Why 5E may be the last edition of D&D

[doctorbadwolf]

-.-
You’re joking, right?

Nope. Why would I be? The story literally makes sense. Events follow from eachother, motivations are clear and in line with human behavior, and the general story outline is both fairly well represented in past and contemporary media, and easy to follow. We can reasonably disagree on whether the story is good, but it is objectively sensible as a story.

I thought the story, characters, and setting were all crap, too. So, maybe not.

Really? What was wrong with the characters or setting? Like, what, if anything, makes you sure that you’d dislike them on paper, if given a synopsis of what/who the characters would be? Or is it the performance of the actors that you view as crap?

And especially the setting...like...it’s a better setting in terms of basic synopsis than Greyhawk of Forgotten Realms, it just maybe isn’t executed as well. But even then, I’d say that it’s the primary thing in the movie that doesn’t need changing in a hypothetical remake (worse movies have been remade for inscrutible reasons by otherwise reasonable people).

And the story, I mean...I guess if you hate fairly standard stories, it’s bad? Like, it’s not something brand new and amazingly creative, but...99% of stories aren’t? At worst, I could see it reasonably being described as cliche or bland, but even then...how many movies have ever taken “good monarch is beset by enemies posed as friends, who seek powerful magic to take over the kingdom/world, and heroes from humble origins must save the realm, and eachother” and done it with a magiocratic parliamentary monarchy that can call upon dragons to fight for them?

It’s not LoTR or Tigana, but I don’t expect most things to be in the same league as the best fantasy writers in the genre.

 

[ubergeek63]

Actually if 5e is the last edition it will be because the leeches at Mattel do not care about the community and will transition, as they already are, to an aggressively litigious "business model"

 

[Aldarc]

Actually if 5e is the last edition it will be because the leeches at Mattel do not care about the community and will transition, as they already are, to an aggressively litigious "business model"

Dungeons & Dragons has been bought by Barbie & He-Man?

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In the hands of a better director, it could’ve gone much farther. Courtney Solomon had no real directing credits prior to it (the writers were similarly inexperienced), and if I recall correctly, only had the rights because he had come to TSR when they were on the ropes in the 90s. It also came out a full year before Fellowship of the Ring. Had it been made after that, who knows what it could’ve been like?

I mean, on paper, if I were to say that there’s a fantasy movie coming out with the award-laden Jeremy Irons, Richard O’Brien from the Ricky Horror Picture show, American Beauty’s Thora Birch, Marlon Wayans from Requiem for a Dream, and the fourth Doctor himself, Tom Baker, that would get people’s attention.

But how wrong we would be.

The OG DnD movie would be successful right now, if remade with better effects, and some cleaner up writing and acting. Especially with the talent they got for it.

The tone was fun, the story was sensible and evocative, and the characters were likeable and played well off eachother. Even the main villain was a blast.
.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually if 5e is the last edition it will be because the leeches at Mattel do not care about the community and will transition, as they already are, to an aggressively litigious "business model"

You mean Hasbro, but also what? Hasbro let them put the new edition into OGL form. They're aggressively litigious because they won't let MPMB post their entire published works in a character builder for free without even paying them anything, or is there something else you're referring to?

In the hands of a better director, it could’ve gone much farther. Courtney Solomon had no real directing credits prior to it (the writers were similarly inexperienced), and if I recall correctly, only had the rights because he had come to TSR when they were on the ropes in the 90s. It also came out a full year before Fellowship of the Ring. Had it been made after that, who knows what it could’ve been like?

I mean, on paper, if I were to say that there’s a fantasy movie coming out with the award-laden Jeremy Irons, Richard O’Brien from the Ricky Horror Picture show, American Beauty’s Thora Birch, Marlon Wayans from Requiem for a Dream, and the fourth Doctor himself, Tom Baker, that would get people’s attention.

But how wrong we would be.

I would also say that if you listed that cast, and then listed a known director and writer, and gave the basic plot and character synopsis, most people would be optimistic, which is my point. The movie wasn't bad because dnd movies can't be good.

 

[Charlaquin]

Nope. Why would I be? The story literally makes sense. Events follow from eachother, motivations are clear and in line with human behavior, and the general story outline is both fairly well represented in past and contemporary media, and easy to follow. We can reasonably disagree on whether the story is good, but it is objectively sensible as a story.

I don't agree with any of these assertions. Events seem to happen completely at random. The dwarf joins the heroes because they fell on him. At one point they get sucked into a map with no explanation. Why does the skeleton who's supposed to protect the magic dragon-control staff just give it to the protagonist? What the hell was up with that scene where Jeremy Irons puts brain snakes in blue-lip man's ears?

Really? What was wrong with the characters or setting? Like, what, if anything, makes you sure that you’d dislike them on paper, if given a synopsis of what/who the characters would be? Or is it the performance of the actors that you view as crap?

The protagonist is inoffensive but boring. Snails is obnoxious. The mage girl is boring and obnoxious. The dwarf is pointless, obnoxious, and has unclear motivation. Jeremy Irons was cool, I liked his character. His blue-lipped minion had potential, but was under-utilized, which they tried to fix in the sequel but in doing so they completely changed his character, as in the original he was seemingly motivated by... Wanting the brain snakes out, I guess? Where in the sequel he worshiped dragons, I think. Don't remember that one as well.

And especially the setting...like...it’s a better setting in terms of basic synopsis than Greyhawk of Forgotten Realms, it just maybe isn’t executed as well. But even then, I’d say that it’s the primary thing in the movie that doesn’t need changing in a hypothetical remake (worse movies have been remade for inscrutible reasons by otherwise reasonable people).

Yeah, I agree that the setting was pretty cool.

And the story, I mean...I guess if you hate fairly standard stories, it’s bad? Like, it’s not something brand new and amazingly creative, but...99% of stories aren’t? At worst, I could see it reasonably being described as cliche or bland, but even then...how many movies have ever taken “good monarch is beset by enemies posed as friends, who seek powerful magic to take over the kingdom/world, and heroes from humble origins must save the realm, and eachother” and done it with a magiocratic parliamentary monarchy that can call upon dragons to fight for them?

It’s not LoTR or Tigana, but I don’t expect most things to be in the same league as the best fantasy writers in the genre.

The problem isn't that its cliche, it's that it's totally unfocused, meandering, and things seem to happen just because it's a D&D movie and you've got to have a thieves' den and an Indiana Jones puzzle trap trial in a D&D movie.

EDIT:

I would also say that if you listed that cast, and then listed a known director and writer, and gave the basic plot and character synopsis, most people would be optimistic, which is my point. The movie wasn't bad because dnd movies can't be good.

I'll grant you that. It was an excellent cast, and the very, very basic outline of the plot sounds fine on paper. The problem is all of the things that actually happen in the movie.

 

[Satyrn]

Dungeons & Dragons has been bought by Barbie & He-Man?

What class is Barbie? I mean, she's been so many different things during her life, how do you model that? Maybe we make them alternate . . . Oh, I've got a movie to go pitch.

Into the Barbieverse!

 

[Parmandur]

I'd watch that old movie on MST3K.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't agree with any of these assertions. Events seem to happen completely at random. The dwarf joins the heroes because they fell on him. At one point they get sucked into a map with no explanation. Why does the skeleton who's supposed to protect the magic dragon-control staff just give it to the protagonist? What the hell was up with that scene where Jeremy Irons puts brain snakes in blue-lip man's ears?

He puts the things in Damodar's ear to track and control him, to ensure that he does what Profion wants.
I don't know how you can say that events happen at random, other than the dwarf. Why would there be an explanation for them being pulled into a magic map scroll?

The protagonist is inoffensive but boring. Snails is obnoxious. The mage girl is boring and obnoxious. The dwarf is pointless, obnoxious, and has unclear motivation. Jeremy Irons was cool, I liked his character. His blue-lipped minion had potential, but was under-utilized, which they tried to fix in the sequel but in doing so they completely changed his character, as in the original he was seemingly motivated by... Wanting the brain snakes out, I guess? Where in the sequel he worshiped dragons, I think. Don't remember that one as well.

I disagree on everything but the dwarf, and the villains. Snails is great, the elf is great, and everyman protagonist is both adorable and plucky, while mage girl is unlikeable to start and grows as a character by the end.

Yeah, I agree that the setting was pretty cool.


The problem isn't that its cliche, it's that it's totally unfocused, meandering, and things seem to happen just because it's a D&D movie and you've got to have a thieves' den and an Indiana Jones puzzle trap trial in a D&D movie.

EDIT:

I'll grant you that. It was an excellent cast, and the very, very basic outline of the plot sounds fine on paper. The problem is all of the things that actually happen in the movie.

pfffffffffft

it's a fun movie, and remade with a director that wanted to direct it (Solomon wanted to produce, TSR forced him to direct), and better dialogue writing, and I don't think you'd need to change much else but what would flow natural from those changes.

And replace the dwarf with a character, obviously.

 

[Mercurius]

That public doesn’t like big-budget fantasy action films though. What they like is big budget film adaptations of critically acclaimed fantasy novels they’ve always wanted to read but never got around to. Of course, no D&D movie can be that. The closest it can hope to come is probably a mid-budget vertical slice of the experience of playing a critically acclaimed game they’ve heard of but never really understood how to play.

Let's use "fantasy" in the broadest sense of the word, to include science fiction, superheroes, anything not "real life." Then yes indeed, the public loves big budget fantasy movies (if you google "fantasy films" you get MCU, Harry Potter, etc).

The formula to look at, obviously, is the wildlly successful MCU. It is highly unlikely that a D&D franchise is anywhere near that popular, but that's the formula to emulate. Specifically, and this is the key IMO, make a film that the general public wants to see, not just nerds. Sure, throw in a wink here and there, but for the love of all that's holy, don't make it a movie for diehard D&D fans.

(The vast majority of people who go to MCU films never read a Marvel comic book)

D&D has a wealth of great ideas, monsters, worlds, and stories. Draw from all of that - take an iconic story or two, make a film or netflix series out of it.

Now if I were in charge, I'd make a Dragonlance Chronicles film series with the idea of emulating the LotR's epic quality, and a separate Netflix series that is set in the FR that is more low fantasy and episodic, with an iconic group of adventures going through various classic D&D dungeons. You can even call the series "Dungeons & Dragons," while the Dragonlance films would be marketed as "From the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons" or some such, but a different brand within a brand - more epic, for one.