I just got around to watching this very funny portrayal of Dungeons and Dragons. It's basically the Reefer Madness film of D&D but with Tom Hanks, wigging out, blabbering, and crying in a few scenes. I already have my review started (and will move it to the reader reviews once I'm that far along). Enjoy a few captions until then :)
(http://www.webtechinfo.com/simon/files/Dave/WEBTECHINFO/file/REVIEWS/mm1.jpg)
(http://www.webtechinfo.com/simon/files/Dave/WEBTECHINFO/file/REVIEWS/mm2.jpg)
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 02, 2007, 02:23:06 PM
I just got around to watching this very funny portrayal of Dungeons and Dragons. It's basically the Reefer Madness film of D&D but with Tom Hanks, wigging out, blabbering, and crying in a few scenes. I already have my review started (and will move it to the reader reviews once I'm that far along). Enjoy a few captions until then :)
I lose track of the number of times I have read those exact statements in comments or reviews of this movie.
Could you kindly tell me what you though was so funny, or are you just repeating what you have read elsewhere?
Reefer Madness? Have you ever watched Reefer Madness and can you in any way justifyably compare the portrayal of marijuana use in Reefer Madness to the portrayal of a person who gets lost in their own escapism in Mazes & Monsters?
If you are going to offer a review (scuse me: recap) of this film, I would rather hear what you think about the movie rather than some predilection garnered from other reviews you have already read suggesting that you have made up your mind about what this movie is before you have even watched it.
I watched it when it first was shown on television and have seen it several times since. Not my favorite film, but far from a bad movie. It was much more entertaining the first time around, particularly with commercial breaks, than on subsequent viewings as it does show its age by now and, as with quite a few made foe TV movies, it is rather slow paced.
This is a review I wrote for it a few years ago:
Mazes & Monsters was a made for TV movie broadcast in the Fall of 1982. This movie featured Tom Hanks out of his Bossom Buddies dresses and instead donning a robe.
A good number of roleplayers I know hate this movie; interestingly enough, most of them have never seen it. There is an interesting hypocrisy here: many of them whine at being labelled and misunderstood by people who do not know them, and yet, they turn right around and do the same. Hence, there are also several misconceptions about this movie both from people who never watched it or those who watched it with a closed mind.
Mazes & Monsters is based on the book of the same name by Rona Jaffe. This is the story of four college students who come to know each other by answering a 'players wanted' flyer, posted on a school bulletin board, for the game Mazes and Monsters. The students, as many people do, have varying degrees of issues in their lives and/or do not socialize well. This is not by any means represented as a definition of gamers but rather as a reason people look for activity and, for some, escape; for these particular students, they chose gaming. This additionally adds character development into the story so the characters themselves are not one dimensional. One of the students, played by Tom Hanks, has had a breakdown before and is pleaded with by his mother not to get involved with that game again; addictions are hard to break.
As the gamers get further into the game, such as playing the game in a maze of caves, one of them, the Tom Hanks character, begins to find it difficult to separate fantasy from reality as his worlds are melding. As his behavior deepens and he further isolates himself from his friends, he becomes drawn further into this world his own mind has created. This leads to his disappearance and his friends and the police, together and separately, trying to find him before something really bad happens.
One of the major complaints lodged against this movie is that it is anti-roleplaying. This story was directly influenced by events involving roleplayers which made local and national headlines at the time. It is never represented in this movie that the game itself was the culprit but rather the degree of escapism with regard to someone who has difficulty separating fantasy and reality. In other words, the game did not drive someone crazy, they used the game as an escape from reality which, due to their lack of stability, went too far. This is further punctuated by the use of a newscast in the movie which uses the game as fodder for the disappearance, although, we have seen through the events which have transpired and through his friends that it is his stability, or lack thereof, which has led to this. This same type of escapism could just as well be applied to someone who loses themselves in the world of a TV show, a movie, or a series of books.
Rather than condemn its subject, as many who have never seen this movie claim it did, it seeks to propose a scenario of how someone's instability and tendency to excess when combined with an obsessive activity could possibly lead to such behavior. This movie sought understanding not blame, which is further punctuated by the very last scene of the movie when the four friends are together again. Those who condemned this movie only sought blame for their lack of understanding.
Since this was a made for TV movie, this may move a little slower than that with which a lot of todays movie viewers are comfortable. This is after all a psychological drama and not a horror movie.
As I stated before: if you plan to review this movie, do it from your own perspective and not someone else's.
I've seen this movie quite often in the 5.50 bin at Wally World.
That's where I picked up a DVD copy, at Wally World. Actually that, I believe, is the only time it has been on DVD.
Quote from: Menard on February 02, 2007, 09:11:03 PM
I lose track of the number of times I have read those exact statements in comments or reviews of this movie. Could you kindly tell me what you though was so funny, or are you just repeating what you have read elsewhere?
Well...wow I guess. I have yet to read a review on this movie. I find some of your comments a tad bit presumptious, but then from what you said, I could see how that is an easy conclusion to reach if you've read a lot of reviews that had the same basic summary, but then, that could also mean that many watch it and just happen to reach the same conclusion. I watched Mazes and Monsters for the first time in about 1987-88 there abouts as I failed to mention initially, although I had forgotten a lot of it. I just rewatched it last weekend before starting this thread. I've been a D&D player for about 20 years.
Quote"Reefer Madness? Have you ever watched Reefer Madness and can you in any way justifyably compare the portrayal of marijuana use in Reefer Madness to the portrayal of a person who gets lost in their own escapism in Mazes & Monsters?"
Standard classical conditioning - in this case, pairing two negative stimuli or at the least, showing how certain activities lead to very negative effects. I have watched Reefer Madness. Mazes and Monsters is about a person who gets lost in their escapism but it also paints D&D in a very negative light. People don't play D&D like these people do ...in both cases, each topic is presented in very negative light.
A few things I find funny:
*How these people play the game
*Tom Hanks crying
*The overly Satanic-looking game board and set up (Refer to Figure 3).
*Splitting up once in the mine - no D&D players would do this in such a place
*One player becomes schizophrenic, unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality
*the 16 yr old/DM starts talking all suicidal.
I mean, these things are almost straight out of a Jack Trict track...exept that one player doesn't kill the rest to punk music or the like.
QuoteIf you are going to offer a review (scuse me: recap) of this film, I would rather hear what you think about the movie rather than some predilection garnered from other reviews you have already read suggesting that you have made up your mind about what this movie is before you have even watched it.
Well, like I said, I haven't gotten quite far enough to write about it yet (other than initial notes). But I have watched it (and recently rewatched it) ...that's why I decided to review it. And no I don't think it's the worst movie ever made or anything but no way would I consider it even a decent movie. But to each is their own.
I think you were a bit hard on the guy, Menard. Give him a chance.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
Well...wow I guess. I have yet to read a review on this movie. I find some of your comments a tad bit presumptious, but then from what you said, I could see how that is an easy conclusion to reach if you've read a lot of reviews that had the same basic summary, but then, that could also mean that many watch it and just happen to reach the same conclusion. I watched Mazes and Monsters for the first time in about 1987-88 there abouts as I failed to mention initially, although I had forgotten a lot of it. I just rewatched it last weekend before starting this thread. I've been a D&D player for about 20 years.
I don't care whether you have read any reviews or not, if you are just going to reiterate the same thing which has been said by someone else who made up their mind about the movie before they watched it. All I am saying is that I hope, and I know you can do it from what I have read, that if you are going to present a review of the movie based on an objective view of the movie as any movie lover would do and not from the point of view of a 20 year veteran of D&D who approaches the movie the same as any other roleplayer who thinks they already know what the movie is about before they first watch it (whether that was in 1987 or not). Are you reviewing it as a movie reviewer or are you reviewing it as a roleplayer? I have never found much originality among roleplayers.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
Standard classical conditioning - in this case, pairing two negative stimuli or at the least, showing how certain activities lead to very negative effects. I have watched Reefer Madness. Mazes and Monsters is about a person who gets lost in their escapism but it also paints D&D in a very negative light. People don't play D&D like these people do ...in both cases, each topic is presented in very negative light.
Bulls**t
I guess you have played D&D with everybody? I have seen games played in utter darkness with atmospheric music (both for D&D and CoC) and known several players who played in costume. There is also a niche called live action roleplaying that has been around a lot longer than people realize (and no, it did not start with Steve Jackson's
Killer) There are various ways in which people partake in any activity, and roleplaying is no different. With regard to seeing the representation of the game in a negative light, you are correct, in a forthcoming statement, that to each their own; if someone is looking for something negative, no matter how weakly or stronly it is presented, they will find it.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
A few things I find funny:
*How these people play the game
Yep, nobody at all plays the game any differently than you do.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
*Tom Hanks crying
People cry, get over it.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
*The overly Satanic-looking game board and set up (Refer to Figure 3).
Oh my gosh; I've never seen anything satanic looking in roleplaying. :tongueout:
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
*Splitting up once in the mine - no D&D players would do this in such a place
You have experience with this? I didn't know there was a set of rules for D&Ders when playing in caves. Besides, I thought you said that nobody played the game like that.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
*One player becomes schizophrenic, unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality
That's funny? :question: You really need to brush up on your idea of humor. If you paid attention to the movie, and the review I wrote, you would recall that the Hanks character was like that before the game. He had difficulty separating fantasy and reality with which to begin; it was not the game that did it.
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
*the 16 yr old/DM starts talking all suicidal.
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't his brother commit suicide before the events of the movie? People have backstories. A 16 year old college student is not going to be the most perfect character with the most balance (though, he was probably the most stable character of the group).
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 08:45:35 AM
I mean, these things are almost straight out of a Jack Trict track...exept that one player doesn't kill the rest to punk music or the like.
:question: Who?
From what I have read so far, and thank you for answering my question, is that you are looking for the negative aspects to justify a forgone conclusion.
There are certainly many reasons why someone would dislike this movie on the basis of the movie itself and not what it has to do with roleplaying. It does move at a TV movie pace (luckily it was a TV movie), meaning it could potentially drone one to sleep before the end credits.
Obsessing on the roleplaying elements of the movie is simply that: obsessing.
I have seen somebody take roleplaying too far. Not to the degree represented in the film, but too far none-the-less. Was it the game? Of course not. Whether it had been a game, a television series, Star Trek (my condolences to Trekgeezer :tongueout:), etc., it was not the medium of integration, but the person themselves.
I have also heard enough bulls**t from roleplayers always looking for something negative said about them while, at the same time, making stereotypical statements about others.
A perfect example of this is an issue of
Shadis magazine (the issue with the Hunter's Inc. rules) where the cover shows a vampire crashing open the door to his castle sending would be hunters scrambling. Inside the cover is a statement that Jehovah's Witnesses should take a lesson from that being that some people don't like uninvited guests. If that were not idiotic enough, in the same issue, the editorial was about people stereotyping roleplayers and making judgements about them without even knowing them. What a hypocrisy; stereotyping others while crying about it being done to you (I am making a reference to the editor of the magazine).
I am being presumptuous? I doubt that. Your comments have provided nothing to suggest anything to the contrary of you looking at this movie from the perspective of a roleplayer and looking for the negatives.
I will say though that I hope I am wrong and that I can look forward to your review on this movie. If you didn't like it; great :teddyr:. Tell me why you didn't like the movie and not what you feel was contrary to your limited experience in roleplaying.
Quote from: daveblackeye15 on February 05, 2007, 10:12:59 AM
I think you were a bit hard on the guy, Menard. Give him a chance.
Eh...perhaps.
I have heard enough commonality of opinion among groups of people (I am specifically referring to roleplayers here) that I often have to ask if they hold hands when they all say the same thing. It probably would not even phase me if it were some idiot making a common remark like that about a film, which I have heard reiterated from people who have never seen the movie but had a comment on it anyway. The thing is, I have read some some of clockworkcanary's writing (some, he is a bit longwinded) and he is capable of a lot better than that (he does seriously need to use a spellchecker ever now and then, though). If I have to smack him around a little bit to get that roleplayer mentality out of him, so be it. :tongueout:
BTW, why so silent as of late Dave? Some thought you were among the missing members (though anybody can actually see that you frequent the board if they bother to look at the bottom where it has who is online). I was beginning to think that I was going to have to post another tribute to you. I know you would like that. :tongueout:
Well, I'm not sure why you've directed all this hostility my way because you've read some poorly-written reviews about such a movie. How you could equate that to a review I have yet to write based on 3-4 introductory sentences clearly shows you have jumped the gun, or as I have said, made some presumptious comments...and now you've become rather condescending, which I also think is warrantless.
I do not intend to write an objective review for you or anybody (I write them for my own enjoyment) as every review anyone ever writes is obviously subjective. I'm writing this review based on someone who's watching the movie after a long time having the experience of playing various types of roleplaying and who also has experience dealing with those that have mental disorders. Honestly, my remarks are genuine instant reactions, but I don't think I need to prove a thing to you, sorry - no offense.
As I watched the film again I laughed many many times and wrote in my notes what I found funny. Sorry but watching a young Tom Hanks feign insanity hit me as very funny, especially since it wasn't accurate.
"I don't care whether you have read any reviews or not..."
Then why did you ask? or more accurately, why did you assume I had? I mean, you almost sound as if you're accusing me of Plagiarism, which if you are I sure hope you have some outstanding evidence to back up such an outstanding accusation.
"...if you are just going to reiterate the same thing which has been said by someone else who made up their mind about the movie before they watched it."
I didn't make up my mind before I watched it but it sure sounds like you've made up my mind for me. I'm just reacting to it. It was cheezy, it was funny, and it was an inaccurate portrayal of the game, it was a bad movie, and an inaccurate portrayal of schizophrenia, for starters. Misinformation - what better way to educate the populace on the game istelf. Sure it could have been a lot more demonizing but it's still there.
"Bulls**t"
Well I'm not sure what you're crying BS about there ...it's unclear. If you're talking about the pairing of negative stimuli, then I beg to differ.
Reefer Madness: misinformation about pot
Mazes and Monsters: misinformation about D&D
Face it, they were just fanning the flames of the controversy during the days of the D&D witchhunt and cashing in on it. Entertain before inform -but I don't really think it's such a great sin that makes me want to hate the writers -I don't really care. However, I will laugh at such a poor attempt to demonize the game, even if it was half-hearted. I bet TSR (or whichever company owned the game) at the time wasn't so happy - what do you think?
"I guess you have played D&D with everybody?"
When did I construct this strawman? Did I make such a claim? A group of college vet players (a whole level 9) would know how tactically stupid it would be to split up in a mine. This is just one example where the writers didn't research very far into the game, IMO. It seems more like they took rumors at face value. But again, that's just my reaction. And sure many types of games can be played in varying atmospheres but answer this, do you really find the way it was portrayed in the film as the average among the gamers?
"With regard to seeing the representation of the game in a negative light, you are correct, in a forthcoming statement, that to each their own; if someone is looking for something negative, no matter how weakly or stronly it is presented, they will find it."
Sorry, in the context of the Satanic Panic of the 1980s and the D&D witch hunt, this movie does portray D&D in a negative light just by pairing it with ideas such as kids with mental disorders, Satanic settings, OCD-like behaviors of gamers, and kids thinking about suicide. Why couldn't they just do an honest portrayal of the general D&D player? Or if they wanted to focus on the headlines and rumors of the time, maybe they should have added the rumored use of LSD the one group supposedly partook before games -something I would bet would have been a significant factor.
"Yep, nobody at all plays the game any differently than you do."
You asked what I find funny and I told you - you don't have to agree. I'm well aware that people play all sorts of games in various ways, but thanks for the condescending comments! How's that been working for you? I never said everyone plays the same way; I said the way the game is portrayed in the film isn't very accurate of the general game-players; they really laid it on thick in that third image by pairing satanic themes.
"People cry...get over it"
And it was funny to me to watch Tom cry, babble, and poorly feign a mental breakdown, especially when he's become such a big star today. Yes I find a weak portrayal of Tom's breakdown as pretty damned funny. Sorry but he wasn't that convincing. And him crying about it is still funny. So what if my sense of humor doesn't seem ok with you. I care. But ask yourself, have you ever met someone where this "breakdown" was actually the case? Have you ever heard of a person, even a paranoid schizophrenic actually think they were their character? Maybe this happened in reality much more than I realize.
"Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't his brother commit suicide before the events of the movie? People have backstories. A 16 year old college student is not going to be the most perfect character with the most balance (though, he was probably the most stable character of the group)."
Weren't you just asking me if I watched the film? Oh that's right...you didn't ...you implied that I'm just another in a long line of gamers who already made my conclusion before watching it, you know, just like you did with my review that I had yet to write. It was Tom's character, Robbie, who's brother had killed himself, not the 16yr old. In the movie, JJ (the 16 year old, whatever his name is) started talking suicidal at one point. And I meant Jack Chick...sorry. You got me there. You're an internet badass! See how constructive condescending remarks can be? Yeah not very.
But I'm almost depressed that I've even put this much work into a response to someone who's obviously had someone else s**t in their cereal. Being that I've had such a bad day and I have become more argumentative, I actually took the bait and have become grouchy myself. I mean, you went on a tirade on my whole 3 sentences and a couple screenshots (meant to be lighthearted), which I don't think warranted your elaborate response based on your experience with some other writers. Maybe you should have waited until I actually wrote something before assuming anything.
Basically, I don't care enough about this movie, D&D, or you for it to be all that worthy of argument so I guess I'll just bow out, declare you the "winner" and keep my arguments on religious and political forums where they belong. Generally, you've been well-mannered but I think this time, you're out of line, not for disagreeing but for becoming so hostile, which in turn has made me more hostile.
Overall, I found this movie fun to watch and, up until this point, I've found it fun to review. I hope you find my review, whenever I get around to it, opposite of your expectations, but ultimately, I don't really care to bother anymore than I have.
Thanks for correcting me on the brothers point. For some reason I was thinking it was the mousy one who had a brother who committed suicide (in referencing it on Google, Wikipedia says that the Hanks character had a brother who mysteriously disappeared; of course, that would fit with the MSU event). They do use the backstory concept to quite a degree; but then, how many college students (let's even add high schoolers) don't have a few issues.
No, I didn't know who you meant when you said Jack Trict, and, until you pointed it out, I had no idea who Jack Chick was. I don't care for the tracts on the site, but I do like the design of the website (except for the part where it keeps wanting to download a video file).
Wow. Was I really that hostile? We are just having a difference of opinion. Don't take things so personally.
I do agree with you that it was the popularity of the anti D&D movement that resulted in the movie being made, but that is rather obvious, they don't make movies for which people would not have an interest (eh...generally speaking; there are exceptions). A made for TV movie is generally that: to take advantage of something in the news or on people's minds. It was the events of the MSU steam tunnel story which directly influenced the novel.
Both arguements could be made: that the story was anti D&D simply because it was taking advantage of the negative D&D publicity at the time; and that it was not anti D&D due to its representation of the main character, Robbie (yeah, I had to look that up) as an obsessive compulsive character with tendencies to the extreme taking a game too far, and not the game taking him too far. In some ways, that makes the movie interesting in that different people can watch it and see something completely different in its intent.
Hey man...sorry if I came off like that. I apologize. I tend to take things personally sometimes. Trust me - I'm having a $h!tty day and that has nothing to do with you and I'm sure I'm extra sensitive or something. I'll come back, reread, and respond much better after I relax a bit. You've always been civil as I hope I have and I sure wanna keep it that way.
In my eyes I've just seen something great in you two and I wish there were more like you..... :teddyr:
Quote from: clockworkcanary on February 05, 2007, 01:45:01 PM
Hey man...sorry if I came off like that. I apologize. I tend to take things personally sometimes. Trust me - I'm having a $h!tty day and that has nothing to do with you and I'm sure I'm extra sensitive or something. I'll come back, reread, and respond much better after I relax a bit. You've always been civil as I hope I have and I sure wanna keep it that way.
Hey, I've been smacking you around a bit anyway. We can get a little rough ever now and again and have fun too. :teddyr:
Yeah it's cool...we could use a round of eBeers :) heh. Well, I could. :cheers:
Oh, at times I would so like to have a beer, but can't. No AA mind you, just gave it up, with a few other things, when I had an ulcer a few years ago. But, alas, I've found even more stuff to pack on the pounds as well as beer did. :teddyr:
A few...er...okay...many years ago when I traveled as a photographer (that's where I learned to drink so heavily) with a portrait consultant (actually the PC manager) as a sidekick, we would always have at least a 12 pack when we arrived at a motel; and our first question was "Where's the ice machine?". (at one motel in Terre Haute (means 'Hell on Earth' in Latin :tongueout:), the lady at the front desk gave me such excellent directions to the ice machine; too bad she forgot to mention that it was disconnected and sitting in the middle of the room). :buggedout:
We once got asked if we abused anything on the road (I don't know for what reason). My response was "Yea, our three friends: Bud, Miller, and Mick".
Anybody trying to keep up with this thread will probably wonder where in the hell did that come from?
I don't know. I just felt like saying something completely inane and I think I succeeded very well. :teddyr:
Cheers :cheers:
To get back on topic about the movie...er...sort of, I wonder if anyone here has read the book and can offer a comparison input. I have not read the book, but I have a friend who read it when it was first published and commented that the mousy character seemed the best cast by his interpretation of the characters in the book. I remember him also commenting at how close the ending of the movie was to the book, even to the point where it almost followed word for word.
In an interesting sidenote, I read that Rona Jaffe was anxious to get the book finished to keep someone else from jumping the gun and beating her to publication; as the book was influenced by the MSU incident and was certainly topical for the time it was published. Trying to remember back, I don't recall another book (fiction; I am not including the PI's non-fiction recounting) on the subject at the time. Does anybody remember if another author did a novel about roleplaying going too far?
What I have noticed (my impression) is that Menard tends to come across pretty aggressively when he disagrees with something or does not understand why someone would come to a certain conclusion. I know that when I read the first post it surprised me, though that was only briefly until I thought about my above-stated observation.
I have not seen this movie in many years either. I think that, perhaps the reason so many reviews explore the "skewed aspect" used by the movie to depict the gamers is that the writers find it so different from their experiences. You could see the same thing if someone made a movie about a burger place and the movie made it out that the food was terrible. People (who liked the burgers) would fixate on the fact that the bad food was incorrect, possibly ignoring the movie's other flaws. Their experience directly contradicts a fact of the movie, so that is what they focus on.
All I can say is that I've been busy menard. I'm going to classes and working a job. I'm trying to save up money for traveling abroad.
And for the record I'm going with gamers. In fact I wish I could join a group but I don't have the time. I am a big Knights of the Dinner Table fan.
Quote from: daveblackeye15 on February 05, 2007, 10:04:37 PM
All I can say is that I've been busy menard. I'm going to classes and working a job. I'm trying to save up money for traveling abroad.
I'd like to save up money for a broad too, but I just can't afford them. Oh...wait...you meant going overseas; my bad. :tongueout:
Quote from: daveblackeye15 on February 05, 2007, 10:04:37 PM
And for the record I'm going with gamers.
:question: What? You are dating them all?
I meant I'm okay with gamers. I thought that at the beginning the idea was that the creater was 'anti-gamer' and that you disliked him because you were a gamer. I figured out that there were some misconceptions on both of your parts or something like that. I was just making sure that I was defending him but not because I was an anti-gamer. (I'm not.)