Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1006395The IMDB listing is just a fan/gossip post.

This is a recurring problem with IMDb. People keep posting what ammounts to a "wishlist" as if it were a real movie and for some reason IMDb posts these up and then keeps them up for years and years. Micronauts movie? Check. Monsterpocalypse movie? Check. and god knows how many more.

As for another D&D movie, #4 unless I missed one. Please god tell me Solomon didnt make another!

I thought the first one was... kinda just there. It had its ups and downs. Ohhh the downs.
The second one is so far the best and has the most D&D feel to it. I think its also the one with Solomon the least involved in it.
The third is just horrible. Worse than the first.

Whats the 4th going to be? Again, depends on how much Solomon is involved. Its probably going to have very little to do with D&D though and come across as another generic fantasy movie. Dragonlance would probably be changed past recognition.

Quote from: Voros;1006444Ah yeah, I see that.

In all fairness, Dragonlance probably would make for a good movie adaptation. I've read a few of the novels including the Twins trilogy, and the core characters would probably make a good movie ensemble. Yes I think Raistlin is a more than a little Elric inspired but that's just a personal nitpick which has no reflection on the quality of the work. I've read at least 5 Dragonlance books, so the quality of writing was certainly not an issue for me.

"You keep trying to make Dragonlance happen. It's not going to happen."

Quote from: remial;1006503you say that as if it were a bad thing...

Not at all. I think I'm one of the few DL defenders on here.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1920[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1921[/ATTACH]

The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.

I am deleting my content.

I recommend you do the same.

Quote from: remial;1006503you say that as if it were a bad thing...

The art and graphic design are among the few things that I still love about DL after long years of embitteredness.

The reason they keep trying to do Dragonlance is because it's the one that's actually got a 'story'.  Greyhawk doesn't have a story. The Realms doesn't have a story. They're settings.
Dragonlance was created as a story first, with a setting that existed for that story. It's part of why it makes for a relatively shitty gaming world.
But the problem is that the story is so generic and bland as fantasy that it ALSO makes for a shitty story.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;1006951While Monsterpocalypse seems to have never gotten further than a bidding war for its adaptation rights, Micronauts has legitimately been in development hell since 2009. Multiple scripts and directors have been attached. Since it's part of a package of licensed Hasbro IP that Paramount seems fairly desperate to figure out how to make money off of, it's relatively likely to happen.

You missed the part where Hasbro bought back the IPs to prevent Paramont from making any more game movies. All of these "wishlist" movies read off exactly the same. "Some big name director is going to direct this!" and it never happens because it usually was never real to begin with. Hasbro canned a large chunk of their Unit-E line aside from the really fucked up iteration IDW has been doing in the comics.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007296The reason they keep trying to do Dragonlance is because it's the one that's actually got a 'story'.  Greyhawk doesn't have a story. The Realms doesn't have a story. They're settings.
Dragonlance was created as a story first, with a setting that existed for that story. It's part of why it makes for a relatively shitty gaming world.
But the problem is that the story is so generic and bland as fantasy that it ALSO makes for a shitty story.

Actually WOTC/Hasbro keeps trying to use Dragonlance because its not part of Solomon's stranglehold on any D&D movies.

I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?

It did. Probably a setting first in that the setting was most likely designed for play.

I read Dragonlance when I was in high-school and I really liked it. I then bought and ran the modules with my friends and the whole experience was pretty rad. Some set-pieces were among the best sessions I DMed/enjoyed in any RPG ever.

Having said that, I never mistook DL for The Lord of the Rings, not even then. DL, however, had a lot of everything - exp. those things that a teen-ager can find exciting. We didn't care for melodrama, for example, but a lot for role-playing. So, melodrama was left on the cutting room floor but my players put a lot of effort in portraying their PCs.

Talking about set-pieces, the fact that Top Gun came out right when the air battles between dragons went into high gear in our games gave them a... uhm... special spin. Just sayin'...

TSR/Wizards never recaptured the spirit of the original DL, no matter how hard they attempted. In a way it was like Star Wars: by no means it was Asimov, Heinlein or 2001: A Space Odissey - but it was Star Wars.

Quote from: Reckall;1007338Talking about set-pieces, the fact that Top Gun came out right when the air battles between dragons went into high gear in our games gave them a... uhm... special spin. Just sayin'... .

   Ironically, the original concept that Tracy Hickman came up with when travelling cross-country to take his job with TSR was 'knights dogfighting on dragonback.'

Quote from: Omega;1007314I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?

   No, it went concept -> pitch to TSR -> development -> module -> 1 or 2 playtest sessions -> novels.

Quote from: Omega;1007314Actually WOTC/Hasbro keeps trying to use Dragonlance because its not part of Solomon's stranglehold on any D&D movies.

I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?

Regardless of whether it was a campaign or not first (and I'd have some serious doubts about just how similar any 'initial DL campaign' was to what we actually saw in print), in terms of what people actually experienced what we saw was a trilogy of novels and a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1007658In terms of what people actually experienced what we saw was a trilogy of novels and a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.

Dragonlance started as a campaign - the idea of turning it in a trilogy (at first) of novels came during play-testing. MW and TH said this in a number of interviews.

Then waters became muddy, because both the novels and the modules were works in progress at the same time, and it is unclear which events came first (if those in the novels then being repeated in the modules or vice-versa). For example, Keith Parkinson painted the cover of the module where Sturm dies ("Dragons of War") before the scene in the book was written - and MW said how he looked at the painting for inspiration while she wrote it.

Regarding the need to "imitate the exact details of the novels", maybe some players felt the need to do that. However, in all fairness, while many modules were built with a final aim in mind (which, of course, turned out to be the start of the next module) they contained enough info to allow players to choose how to get there. I ran the whole DL campaign twice and, except for the key "end of chapter" episodes, the two runs were fairly different. I'm not saying that there wasn't railroading; however, just re-read the original DL1 module ("Dragons of Despair"): even if the final confrontation vs. the Black Dragon is unavoidable, the whole starting regional area is described in details for the players to pull their own stunts while forging their own paths. The events in both my two runs diverged from those in the books - and from each other. I could, literally, have written an original story out of them.