| |
Hey all....
(I am placing this in lugnet.year.2001 only because there is no lugnet.studios
group- since it's moved into a full-blown theme, should there be one?)
I went to the movies on Saturday night to see "Dungeons and Dragons". Before
the movie starts- in fact, before the Coming Attractions trailers- there are
ad-type trailers. One of these was a "trailer" for Dinocop, telling you where
to download it, and informing you that you could be "part of movie history"
with LEGO Studios.
This is the first time I have seen this trailer. It is defintely not a direct
transfer of the TV ad- the content and format were different. It is worth
noting that I go to the movies *a lot*, although not as much as I once did.
Anyway, though this was the first time I saw this trailer, it did tell you
you'd have to wait until November 7th, which I found odd.
Anyway, it was pretty cool to see it up on the big screen.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Eric Joslin writes:
> Hey all....
>
> (I am placing this in lugnet.year.2001 only because there is no lugnet.studios
> group- since it's moved into a full-blown theme, should there be one?)
>
> I went to the movies on Saturday night to see "Dungeons and Dragons". Before
> the movie starts... [there] was a "trailer" for Dinocop, telling you where
> to download it, and informing you that you could be "part of movie history"
> with LEGO Studios.
> Anyway, it was pretty cool to see it up on the big screen.
Were the special effects better in the movie or in the Lego trailer?
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Dave Schuler writes:
> Were the special effects better in the movie or in the Lego trailer?
I'd have to say in the movie. Yes, I've seen better, but it wasn't bad.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.year.2001, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > Were the special effects better in the movie or in the Lego trailer?
>
> I'd have to say in the movie. Yes, I've seen better, but it wasn't bad.
A movie like that really has big shoes to fill, since it's competing
against the imagination of millions (?) over 25+ years! Anything they tried
would be bound to disappoint some viewers, I suppose, but I'm glad to hear
it wasn't too bad...
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Dave Schuler writes:
> A movie like that really has big shoes to fill, since it's competing
> against the imagination of millions (?) over 25+ years! Anything they tried
> would be bound to disappoint some viewers, I suppose, but I'm glad to hear
> it wasn't too bad...
My biggest problem with it, as a D&D player (although I haven't been in a
campaign for a couple years now), was that the characters didn't act like D&D
characters. I mean, I got a good chuckle at a couple of points imagining the
interactions between the players- and in that way, they acted like *RPG*
characters- but the scriptwriter has never played D&D (confirmed fact) and
therefore was unable to work in things that could have been cool, like a mage
running out of memorised spells, activation words, etc.
Example: At one point, there are Beholders being used in conjuction with
footsoldiers to guard a castle. Each Beholder has two footsoldiers patrolling
with him. What could they possibly have been there for? Moral support? "Nice
one, Beholder-guy! Now use your disintegration beam!" Anyone who had spent
any amount of time playing D&D would know better.
eric
|
|
| |
I saw that too, as a advertisement before "Meet the Parents". Pretty cool, I
thought, to see it advertised so mainstream. And a great place to advertise it
too. Very precise marketing.
Speaking of no Studios newsgroups yet . . . sounds like a good idea. The only
problem is that I have seen very few posts about it. It's what's taking up all
of my "LEGO time" right now, so i'd love to discuss it with anyone who wants.
Specifically, anyone tried fooling around with special effects for it?
Jason
In lugnet.year.2001, Eric Joslin writes:
> I went to the movies on Saturday night to see "Dungeons and Dragons". Before
> the movie starts- in fact, before the Coming Attractions trailers- there are
> ad-type trailers. One of these was a "trailer" for Dinocop, telling you where
> to download it, and informing you that you could be "part of movie history"
> with LEGO Studios.
|
|
| |
I saw that too, as a advertisement before "Meet the Parents". Pretty cool, I
thought, to see it advertised so mainstream. And a great place to advertise it
too. Very precise marketing.
Speaking of no Studios newsgroups yet . . . sounds like a good idea. The only
problem is that I have seen very few posts about it. It's what's taking up all
of my "LEGO time" right now, so i'd love to discuss it with anyone who wants.
Specifically, anyone tried fooling around with special effects mattes for it?
Jason
In lugnet.year.2001, Eric Joslin writes:
> I went to the movies on Saturday night to see "Dungeons and Dragons". Before
> the movie starts- in fact, before the Coming Attractions trailers- there are
> ad-type trailers. One of these was a "trailer" for Dinocop, telling you where
> to download it, and informing you that you could be "part of movie history"
> with LEGO Studios.
|
|
| |
Nice going eric, at least you found something to laugh at.
From Yahoo Movies
http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1803471100&cf=critic
Dungeons and Dragons (2000)
Critics Reviews
CNN.com: Dumb & dreadful - "...so poorly executed, you start to feel like you're
watching the world's most expensive script run-through."
Deseret News (Salt Lake City) - (1.5 stars) "...plain bad dumbness..."
E! Online - (grade: D) "...belongs locked up in a dark, dank dungeon of its
own."
Film Threat - (1 star) "Wisdom and Intellect: -10"
L.A. Weekly - "...a cheap Star Wars rip-off..."
Mr. Showbiz - (rating: 26/100) "...[a] D-grade cinematic cacophony..."
New York Times - "...not much fun."
People - "...features a bland teen cast..."
Roger Ebert - (1.5 stars) "...close your eyes and the dialogue sounds like an
overwrought junior high school play."
Variety - "...stunningly bad..."
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Erik Olson writes:
> CNN.com: Dumb & dreadful - "...so poorly executed, you start to feel like
> you're
> watching the world's most expensive script run-through."
<snip>
Blah, blah, blah.
I will freely admit it wasn't the best movie in the world. But I had a really
good time at the movies that night, and it wasn't *in spite* of the movie I
saw, it was because of it (and, having seen both Bats and Supernova in the
theatre, I do know the difference).
Jeremy Irons overacted. But it was fun to watch. Marlon Wayans was
ridiculous. But it was fun to watch. The main evil henchman had blue lips for
no good reason. But it was fun to watch. Etc, etc, etc.
I guess it's all about setting your expectations correctly when deciding what
movie to see. I wasn't expecting American Beauty or Fight Club (both of which
really had something to say, IMHO). I wasn't even expecting Raiders of the
Lost Ark or Die Hard. I was just expecting to have a laugh and a good time,
and I did.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Eric Joslin writes:
> I guess it's all about setting your expectations correctly when deciding what
> movie to see. I wasn't expecting American Beauty or Fight Club (both of which
> really had something to say, IMHO). I wasn't even expecting Raiders of the
> Lost Ark or Die Hard. I was just expecting to have a laugh and a good time,
> and I did.
Taste is, of course, an individual matter, but since the movie was
attempting to be about D&D, it was beholden in large measure to the spirit
of the game. As you yourself point out, the "writer" never played the game,
so right out of the blocks something is amiss. That would be like me
writing the Harry Potter script without having read any of the books.
Having said that, I have to say that Fight Club was one of the most
overblown, overdone, and overlong pieces of film I've ever seen. (But
again, taste is an individual matter.)
Dave!
FUT OT.FUN
|
|
| |
In lugnet.year.2001, Dave Schuler writes:
> A movie like that really has big shoes to fill, since it's competing
> against the imagination of millions (?) over 25+ years! Anything they tried
> would be bound to disappoint some viewers, I suppose, but I'm glad to hear
> it wasn't too bad...
>
> Dave!
Perhaps unfortunately the same can be said of Lord of the Rings. I have
much higher expectations of that since it probably also has the budget and
background to make a much more serious effort.
John
#388
|
|
|
