as CGI... like 2003 rough. Wow.
Is this still planned as a theatrical release?
didn't seem that bad to me - besides I think it's an animated statue - I believe you can see it motionless as the party make their way through a city square.
warboss wrote: Wow... that dragon right before the mimic (1:23 in the link above) looks really really rough as CGI... like 2003 rough. Wow.
Is this still planned as a theatrical release?
didn't seem that bad to me - besides I think it's an animated statue - I believe you can see it motionless as the party make their way through a city square.
I hope you're right. I'd be ok with it as some kitschy in universe statue/decoration.
Sophia Lillis will portray Doric, a tiefling druid, in the upcoming 2023 film Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Doric will also be the main character in two upcoming prequel novels – The Druid’s Call (2023) by E.K. Johnston and The Road to Neverwinter (2023) by Jaleigh Johnson.
So the film definitely takes place in the Forgotten Realms and not just some generic D&D setting. Hopefully it does good enough to see an FRCU (Forgotten Realms Cinematic Universe) established...
Sophia Lillis will portray Doric, a tiefling druid, in the upcoming 2023 film Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Doric will also be the main character in two upcoming prequel novels – The Druid’s Call (2023) by E.K. Johnston and The Road to Neverwinter (2023) by Jaleigh Johnson.
So the film definitely takes place in the Forgotten Realms and not just some generic D&D setting. Hopefully it does good enough to see an FRCU (Forgotten Realms Cinematic Universe) established...
Forgotten Realms is so boring, Where is an Eberron movie? I want a Warforged and Goblin noir detective duo on an elemental airship solving who done its.
Eberron would be better suited for a streaming series with good production values. Movies tend to focus more on big set piece action, where a running show would let you spend time on the world building and details.
You want armies clashing and dragon raids/heists? Movie. But the kind of stories I want to see out of Eberron are going to be slow burn ones, were you get a feel of the place and the people and politics. I think if they did a movie there it would just be generic high fantasy, but with robots. Squander the potential.
Unfortunately, when the non-players think of Dungeons and Dragons it is settings like the Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk that they think of. It's those non-players that they need to make this movie a success. Heaven knows I would love to see a Spelljammer movie (1st edition crystal spheres and explosive phlogiston only please!).
Yeah, but playing to those boring expectations is almost aiming for failure.
It's not like dnd movies in the past have been a success.
Making an Eberron movie with a warforged paladin and a chain smoking goblin in a trenchcoat might be the interesting stuff that actually pulls them in.
Honestly even a down to Earth adventure would be better.
I kind of cringe at the 'save the world' aspect of this. It seels like it plays too much into the cliches of DnD, edgelords, and the 'Main Character syndrome' of bad players, and not the richness of the game in full. Honestly if I were adapting DnD into a movie I'd have done a port of Mines of Phandelver or Dragonheist, both of which already play out like movies.
This is a case where I think lower stakes and a simple adventuring narrative would actually be a much better fit than 'Guardians of the Galaxy Not in Space.'
I think the best case scenario is that it'll turn out to be Fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy. I fear that it'll end up a name brand version of Your Highness.
FR (and Greyhawk) can be down to earth (especially in their early days), it just depends on the writers being sane and not kitchen-sinking the project (which it looks like these did- here's a yuan ti in cage, a kuo-toa in a net, a bugbear behind that door, an aarakoa behind this one, all in very cameo-like meaningless flashes).
'Save the world' is definitely overplayed though. A mid level Red Wizard of Thay (which is what we seem to have here) can be a perfectly fine regional problem or personal antagonist to one or more of the party.
I think the biggest problem is it looks like its setting up basically the previous movie failures with a cast of comedic dopes (plus a straight man) in over their heads with a world ending plot, rather than easing in with competent protagonists and a grounded antagonist (or group).
You don't start out saving the world it is something you do accidentally after trying to kill all the rats in the tavern's basement. You gotta build up to that kind of thing.
Voss wrote:... easing in with competent protagonists and a grounded antagonist (or group).
That does not sound like a game of D&D.
Does to me, but I started in 1e (well, and Basic, but I jumped to AD&D pretty quick, though there were some good adventures to pillage). Competence was required or TPKs happened. And many of the modules and adventures of the time were MUCH more location focused, with threats to the nearby town or even just a village. Four modules into a series and there might be a demon lord or something, but my go-to starting adventure was L1: The Secret of Bone Hill, which was so low-key that the sequel (Assassin's Knot) was required to get a threat against the local baron's family. (The third one, which I never ran, jumped full on to a demon-invaded dwarf hold) . But when I think of D&D adventures, I think of that, Baltron's Beacon, Against the Cult of the Reptile God, Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread and adventures like that. Even Temple of Elemental Evil took a while to ramp up to full crazy.
I think the biggest problem is it looks like its setting up basically the previous movie failures with a cast of comedic dopes (plus a straight man) in over their heads with a world ending plot, rather than easing in with competent protagonists and a grounded antagonist (or group).
I know that's a lot of the popular live play style of game, but its never been part of what I've actually experienced at the table (nor do I want to, really).
I think the biggest problem is it looks like its setting up basically the previous movie failures with a cast of comedic dopes (plus a straight man) in over their heads with a world ending plot, rather than easing in with competent protagonists and a grounded antagonist (or group).
Sounds game accurate to me.
Yeah, I don't get the hate. Every game I have ever played was more like Guardians of the Galaxy, than Star Trek. Once a guy tried to cause a distraction by scareing a horse with cunningly shot arrow, and ended up killing the horse with his most lethal rolls of that game. I mean, it was still a distraction?
I know that's a lot of the popular live play style of game, but its never been part of what I've actually experienced at the table (nor do I want to, really).
I had one GM who adopted Blade in the Dark rules. We didn't have to track every item. We had gold and as long as the item was magic, we were allowed to 'reveal' that we had an item by spending the gold.
It did save a lot of wasted shopping time in towns and stuff looking for mundane and uninteresting items.
I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but, I read somewhere that Hasbro is trying to sell the Studio. That is not a good look when you have an upcoming movie due out in a few months.
Genoside07 wrote: I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet but, I read somewhere that Hasbro is trying to sell the Studio. That is not a good look when you have an upcoming movie due out in a few months.
You're confusing the studio making the film with One Entertainment who are listed in this films credits but reportedly haven't actually done anything to work on it.
Which is why they're being gutted and solid off. They're a production studio Hasbro bought but that isn't actually producing anything. They're a casualty of Hasbro's whiplash efforts to try and spin itself into a Disney-esque media empire. A few years back they tried to establish/acquire a range of in-house studios to do that, but then realized that was stupid expensive and questionable when they can just license with Paramount. eOne has basically been sitting with nothing to do for as much as a year because Hasbro has no intention of keeping it.
I doubt the sale will have any impact on future films. Paramount supposedly did all the real work and will still be interested if the movie sells (which is what Hasbro reportedly wants anyway). I'd first question how much money this movie will make cause it looks kinda lame if you ask me and I have to assume I'm in the target audience :/
We tracked our weight of belongings in Starfinder, but it has a system where many items are deemed near weightless, and it takes ten of those to equal one pound. Many of them are still quite useful, and I would dig thru all the books and buy up useful tools. Surprised them on several occasions pulling out a grappling hook and a fire extinguisher and a poison filtering straw and my pocket full of zip ties. Sad the campaign fell apart before I had a chance to reveal my full emergency survival kit that included a climate controlled tent, cots, an emergency transponder, and more that I kept in a little pocket dimension. Had a whole little deck box of item cards with dividers to keep track of where everything was stored.
warboss wrote: Wow... that dragon right before the mimic (1:23 in the link above) looks really really rough as CGI... like 2003 rough. Wow.
Is this still planned as a theatrical release?
didn't seem that bad to me - besides I think it's an animated statue - I believe you can see it motionless as the party make their way through a city square.
Yes, it is an animated statue as seen at 1:20 in the new trailer...
I'm really glad that's the case. I'm still not a fan of the humor though for the longevity of this film. It's hard to believe but IIRC the first D&D film and the first LOTR film came out within a year of each other and there was a wide gulf between the quality of them.
Ah. A 'questions' gag. I wonder if they'll dig up the Sending spell and screw up the 25 word limit on that as a bonus trope.
Oh, my sides. We are laughing, aren't we?
creeping-deth87 wrote: Man, people here have no sense of humour. This movie looks like a blast. Not every film has to be some profound statement on the human condition.
I feel a bit sorry for the mage/elf in that clip - kinda feels a bit outclassed/inexperienced acting wise; but could be just the scene he's setup in that moment.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Man, people here have no sense of humour. This movie looks like a blast. Not every film has to be some profound statement on the human condition.
Lot of assumptions in them three sentences
Hey, somebody clearly enjoyed Your Highness and is excited for more...
But frankly this looks like a movie made by people who don't understand D+D for people who don't like D+D.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Man, people here have no sense of humour. This movie looks like a blast. Not every film has to be some profound statement on the human condition.
Lot of assumptions in them three sentences
Hey, somebody clearly enjoyed Your Highness and is excited for more...
But frankly this looks like a movie made by people who don't understand D+D for people who don't like D+D.
I'm not unimpressed that not a lick of the film seems inspired by anything but the idea 'people like this, and this, and this, so we'll do this, and this, and this.'
Maybe I'm wrong but I ain't paying to find out and I'm more than happy to mock the promotions that only seem to reinforce the idea that this is the movie to see if you like Guardians of the Galaxy so much you want a discount version.
Geek media being converted into mass-media for non-Geeks is par for the course and I'm not one to rant about it much. I'm just also not much interested in it XD
Well I've seen 3 mins of cobbled together clips from the film so its hard to give a full judgement call on just a fragment of the film. But yeah I'd rather see the whole thing or a good chunk before passing final judgement.
I've seen trailers that looked awesome and the film turned out poor; I've seen dull trailers to an awesome film; I've seen films others hate that I like and vis versa.
I don't see the harm in that?
I mean heck "true DnD" is often a bit of a vague term if you consider that DnD can be formal story books; comics; adventures; super silly all the way to deep and detailed. Even the RPG itself is insanely variable from silly to sane to bonkers to one off to super serious.
If it turns out as a semi fun romp of light jokes and humour with some neat action scenes and such and isn't trying to take itself too seriously but not too insultingly stupidly at the same time then it could be good fun for entertainment.
Or it could be utter dross. As I said above I've already a bit of a reservation regarding the apparent acting skill of the mage/elf characters.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Man, people here have no sense of humour. This movie looks like a blast. Not every film has to be some profound statement on the human condition.
They don't have to reuse old jokes, either. The 'you have 3 (5) questions, but you waste them on bad phrasing' is a cliche of 20th century fairy tale retellings. It could have worked with one wasted question. Four of them just portrays the protagonists as idiots. And then the trailer implies that it doesn't even matter, they'll just dig up the next corpse and do it again. So the whole cliched joke is undercut immediately.
The movie looks like they're checking off lists. And it somehow gets worse about that with each trailer.
There's a lot of D&D media these days. That they're for some reason trying to relearn the lesson from the first D&D movie gakshow is baffling. Get some good actors, wrap a semi-decent story around a couple familiar tent-posts and namedrop a few locations.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Man, people here have no sense of humour. This movie looks like a blast. Not every film has to be some profound statement on the human condition.
Yep. Doesn't have to the best thing ever to be fun.
They don't have to reuse old jokes, either. The 'you have 3 (5) questions, but you waste them on bad phrasing' is a cliche of 20th century fairy tale retellings. It could have worked with one wasted question. Four of them just portrays the protagonists as idiots.
So.... pretty accurate to what goes on in many actual games.
Including the one I'm playing in atm.
So.... pretty accurate to what goes on in many actual games.
Including the one I'm playing in atm.
Yeah this is what I was referring to, but said better. I could see this being a thing, party dynamics as part of blending the player experience with fantasy.
I am perfectly entertained by intentionally stupid so long as it’s well done stupid. I thought the last Thor got Too stupid in a lot of places for example, while Guardians is a more appropriate amount of stupid. Yes, Marvel movies are my metric.
AduroT wrote: I am perfectly entertained by intentionally stupid so long as it’s well done stupid. I thought the last Thor got Too stupid in a lot of places for example, while Guardians is a more appropriate amount of stupid. Yes, Marvel movies are my metric.
It depends a lot on context and tone. Futurama would be eye wateringly bad if it didn't have its tongue so thoroughly rammed into its cheek every waking moment. If the Toxic Avenger didn't play horrible special effects so straight, it wouldn't be anywhere near as funny.
Sophia Lillis will portray Doric, a tiefling druid, in the upcoming 2023 film Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. Doric will also be the main character in two upcoming prequel novels – The Druid’s Call (2023) by E.K. Johnston and The Road to Neverwinter (2023) by Jaleigh Johnson.
So the film definitely takes place in the Forgotten Realms and not just some generic D&D setting. Hopefully it does good enough to see an FRCU (Forgotten Realms Cinematic Universe) established...
From the following clip we now know that the city is Neverwinter...
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the obligatory product spot...
This tongue in cheek campy silliness of D&D (characters behave as modern people just pretending to be in a quasi-medieval setting) is actually the thing that made me prefer bleak, deeply compelling Warhammer Fantasy for my RPG adventures. It should work perfectly as a movie, though! It did for Your Highness, which I like a lot.
Per IMDb, Luke Bennet (Bobby), Moe Sasegbon (Diana), Trevor Kaneswaran (Eric), Emer McDaid (Sheila), Seamus O'Hara (Presto) and Edgar Abram (Hank) will portray the six Dungeons & Dragons-loving friends who were the main characters in the 1980s animated series. The upcoming cameo was revealed in a recent clip for Honor Among Thieves (at the 0:58 mark}, which showed the group competing in a challenge against the film's main party (Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Justice Smith and Sophia Lillis).
Personally I was happy with the result. This film is head and shoulders above the previous D&D movie efforts. Not saying much I know, but I think this is a good basis to start a series of films. Whether Paramount actually do this or not will depend on how many people watch this film. It won’t be from lack of effort on their part though.
There were enough references to the D&D lore to keep me happy. My exposure to D&D mainly comes from the PC games, especially the Interplay ones. There were probably a lot of references that I didn’t get, though others will. Overall I thought the world was well thought out. It doesn’t pander to RPers that much, then again it doesn’t dumb things down enough to annoy the fans.
I thought the acting was good all round, with Hugh Grant being the standout. Not something I thought I’d ever say about a D&D movie. Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez get a lot of screen time, and more or less carry the movie. That’s not to say that the other actors were bad, or that their characters were weak.
Overall I liked this film. It is a bit long, the first half especially could do with a bit of trimming. Even so I hope more comes out of it. Fingers crossed
SamusDrake wrote: I think this is one where I'm not too bothered so long as it's fantasy fun featuring lots of mazes and monsters.
Saw it this afternoon. It doesn't really feature that many mazes or monsters. If you've seen the trailers you've seen most of them.
What it is is both simultaneously mediocre & entering.
If you've ever played D&D? You'll definitely identify with some of the stupid the characters get up to throughout. "Been there: played that one, DM'd that one, yeah I know people who'd do/try that."
Oh, and it's got some REALLY bad CGI/FX in places.
(Ex: The Tabaxi - they'd stand out as horrible even if they were inserted into that awful CATS movie from a few years ago.)
Still a considerable step above all the previous D&D film efforts though....
Saw it this afternoon and it was decent fantasy fun. I certainly wouldn 't mind another adventure with the gang, should it earn enough at the box office.
This may be a deal breaker for some, but it had no starring role from Tom Hanks, and sadly not a Gorvil in sight.
Orlanth wrote: I stopped watching trailers for this. I'm already sold and want to watch the film with minimal spoilers and expectations..
Same. I stopped a couple weeks back actually.
I heard positive comments from word of mouth but only saw two trailers, the arena scene which I found by accident and the first one, which I searched for afterwards.
That was yesterday.
It tells me what I need to know, I might yet be disappointed, but it seems so far to respect the subject material, be well organised and, so far, avoids pushing an agenda.
Just got back from the theater and absolutely loved it. Doesn't break new ground or anything, but the movie knows exactly what it wants to be and it's wildly entertaining. I will definitely watch this again.
Yeah, this film is fantastic. Some genuinely great action set pieces, well-shot and choreographed and the use of magic especially feels so DnD (you can literally namecheck the spells being used in pretty much all of the action sequences, if you know your stuff!). It's incredibly funny throughout, with plenty of jokes that are definitely there for the folks that know the game well, without ever coming across as laborious or forced. Solid performances across the board, with Rege-Jean Page's paladin being an absolute standout for me. Hugh Grant also hams it up delightfully, as you'd expect.
Most importantly for me though, it's earnest and heartfelt, which is a rare thing in blockbusters these days. There's no wink to the camera to let the audience know that it knows it's a silly movie based on a silly game, or any irreverant gags to undercut moments in danger of being 'too serious'. In fact, the dramatic moments and character beats are given plenty of space to breathe among the comedy and action, and there's genuine pathos to the characters' stories and the plot as a whole, with everyone getting a complete arc through growth and resolution.
It's a real breath of fresh air in a media space that's increasingly dominated by franchises and product placement and companies trying to be the Next Big Thing. Yes, I did feel a little nauseous as 'Based on Hasbro's Dungeons and Dragons' came up in the end credits, and this film was definitely commissioned to start a DnD Cinematic Universe and sell D20s to teenagers, but the cast, crew and writers have approached it with genuine artistic vision and integrity and love of the game, and it shows through very clearly. I'd absolutely show up for sequels if and when they come, but this film tells a complete, earnest story start to finish and even if it's all we get, it works perfectly as a standalone fantasy tale.
That's pretty amazing to hear in this day and age. I haven't even looked at the criticism yet, but if that's true, it sounds like it will be more of a cult classic as time goes by.
Most importantly for me though, it's earnest and heartfelt, which is a rare thing in blockbusters these days. There's no wink to the camera to let the audience know that it knows it's a silly movie based on a silly game, or any irreverant gags to undercut moments in danger of being 'too serious'. In fact, the dramatic moments and character beats are given plenty of space to breathe among the comedy and action, and there's genuine pathos to the characters' stories and the plot as a whole, with everyone getting a complete arc through growth and resolution.
That is really great to hear! I know it can come down to personal interpretation, but I do agree that a lot of what you said as negatives do happen a lot these days with films and it detracts from the overall experience of an otherwise upbeat and then serious film just being an honest fun film.
So saw it with daughter. Verdict? Watch it for free on a streaming service, not worth a cinema ticket price.
Had one good scene - the fat dragon. The rest desperately needed to be funnier. Daughter though Chris Pine was there because Ryan Reynalds was busy. Otherwise she now thinks several viva la dirt league videos are quite funny.
It was perfectly enjoyable and a fun watch. The vistas were nice and the characters are likable. The 80s cartoon cameo was unexpected but well done.
It would have been nice if the barbarian actually got to use the blade of her axe but they are trying to reach a broad audience so it is understandable that it couldn't get to graphically violent. They were still able to do some decent action set pieces within those limitations.
Considering we got Mordenkainen and Elminster name drops I was expecting hear Vecna to pop up somewhere. Maybe Stranger Things ruined that.
Saw it today. Was fun. Some of the action scenes were oddly weightless and... dull?
Namely there is a wild shape chase/escape in which I never felt thrilled even a little bit. It was oddly slow. Not like the slowest speeders in existence from Book of Bobba slow. But not too far away from it either.
But over all I think there was good jokes, good heartfelt moments. A nice heist romp.
If you’re talking about the scene I’m thinking of, the gimmick was that it was made to look like one continuous shot, a sort of film nerd flex. And considering one reviewer called that the stand out action scene in the movie, I’d say Mission Accomplished. But yeah, there’s a reason filmmakers generally avoid long, continuous shots in crowd pleaser movies.
Lance845 wrote: It's good that he wraps it up by saying none of it actually matters.
That's why they call it the Forgotten Realms.
Better than the alternate title, the Misbegotten Realms.
Which, having heard him in person telling stories about games he ran before he sold the bare bones version of the setting to TSR, is rather accurate. The standout story I remember is having his players infiltrate Zhentil Keep, which naturally leads immediately to the nearest brothel, where the party starts spilling their secrets to the prostitutes (who are, of course, actually spies) until the beholders come floating in through the windows. Cue zany hijinks.
That he kept slipping in and out of the Elminster persona (yes, he wandered and did panels around game conventions in character. Sometimes, when he remembered), added a whole other level of surreal.
But its worth remembering in this context that large sections of the Forgotten Realms were blank, and developed by people who were NOT Ed Greenwood to create a finished product, and quite a few decades have past both in setting and out, which changed a whole mess of things. Including dead gods, new gods, new geography temporarily overlaying the landscape (then going away again) and political structures being completely destroyed and rebuilt. Oh and multiple game editions happened. His take on 'what's wrong' just isn't that relevant.
Well that's the nature of any long term setting being evolved and added too over time. People will ask questions and answers will be found and new questions arise.
You get the same thing in super long running book series as the author develops and advances and explores their world in greater depth.
Adeptekon wrote: I realize it's unpopular to admit this, but I liked D&D before it had it's own mythology.
Well Greyhawk was 1980 and Forgotten Realms was 1987 so sometime in the mid to late 70s? Plus I will not stand by while someone besmirches the integrity and awesomeness of Dark Sun. Now if you want to hate on Al-Qadim that would be reasonable.
I saw it with four people, non of which play D&D in any capacity, and they all enjoyed it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: If you’re talking about the scene I’m thinking of, the gimmick was that it was made to look like one continuous shot, a sort of film nerd flex. And considering one reviewer called that the stand out action scene in the movie, I’d say Mission Accomplished. But yeah, there’s a reason filmmakers generally avoid long, continuous shots in crowd pleaser movies.
Bar the working as a team to fight wizzaard, I did wish most of the fight scenes were a lot shorter. Or gone. Fight in forge or overpowered paladin fights? Cut them right down...
I disagree somewhat. I thought the fight with the wizard at the end felt a little too breezy and superhero-ish compared to Holga’s more grounded fist fights. I enjoyed the way her fights were choreographed and edited because they were easy to follow while feeling suitably brutal, almost a throwback in style.
I thought the Paladin only got one real fight scene? As he was there to be better than everyone else and annoyingly humble about it, I wouldn’t have minded if they shortened his fight to a one-hit-one-kill, no sweat scene.
its nice that there's another fantasy movie that isn't explicitely for kids but also isn't garbage so i dont have just the lord of the rings and maybe the hobbit movies when I want some phauntashee
Strg Alt wrote: I compared both D&D movies to Conan the Barbarian. Needless to say I didn´t like them at all.
Wouldn’t the natural comparison be Krull or Willow? Conan the Barbarian was a different subgenre with Beastmaster and Deathstalker. Seems like the closest modern equivalent would be Game of Thrones, fantasy for adults with a hard edge that gets progressively worse until you hit the Red Sonja stage and give up.
Adeptekon wrote: I realize it's unpopular to admit this, but I liked D&D before it had it's own mythology.
Well Greyhawk was 1980 and Forgotten Realms was 1987 so sometime in the mid to late 70s? Plus I will not stand by while someone besmirches the integrity and awesomeness of Dark Sun. Now if you want to hate on Al-Qadim that would be reasonable.
I can't comment on Darksun, the cover art looked cool, but I never played it.
And sure GreyHawk, let's just say to a much lessor degree these early campaign worlds were more like islands than verses (or how a lot of people like myself looked at them, --not speaking for the big time Gen Con goers and the like.
Besides my friend's older bros and crew playing in these worlds no one I knew really paid too much attention. Modules were just that, injectables into whatever realm you desired whether written for something larger or not. Many of us were either running our own campaigns with our own lore or just writing up random scenarios for the next get-to-gather (a fun, not-so-serious, rinse and repeat).
Moms bought me basic set when I was 8 (shhh don't tell I was under the recommended age of 11 or whatever, right before the Satanic Panic began making waves with the 1980's media), so I started there, then played one module of Expert, and skipped to 1st AD&D, and so on from there.
The ongoing development was to be expected, people need to make money, but at the time I hated it. I didn't need a ton of rules and pre-made to play.
AD&D got me into mythology, and from there history (I already had my foot in the door with Tolkien). When people started escaping into Forgotten realms I scoffed at it as a kind of Tolkienish wannbe. (did the same with Warhammer, and now I'm here)
I couldn't understand why people wanted more of someone's profit orientated make-believe versus the rich common wealth heritage of actual cultural history and lore ... which if I might add, pre-www was still quite mysterious to many of us outside of the Ivory towers of the universities. Having only TV documentaries to enlighten (Good God) beyond the physical library ... damn I feel ancient.
Deities & Demigods covered all the real world cultural mythologies we needed, and when they didn't we made them up ourselves or elaborated on those further by diving into those real world mythos and folklore on deeper levels. No one lore to ruin everyone's indy campaign settings.
Overread wrote: Well that's the nature of any long term setting being evolved and added too over time. People will ask questions and answers will be found and new questions arise.
You get the same thing in super long running book series as the author develops and advances and explores their world in greater depth.
While Greyhawk has seen some of that, it's nowhere NEAR as detailed as FR. And Greyhawk was published well before FR.
There was - and still is - a substantial difference in how Greyhawk is published, and how FR is published. The Greyhawk boxed set gives lots of basic overviews. Even before the plethora of splatbooks came out for FR that Greyhawk never saw, just looking at the FR boxed set, things were detailed down to city maps and locations.
My biggest issue with both Grey Hawk and Forgotten Realms is the detail. Not necessarily that a city or nation is detailed, but that it;s all so densely populated that there are no "edge of the map" where the monsters can exist.
Where can a bullet exist that Never Winters military wouldn't just hunt it down? Where can a population of giants take up residence? How are there any dragons within threat range of any or all these major population centers? There is nowhere to explore left and nowhere for the monsters to hide.
Dark Sun is almost exclusively edges of the map. Vast tracts of dangerous wildness populated by horrors.
But Greyhawk? The 3rd ed Gazateer put an end to any idea of any real danger existing in the vast majority of the map. And Greyhawk isn't half as detailed as Forgetten Realms is.
I still have nostalgia for 1st Ed, but since I've been looking back on this, I learned about Dungeon Crawl Classics: https://goodman-games.com/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg/, and would like to see if they are truly the spiritual successor to early D&D.
Lance845 wrote: My biggest issue with both Grey Hawk and Forgotten Realms is the detail. Not necessarily that a city or nation is detailed, but that it;s all so densely populated that there are no "edge of the map" where the monsters can exist.
Where can a bullet exist that Never Winters military wouldn't just hunt it down? Where can a population of giants take up residence? How are there any dragons within threat range of any or all these major population centers? There is nowhere to explore left and nowhere for the monsters to hide.
Dark Sun is almost exclusively edges of the map. Vast tracts of dangerous wildness populated by horrors.
But Greyhawk? The 3rd ed Gazateer put an end to any idea of any real danger existing in the vast majority of the map. And Greyhawk isn't half as detailed as Forgetten Realms is.
FR has a _lot_ of empty spaces where civilization doesn't exist. There's a strip along the Sword Coast, and pockets inland, the major civilizations of the Shining South (aka the Not-Middle-East in the style of Aladdin), then there's a HUGE empty expanse (including that stupid magical desert) that requires caravans to reach the middle of the map, where you have Cormyr/Sembia and the Moonsea with the frontier area of the Dalelands in between (which have small militias of dozens of people, not military). Other areas of the map are similarly clumped and separated.
Neverwinter isn't a military power (Waterdeep, further north, is). In fact the towns of that area are in a loose alliance because they are militarily not worth squat, and Neverwinter in particular gets the crap kicked out of them every time a crisis comes along.
If anything the problem is the opposite. Most areas of civilization are so small and weak compared to what's out there that they should be wiped off the map. Though that's partly why the FR is so obsessed with super-wizards, they're the setting's nuclear deterrent.
Its also worth noting that the main continent is huge. As in multiple North Americas fit in its landmass.
Lance845 wrote: My biggest issue with both Grey Hawk and Forgotten Realms is the detail. Not necessarily that a city or nation is detailed, but that it;s all so densely populated that there are no "edge of the map" where the monsters can exist.
Where can a bullet exist that Never Winters military wouldn't just hunt it down? Where can a population of giants take up residence? How are there any dragons within threat range of any or all these major population centers? There is nowhere to explore left and nowhere for the monsters to hide.
Dark Sun is almost exclusively edges of the map. Vast tracts of dangerous wildness populated by horrors.
But Greyhawk? The 3rd ed Gazateer put an end to any idea of any real danger existing in the vast majority of the map. And Greyhawk isn't half as detailed as Forgetten Realms is.
FR has a _lot_ of empty spaces where civilization doesn't exist. There's a strip along the Sword Coast, and pockets inland, the major civilizations of the Shining South (aka the Not-Middle-East in the style of Aladdin), then there's a HUGE empty expanse (including that stupid magical desert) that requires caravans to reach the middle of the map, where you have Cormyr/Sembia and the Moonsea with the frontier area of the Dalelands in between (which have small militias of dozens of people, not military). Other areas of the map are similarly clumped and separated.
Neverwinter isn't a military power (Waterdeep, further north, is). In fact the towns of that area are in a loose alliance because they are militarily not worth squat, and Neverwinter in particular gets the crap kicked out of them every time a crisis comes along.
If anything the problem is the opposite. Most areas of civilization are so small and weak compared to what's out there that they should be wiped off the map. Though that's partly why the FR is so obsessed with super-wizards, they're the setting's nuclear deterrent.
Its also worth noting that the main continent is huge. As in multiple North Americas fit in its landmass.
I am getting some Deja Vu so we may have gone over this before. Never Winter is a city with a population of 20,000. Forget the half your population is roughly fighting fit. Lets say it's 10%. 2,000 soldiers versus a Bulette is laughable. The bulette is dead. Kobolds are causing trouble in a way that 5 adventures can deal with it but they couldn't send out a detachment of 50 soldiers to wipe the nest from the face of the earth? You gotta be kidding me.
In order for these places to be as you describe the largest cities should be floating around 1000 population. Most town should be in the hundreds AT BEST. A huge army should consist of several hundred soldiers, not thousands of them, the way actual medieval armies were composed.
Never Winter can, and should, take their MASSIVE population and forge weapon and then deploy it's military to clean up it's surrounding lands. There is zero reason for a group of adventurers to have anything to do anywhere near Never Winter. It's threats should be rival nations more or less exclusively. A Orcish warband? Laughable by sheer numbers. An Orcish ARMY? Okay... so what are the 5 players going to do about it?
Lance845 wrote: My biggest issue with both Grey Hawk and Forgotten Realms is the detail. Not necessarily that a city or nation is detailed, but that it;s all so densely populated that there are no "edge of the map" where the monsters can exist.
Where can a bullet exist that Never Winters military wouldn't just hunt it down? Where can a population of giants take up residence? How are there any dragons within threat range of any or all these major population centers? There is nowhere to explore left and nowhere for the monsters to hide.
Dark Sun is almost exclusively edges of the map. Vast tracts of dangerous wildness populated by horrors.
But Greyhawk? The 3rd ed Gazateer put an end to any idea of any real danger existing in the vast majority of the map. And Greyhawk isn't half as detailed as Forgetten Realms is.
FR has a _lot_ of empty spaces where civilization doesn't exist. There's a strip along the Sword Coast, and pockets inland, the major civilizations of the Shining South (aka the Not-Middle-East in the style of Aladdin), then there's a HUGE empty expanse (including that stupid magical desert) that requires caravans to reach the middle of the map, where you have Cormyr/Sembia and the Moonsea with the frontier area of the Dalelands in between (which have small militias of dozens of people, not military). Other areas of the map are similarly clumped and separated.
Neverwinter isn't a military power (Waterdeep, further north, is). In fact the towns of that area are in a loose alliance because they are militarily not worth squat, and Neverwinter in particular gets the crap kicked out of them every time a crisis comes along.
If anything the problem is the opposite. Most areas of civilization are so small and weak compared to what's out there that they should be wiped off the map. Though that's partly why the FR is so obsessed with super-wizards, they're the setting's nuclear deterrent.
Its also worth noting that the main continent is huge. As in multiple North Americas fit in its landmass.
I am getting some Deja Vu so we may have gone over this before. Never Winter is a city with a population of 20,000. Forget the half your population is roughly fighting fit. Lets say it's 10%. 2,000 soldiers versus a Bulette is laughable. The bulette is dead. Kobolds are causing trouble in a way that 5 adventures can deal with it but they couldn't send out a detachment of 50 soldiers to wipe the nest from the face of the earth? You gotta be kidding me.
Yes...? A day or two's march of a major city is pretty safe for exactly this reason. Further out you start losing patrols to unexpected things, and that sort of attrition isn't sustainable.
Also, Bulette's aren't city threats. They're open road traveler threats. Killed some horses and a merchant or two and took off, disrupting traders.
In order for these places to be as you describe the largest cities should be floating around 1000 population. Most town should be in the hundreds AT BEST. A huge army should consist of several hundred soldiers, not thousands of them, the way actual medieval armies were composed.
And the frontier towns (Dalelands and the Lords Alliance towns in the region around Waterdeep) are this size. They've released a lot of demographics over the years.
Never Winter can, and should, take their MASSIVE population and forge weapon and then deploy it's military to clean up it's surrounding lands. There is zero reason for a group of adventurers to have anything to do anywhere near Never Winter. It's threats should be rival nations more or less exclusively. A Orcish warband? Laughable by sheer numbers. An Orcish ARMY? Okay... so what are the 5 players going to do about it?
I feel like you're stepping into the quagmire of genre conventions here (and 5e mechanics are problematic because the system math is that soldiers > adventurers. That wasn't the case for older editions where immunity or high resistance to non-magical weapons made armies useless in a lot of monster fights), but for the rest of it... these towns and cities aren't nations. There are relatively few of those in the Forgotten Realms, and very few in the parts of the world that are the main focus. City states and frontier towns are the order of the day, with Cormyr and Sembia being exceptions. And Cormyr actively encourages adventuring parties to be somewhere else with charters and peacebonds, and iirc Sembia is mildly hostile to adventurers.
If you don't want a party fighting small threats near Neverwinter or the few large cities... don't. That still leaves 90% of the map.
Yes...? A day or two's march of a major city is pretty safe for exactly this reason. Further out you start losing patrols to unexpected things, and that sort of attrition isn't sustainable. Also, Bulette's aren't city threats. They're open road traveler threats. Killed some horses and a merchant or two and took off, disrupting traders.
Once that threat is impacting the community, (And further, it's a bulette), the issue isn't some merchants on the road. It's the small farming communities that are needed to sustain a city with a population of 20,000 people, the military would be deployed to remove the threat.
In order for these places to be as you describe the largest cities should be floating around 1000 population. Most town should be in the hundreds AT BEST. A huge army should consist of several hundred soldiers, not thousands of them, the way actual medieval armies were composed.
And the frontier towns (Dalelands and the Lords Alliance towns in the region around Waterdeep) are this size. They've released a lot of demographics over the years.
Good. For the frontiers. Let's put it this way. The opening story for 5e is Mines of Phandelver which takes place in and around a small town that is part of Neverwinters lands/economy. That town has within walking distance of it a big ass green dragon, a mine people know about with a Beholder in it, a bandit organization that has managed to take over the town, a banshee, and some goblins who are just attacking people on the road. For all intents and purposes this area is basically under siege by threats. Some are new and you could excuse that Neverwinter isn't aware of them yet to deploy it's military might to handle it and stabilize the area and others are not only well known but OLD and could have been taken care of at any point.
Why the feth does Neverwinter tolerate a green dragon with a huge hunting territory to nest within walking distance of one of it's towns? Like. The town is supposed to be within 3 days leisure travel by road (about 90 miles). The dragon can fly. People in Neverwinters towers can likely just SEE it flying around every time it goes on the hunt since the city itself is not too far outside of it's actual territory. Why hasn't any of the many churches that inhabit and service the 20,000+ population of Neverwinter not sent a cleric or a paladin along with some city guard to handle the banshee?
Mines and other adventures like it don't make any damn sense in the context of the larger world.
Never Winter can, and should, take their MASSIVE population and forge weapon and then deploy it's military to clean up it's surrounding lands. There is zero reason for a group of adventurers to have anything to do anywhere near Never Winter. It's threats should be rival nations more or less exclusively. A Orcish warband? Laughable by sheer numbers. An Orcish ARMY? Okay... so what are the 5 players going to do about it?
I feel like you're stepping into the quagmire of genre conventions here (and 5e mechanics are problematic because the system math is that soldiers > adventurers. That wasn't the case for older editions where immunity or high resistance to non-magical weapons made armies useless in a lot of monster fights), but for the rest of it... these towns and cities aren't nations. There are relatively few of those in the Forgotten Realms, and very few in the parts of the world that are the main focus. City states and frontier towns are the order of the day, with Cormyr and Sembia being exceptions. And Cormyr actively encourages adventuring parties to be somewhere else with charters and peacebonds, and iirc Sembia is mildly hostile to adventurers.
If you don't want a party fighting small threats near Neverwinter or the few large cities... don't. That still leaves 90% of the map.
1) The soldier do not equal adventurers is only true if the world was depowered by quite a lot. Forgotten Realms isn't a low powered setting. A good chunk of these fighting forces of the churches, of the city, of all these things are made up of what amounts to retired or adventurer equivalents. Sure, 48 of the 50 soldiers sent to kill the green dragon might be gak. But 2 of them will outlevel the players in Mines. And they have action economy and law of averages on their side.
2) No, these cities and towns are not nations. But a population of 20,000 NEEDS these towns and villages to sustain itself. The population is too big for them not to actively protect them as part of itself. Without those towns and villages the city would starve to death.
3) Of course I can just make up my own gak and do something else. Thats a silly ass argument. I am not critiquing what I can do (which is literally, infinitely, anything). I am critiquing what it actually is (which is fething silly).
Strg Alt wrote: I compared both D&D movies to Conan the Barbarian. Needless to say I didn´t like them at all.
Wouldn’t the natural comparison be Krull or Willow? Conan the Barbarian was a different subgenre with Beastmaster and Deathstalker. Seems like the closest modern equivalent would be Game of Thrones, fantasy for adults with a hard edge that gets progressively worse until you hit the Red Sonja stage and give up.
Dungeons & Dragons (2000) Awards:
The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards: Worst Supporting Actress: Thora Birch
Worst Supporting Actor: Jeremy Irons
Worst Sense of Direction: Courtney Solomon
Worst On-Screen Group: The Entire Cast Most Intrusive Musical Score: Justin Caine Burnett
Least Special Special Effects
Most Unfunny Comic Relief: Marlon Wayans (Snails) Worst Picture
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190374/awards/
Damn, seems I have good feelers when discovering truly trash flicks! When the dust settles the new D&D won´t be as bad as the predecessor (no Snails to ruin the fun!) but still will be a movie that RPG players will be ashamed off.
What always stood out for me was the epic music thanks to Basil Poledouris. As Conan doesn´t talk much the music tells the story. Also nominated as best Fantasy Film, best costumes and best make-up. Compared to that the D&D stuff is a total dumpster fire with feckless actors who won´t leave a lasting expression (with the exception of Snails of course ).
Both D&D and Conan the Barbarian are Fantasy movies so they will be compared with one another. Wanna see a cool movie? Watch Conan. Wanna be a reclusive nerd who revels in bad acting? Watch D&D.
Lance845 wrote: My biggest issue with both Grey Hawk and Forgotten Realms is the detail. Not necessarily that a city or nation is detailed, but that it;s all so densely populated that there are no "edge of the map" where the monsters can exist.
Where can a bullet exist that Never Winters military wouldn't just hunt it down? Where can a population of giants take up residence? How are there any dragons within threat range of any or all these major population centers? There is nowhere to explore left and nowhere for the monsters to hide.
Dark Sun is almost exclusively edges of the map. Vast tracts of dangerous wildness populated by horrors.
But Greyhawk? The 3rd ed Gazateer put an end to any idea of any real danger existing in the vast majority of the map. And Greyhawk isn't half as detailed as Forgetten Realms is.
If you look at the population density of nations in Greyhawk, you'll discover that it's VERY low for a medieval nation. That means the population is probably heavily concentrated around the cities and along roads between them. But once you get away from the roads, most of that open area is going to be nearly empty of people, where monsters can easily hide.
Strg Alt wrote: but still will be a movie that RPG players will be ashamed off.
If you don't like that is fine but don't for a moment believe you speak for all, or even many, RPG players.
Yes, I speak for many RPG players. The group who advocates the "message" is tiny and loud on social media with the intention to cancel anybody who does not adhere to their weird world view.
D&D fans also will have to answer for WOTC´s latest atrocities even if this is not at first directly related to the movie. People will say: "D&D?! Those are the woke nuts. Leave me alone with that trash."
How are you going to advertise this movie with a straight face to a potential new customer when the suits are deciding to do stupid stuff like recently labeling half-races as being racists? Or when they find out that WOTC has a team of "sensitivity readers" ( ) who mark everything being remotely fun as offensive just because they are themselves little, gakky snowflakes? This Fantasy movie has D&D at it´s core so you can´t simply stick your head into the sand and insist that the movie itself has nothing to do with it´s company woke policies.
By the way do they have half-races in the latest D&D movie? Idk but I would guess they don´t. Not very INCLUSIVE, if you ask me.
I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
There is more to say but why should I write wall of texts when Youtubers research WOTC failures more extensively? Here you go with the D&D dumpster fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYN04MXSIs
Strg Alt wrote: but still will be a movie that RPG players will be ashamed off.
If you don't like that is fine but don't for a moment believe you speak for all, or even many, RPG players.
Yes, I speak for many RPG players.
Here we go.
The group who advocates the "message" is tiny and loud on social media with the intention to cancel anybody who does not adhere to their weird world view.
D&D fans also will have to answer for WOTC´s latest atrocities even if this is not at first directly related to the movie. People will say: "D&D?! Those are the woke nuts. Leave me alone with that trash."
Yes. The "right wing loonies" are a vast quiet majority who are constantly being oppressed.
How are you going to advertise this movie with a straight face to a potential new customer when the suits are deciding to do stupid stuff like recently labeling half-races as being racists? Or when they find out that WOTC has a team of "sensitivity readers" ( ) who mark everything being remotely fun as offensive just because they are themselves little, gakky snowflakes? This Fantasy movie has D&D at it´s core so you can´t simply stick your head into the sand and insist that the movie itself has nothing to do with it´s company woke policies.
By the way do they have half-races in the latest D&D movie? Idk but I would guess they don´t. Not very INCLUSIVE, if you ask me.
Word vomit from this forums premiere producer of it.
I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad.
Ah. See this bit makes sense. We have here your typical person who hates "woke". Completely ignorant and running on assumptions as though they were facts. Nothing here but "fake news".
The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
There is more to say but why should I write wall of texts when Youtubers research WOTC failures more extensively? Here you go with the D&D dumpster fire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MYN04MXSIs
This D&D movie is the best D&D themed movie yet. It is relatively by-the-numbers and harmless. It is a typical tentpole movie since 2010 and the release of Iron Man 1. It is professionally done and workmanlike.
Are there things you can nitpick? Sure. This is the internet, the home of nitpicking. Hugh Grant, I am looking at you, but at least you were having fun. Otherwise, a solid product which is more than a lot of other movies can say.
Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something.... probably some strange Thulsa Doom-esque cult.
There are two different kinds of half-races in the movie, possibly a third, too. The wizard is half elf and half human. Chris Pine’s daughter is half Caucasian and half black (which I’m sure matters to some potential viewers of the film, as it could be considered “wokeness”).
Then there is the Tiefling(?) girl who says she was born to human parents. I’m not familiar with the setting enough to know if that’s normal or implied to be the result of , uh, cucking?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: There are two different kinds of half-races in the movie, possibly a third, too. The wizard is half elf and half human. Chris Pine’s daughter is half Caucasian and half black (which I’m sure matters to some potential viewers of the film, as it could be considered “wokeness”).
Then there is the Tiefling(?) girl who says she was born to human parents. I’m not familiar with the setting enough to know if that’s normal or implied to be the result of , uh, cucking?
A tiefling has fiendish blood at some point in their ancestry - it doesn't have to be that recent.
Planning on seeing the movies this Sunday or Monday. Looking forward to it!
Saw it in a theatre with 100 people from the FLGS - a mix of D&D players, MtG and 40K/AoS gamers. I played back in the early-80s and then a bit in 5th and while I have read Forgotten Realms books I would not be considered a hard-core D&D player.
I really enjoyed the movie, and that seemed to be the general consensus. I didn't see any "wokeness." I thought it was a fun, light-hearted movie that treated the subject material with respect while still having fun with it. There was no overt suggestion that we were watching a D&D session, but my impression was that the actions of the characters and the environment felt like a session. Happy to be called out on that! Plenty of easter-eggs, some on the nose and others well-concealed and I look forward to watching it again. My daughter went with her friends on another night (they have a weekly D&D session) and they also really liked the movie.
Then there is the Tiefling(?) girl who says she was born to human parents. I’m not familiar with the setting enough to know if that’s normal or implied to be the result of , uh, cucking?
Expanding on earlier comment;
Tieflings can result from a lot of things, but they're more a result of fiendish/demonic/devil (I can never keep entirely straight DnD's categories for this) influence than genetics.
Did great grandma cut a deal with some demon to make her paramour fall madly in love with her? You might be a Tiefling.
Were you born on cursed ground guarded by an order of paladins because there's a devil sealed under that church there? You might be a Tiefling.
Were your parents Tieflings? You might be a Tiefling.
So Tieflings can come from a whole lot of places/reasons per DnD. The lore on it is pretty open-ended (in 5e anyway).
Yes, I speak for many RPG players. The group who advocates the "message" is tiny and loud on social media with the intention to cancel anybody who does not adhere to their weird world view.
D&D fans also will have to answer for WOTC´s latest atrocities even if this is not at first directly related to the movie. People will say: "D&D?! Those are the woke nuts. Leave me alone with that trash."
Good, we don't want you. The sooner these attitudes and the people that hold them off out of the hobby, the better. If you're so offended by the idea that the action lead in the movie is a woman or that WOTC, after several major foul-ups that caused upset to real, actual human beings (not just annonymous folks on the internet) with their depictions of racist cariacatures, have employed sensitivity readers to ensure that harm isn't caused again, then I'm not sure it's us that are the snowflakes here...
I could correct you on your other uninformed comments about the movie (there is, in fact, a male character who is deliberately OP to the point of laughability) or the rules (the new edition will likely carry forward the current rules for custom lineages, meaning your Half-Elf or Orc can simply pick from the traits of two races as you like) but mainly, I just want to make it clear that if you can claim to speak for 'many' RPG players then so can I, and trust me, there's more of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw the movie again today, every bit as good as the first time and a lot of the humor works even better when you know where it's going (the Jarnathan bit, for example). It was a much busier screening as well, which gives me hope that despite the likelihood that Mario will knock it off the No.1 spot this weekend, it should have a pretty strong second week.
And if not, it was still the biggest movie in the world for its opening week, which given the brand's cinematic track record, is certainly something to celebrate!
Times have changed, and are changing yet again. It is what it is. D&D will evolve as brand names do for better or for worse. The good thing is one of the core premises of D&D is making it your own, bending the rules, or forgoing them altogether because after all it's your world, not Ed Greenwood's.
For the classicist, this movie may not be it. I'll give it a shot in due time. I'll keep an open mind and try to be entertained, though I'll surely have an opinion either way.
But in time The Forgotten Realms will live up to its name, and as all things before, it too will come to pass.
Strg Alt wrote: but still will be a movie that RPG players will be ashamed off.
If you don't like that is fine but don't for a moment believe you speak for all, or even many, RPG players.
Yes, I speak for many RPG players.
Are they aware that you've taken such a liberty on their behalf?
Strg Alt wrote: The group who advocates the "message" is tiny and loud on social media with the intention to cancel anybody who does not adhere to their weird world view.
Eh, them. They can yap all they like, just like the old biddies at church did back in the '80s when they found out some of us kids played "THAT game".
The church ladies didn't manage to stop me from enjoying D&D back then & the woke/anti-woke nuts won't succeed today.
Strg Alt wrote: D&D fans also will have to answer for WOTC´s latest atrocities even if this is not at first directly related to the movie. People will say: "D&D?! Those are the woke nuts. Leave me alone with that trash."
Ok, I'l leave them alone & not give them a second thought. If they're upset about what Hasbro/WoTC is doing? Then they should bitch at them about it, not me.
Strg Alt wrote: How are you going to advertise this movie with a straight face to a potential new customer when the suits are deciding to do stupid stuff like recently labeling half-races as being racists? Or when they find out that WOTC has a team of "sensitivity readers" ( ) who mark everything being remotely fun as offensive just because they are themselves little, gakky snowflakes? This Fantasy movie has D&D at it´s core so you can´t simply stick your head into the sand and insist that the movie itself has nothing to do with it´s company woke policies.
I'm not. WoTC isn't paying me to advertise their movie, so....
My opinion is that it's a generally mediocre movie but it is entertaining enough overall. If someone asks I'll tell them that.
Now if I were being paid? I'd lie to your face without a qualm, sell you on the idea that this is one of the best films since_______, & sleep like a baby.
Strg Alt wrote: By the way do they have half-races in the latest D&D movie? Idk but I would guess they don´t. Not very INCLUSIVE, if you ask me. I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
Maybe you should try watching something before you opine on it.
I saw it at the cinema this week, really enjoyed it.
It didn't feel overly long, which I was concerned about after seeing its runtime, and it was a lot of fun.
In fact, my only complaint, was that it was so dark in places but I think that may be down to the copy or the cinema as in trailers those parts were quite clear.
But it was over 2 hours of fun which is all I wanted tbh.
Saw the movie tonight. Not too familiar with d&d lore (played once a few years ago), but I thought that this movie was the most fun I had at the cinema in years. It was really funny, and my fave hurt from laughing so much. A really entertaining and tight movie imo. My wife, who knows nothing of d&d came out loving it too.
I saw it yesterday morning. It was a blast! Just a delightful, fun little movie. The ensemble really works well together, and Chris Pines has some impressive comic timing. Everyone got a chance to shine, no one got bogged down in too much backstory, and it all got tied up at the end. It reminded me very much of Stardust, but without the central focus on a romance.
3) Of course I can just make up my own gak and do something else. Thats a silly ass argument. I am not critiquing what I can do (which is literally, infinitely, anything). I am critiquing what it actually is (which is fething silly).
But very few people who want to be writers know much about anything really. 40k background kinda stands out as it was done by a bunch of history graduates being silly.
But look at BL stuff, even for war porn it is terrible showing almost zero grasp of even WW2 scale and logistics. Most fantasy realms get even worse, you have your vaguely Germanic medieval setting with no understanding of the land or population dynamics before you start adding magic to it and how that would distort so much.
I am trying hard to think of what setting did it well, but can only really think of advanced heroquest where the monsters were on the fringes and you would have to be crazy to risk going into some dank abandoned dungeon, plus the pay and rewards are rubbish.
I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
In most RPG systems (including D&D), genders have identical stats, so having a female frontrow tank is hardly weird or unexpected. Actually in a long-running campaign I run, two out of three physically strongest player characters are female...
At any rate, (spoiler) most powerful fighter in 'Honor Among Thieves' is a dude.
There wasn't actually that many D&D-monsters in the movie, the trailers just managed to show them all.
Strg Alt wrote: By the way do they have half-races in the latest D&D movie? Idk but I would guess they don´t. Not very INCLUSIVE, if you ask me.
WOTC's idiocy in deciding that race-mixing is racist (like... what???) has nothing to do with this movie.
Strg Alt wrote: I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
As someone who went into this movie acutely aware of this as a potential issue (even the people making the film said that they went out of their way to emasculate the male characters) I can tell you that it is 100% not the case.
Everybody on the team contributes, significantly, and the final fight couldn't be more RPG if they tried, with all the player characters dogpiling the main bad guy.
The barbarian, who is a woman, acts like a barbarian should. The only unrealistic thing about it is that Michelle Rodriguez isn't particularly large, so she comes across as a rather slight barbarian. Beyond that, everything fits with the source material. The male characters, despite what the writers may have stated in interviews, were not idiots. The sorcerer (who is a half-elf, BTW) certainly has a lot of self doubt, but that's part of his character arc.
Your criticisms are not founded in any reality, and your pre-judgement of the movie based on the few scenes you've seen is premature and completely off-base.
Is that a real quote? None of the male characters appear to have been emasculated…well, maybe the half-elf wizard at the beginning of his arc. But Chris Pine is a charmer and leader type. And the paladin is a walking Old Spice commercial.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is that a real quote? None of the male characters appear to have been emasculated…well, maybe the half-elf wizard at the beginning of his arc.
Hint to Simon's player: if you're making a Sorcerer, don't use CHA as your dump stat
Anyways, I quite liked the movie, even though it didn't feel particularly original, with really strong MCU vibes. First third felt bit weak but the movie started rolling nicely once they got to the Neverwinter. There was lot of RPG'esque touches and it felt like the writers and director had really played the game, and not just used the name as an excuse to make some generic fantasy. They might not make sense for a casual viewer, though. For example, names of the main characters were very believable D&D player character names, but if someone was judging them as fantasy names, they'd seem terrible.
My biggest complaint visually were the Halflings (I suppose they were Halflings, not Gnomes). They simply looked like downscaled humans and illusion was much worse than in LotR. Really makes you appreciate the trouble Peter Jackson went through to make Hobbits look like they were distinct critters and not just tiny humans.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Is that a real quote? None of the male characters appear to have been emasculated…well, maybe the half-elf wizard at the beginning of his arc.
Hint to Simon's player: if you're making a Sorcerer, don't use CHA as your dump stat
Anyways, I quite liked the movie, even though it didn't feel particularly original, with really strong MCU vibes. First third felt bit weak but the movie started rolling nicely once they got to the Neverwinter. There was lot of RPG'esque touches and it felt like the writers and director had really played the game, and not just used the name as an excuse to make some generic fantasy. They might not make sense for a casual viewer, though. For example, names of the main characters were very believable D&D player character names, but if someone was judging them as fantasy names, they'd seem terrible.
My biggest complaint visually were the Halflings (I suppose they were Halflings, not Gnomes). They simply looked like downscaled humans and illusion was much worse than in LotR. Really makes you appreciate the trouble Peter Jackson went through to make Hobbits look like they were distinct critters and not just tiny humans.
Using the wand (of dimension door??) on a portable object to break into a moving item sounds like the sort of situation where the player's ask the GM "can we do this?" and the GM goes "er.. I suppose?"
Halflings - I suppose they were forced to go with plain small humans rather than copy(ish) the interpretation of Tolkien/Wingnut Films/Amazon - just to keep a veneer of distance between them and the original source material.
The barbarian, who is a woman, acts like a barbarian should. The only unrealistic thing about it is that Michelle Rodriguez isn't particularly large, so she comes across as a rather slight barbarian. Beyond that, everything fits with the source material.
She was a Barbarian? Didn't see her rage once, I thought she was a fighter or brawler...any way, I felt she was fine for the role other than her height perhaps. But then again, my last Barbarian was 5'4" androgynous Elf, so maybe I shouldn't criticize...
The barbarian, who is a woman, acts like a barbarian should. The only unrealistic thing about it is that Michelle Rodriguez isn't particularly large, so she comes across as a rather slight barbarian. Beyond that, everything fits with the source material.
She was a Barbarian? Didn't see her rage once, I thought she was a fighter or brawler...any way, I felt she was fine for the role other than her height perhaps. But then again, my last Barbarian was 5'4" androgynous Elf, so maybe I shouldn't criticize...
I mean.. the bard never once used a any class abilities either. The Druid turned into things a Druid cannot turn into and did it way more times then they are capable while also never casting any spells. They were closer to generic representations of classes then the rules put on screen.
Really enjoyed the film. Will just echo what a lot of others have said and that it was just a great deal of fun. Good casting and characters, good FX (I liked that so much was practical effects), good pacing and most of the jokes landed. Someone described it to me as Guardians of the Galaxy meets Willow which I guess is a good summation.
Have to say I didn't notice any wokeness? But then I wasn't looking out for it. It must be terrible not ever really being able to enjoy any mass market media, because you constantly have your teeth on edge looking out for that sort of thing.
Pacific wrote: Have to say I didn't notice any wokeness? But then I wasn't looking out for it. It must be terrible not ever really being able to enjoy any mass market media, because you constantly have your teeth on edge looking out for that sort of thing.
Honestly I've not even worked out what "wokeness" even really is. It seems to shift and change meaning depending on if you're using it in the positive or the negative and on which generation you're in and even which social groups within a generation you're in.
Overread wrote: Honestly I've not even worked out what "wokeness" even really is. It seems to shift and change meaning depending on if you're using it in the positive or the negative and on which generation you're in and even which social groups within a generation you're in.
Don’t worry. One commentator wrote a whole book about why Woke is destroying America….then couldn’t even define what they meant by Woke.
Yes, I speak for many RPG players. The group who advocates the "message" is tiny and loud on social media with the intention to cancel anybody who does not adhere to their weird world view.
D&D fans also will have to answer for WOTC´s latest atrocities even if this is not at first directly related to the movie. People will say: "D&D?! Those are the woke nuts. Leave me alone with that trash."
Good, we don't want you. The sooner these attitudes and the people that hold them off out of the hobby, the better. If you're so offended by the idea that the action lead in the movie is a woman or that WOTC, after several major foul-ups that caused upset to real, actual human beings (not just annonymous folks on the internet) with their depictions of racist cariacatures, have employed sensitivity readers to ensure that harm isn't caused again, then I'm not sure it's us that are the snowflakes here...
I could correct you on your other uninformed comments about the movie (there is, in fact, a male character who is deliberately OP to the point of laughability) or the rules (the new edition will likely carry forward the current rules for custom lineages, meaning your Half-Elf or Orc can simply pick from the traits of two races as you like) but mainly, I just want to make it clear that if you can claim to speak for 'many' RPG players then so can I, and trust me, there's more of us.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Saw the movie again today, every bit as good as the first time and a lot of the humor works even better when you know where it's going (the Jarnathan bit, for example). It was a much busier screening as well, which gives me hope that despite the likelihood that Mario will knock it off the No.1 spot this weekend, it should have a pretty strong second week.
And if not, it was still the biggest movie in the world for its opening week, which given the brand's cinematic track record, is certainly something to celebrate!
Have fun with your emasculated main character! Meanwhile I am watching Conan from the 80s. Besides people like you would have been booted from our gaming group asap. We don´t suffer political ideologies at RPG games.
Don’t worry. One commentator wrote a whole book about why Woke is destroying America….then couldn’t even define what they meant by Woke.
I thought it was defined in a Floridsa court?
Asked what “woke” means more generally, [Desantis’ General Counsel Ryan] Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”
The barbarian, who is a woman, acts like a barbarian should. The only unrealistic thing about it is that Michelle Rodriguez isn't particularly large, so she comes across as a rather slight barbarian. Beyond that, everything fits with the source material.
She was a Barbarian? Didn't see her rage once, I thought she was a fighter or brawler...any way, I felt she was fine for the role other than her height perhaps. But then again, my last Barbarian was 5'4" androgynous Elf, so maybe I shouldn't criticize...
You couldn´t identify her as a barbarian because she doesn´t have a muscular body. They could have looked for women with a body building background but that meant putting effort into the movie. Can´t have that!
Imagine shooting Conan and instead of casting a body builder they take Rick Moranis.
I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
In most RPG systems (including D&D), genders have identical stats, so having a female frontrow tank is hardly weird or unexpected. Actually in a long-running campaign I run, two out of three physically strongest player characters are female...
At any rate, (spoiler) most powerful fighter in 'Honor Among Thieves' is a dude.
There wasn't actually that many D&D-monsters in the movie, the trailers just managed to show them all.
Any front fighter needs to be physically imposing. Most women aren´t so they are a bad fit with their 60 kg.
What do you have to do then? Screen for exceptional women who are tall and muscular. Did they do it? Nope! Lazy casting!
Strg Alt wrote: Have fun with your emasculated main character! Meanwhile I am watching Conan from the 80s.
Conan from the 80's is vastly different from the source material. The movies had to placate to Arnold's limited acting range. Conan in the source material had a sense of humor, understood and spoke many languages, was a brilliant leader and tactician.
While I enjoyed the 80's Conans, they were handicapped by Arnolds meager acting chops. They had to reduce the character in significant ways. I'd wager some folks would probably be calling him emasculated if it was released nowadays.
Strg Alt wrote: Have fun with your emasculated main character! Meanwhile I am watching Conan from the 80s. Besides people like you would have been booted from our gaming group asap. We don´t suffer political ideologies at RPG games.
I'll take my 'emasculated' characters (though having not watched the film, I have no idea how you'd apply that or any other description to any of the characters therein with any sort of authority ) over your white-male-power-fantasy-Conan types any day. Partly because the latter utterly bores me, but mostly because I want the media I engage with and the games I play to be accessible to more than just grumpy old white dudes stuck somewhere in the late 1980s...
The good news is that 'people like me' will still have gaming groups and movies to enjoy many years from now, while those of you that cannot handle the idea of a woman in an action role or a male lead who sings and dances better than he fights will find yourselves with both a rapidly dwindling and highly insular community to play with, and no movies left to enjoy save for those on your VHS shelves. That is, if you don't all eventually die off from heart attacks brought on by the frankly hilarious rage you all seem to feel when someone who doesn't look, sound, act or think like you gets to see themselves in fiction.
Strg Alt wrote: By the way do they have half-races in the latest D&D movie? Idk but I would guess they don´t. Not very INCLUSIVE, if you ask me.
WOTC's idiocy in deciding that race-mixing is racist (like... what???) has nothing to do with this movie.
Strg Alt wrote: I have watched a couple of scenes and this was enough to label the movie as bad. The writers were obviously forced to cram in as many IP protected CGI D&D monsters as possible which was a thoroughly bad experience to endure as a viewer. Less is more. And what about the cast? I read that the front line fighters were women (strong & independent vibes ) and that they took efforts to make the men look to be dumb and ineffective. Geez, this is She-Hulk series level of awful right there.
As someone who went into this movie acutely aware of this as a potential issue (even the people making the film said that they went out of their way to emasculate the male characters) I can tell you that it is 100% not the case.
Everybody on the team contributes, significantly, and the final fight couldn't be more RPG if they tried, with all the player characters dogpiling the main bad guy.
The barbarian, who is a woman, acts like a barbarian should. The only unrealistic thing about it is that Michelle Rodriguez isn't particularly large, so she comes across as a rather slight barbarian. Beyond that, everything fits with the source material. The male characters, despite what the writers may have stated in interviews, were not idiots. The sorcerer (who is a half-elf, BTW) certainly has a lot of self doubt, but that's part of his character arc.
Your criticisms are not founded in any reality, and your pre-judgement of the movie based on the few scenes you've seen is premature and completely off-base.
The writers said it themselves and therefore this isn´t a "conspiracy" made up by viewers. The group act like buffoons and D&D fans misinterpret this as being funny. It is not. I remember the scene with the "Speak with Dead" spell and how badly they manage to gather info.
Barbarian:
Bad casting choice. Next time hire a tall, muscular woman. She may not be able to act like a professional but at least she looks the part to make the fight scenes believable. And with fight scene I don´t mean CGI stuff where the woman turns into an owlbear and hurls people around like in a video game. That was bad and takes agency from the actors.
Imagine Brock Lesnar getting beaten by a midget. You won´t see it at WWE. Why? It would look stupid. Wrestling folks know this but in Hollywood everything which may empower women is good enough for the flick.
Strg Alt wrote: Have fun with your emasculated main character! Meanwhile I am watching Conan from the 80s. Besides people like you would have been booted from our gaming group asap. We don´t suffer political ideologies at RPG games.
I'll take my 'emasculated' characters (though having not watched the film, I have no idea how you'd apply that or any other description to any of the characters therein with any sort of authority ) over your white-male-power-fantasy-Conan types any day. Partly because the latter utterly bores me, but mostly because I want the media I engage with and the games I play to be accessible to more than just grumpy old white dudes stuck somewhere in the late 1980s...
The good news is that 'people like me' will still have gaming groups and movies to enjoy many years from now, while those of you that cannot handle the idea of a woman in an action role or a male lead who sings and dances better than he fights will find yourselves with both a rapidly dwindling and highly insular community to play with, and no movies left to enjoy save for those on your VHS shelves. That is, if you don't all eventually die off from heart attacks brought on by the frankly hilarious rage you all seem to feel when someone who doesn't look, sound, act or think like you gets to see themselves in fiction.
Don't engage with him on his terms - he's devolved into a drooling troll.
Barbarian:
Bad casting choice. Next time hire a tall, muscular woman. She may not be able to act like a professional but at least she looks the part to make the fight scenes believable. And with fight scene I don´t mean CGI stuff where the woman turns into an owlbear and hurls people around like in a video game. That was bad and takes agency from the actors.
Imagine Brock Lesnar getting beaten by a midget. You won´t see it at WWE. Why? It would look stupid. Wrestling folks know this but in Hollywood everything which may empower women is good enough for the flick.
Does Rey Mysterio count as a midget?
Women have won WWE Cruiserweight title (Chyna, at least), and Tessa Blanchard won Impact Championship. Vince McMahon and David Arquette have won Championship belts. Plenty of silly stuff happens to stretch the Kayfabe...
Why is Doric turning into Owlbear "bad"? Are you implying that it would not happen in actual D&D, or that it would be better if it was a male druid? Isn't that sort of concept exactly what you call for, a 'believable' method how a tiny woman could beat up armed guys?
I'm bit baffled why you hold Conan as some sort of paragon of 'believable non-wokeness', as in that movie you have Valeria beating up dudes (and even running away from her in fear), and she saves Conan's life (twice, IIRC).
I prefer that casting directors cast people with lines in the film who can.... you know..... act. Call me crazy!
The movie was very clear that she was a barbarian and her background was very clear about it. It really could not have been more clear in the movie unless you wanted them to literally stop the movie and label her class and her ability scores beside her in a freeze frame.
Secondly, if the writer's wanted to emasculate their male characters.... they failed pretty hard. Sure, Chris Pine and Simon were idiots but that was not a trait unique to them in this film. They all felt like a pretty normal D&D group that is slaved to a d20 roll for success. A lot of D&D characters end up doing pretty stupid or clumsy things thanks to bad rolls of the dice. It felt like it captured that pretty well in the movie.
Conan from the 80's is vastly different from the source material. The movies had to placate to Arnold's limited acting range. Conan in the source material had a sense of humor, understood and spoke many languages, was a brilliant leader and tactician.
While I enjoyed the 80's Conans, they were handicapped by Arnolds meager acting chops. They had to reduce the character in significant ways. I'd wager some folks would probably be calling him emasculated if it was released nowadays.
Yes that's my problem with the 80's Conan as well (though for the most part I love that movie), it's not much like Howard's Conan, or Marvel's Conan comics. Arnold's Conan is way too goofy. He would become much better actor later, but Conan is one of his worst works in terms of acting.
Bit of same thing what MCU did with Thor (especially in later movies).
Easy E wrote: I prefer that casting directors cast people with lines in the film who can.... you know..... act. Call me crazy!
The movie was very clear that she was a barbarian and her background was very clear about it. It really could not have been more clear in the movie unless you wanted them to literally stop the movie and label her class and her ability scores beside her in a freeze frame.
Secondly, if the writer's wanted to emasculate their male characters.... they failed pretty hard. Sure, Chris Pine and Simon were idiots but that was not a trait unique to them in this film. They all felt like a pretty normal D&D group that is slaved to a d20 roll for success. A lot of D&D characters end up doing pretty stupid or clumsy things thanks to bad rolls of the dice. It felt like it captured that pretty well in the movie.
It's not exactly impossible to cast women that are both believably muscular and trained and have acting chops, you know? Even the abysmal sequel to Conan the Barbarian managed to gather their wits enough to hire Grace Jones, who absolutely looked and acted like someone that could give Arnie a hard time, and i'm sure equally talented and trained women would be available today if one was inclined to cast for them. A barbarian doesn't have to look like a powerlifter/benchpress person, other types of athletic/muscular body exist.
Strg Alt wrote: You couldn´t identify her as a barbarian because she doesn´t have a muscular body. They could have looked for women with a body building background but that meant putting effort into the movie. Can´t have that!
Imagine Brock Lesnar getting beaten by a midget. You won´t see it at WWE. Why? It would look stupid. Wrestling folks know this but in Hollywood everything which may empower women is good enough for the flick.
Good examples, of how what the audience expects doesn't actually match reality (or fantasy art). If a barbarian is your fur clad northern europesk looking chap, he wouldn't look like a body builder. Human bodies that need strength and endurance can't develop that way. Leave aside the guys who do close protection and look at the ones that are expected to disappear off for a month doing traditional SF stuff. Completely different physiques. Also not actually that tall. Of the chaps I have worked with who were 5 foot 8/10 and fairly slight, they would have done terrible unteleviseable things to Brock because they had been prepared for a completely different set of tasks, instead of looking tough. But a D&D barbarian is fantasy art, it isn't really based on anything real. on that basis you can make it whatever size and gender you like as its all fairly absurd.
Easy E wrote: I prefer that casting directors cast people with lines in the film who can.... you know..... act. Call me crazy!
The movie was very clear that she was a barbarian and her background was very clear about it. It really could not have been more clear in the movie unless you wanted them to literally stop the movie and label her class and her ability scores beside her in a freeze frame.
Secondly, if the writer's wanted to emasculate their male characters.... they failed pretty hard. Sure, Chris Pine and Simon were idiots but that was not a trait unique to them in this film. They all felt like a pretty normal D&D group that is slaved to a d20 roll for success. A lot of D&D characters end up doing pretty stupid or clumsy things thanks to bad rolls of the dice. It felt like it captured that pretty well in the movie.
It's not exactly impossible to cast women that are both believably muscular and trained and have acting chops, you know? Even the abysmal sequel to Conan the Barbarian managed to gather their wits enough to hire Grace Jones, who absolutely looked and acted like someone that could give Arnie a hard time, and i'm sure equally talented and trained women would be available today if one was inclined to cast for them. A barbarian doesn't have to look like a powerlifter/benchpress person, other types of athletic/muscular body exist.
They did. They hired Michelle Rodriguez who is pretty well known for playing a "Bad Ass".
- Fast and the Furious Movies
- SWAT
- Battle of Los Angeles
- Machete duology
- Resident: Evil series
To claim that Michelle Rodriquez is not known for playing ass-kickers is..... certainly a take.
Sorry she didn't do it for you. Perhaps you wanted Gina Carano instead?
Easy E wrote: I prefer that casting directors cast people with lines in the film who can.... you know..... act. Call me crazy!
The movie was very clear that she was a barbarian and her background was very clear about it. It really could not have been more clear in the movie unless you wanted them to literally stop the movie and label her class and her ability scores beside her in a freeze frame.
Secondly, if the writer's wanted to emasculate their male characters.... they failed pretty hard. Sure, Chris Pine and Simon were idiots but that was not a trait unique to them in this film. They all felt like a pretty normal D&D group that is slaved to a d20 roll for success. A lot of D&D characters end up doing pretty stupid or clumsy things thanks to bad rolls of the dice. It felt like it captured that pretty well in the movie.
It's not exactly impossible to cast women that are both believably muscular and trained and have acting chops, you know? Even the abysmal sequel to Conan the Barbarian managed to gather their wits enough to hire Grace Jones, who absolutely looked and acted like someone that could give Arnie a hard time, and i'm sure equally talented and trained women would be available today if one was inclined to cast for them. A barbarian doesn't have to look like a powerlifter/benchpress person, other types of athletic/muscular body exist.
They did. They hired Michelle Rodriguez who is pretty well known for playing a "Bad Ass".
- Fast and the Furious Movies
- SWAT
- Battle of Los Angeles
- Machete duology
- Resident: Evil series
To claim that Michelle Rodriquez is not known for playing ass-kickers is..... certainly a take.
Sorry she didn't do it for you. Perhaps you wanted Gina Carano instead?
Eh, i found the cast agreeable enough, it did not scream 'barbarian' but it worked in the context of the rest of the party, i do not really see the problem tbh. I also did not find the male party member 'emasculated' or whatever the current talking point is, that smells like a fabricated controversy to me. Especially since it's not the first time that it gets brought up, people said similar things about Chris Helmsworth in the Ghostbuster remake, ultimately because they lack a sense of humour.
They captured the feel of a real D&D group. I.e. trying to do cool stuff then fluffing it in hilarious ways, and not really taking things too seriously.
I don't get the whole emasculated lead thing, chris pines character was never made out to be a great fighter, wheres as michelle rodriquez was. If you think she doesn't have the right figure to play a barbarian you don't know DnD, Halfling barbarians are a thing.
The writers said it themselves and therefore this isn´t a "conspiracy" made up by viewers. The group act like buffoons and D&D fans misinterpret this as being funny. It is not. I remember the scene with the "Speak with Dead" spell and how badly they manage to gather info.
My mans, you are replying to someone who mentioned their apprehension going into the movie because they already knew what you linked to. You're letting slip you're not even really reading others' posts.
"Emasculation" is certainly a thing writers do sometimes when there are multiple characters vying for attention, meaningful role and screentime. I suppose in 'Honor Among Thieves', closest you get is the scene where Edgin struggles to cut his ties in comical fashion, while Holga beats up the guards. "Emasculation" is just a mean, a literary device, which can be used for good or ill. It's not a "woke era" invention. For example, in jail block scene in first Star Wars film there is clear emasculation of Luke's and Han Solo's characters. They get pinned and they begin to picker with each other, forcing Leia to take action, thus rescuing the rescuers. This might be cited as artificial way to elevate Leia's abilities, but it also allows her to project her personality.
Negative example would be Justice Smith's character in 'Fallen Kingdom', who is written a complete wimp to give contrast for two female main characters of the group. While Simon in 'Honor Among Thieves' shows somewhat similar uncertainities, he is also shown most powerful member of the group.
"Emasculation" (if it can be called such) is not limited to male characters. For example in 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', Buffy is often given limitations in strength or intelligence to give weakest members of the group - Willow and especially Xander - something to do. Once again, redeeming factor is compability with character personalities: Buffy is written smart, but not 'book smart', and Xander is established as someone whose guts and loyalty exceed his physical prowess.
The writers said it themselves and therefore this isn´t a "conspiracy" made up by viewers. The group act like buffoons and D&D fans misinterpret this as being funny. It is not. I remember the scene with the "Speak with Dead" spell and how badly they manage to gather info.
I already addressed that. What the writers said does not reflect the reality of the film they made. And you don't remember the Speak with Dead scene, as what you've seen is only a small part of that entire sequence.
Again, you haven't seen the movie. We have, and we're telling you that all this political/woke/identity politics nonsense - no matter what the writers may say in interviews - simply isn't part of this movie.
Strg Alt wrote: You couldn´t identify her as a barbarian because she doesn´t have a muscular body. They could have looked for women with a body building background but that meant putting effort into the movie. Can´t have that!
Michelle beat Gina Carano in Fast 6 and then Ronda Rousey in Fast 7. I hope they keep finding bigger and bigger women for her to unrealistically fight.
Overread wrote: Honestly I've not even worked out what "wokeness" even really is.
Here is a rather succinct distillation of the discussion. It details what it is, and how it is often misused and mischaracterised (ie. simply including a female protagonist is not "woke" - a trap that many online outrage merchants tend to fall into).
Plus you get to listen to the dulcet tones of a slightly tipsy Scotsman/published author who has somewhat of an idea of what makes a good story and what doesn't.
Lance845 wrote: There is no snowflake more easily offended than the anti woke nut jobs.
That's demonstrably false. It's a smoke/fire situation. Those reaction to woke idiots are the smoke, and they can't exist without the fire in the first place.
Lance845 wrote: There is no snowflake more easily offended than the anti woke nut jobs.
That's demonstrably false. It's a smoke/fire situation. Those reaction to woke idiots are the smoke, and they can't exist without the fire in the first place.
Well THAT is a ridiculous thing to say. When civil rights movements want equality the people opposed to it act out. When women wanted to be able to vote the misogynists act out. When people started getting representation in cinema the ists act out. I am not saying there are not "woke idiots" (there are always extremist idiots). But if you think these guys were not going to do what they are doing until they were instigated by their opposite idiots you are ignoring actual history.
No it's not. But haters hate where ever they can. Lets not pretend being upset that Michelle Rodriguez is the competent front line fighter as being "woke" is anything but misogyny. Especially when they haven't even seen the movie. Let's not pretend that being upset about Pakistani American Muslim representation in Mr Marvel as some kind of "woke agenda" is anything but xenophobia.
Just because it's not arguing for the right to vote and an end to segregation doesn't mean the haters are not the same kinds of people acting out about the same kinds of things.
What the writers said does not reflect the reality of the film they made. And you don't remember the Speak with Dead scene, as what you've seen is only a small part of that entire sequence.
Really I don't understand why a scene designed for all around comedy is example of 'wokeness' or 'emasculation'. It's actually how a wicked GM would 'play' the corpse: "What, did that count as a question? -Yes. -So we have only three questions left? -No, you have only two left. -[Others:] Shut up!! Don't you ever learn!? -No. One remaining..."
That sequence was so funny, one of the best moments in the film for me. A lot of the jokes definitely landed well, I also loved the deadpan "I think they're getting suspicious" while the 'copy' of Chris Pine is starting to go all loopy.
Thought Michelle Rodriguez was a fine casting for the role and most importantly it was believable when she was beating the crap out of people. I would line it alongside someone like Linda Hamilton in Terminator 2, where again she had prepared physically for the role and you could believe that she could take care of herself. Perhaps contrast with Emilia Clarke playing the same role, and who I like as an actor, but didn't have the physical presence to pull off the same level of 'threat'. (Just my thoughts on it).
Overread wrote: Honestly I've not even worked out what "wokeness" even really is. It seems to shift and change meaning depending on if you're using it in the positive or the negative and on which generation you're in and even which social groups within a generation you're in.
The general definition I've seen is 'substituting the cause du jure for decent storytelling'. Bonus points for using said cause as a hammer to beat down critics pointing out the lack of decent storytelling.
Strg Alt wrote: Imagine shooting Conan and instead of casting a body builder they take Rick Moranis.
That would have been pretty awesome, actually.
Well, it would have been hilarious, but in a serious movie like Conan The Barbarian, it would have looked pretty badly out of place. Carry on into the weak sequel Conan The Destroyer, and imagine Rick Moranis trying to look convincing fighting Wilt Chamberlain, and then convincingly wrestle the horn off Andre the Giant in that monster suit.
Like I said, it would be hilarious, but would destroy any pretense of seriousness in the story.
Strg Alt wrote: Have fun with your emasculated main character! Meanwhile I am watching Conan from the 80s. Besides people like you would have been booted from our gaming group asap. We don´t suffer political ideologies at RPG games.
I'll take my 'emasculated' characters (though having not watched the film, I have no idea how you'd apply that or any other description to any of the characters therein with any sort of authority ) over your white-male-power-fantasy-Conan types any day. Partly because the latter utterly bores me, but mostly because I want the media I engage with and the games I play to be accessible to more than just grumpy old white dudes stuck somewhere in the late 1980s...
The good news is that 'people like me' will still have gaming groups and movies to enjoy many years from now, while those of you that cannot handle the idea of a woman in an action role or a male lead who sings and dances better than he fights will find yourselves with both a rapidly dwindling and highly insular community to play with, and no movies left to enjoy save for those on your VHS shelves. That is, if you don't all eventually die off from heart attacks brought on by the frankly hilarious rage you all seem to feel when someone who doesn't look, sound, act or think like you gets to see themselves in fiction.
You do realize you're berating the generation and the fandom that put Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor on the map. right?
A strong woman is not the same as a strong man. She's not inferior, just different. If your strong 'female' character is just a male character, exhibiting male behavior and strengths instead of female, and the only indication that the character is female is that they're played by a female actor, that's not being bold and innovative.
That's just poor writing.
As far as raging goes, I don't see any point to that either. If you substitute cause du jure for good writing, I'll vote against it in the way that matters most in America. With my wallet.
Barbarian:
Bad casting choice. Next time hire a tall, muscular woman. She may not be able to act like a professional but at least she looks the part to make the fight scenes believable. And with fight scene I don´t mean CGI stuff where the woman turns into an owlbear and hurls people around like in a video game. That was bad and takes agency from the actors.
Imagine Brock Lesnar getting beaten by a midget. You won´t see it at WWE. Why? It would look stupid. Wrestling folks know this but in Hollywood everything which may empower women is good enough for the flick.
Does Rey Mysterio count as a midget?
Women have won WWE Cruiserweight title (Chyna, at least), and Tessa Blanchard won Impact Championship. Vince McMahon and David Arquette have won Championship belts. Plenty of silly stuff happens to stretch the Kayfabe...
Why is Doric turning into Owlbear "bad"? Are you implying that it would not happen in actual D&D, or that it would be better if it was a male druid? Isn't that sort of concept exactly what you call for, a 'believable' method how a tiny woman could beat up armed guys?
I'm bit baffled why you hold Conan as some sort of paragon of 'believable non-wokeness', as in that movie you have Valeria beating up dudes (and even running away from her in fear), and she saves Conan's life (twice, IIRC).
Yep. With agility and speed, not with brute force. (At least not until she becomes a Valkyrie at the end of the movie, anyway.) Another great strong female character, that is strong in a perfectly feminine way that is not at all inferior to her male counterparts. The series also gave us Zula, played by Grace Jones. Agility. ferocity, and raw determination, not brute force.
Switching over to Star Wars. One of the best written characters outside the movies is Asoka Tano. She gets one heck of an arc, earns her skill and power the hard way, and is beloved by the fanbase - female AND male. She is everything Rey Palpatine is NOT... not least of which is 'well written'. The Sith Assassin Asajj Ventress was also quite the powerful female character in the series.
Then there's Padme Amidala and her 'aggressive negotiations'. Flexibility, skill, and precision, not brute force.
Then there's Sergent Vasquez from Aliens. You never got the impression from her that ANY standards were lowered for her to be allowed to serve. But where the larger men slide by on size and strength, she substitutes raw determination to keep up.
The Incredibles; Helen and Violet Parr held their own against their male counterparts just fine.
No one complained about the Black Widow holding her own with her superpowered counterparts.
Anyone remember Laura Croft? Not much whining about HER being a strong female character.
A lot of the manufactured outrage over pushback against 'strong female characters' is just that: manufactured. It's being used to excuse bad writing, under the myth that before Jennifer Lawrence and Brie Larson there were no strong female characters, ever. Geeks LOVE strong female characters, so long as they are well written.
(Now comes the excuses why the strong female characters of the past are not ACTUALLY strong female characters. Ellen Ripley was just a glorified final girl; Laura Croft and Black Widow were just eye candy; etc. etc. etc. If she predates 2015 she doesn't count 'for reasons'...)
EDIT: Now I have to say, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't say if Rodriguez pulled off the barbarian role suitably naturally. Based on past performances I have no doubts the actress can pull it off; I simply have my doubts about the director, editors, and stunt choreographers in the modern Hollywood climate making it look right. She's 5'5" and around 120 lbs; she CANNOT go brute force against brute force and have it look good. She'd have to play speed, skill, agility, and determination against brute force to pull it off.
So please, tell me. Did she play to her female strengths? Or did she just brute-force everything as if she were a man twice her actual mass?
You do realize you're berating the generation and the fandom that put Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor on the map. right?
I am aware of that, but I think it really goes to prove my point. My argument is not that there were no women in action roles prior to the 2010s, but rather that those that were there were notable exceptions; for every one Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley there are a dozen, broadly interchangable Arnie/Harrison Ford/Kurt Russel/Bruce Willis ect. male action hero types to the extent that whenever this comes up, the two aforementioned women are literally the only ones from that era that most people can bring up off the top of their heads. That is not to say anything about the quality of the roles, just the maths of it.
The point of progress is to get to the stage where this isn't a concern anyone has, where anyone can play anything and no one bats an eye. This is where DnD is quite strong in this regard, absolutely nothing is made of the women being the frontline fighters (both the barbarian and, via the Owlbear wildshape, the Druid) and the men are the thinker/strategist and the support caster, and that's as it should be. Because boiling things down to 'male' and 'female' traits or gendered ways of fulfilling certain roles is highly reductive, bordering on offensive if done particularly poorly (Black Widow's fight scenes in Iron Man 2 being a good example of that, that has not aged well compared to much of her later action).
This is before you get into the nature of this movie being both a fantasy and a game adaptation. In modern DnD, gender has no bearing on strength or constitution scores, and thus a teenage female half-elf barbarian can be rocking the exact same stat spread as the grizzled male Orc, with no issue or need to interpret these differently beyond what the players want to do in that regard. Add on to that that fantasy heroes/protagonists in both the game and this kind of movie are by their very nature exceptional individuals, and anyone who has an issue with the casting/portrayal of Holga for reasons of 'realism' or the like is probably just looking for an excuse to push an outdated agenda.
Spoiler:
Not that it needs mentioning at this point, but the majority of foes she faces in this movie are generic guard/soldier types, the sort that no average barbarian in DnD is going to have much trouble taking on. The only 'boss' enemies are a powerful arcane assassin and a mage, handled by the paladin solo and a combined party effort respectively.
So please, tell me. Did she play to her female strengths? Or did she just brute-force everything as if she were a man twice her actual mass?
This right here is the exact BS I'm talking about as needing to go. The concept of 'female strengths' as something that requires an action movie heroine to be portrayed in a certain way, different to a male counterpart, to meet with approval is reductive, dated and misses the point entirely.
For the record, her fight coreography is an excellent portrayal of a DnD barbarian, which is to say that if you're expecting realism you're in the wrong movie. She's fast, vicious, shrugs off wounds with little more than a grimace and even bare-handed. tosses around dudes in heavy armour in a way that is entirely 'unrealsitic' and also captures the fantasy of a raging, 20-STR character using improvised weapons and defences perfectly. If you're wanting action that cares about relative body mass, the danger of numerical advantages or the proper use of weapons, this ain't it, but if you want to see a character whose skillset is 'really good at beating anyone up, with anything, at any time', then you're going to have a good time with it.
Backfire wrote: Really I don't understand why a scene designed for all around comedy is example of 'wokeness' or 'emasculation'. It's actually how a wicked GM would 'play' the corpse: "What, did that count as a question? -Yes. -So we have only three questions left? -No, you have only two left. -[Others:] Shut up!! Don't you ever learn!? -No. One remaining..."
Taken in a vacuum it's easy to see why: The straight white male lead is an idiot, and ruins what they're doing whilst everyone else (who aren't white and/or male) rolls their eyes at him.
But that's why Context is King. You remove context, you remove meaning, and removing that scene from the context of the rest of the film robs it of its meaning.
Lance845 wrote: Lets not pretend being upset that Michelle Rodriguez is the competent front line fighter as being "woke" is anything but misogyny.
A baseless assumption. She's not all that big, and seeing her fight people that should wreck her gak and pointing that out isn't "misogyny".
Now I personally didn't care, because this is a world of magic and raging barbarians, so whose to say her sub-type of people aren't just weirdly strong without it presenting in the standard physical ways that we see it, but to pretend that any criticism of a smaller woman playing a massively physical role is "anything but misogyny" is the type of debate-killing, speech-destroying shutdown tactics that ruin any sort of modern discourse.
Vulcan wrote:You do realize you're berating the generation and the fandom that put Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor on the map. right?
The idea that generations get credit for anything that happens while they happen to be alive is absurd.
The idea that fandoms get credit for creating something that, by definition, has to have existed before they formed is just stupid.
Without a fandom - or more to the point, the MONEY the fandom tosses at a franchise - you don't have a franchise, you have a one-off movie that everyone forgets in a handful of years.
Before Star Wars, franchises simply were not a thing. And where did the money to make Star Wars successful enough to become what it is now? The Fandom. WE paid George the money for Empire. WE paid George the money for Return of the Jedi. WE paid the money into the EU that kept Star Wars a viable franchise until the prequels, and then did it again until the sequels.
Star Trek was kept going by the money and the hard work of the fandom until The Motion Picture was released.
Without the money the fandom spent on Terminator and Alien, there would have been no Terminator 2 and Aliens.
That's an easy thing to forget, and it appears Disney has long forgotten it. But if the people you want to be your customers don't like the product you're producing, they won't give you money for it and your product fails. It really is that easy.
You do realize you're berating the generation and the fandom that put Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor on the map. right?
I am aware of that, but I think it really goes to prove my point. My argument is not that there were no women in action roles prior to the 2010s, but rather that those that were there were notable exceptions; for every one Sarah Connor or Ellen Ripley there are a dozen, broadly interchangable Arnie/Harrison Ford/Kurt Russel/Bruce Willis ect. male action hero types to the extent that whenever this comes up, the two aforementioned women are literally the only ones from that era that most people can bring up off the top of their heads. That is not to say anything about the quality of the roles, just the maths of it.
I'm not going to argue that there are a bunch more male action heroes than female action heroes. That is just fact. There are quite a few more female action heroes from the same period of filmmaking. Sadly. studios generally did not put the money into their movies to make those movies any good, even by 1980s action hero standards. Thus, the writing writing was bad, the directing was bad, the effects were bad... just bad all over. This is the fault of the studios, not the actresses... or the action movie fandom. Just like now, if you want the money you can't just shovel out garbage and expect it to sell.
The point of progress is to get to the stage where this isn't a concern anyone has, where anyone can play anything and no one bats an eye. This is where DnD is quite strong in this regard, absolutely nothing is made of the women being the frontline fighters (both the barbarian and, via the Owlbear wildshape, the Druid) and the men are the thinker/strategist and the support caster, and that's as it should be. Because boiling things down to 'male' and 'female' traits or gendered ways of fulfilling certain roles is highly reductive, bordering on offensive if done particularly poorly (Black Widow's fight scenes in Iron Man 2 being a good example of that, that has not aged well compared to much of her later action).
This is before you get into the nature of this movie being both a fantasy and a game adaptation. In modern DnD, gender has no bearing on strength or constitution scores, and thus a teenage female half-elf barbarian can be rocking the exact same stat spread as the grizzled male Orc, with no issue or need to interpret these differently beyond what the players want to do in that regard. Add on to that that fantasy heroes/protagonists in both the game and this kind of movie are by their very nature exceptional individuals, and anyone who has an issue with the casting/portrayal of Holga for reasons of 'realism' or the like is probably just looking for an excuse to push an outdated agenda.
Spoiler:
Not that it needs mentioning at this point, but the majority of foes she faces in this movie are generic guard/soldier types, the sort that no average barbarian in DnD is going to have much trouble taking on. The only 'boss' enemies are a powerful arcane assassin and a mage, handled by the paladin solo and a combined party effort respectively.
So please, tell me. Did she play to her female strengths? Or did she just brute-force everything as if she were a man twice her actual mass?
This right here is the exact BS I'm talking about as needing to go. The concept of 'female strengths' as something that requires an action movie heroine to be portrayed in a certain way, different to a male counterpart, to meet with approval is reductive, dated and misses the point entirely.
That's not BS, that's biology. Or are you going to argue that men and women are, on the average, EXACTLY the same size, weight, and strength?
I'll grant you someone like Rhonda Rousey or Gina Carano would beat me to a pulp and tie what's left up in knots. I'm a fairly average guy... and they are anything BUT average women.
For the record, her fight coreography is an excellent portrayal of a DnD barbarian, which is to say that if you're expecting realism you're in the wrong movie. She's fast, vicious, shrugs off wounds with little more than a grimace and even bare-handed. tosses around dudes in heavy armour in a way that is entirely 'unrealsitic' and also captures the fantasy of a raging, 20-STR character using improvised weapons and defences perfectly. If you're wanting action that cares about relative body mass, the danger of numerical advantages or the proper use of weapons, this ain't it, but if you want to see a character whose skillset is 'really good at beating anyone up, with anything, at any time', then you're going to have a good time with it.
Okay, that's a valid point. If the movie is entertaining enough, things like that can be overlooked. After all, most of us managed to watch Summer Glau go full action heroine in Serenity without complaint.
It's when the movie has ceased to be entertaining that we start looking for the problems. All the more reason to put some money to quality writing FIRST AND FOREMOST.
Backfire wrote: Really I don't understand why a scene designed for all around comedy is example of 'wokeness' or 'emasculation'. It's actually how a wicked GM would 'play' the corpse: "What, did that count as a question? -Yes. -So we have only three questions left? -No, you have only two left. -[Others:] Shut up!! Don't you ever learn!? -No. One remaining..."
Taken in a vacuum it's easy to see why: The straight white male lead is an idiot, and ruins what they're doing whilst everyone else (who aren't white and/or male) rolls their eyes at him.
But that's why Context is King. You remove context, you remove meaning, and removing that scene from the context of the rest of the film robs it of its meaning.
Lance845 wrote: Lets not pretend being upset that Michelle Rodriguez is the competent front line fighter as being "woke" is anything but misogyny.
A baseless assumption. She's not all that big, and seeing her fight people that should wreck her gak and pointing that out isn't "misogyny".
Now I personally didn't care, because this is a world of magic and raging barbarians, so whose to say her sub-type of people aren't just weirdly strong without it presenting in the standard physical ways that we see it, but to pretend that any criticism of a smaller woman playing a massively physical role is "anything but misogyny" is the type of debate-killing, speech-destroying shutdown tactics that ruin any sort of modern discourse.
Baseless nothing.
It's an action movie. We constantly watch males perform feats completely beyond human capability in every movie we watch without complaint or critique of what they would otherwise be capable of.
Heads up, iron man couldn't design a ark reactor and a full suit of armor in a cave with a box of scraps unrealistic nonsense.
Bruce willis couldn't take out an entire building of terrorists on his own without shoes.
Lethal weapons. Nonsense.
Jackie chan movies? Insanity.
Martial arts movies where the enemies come at them one at a time? Total unrealistic garbbage.
Do you like John Wick movies? The physical punishment of any one fight scene would put him in bed for weeks. Not walking to his next fight scene.
The fact that the question is being asked about MR in this movie but never even a talking point for 58 year old keanu reeves is the very definition of misogyny. If the person isn't being actively misogynistic, they are at least acting on sub concious biases that are misogynistic.
So I just saw the film - my view - this is 100% a film which goes out to achieve the "this is a party playing a DnD game" feel. It FEELS like it. It's a fun romp through a fantasy DnD session that has all the good hallmarks without ever breaking the 4th wall and taking you out of the fantasy.
On the barbarian front, she's totally fine nothing wrong with her. What I think might be wrong is her armour/costume. It feels like its just a touch big on her which causes her body to kind of shrink into it. It's not evident on every scene and in some ways I think its a move to avoid overly exposed "boob armour" elements. But I did get the feeling that it was just a size too big for what appeared like it was meant to be close fitting armour instead of chunky/thick plated armour.
I think that might be why she feels a little small; when all else she's rocking a fighting barbarian style like you'd get from a Red Sonja type character. Your classic fighter/barbarian woman fighter without being overmuscled.
She certainly carries that she's the party tank without question.
Overall this is a fun film that sets out just to be that. It's got some serious bits to the story, but at its core this is fun film being fun
Lance845 wrote: It's an action movie. We constantly watch males perform feats completely beyond human capability in every movie we watch without complaint or critique of what they would otherwise be capable of.
You're missing the point.
When a tiny woman beats up massive dudes twice her size, it doesn't look right. And calling that out isn't "misogyny".
Go and watch Atomic Blonde and you'll see how to do fights between people of different sizes.
Lance845 wrote: It's an action movie. We constantly watch males perform feats completely beyond human capability in every movie we watch without complaint or critique of what they would otherwise be capable of.
You're missing the point.
When a tiny woman beats up massive dudes twice her size, it doesn't look right. And calling that out isn't "misogyny".
Go and watch Atomic Blonde and you'll see how to do fights between people of different sizes.
The go-to reference for fights between people of different sizes should really be The Princess Bride.
Reach DOES matter. If you can hit the other person while remaining out of their reach, however barely, that's a huge advantage.
And in general, a taller person has longer arms and therefore more reach.
Reach doesn’t necessarily equate to a better fighter. Especially if you can move inside your opponent’s reach. Mike Tyson wasn’t particularly tall nor did he have much reach and his record speaks for itself.
Whoever compared her to Rick Moranis was way off. The natural comparison is someone like Michael Biehn. He isn’t a big guy, but he comes across grizzled enough that the audience is willing to believe he can win a fight. Michelle Rodriguez brings that grizzle.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Whoever compared her to Rick Moranis was way off. The natural comparison is someone like Michael Biehn. He isn’t a big guy, but he comes across grizzled enough that the audience is willing to believe he can win a fight. Michelle Rodriguez brings that grizzle.
Yeah but no one in the cast had "grizzle"
Even the much experienced Paladin with a dark backstory wasn't grizzled.
This wasn't a grizzly film with grizzled heroes in grizzled armour with throats rough as sandpaper and flushed down with whiskey
Reach DOES matter. If you can hit the other person while remaining out of their reach, however barely, that's a huge advantage.
And in general, a taller person has longer arms and therefore more reach.
Reach can matter. It is by no means decisive. Skill, knowledge and tactics count for a lot. If your opponent has a greater reach, you can work round that. Indeed get within that reach and they’re at a significant disadvantage.
All of this is missing the point that we don't expect reality from movies. People fight far longer, in more fights, get up and move without the wear and tear on their body that they should have. Small people beat up big people. People with skills do crazy gak people can't/shouldn't be able to do.
Nobody questions the little flippy guys beating the gak out of everyone, or the huge mountain monsters getting defeated by the smaller guys. Nobody questions the average joe bruce willises plowing through a dozen guys in better shape with better weapons.
This only ever becomes a discussion when the person winning the fight has tits.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Whoever compared her to Rick Moranis was way off. The natural comparison is someone like Michael Biehn. He isn’t a big guy, but he comes across grizzled enough that the audience is willing to believe he can win a fight. Michelle Rodriguez brings that grizzle.
Yeah but no one in the cast had "grizzle"
Even the much experienced Paladin with a dark backstory wasn't grizzled.
This wasn't a grizzly film with grizzled heroes in grizzled armour with throats rough as sandpaper and flushed down with whiskey
Lance845 wrote: All of this is missing the point that we don't expect reality from movies. People fight far longer, in more fights, get up and move without the wear and tear on their body that they should have. Small people beat up big people. People with skills do crazy gak people can't/shouldn't be able to do.
Nobody questions the little flippy guys beating the gak out of everyone, or the huge mountain monsters getting defeated by the smaller guys. Nobody questions the average joe bruce willises plowing through a dozen guys in better shape with better weapons.
This only ever becomes a discussion when the person winning the fight has tits.
It's a matter of educating the audience. Non-superpowered female crimefighters have been a thing in superhero comics since the Golden Age. So Scarlett Johansson carving her way through pack of goons is not 'modern woke' (Black Widow character dates back to 1960's). Similarly for example in Wushu genre, main characters are supposed to have not only incredible martial arts techniques, but also control of ki/chi, which gives them superhuman abilities. So women, or old men beating up bunch of young, fit dudes is nothing extraordinary. It is established lore in those genres that yes, such things are plausible (among other, much more fantastical things).
However, if I was to make, say, a boxing movie, and have a woman (or flyweight) beat Tyson Fury or Joe Frazier, it would look stupid, and audience would rightly complain. So, setting matters, and not all elements fit in all settings. 'Die Hards' are very unrealistic movies, but people don't expect to see characters with magic powers in them.
Lance845 wrote: All of this is missing the point that we don't expect reality from movies. People fight far longer, in more fights, get up and move without the wear and tear on their body that they should have. Small people beat up big people. People with skills do crazy gak people can't/shouldn't be able to do.
Nobody questions the little flippy guys beating the gak out of everyone, or the huge mountain monsters getting defeated by the smaller guys. Nobody questions the average joe bruce willises plowing through a dozen guys in better shape with better weapons.
This only ever becomes a discussion when the person winning the fight has tits.
It's a matter of educating the audience. Non-superpowered female crimefighters have been a thing in superhero comics since the Golden Age. So Scarlett Johansson carving her way through pack of goons is not 'modern woke' (Black Widow character dates back to 1960's). Similarly for example in Wushu genre, main characters are supposed to have not only incredible martial arts techniques, but also control of ki/chi, which gives them superhuman abilities. So women, or old men beating up bunch of young, fit dudes is nothing extraordinary. It is established lore in those genres that yes, such things are plausible (among other, much more fantastical things).
However, if I was to make, say, a boxing movie, and have a woman (or flyweight) beat Tyson Fury or Joe Frazier, it would look stupid, and audience would rightly complain. So, setting matters, and not all elements fit in all settings. 'Die Hards' are very unrealistic movies, but people don't expect to see characters with magic powers in them.
Cool. So the setting is the Forgotten Realm of DnD.
Alright, I finally got the movie watched, no longer have to worry about spoilers, and can jump back in the threads to see what all these pages of discussion I’ve been missing are about!
Reach DOES matter. If you can hit the other person while remaining out of their reach, however barely, that's a huge advantage.
And in general, a taller person has longer arms and therefore more reach.
Reach doesn’t necessarily equate to a better fighter. Especially if you can move inside your opponent’s reach. Mike Tyson wasn’t particularly tall nor did he have much reach and his record speaks for itself.
I never said reach DOES equate to a better fighter. I just said it MATTERS and was a big advantage. Strength, agility, endurance, speed, reach, mass, skill, experience.... all these things matter in a fight. But no single one of them trump over all the others.
Of course, if you 'get inside someone's reach' in a fistfight, you're probably going to get a knee or elbow somewhere you don't want it. Fistfights are not like boxing, with rules and all. Try to box politely in a fistfight and you'll probably get your head handed back to you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: All of this is missing the point that we don't expect reality from movies. People fight far longer, in more fights, get up and move without the wear and tear on their body that they should have. Small people beat up big people. People with skills do crazy gak people can't/shouldn't be able to do.
Nobody questions the little flippy guys beating the gak out of everyone, or the huge mountain monsters getting defeated by the smaller guys. Nobody questions the average joe bruce willises plowing through a dozen guys in better shape with better weapons.
This only ever becomes a discussion when the person winning the fight has tits.
No, it becomes a discussion when the movie was bad and we're looking for something to talk about.
As I said earlier I don't remember a lot of people having problems with Summer Glau's big battle. Why? Because we were entertained. When the movie ceases to entertain us, we start nitpicking...
Lance845 wrote: All of this is missing the point that we don't expect reality from movies. People fight far longer, in more fights, get up and move without the wear and tear on their body that they should have. Small people beat up big people. People with skills do crazy gak people can't/shouldn't be able to do.
Nobody questions the little flippy guys beating the gak out of everyone, or the huge mountain monsters getting defeated by the smaller guys. Nobody questions the average joe bruce willises plowing through a dozen guys in better shape with better weapons.
This only ever becomes a discussion when the person winning the fight has tits.
No, it becomes a discussion when the movie was bad and we're looking for something to talk about.
As I said earlier I don't remember a lot of people having problems with Summer Glau's big battle. Why? Because we were entertained. When the movie ceases to entertain us, we start nitpicking...
In this particular case it came from someone who Didn't see the movie. While those who saw the movie have near universal positive feedback for it.
Yeah, everyone who saw the movie seems to have enjoyed it. The people posting this stuff are not here because they saw the movie—they didn’t—but because they want to derail the conversation to make it seem like the audience didn’t enjoy the movie. Don’t fall for the ruse.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, that's a valid point. If the movie is entertaining enough, things like that can be overlooked. After all, most of us managed to watch Summer Glau go full action heroine in Serenity without complaint.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, that's a valid point. If the movie is entertaining enough, things like that can be overlooked. After all, most of us managed to watch Summer Glau go full action heroine in Serenity without complaint.
I didn't.
I found it disappointing that her 'superhuman abilities' turned out to be just Kung Fu expertise. Maybe conclusion of that plotline would have been more interesting if the series had ran its course, we'll never know.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, that's a valid point. If the movie is entertaining enough, things like that can be overlooked. After all, most of us managed to watch Summer Glau go full action heroine in Serenity without complaint.
I didn't.
I found it disappointing that her 'superhuman abilities' turned out to be just Kung Fu expertise. Maybe conclusion of that plotline would have been more interesting if the series had ran its course, we'll never know.
I mean there was that and her mind tricks too and in the series we saw her memorise the position of several people and then shoot them in one quick action. The main issue is trying to compress what was likely several seasons into 1 film. You just cannot in any way get the same level of depth and impact in the film over the series. So yeah we got a couple of fight sequences because they are brutal, showy and quicker than long drawn out mind reading other other scenes that could be built upon.
I'd also wager that behind the scenes the action sequences would have become more common in the series as it went forward which if I recall right, was partly why Summer was hired in the first place. So there was probably a desire to have a fight sequence because it was something that was going to be part of Firefly that just never got to happen
The movie was bad because it lacked the writers room of the show. Joss Whedon left to his own divices makes shallow characters who do big actiony things because thats all he thinks is cool. It's the behind the scenes guys who made Firefly what it was.
River gets big action fights in the movie because to Joss a "strong female character" is a female character with super powers. Not a female character with a strong character.
Vulcan wrote: Okay, that's a valid point. If the movie is entertaining enough, things like that can be overlooked. After all, most of us managed to watch Summer Glau go full action heroine in Serenity without complaint.
I didn't.
Thus my use of the word 'most' instead of 'all'.
There is always someone who didn't like something, not matter how well loved that something might have been at large.
Lance845 wrote: The movie was bad because it lacked the writers room of the show. Joss Whedon left to his own divices makes shallow characters who do big actiony things because thats all he thinks is cool. It's the behind the scenes guys who made Firefly what it was.
River gets big action fights in the movie because to Joss a "strong female character" is a female character with super powers. Not a female character with a strong character.
I think this is nonsense. It's true Joss maybe tapped "hot chick with mad kickboxing skilz" well bit too often, but no shortage of strong female characters in Buffyverse or Firefly who aren't superpowered - Joyce, Cordelia, Fred, Zoe, Inara...I doubt all of them were cooked up by other writers.
Lance845 wrote: The movie was bad because it lacked the writers room of the show. Joss Whedon left to his own divices makes shallow characters who do big actiony things because thats all he thinks is cool. It's the behind the scenes guys who made Firefly what it was.
River gets big action fights in the movie because to Joss a "strong female character" is a female character with super powers. Not a female character with a strong character.
I think this is nonsense. It's true Joss maybe tapped "hot chick with mad kickboxing skilz" well bit too often, but no shortage of strong female characters in Buffyverse or Firefly who aren't superpowered - Joyce, Cordelia, Fred, Zoe, Inara...I doubt all of them were cooked up by other writers.
You should watch all of Joss's movies where he was writer director inuding the original buffy. Further, you should look at his laundry list of bs hes done to the female cast of his projects. 100% it's the writers room on his shows that makes things better.
Lance845 wrote: The movie was bad because it lacked the writers room of the show. Joss Whedon left to his own divices makes shallow characters who do big actiony things because thats all he thinks is cool. It's the behind the scenes guys who made Firefly what it was.
River gets big action fights in the movie because to Joss a "strong female character" is a female character with super powers. Not a female character with a strong character.
I think this is nonsense. It's true Joss maybe tapped "hot chick with mad kickboxing skilz" well bit too often, but no shortage of strong female characters in Buffyverse or Firefly who aren't superpowered - Joyce, Cordelia, Fred, Zoe, Inara...I doubt all of them were cooked up by other writers.
You should watch all of Joss's movies where he was writer director inuding the original buffy. Further, you should look at his laundry list of bs hes done to the female cast of his projects. 100% it's the writers room on his shows that makes things better.
I have seen nearly all his movies, what about them? Movies have lots of money in them, so more people want their say and change the visions to their liking. In the case of original Buffy movie, producers felt that the idea of blonde vampire-slaying girl was silly, so the movie was made to be silly.
As for him abusing his underlings when in position of power, that has nothing to do with his writing abilities. Lots of the people celebrated from their leadership or achievements were (and are) huge donkey-caves.
As far as I can tell from the stuff I’ve read, Joss pretty much fulfils the “bitchy prima-donna director” stereotype. Now that does not make his behaviour acceptable, but the backlash against him does seem a bit disproportionate to me, when compared to other celebrities who have been guilty of actual, terrible crimes.
Jadenim wrote: As far as I can tell from the stuff I’ve read, Joss pretty much fulfils the “bitchy prima-donna director” stereotype. Now that does not make his behaviour acceptable, but the backlash against him does seem a bit disproportionate to me, when compared to other celebrities who have been guilty of actual, terrible crimes.
The other staff would not allow the teenage sister of buffy (michelle tractenburg or some gak) alone in a room with joss based on the way he treated other actresses.
StraightSilver wrote: I'm still laughing at all the potato jokes long after watching the movie.
That's a sign of a fun movie.
I kept laughing too much at the gag with the pally walking away in a straight line lol. There was a lot of good comedic bits in the movie. The questioning undead scene was amazing too.
.
