Talk:Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

Unchecked Source
"David Durham as Elminster Aumar (credited as 'Ethereal Plane Sorcerer'), a great wizard and Simon's paternal ancestor.[29]"

The reference given for this line makes no mention of anything relating to the text it was cited for. Is it possibly a citing error?

–Geone VR (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * D-ddomonline1shtcast-circle.jpg

Easter egg
I don't know if we want to include this, but there is an easter egg in one scene featuring the characters of Dungeons & Dragons (TV series) per Rob Bricken of Gizmodo:. BOZ (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Plot summary details
IP 47.149.214.237 & Just want to flag that we're in edit war territory so we should discuss. I don't think the mid-credit scene needs to be called out especially with a plot summary that is boarding on 700 words. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * not exactly sure why I’m tagged in this but I’d agree it’s not a plot-altering scene that needs to be included. We didn’t include the quip at the end of Scream VI.
 * TropicAces (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry ! Looks like I transposed editor names when I had the history up & meant to ping . Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * haha all good, I figured it was something like that.
 * TropicAces (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already stated my opinion in my edit summaries. I don't care enough to edit war over it, but A) The escape attempt by Forge doesn't matter in the larger context of explaining the plot, and B ) Attempting to replicate the joke in text form doesn't really work IMO even if it's felt that it's a good magazine-writing way to spice the plot summary up.  So I'd cut it regardless of how many words total are in the summary - if there's space for more information, I'd spend it on basically any other plot point.  It's just one joke that lasts for ~10 seconds.  SnowFire (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Production company/countries
I've currently made the production company and country sources match up. For the production companies, we only list the ones that are "A _____ production" opposed to "presents" or "in association with" as they don't meet production grounds to be considered a certain country's production. In this case, it's just the American ones that are the major contributors. (per the Variety and Screen Daily sources) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


 * There's been a bit of back & forth for a few weeks on the production companies in the infobox. Can we hash it out here instead of in the edit summaries? Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. That's why I created the section...and I honestly almost forgot I did. Generally we need to go by the source which I have stated. As we have found differentiating items we can't just list alternative things and need to find what is the most common thing. I'll try to find time this weekend to dig up some information here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure yeah. Ok so basically what I personally learned is that the "presents" and "in association with" stuff is like a Schrodinger's cat situation: they may or may not be production companies until you see the evidence (within sources). Many times one source will list more/less than the other, so it helps to have multiple to "add them together". I think it's also seen as a "better safe than sorry" option to put more than less, as I guess giving a company more credit than necessary is better than not giving them credit at all. I mean that's just what I've been taking away from editing on here. IAmNMFlores (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add some just to be safe. Especially when it reflects on production companies. Some countries companies do not give enough percentage of budget so they mlby law are usually not considered a production company. This is why Variety lists this as an American production.Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Variety credits this as "A Paramount Pictures release, in association with Entertainment One, of an Allspark Pictures, Hasbro Studios production." . Entertainment One is a Canadian company. Doesn't that make this a Canadian-American co-production? -- 109.77.201.123 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)


 * looking at eOne's wiki, they are an American company now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are looking but eOne says "Entertainment One Ltd., trading as eOne, is a Canadian multinational entertainment company. Based in Toronto, Ontario, still very much Canadian. -- 109.77.197.77 (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Reviews section - SF Chronicle review over index'd
This SF Chronicle review is not representative of the critical response of the film. There are way too many quotes from it, which is misleading. This has clearly been appropriated by somebody who did not like the film. Extreme bias, obscuring an accurate portrayal of critical response. This film is 90% fresh. 76.32.213.12 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing the discussion here. Characterizing this as "Extreme bias" is inaccurate and unfair. There is a good discussion to be had on the balance between the positive, neutral and negative reviews that are included., but I'm not sure what we have now is way off-base. There is a single quote from the negative SF Chronicle review and one mixed quote from the LA Times review. That is balanced against two positive reviews. That seems broadly reasonable - there was a range of critical reactions, as noted by the Metacritic score. I certainly don't agree with removing every negative review, that would be very unbalanced. Perhaps we could find a way to lessen the SF Chron review impact by reducing the length of the quote? Grachester (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reviews should not be presented based on how negative or how positive they are, but we should be presenting reviews as they are. If we have 10 reviews, then whether 7 are negative or 7 are positive, then we present them all as they are - the bias is the reviewers to share, not Wikipedia editors. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible to quote every review - we aren't talking about 10 reviews, Rotten Tomatoes lists 282 of them. So we do quote a few review that reflect the overall sentiment of reviewers. The reviews of the movie are not universally positive, so it would not be appropriate to show only positive reviews. The inclusion of the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores and links right at the start of the "Critical response" section make this clear to readers. This is followed by quoting a reviews that reflect the overall tenor of the response.
 * If you wanted to suggest a smaller quote from the SF Chron review that would be appropriate. You could also suggest an alternative review to quote. or propose adding another positive review. Simply removing all negative or mixed reviews would actually bias our coverage given the movie did not receive universally positive review. Grachester (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Expanding section
The review section could probably be expanded since right now it is mostly regional outlets (Chron, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times; also whatever Original Cin is). Here are a few quotes from national outlets which could be used (and/or reduced/rephrased): And here is some international coverage:
 * Glen Weldon, for NPR, commented that "the film's plot is purely, ruthlessly episodic – it comes down to a series of fetch quests [...]. But to complain about the number of fetch quests in a D&D film would be like complaining that a movie about Scrabble features too much spelling". On the cast, Weldon highlighted that Pine's Edin is "a character who not only rides the razor's edge between charm and smarm but who sets up housekeeping there" and Grant's Forge evokes similar smarm to Grant's character in Paddington 2. He commented that "Rodriguez doesn't get the chance to do a lot that you haven't seen Michelle Rodriguez do before, but she remains great at it" and Page as a paladin "nails the necessary hauteur and supreme confidence while layering them with a guileless sincerity that turns his character into a weapon aimed at Pine's character's every insecurity".
 * Richard Lawson, for Vanity Fair, also highlighted that the film is structured around a series of quests and the "new sidekicks" who are picked up along the way. Lawson wrote that "the film is stuffed with all manner of mythology and moves at frenzied pace, sometimes wobbling in its speed and density but usually regaining control just before things topple into irksome incoherence".
 * Christian Holub, for Entertainment Weekly, commented that adapting the Dungeons & Dragons game is different from adapting "novels by J.R.R. Tolkien or George R.R. Martin" as "the goal is to capture an experience rather than a specific story — and Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves delightfully nails the fun of role-playing as fantasy characters with your friends". Holub highlighted that the cast "seem to be having fun" and "what's especially welcome about the humor in Honor Among Thieves is that it doesn't wink or mock its material; the characters just say funny things and bounce off each other as organically as a real-life friend group".
 * Nicholas Barber, for BBC, stated that "fantasy adventures might be getting ever more gloomy and portentous on television, but the producers of Dungeons & Dragons: Honour Among Thieves have followed the Marvel Studios tactic of hiring comedy directors to make a blockbuster [...]. The film they've made is a feelgood, family-friendly caper, which is not a description you can apply to HBO's House of the Dragon or Amazon's The Rings of Power". Barber commented that Goldstein and Daley went for "a bright, snappy heist movie" instead of "an epic odyssey". In terms of visuals, Barber highlighted that neither the architecture nor the clothing are attempting to evoke a specific "historical period" but instead "the designers simply stick in whichever castles and costumes seem cool". Barber was more critical of the film's special effects stating that the CGI "doesn't convince you for a second that the characters are in an actual dungeon or facing an actual dragon".
 * Benjamin Lee, for The Guardian, wrote that "the script does a solid job of making it an accessible world to those not already steeped in it although Goldstein and Daley, writing alongside Michael Gilio, are less effective with the film's many attempts at comedy. It's a shame as the cast are game and Pine and Rodriguez have a fizzy platonic chemistry but it’s just never as funny as it should be despite ample set-ups".
 * That sounds worthwhile to include. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated the additional reviews. The structure of the section is now (roughly):
 * P1 - review aggregators
 * P2 - on adapting fantasy & the D&D game (reviews generally lean positive)
 * P3 - on the structure of the film & its comedy (reviews are generally more critical)
 * P4 - commentary on the cast & visual effects (mixed responses from reviewers used in P2 & P3)
 * Quotes could maybe be trimmed/rephrased if another editor wants to take a stab at it. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)