anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

>> Not sure when this came to Prime from Pee+, but I'm glad it has.
>> I'll try to get to it soon...
>
>No Hanks, no spanks!

He wore spanks in that movie?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:06 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Not sure when this came to Prime from Pee+, but I'm glad it has.
>>> I'll try to get to it soon...

I tried watching the new D&D movie. I really did. Everyone told me how
it was such an improvement over the originals, and how well it
captured the game. But I couldn't get past the 30 minute mark.

The 1999 D&D movie was awful too, but in the 'so-bad-it's-good' sort
of way. At the very least, that one had the wonderfully over-the-top
performance of Jeremy Irons to keep us entertained. But this new one?
I couldn't get into it at all.

Maybe had I stuck with it, my impression of the movie would have been
better. But I struggled to keep watching even those first 30 minutes,
and nothing the movie showed me indicated there would be a sudden
reversal further on.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:06 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
> wrote:
>
>>anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not sure when this came to Prime from Pee+, but I'm glad it has.
>>>> I'll try to get to it soon...
>
>
> I tried watching the new D&D movie. I really did. Everyone told me how
> it was such an improvement over the originals, and how well it
> captured the game. But I couldn't get past the 30 minute mark.
>
> The 1999 D&D movie was awful too, but in the 'so-bad-it's-good' sort
> of way. At the very least, that one had the wonderfully over-the-top
> performance of Jeremy Irons to keep us entertained. But this new one?
> I couldn't get into it at all.
>
> Maybe had I stuck with it, my impression of the movie would have been
> better. But I struggled to keep watching even those first 30 minutes,
> and nothing the movie showed me indicated there would be a sudden
> reversal further on.

It felt a hell of a lot like D&D in places, where I was thinking "oh boy I can
envision exactly how this sequence would have played out on a table
top", and some parts felt like the "players" just plain got a bad roll
and had to go to the next thing. Their uses of the portal rod in
also felt like things players would do.

Jeremy Irons was a high point of the old movie, but he was the only high
point. Hugh Grant was fun, though, and in general the characters were
able to be kind of jokey without falling too badly into the modern habit
of just saying "uhhh, AWKward!" and "so THAT just happened" (kill me)

Also they used practical effects a bunch and I appreciate that.

john

On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 9:55:27 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:38:06 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
> wrote:
> >anim...@cox.net wrote:
> >>Ian J. Ball <ijb...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> Not sure when this came to Prime from Pee+, but I'm glad it has.
> >>> I'll try to get to it soon...
> I tried watching the new D&D movie. I really did. Everyone told me how
> it was such an improvement over the originals, and how well it
> captured the game. But I couldn't get past the 30 minute mark.
>
> The 1999 D&D movie was awful too, but in the 'so-bad-it's-good' sort
> of way. At the very least, that one had the wonderfully over-the-top
> performance of Jeremy Irons to keep us entertained. But this new one?
> I couldn't get into it at all.
>
> Maybe had I stuck with it, my impression of the movie would have been
> better. But I struggled to keep watching even those first 30 minutes,
> and nothing the movie showed me indicated there would be a sudden
> reversal further on.

I enjoyed it. Only D&D movie that actually captures D&D. Something just
feels off with it though, just too cgi and vibrant or something. I thought it
odd JI didn't seem to have any actual class or be able to do anything.
On the other hand I've been witness to a few players/character that just
kept failing or not being able to do anything too.

I kind of liked the 1999 movie too, but it was a train-wreck. Which also
captures a number of D&D games I've played in. :)

- Justisaur

spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>>>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:

>>>> Not sure when this came to Prime from Pee+, but I'm glad it has.
>>>> I'll try to get to it soon...
>
>
>I tried watching the new D&D movie. I really did. Everyone told me how
>it was such an improvement over the originals, and how well it
>captured the game. But I couldn't get past the 30 minute mark.
>
>The 1999 D&D movie was awful too, but in the 'so-bad-it's-good' sort
>of way. At the very least, that one had the wonderfully over-the-top
>performance of Jeremy Irons to keep us entertained. But this new one?
>I couldn't get into it at all.
>
>Maybe had I stuck with it, my impression of the movie would have been
>better. But I struggled to keep watching even those first 30 minutes,
>and nothing the movie showed me indicated there would be a sudden
>reversal further on.

My expectations were low but I found myself enjoying it.

--
Let's go Brandon!