Talk:Dungeons & Dragons 3: The Book of Vile Darkness

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Dungeons & Dragons Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Book of Vile Darkness vs. book of vile darkness

It's important to keep in mind that there are two things which go by the same name. One is a real-world book to supplement the D&D game, a hardcover volume published by Wizards of the Coast in 2002. The other is a fictional book, a magical item which does not exist in the real world and was invented by Gary Gygax in the 1970s. The first would be capitalized as "Book of Vile Darkness" because that is the proper title of an actual publication. The latter would not be capitalized, because the names of non-unique magical items within Dungeons & Dragons are generally not capitalized. If you examine this edit carefully[1], you'll see that this section is discussing the magic item and not the real-world publication, and therefore it should not be capitalized. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I fixed that. Thank you for having it pointed out. Kintaro (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ;) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rvt - the names of magic items in D&D books have traditionally been italicized??? really? Kintaro (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like spells. It's not true in every case, but it is in most that I can recall. I've checked a few books that I have near me. The Treasure section in the 1st edition DMG (1978) has every instance of an item name italicized when it is mentioned in the text (not the heading). The 3rd edition Book of Vile Darkness (2002) starting on page 111, same thing. Lords of Madness from 3rd edition, starting on page 214. I have a text-only RTF file of the 2nd edition Tome of Magic (1991), and the magic item names there are italicizes, although I can't say what the actual book looks like at the moment. I know that's not very conclusive, but I only have a limited selection of books in front of me. I did see some books which did not use italics on item names at all, so I'm not sure what percentage of books use the italics and which don't. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thank you for your answer. Kintaro (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual content

Having not seen the second film, but having seen the family friendly first film, I was kind of caught off-guard by the sexual content of Vile Darkness. I wonder if this is worth indicating, especially since the write-up for the second film indicates that there is some continuity with the first film in the series. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would be better would be to find a source that talks about it. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Run-Time

The run-time listed (86 minutes) is wrong. The movie is just under 90 minutes. 86 minutes is the run-time of the UK DVD release (which has the typical PAL 5% speed-up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.240.42 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]