Wreck-It Ralph, I'M GONNA WRECK IT!!!

He's just kind of an ass,Murdercide - don't worry.

Also, Matamatamatamamama none of your images are working.

If you right click on them and hit view image you can see them.

That almost never works for me, and it didn't this time.
Adding the images to my favorites, however, did.

Well, not to harp on this or anything, but I just found this IGN article that states this:

...so, make of that what you will.

For the record: No. No it's not.

A lot of people seem to assume all classic D&D monsters are public domain for some reason. They aren't. True, most of the monsters from the original Monster Manual just came from mythology and folklore, but not all of them did. (Even some that did had significant alterations that then got passed on to other games -- e.g., the basilisk and cockatrice having petrifying powers instead of just killing people like the original mythological versions did.) The beholder is one that didn't come from mythological sources; it was original to D&D, and remains the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast. In fact, when Wizards of the Coast released most of the monsters from the 3E Monster Manual under the Open Gaming License (which still didn't make them public domain by any means, but did open them up to third-party use under certain conditions), the beholder was one of a handful of monsters that weren't included, but were reserved as Wizards of the Coast "product identity", along with the mind flayer and the displacer beast (among others).

It's true that some video games unassociated with TSR/Wizards of the Coast have used beholders (as well as mind flayers), but that just means that TSR and Wizards of the Coast haven't always been assiduous about enforcing their copyrights with regards to video games, especially Japanese video games. (Nevertheless, the possibility of litigation has caused some game makers who originally used beholders to change the names -- an MMORPG called Tibia originally had beholders, for instance, but changed their name to "Bonelords", and the Japanese version of the first Final Fantasy had beholders, but they were changed in the English translation to "Evil Eyes", and even their sprites were changed to decrease the resemblance to D&D beholders.)

Of course, while beholders may remain the intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, WotC can't claim to own the general concept of "spherical floating monster with one big eye", so a lot of other games and settings have similar monsters. But they can't have actual beholders, identical to the D&D version and called by that name, without infringing on WotC's copyrights. Wizards of the Coast and its predecessor TSR may have let a few such infringements slip by, but that doesn't mean beholders are in the public domain.

Okay, sorry, I've gone off on a long rant about something really tangential to the main topic of the thread; copyright misconceptions just kind of bother me for some reason, and the idea that all classic D&D monsters are in the public domain is one misconception that seems to come up a lot.

Whoops. Looks like you misspelled laudable-cool-dude-who-gets-high-fives.

But, seeing as I am such a fellow, I'll let it slide....this time.

Funny thing is, I've heard once or twice that Gary Gygax credited a toy he found for the original Beholder's design, just like Rust Monsters, Owlbears, Bulettes, Shambling Mounds and several others, but if this is true, the toy has yet to be found or identified by anyone.

To be fair, the toys he based monsters on often weren't exactly built to last long.

This might be a little off-topic, but I must note that one of the guys who originally played with Gygax and Co (Who happens to post on RPGNet as Old Geezer) said that the Rust Monster's powers were actually invented on the spot. The exact quote was:

Also, here's a quote from Gary Gygax on the Beholder's origins from this excellent article on D&D monster's origins.

Also, some further searching revealed that Terry Kuntz had actually created the creature in a short story (Since lost) which he had wrote, where it apparently was drastically different from what it eventually evolved into.

...


KUNTZ?

50 Things You Didn’t Know About 'Wreck-It Ralph'

I also found this supposedly official character bio of King Candy on a Disney wikia:

This would seem to add some credibility to my theory of him being a villain, that is if it is actually official.

EDIT: Oop! Just found the source:


Here's a clearer (and much larger) view.

Guess it is official after all.

I usually don't double post, but I had an interesting sort of revelation.

Someone on the TV Tropes forums suggested that King Candy's little green minion, Sour Bill, might actually turn out to be the villain.





It's been mentioned before that in the movie "acid green" is the color of evil. And I get the distinct impression that Sour Bill doesn't enjoy his lot in life. Not to mention the little blurb about him in King Candy's official description, so... yeah.

I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm blindly grasping at straws.

Yeah, they've played the king up enough that Bill probably IS the villian.

I can't wait to see the all the classic characters that are going to make an appearance Wreck It Ralph.

Well, they just revealed this awesome new poster: http://www.sonicstadium.org/wp-content/upl...IR_Poster_3.jpg

I WANT IT ON MY FUCKING WALL!!!

They also finally released the second trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87E6N7ToCxs

...it does not disappoint.

And a Japanese trailer was also released which has a bit more footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pU_nhKxpRw
Apparently it's titled Sugar Rush in Japan. *shrug*

My excitement for this movie is as high as ever.