:O ....... What Did I Just See?

[Empedocles]

I just watched an add for the 2008 Dragonlance movie, wondering if the adaptation had been faithful to one of my favorite classic fantasies.

...

It was one of the worst things I've ever seen. Can someone, anybody, please explain what happened? Did a single nerd make this entire movie? Did it have funding that approximated to an eight year old's allowance? Was a real, good movie ever made?

[JadedDM]

Everyone hates on that movie, especially the fans, which is probably why (ironically enough) there will never be any more in the future, animated or otherwise.

I thought it wasn't bad, myself. I didn't like how Tas was portrayed, and I admit the CGI did not mesh well with the traditional animation (although I did like the traditional animation a lot; reminded me of the old cartoons from the 80's, which seemed fitting, as that was when Dragonlance was first published). But overall, I thought it captured the feel and themes of the first novel.

As for what happened...nothing to really say. Weis and Hickman had full creative control. They made a movie; the fans didn't like it. The end.

[Lothston]

It was an awful, despicable pile of crap.

No wonder they never followed up with the remaining two books.

That movie looked like it was done in 1980's by a bunch of amateurs making a TV series. Disney's early movies made in 1930's-1940's look much better, even though they are 60-70 years older than this one. I'm not even talking about modern animation - just look at anime feature films. Hell, look at Goro Miyazaki's "Tales of Earthsea" to see how a fantasy setting can be brought on screen.

The Dragonlance movie was also a disaster in terms of plot, character development, implementation of gaming mechanics etc. But I wouldn't want to grace it with a lengthy explanation. Suffice to say, failure on all fronts.

I'm actually quite sad that the great fantasy settings are not being put into animation, and when they are, we get crap like this. It's a shame.

[polity4life]

The problem is that the Dragonlance series isn't really written that well, especially the first trilogy. Most of the characters are either boring, trite caricatures or are simply flat and uninteresting. Also, the books to not lend themselves to a screenplay. The language used in dialogue is stuff that isn't believably said by anyone.

Fast forward to the 2000's where Weis and Hickman want full creative control and refuse to allow people to tweak the story and characters to make for a passable screenplay and you literally see the problems I stated above.

This story worked in a book medium because you are forced to imagine everything and you have the pauses in action, even conceived pauses, that prevent the story from just racing by. A movie can't do that unless it is written to do so. If the writers cannot add breaks in action and create a better sense of pace then you have the first, and likely only, Dragonlance movie. If the writers cannot make the characters interesting and give the audience compelling reason to care about them then you have that movie again.

Honestly, seeing the movie made me realize how pulpy this whole series actually is. It broke my heart on so many levels that I completely abandoned Krynn and donated my books to a second-hand store.

[Lothston]

The problem is that the Dragonlance series isn't really written that well, especially the first trilogy.

The problem is that the movie is made unbelievably sloppily. The animation is so low-quality it would make an 80-s cartoon blush. The plot is incoherent, the action absolutely awful and the characters fall flat.

It's not the books' fault. The first trilogy of Dragonlance is among the best in the entire saga. Its writing is good enough for a fantasy novel. I don't see how it is much worse for transferring to film than, for instance, Ursula Le Guin's Earthsea books.


Most of the characters are either boring, trite caricatures or are simply flat and uninteresting. Also, the books to not lend themselves to a screenplay. The language used in dialogue is stuff that isn't believably said by anyone.

"By anyone"? Isn't that a little harsh? Would you mind giving some examples?


Fast forward to the 2000's where Weis and Hickman want full creative control and refuse to allow people to tweak the story and characters to make for a passable screenplay and you literally see the problems I stated above.

So it's Hickman and Weis's fault now? Huh! Here's what Hickman himself has to say on the matter: (http://www.dlnexus.com/products/review/558.aspx)


Both the screenwriter and I argued against putting all of Dragons of Autumn Twilight in the first film ... believing that the film should portray essentially the first half of the book and finish with 'Solace is burning.' But the 'powers that be' adamantly required that the entire book be portrayed. George Strayton did a masterful job of accomplishing that goal and his script is undeniably brilliant - but I still believe the film's structure suffers from the enforced requirement of including the entire novel.


Honestly, seeing the movie made me realize how pulpy this whole series actually is. It broke my heart on so many levels that I completely abandoned Krynn and donated my books to a second-hand store.

The movie was pulp and trash. The books were made a disservice. Do not judge the books - or their potential for translation to the screen - by this movie.

[polity4life]

It seems you enjoy the books and entire saga far more than I, which is fine.

It sounds like you're blaming the studio entirely for how bad this film was. Is that right? If so then I think you really need to objectively look at the source material.

I will agree that the first trilogy was the most entertaining and likely the best in the entire gamut of Dragonlance books but that doesn't make them actually good. The first book plays out almost exactly like a D&D session (before you jump onto that, yes, I know about the genesis of the Dragonlance universe). That doesn't make for good story telling to a general audience and it seemingly doesn't translate well to the screen, if this movie is any indication on the matter.

As for the dialogue, there are just too many lines Tanis and Sturm have in the first book that just look like story exposition. I don't have the books with me presently but that's how I felt when I read Autumn for the first time.

Anyway, you asked what happened and there's my take. The source material doesn't work as-is and the writers wanted to keep everything and it just didn't work. Yes, the animation was awful and the 3D integration was jarring, but that could have been forgiven with better storytelling.

[Empedocles]

The problem is that the Dragonlance series isn't really written that well, especially the first trilogy.

You are a bad person :smallfurious:

In all seriousness, I really did love the Dragonlance books. Yes, it's very generic, but IMHO, it's also very, very well done.

I'll admit that the second trilogy, the Legend Trilogy, was my favorite.

[Wardog]

Just watched the trailer on YouTube.

What... why are CGI dragons invading the 1980's Dungeons & Dragons cartoon?

[Empedocles]

Just watched the trailer on YouTube.

What... why are CGI dragons invading the 1980's Dungeons & Dragons cartoon?

That was more along the lines of what I was thinking as well :smalltongue:

Takhisis, Dark Goddess of CGI, strikes against the 2D servants of 1980's Neutral Good.