Talk:Dungeons & Dragons (2000 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"...starting a renaissance in role-playing games which as of this writing (early 2006) has not ended."

I struck this line. It is debatable as to whether or not the "renaissance" in role playing games has ended, or whether it has now suffered a glut identical to the conditions which created the opportunity for Wizards to launch a new edition of the game with streamlined supplements in the first place.

Regardless, the point of a renaissance in RPG games was certainly not caused by the film, and any debate on that point would be better served in an entry on role-playing games, or in Dungeons and Dragons the game.

Was it based on Dungeons and Dragons?

The movie was NOT based on Dungeons and Dragons, at least, not any more than any other swords and sorcery fare - and as the entry indicates - this was part of the problem.

In addition to the game, there are well known settings and characters within the game, proper, as well as literally shelves of novels following the adventures of characters within them. None of these were referenced within the film. Moreover, director Courtney Solomon says on the DVD commentary that he specifically avoided mentioning known Dungeons and Dragons content (on Gary Gygax's advice).

Is there a way to introduce the film, acknowledging that it was "intended" to be based on Dungeons and Dragons, without actually indicating that they were successful in this endeavor?

67.69.15.154 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Nephandus

• If they didn't even try to base it on D&D, then the correct way to introduce it would be as an appalling script for a generic fantasy movie that was rubberstamped with a big name. --Agamemnon2 06:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this comment at the time, but that's exactly what I did in early May. It would be nice to add some sort of source, though I think I can get away with the wording I chose - I think a "reasonable adult without specialized knowledge", or however the standard in the verifiability policy is worded, would come to the conclusion I wrote into the article if they saw the movie and compared it to the core rulebooks. PurplePlatypus 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• The title of the movie speaks for itself. The movie was based on Dungeons & Dragons. It was a poorly written and completely inept adaption. In the movie there were references to "mages" and "fighters" as professions. The Dwarf and Elf were stereotypical to the game. The Beholder is a creature specific to D&D. So it is not possible to say that the movie was not based on the game. Justy Hakubi (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to motion to remove the In Dispute tag from the article. I don't understand how the critical reviews can be disputed. The movie tanked, it recieved 11% at Rotten Tomatoes, and I can speak from personal experience that the movie was horrible. Justy Hakubi (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dungeons & Dragons poster.JPG

Image:Dungeons & Dragons poster.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Profitable

The article states the movie made a profit but later quotes numbers that indicate the studio lost money with this film.

"The film opened at #5 at the North American box office making USD$7,237,422 in its opening weekend.[2] The film would go on to gross $15,220,685 in the domestic box office, short of the film's $35 million budget, and with an international gross of $18,586,724, coming up with a worldwide total of $33,807,409."

Even the gross is less than the production cost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.53.164 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A film may make a profit for the production company based on overseas sales and television and home video rights even if the cinema release falls short of the production budget. Duckwalk71 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Willow and Dragonheart were not box office failures

I know the article linked here says they were. But they weren't. Dragonheart made 115.3 million at the box office against a 57 million budget (so a moderate success) and Willow made 137 million on a 37 million budget. So it was certainly a huge success.

70.24.5.11 (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dungeons & Dragons (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140320011300/http://www.mania.com/dungeons-dragons_article_5786.html to http://www.mania.com/dungeons-dragons_article_5786.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)