Sorry if this has been posted before. I just discovered it and wanted to share. My son tells me that when Jack Chick was still alive, an enterprising film maker went to him and asked for rights to film his tracts, promising that he would film them EXACTLY as they are written. Of course he had to do this with a straight face, which was hard, but he wasn’t kidding about filming them EXACTLY as they are written - since they are their own parody, there was no need to change anything.
Anyhow, after hearing this story from my son, I had to check YouTube to see if it was true. And look what I found!.
Are there other tracts they’ve done? I’ve only found Dark Dungeons. I’m impressed with all they added to make it even more hilarious. I’d love to see more.
But if you read my OP, you’ll see that I recounted a story my son told me, and after hearing his story I was curious enough to look into it. As a result of my search I found a very funny video. I haven’t claimed that I’ve personally done a point-by-point comparison between the tract and the video and found them identical.
So if you want to assert that that video diverges from the tract, I’d be interested to know more, because hey, maybe it does, and I’d like to know that.
You’ll have to do a little better than just say I’ve used a “strange meaning of the phrase,” though. How about a little elaboration so the rest of us can know if the movie misrepresents the tract?
I just looked at my link in the above post, which I had found after watching Episode 1 only. At that time the video and tract looked the same. I assumed that the panels I didn’t recognize reflected the plot as it unfolded in a later episode.
Now that I’ve watched all episodes, I see that some artistic license seems to have been taken - for example, in the tract Debbie casts a spell on her father to buy her more RPG paraphernalia whereas in the movie she casts a spell on her professor to give her a passing grade on a history test. So yeah. They are not EXACTLY the same.
Still, I think they are similar enough that the flavor of the original is completely intact. If you disagree you are free to say why. I think what really matters is whether changes have been made that misrepresent the nature of the original tract. I don’t see that this is the case, but would be interested if you can identify alterations that make the video “mockable” in a way that the original tract was not.
.
The film was obviously inspired by the tract, but only has a few similarities. If it had been filmed exactly as the tract was it would have been much shorter. But beyond that the tract has high school girls who have been playing for some time. The film has college freshmen away from home for the first time who go to a party for the purpose of witnessing (or proselytizing if you prefer) and get intimidated into playing.
You said that you based your assessment based on having seen only the first episode. There is NOTHING in the first episode apart from the title, the game, and the name of the two characters that was in the tract. It follows the source material only slightly more than “A View to a Kill” followed the plot of the story it was based on.
The first 5 panels in my link are just like what is in the first episode!
I think we can agree that the movie is not exactly like the tract. No argument from me, and I will tell my son that while his story may or may not have truth to it, it is NOT true that the resultant movie is identical to the tract.
Beyond that, though, I’m curious. This seems to bother you. Is there a reason why?
The first two panels show the main character playing an RPG. The third shows her being invited to learn real witchcraft. The fourth shows her initiation ceremony, and the fifth has her announcing that she cast her first real spell. None of that is in the first episode. There is also nothing about LARPing, steam tunnels, failing classses, Cthulhu, etc. in the comic.
It bothers me for the same reason claiming that RPG players really believe in or practice black magic bothers me.
Why is it so important to think the film IS an accurate adaptation of the comic? The filmmakers don’t seem to have pretended it is.
Heh, maybe I’m mixed up on Episode numbers - on second thought, I may have watched the first two before I posted, not just one - but I stand by my assertion that the first five panels match up nicely with scenes in the movies. As to the rest, yes, I fully concur that the tract and the movie are not a perfect match.
Huh? You realize that’s the joke, don’t you? Jack Chick might have believed RPG players practice black magic, but the film-makers were clearly having a great time showing just how absurd and over-the-top such claims are. There are moments in the video where the actors seem to be barely suppressing hysterical guffaws. But, thank you for answering. As for me, it is NOT “so important to think the film IS an accurate adaptation of the comic.” It’s a little disappointing that it isn’t, because it is funnier if it is. But I’m not invested in any particular point of view, other than that I think it’s a little, um, factually misplaced to insist that the first few panels in the link I provided don’t match up with the movie. If you disagree, no biggie. If anyone reading this actually cares, which I doubt, they are free to watch the video, look at the chick-tract link I gave, and decide for themselves.
**Spice Weasel **- oh yeah, there is DEFINITELY a lesbian subtext there. It was kind of a disappointment that it was left as a subtext; I was definitely ready to see that relationship move to the next level. So to speak.
.
Obviously a truly scene-by-scene identical film adaptation of a Chick tract would only be a few minutes long, and so obviously any film that’s longer than that can’t be scene-by-scene identical. But can we at least agree that these films are faithful adaptations of the tracts? Certainly, they’re faithful enough that the creator of the tracts could be convinced to agree to them.
Not having seen the Chick tract beforehand*, I totally thought that was where we were heading!
I’m kinda disappointed…
*Finally read it. I like how they wrap it all up neatly with, “Debbie burned all of her occult material that night.”, with an image of the creepy dude worshiping the flames.
People keep talking about “movies,” plural. But to the best of my knowledge there is only the one movie, Dark Dungeons. It’s split into multiple parts on YouTube, but it’s a single film.
I saw it shortly after its premiere at the 2014 Gen Con. It’s obviously an adaptation of the Chick tract, and keeps a lot of the dialogue and plot elements from the tract (Marcie’s suicide note is identical, right down to the typeface!). But like any feature-length adaptation of a short work, the film adds a lot of elements that aren’t in the original, and changes a few things that were. Whether that qualifies as “exactly as written” is a matter of opinion, I suppose, but they’ve clearly captured the tone of the original.
That’s precisely what makes the film so funny–it’s kind of like Airplane and films of that type, in that they play these outrageous things completely straight. It captures the weird earnestness of Jack Chick’s work, the sense that this bizarre alternate world they’re describing is of course perfectly real and why would you ever doubt that? From Cthulhu lurking in the steam tunnels to mysterious hooded figures skulking out of the shadows to gamers being the most popular guys on campus, it’s all right in front of your eyes if only you know where to look.
To this day, my friends and I still start our gaming sessions by chanting, “Are you ready to RPG?”
