The Best Movie About RPGs in 2018 (So Far)

There's been plenty of talk about the future of movies inspired by tabletop games, but the end of 2017 brought a surprise: a movie about a game that doesn't exist. Although it uses video game tropes, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle has a lot to say about role-playing games. If you haven't seen the movie, this discussion contains SPOILERS.

There's been plenty of talk about the future of movies inspired by tabletop games, but the end of 2017 brought a surprise: a movie about a game that doesn't exist. Although it uses video game tropes, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle has a lot to say about role-playing games. If you haven't seen the movie, this discussion contains SPOILERS.

[h=3]"Many Effects"[/h]The concept behind Jumanji was established in a children's book by Chris Van Allsburg: kids play a board game and the game's effects seep into real life. Jumanji was a jungle-themed game where the players would face increasingly hostile animals and characters.

The book was the inspiration for the movie of the same name, starring Robin Williams as Alan Parrish, a boy trapped in the game for over 26 years before Judy and Peter Shepherd unwittingly release him. Like the book, it featured animals and a big game hunter named Van Pelt. Williams mentioned that the name of the game was actually the Zulu word for "many effects," but that's more speculation than fact (some supposedly Zulu speakers have contradicted this claim).

The most recent film, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, is less a sequel and more a reimagining, with a character similar to Parrish trapped in the game, Alex Vreeke. Before he is sucked into the game, Vreeke rejects it with a sneer, saying, "who plays board games anymore?" In a sign of the changing times, Jumanji refashions itself as a video game -- but despite its video game roots, this new version of Jumanji is a lot like a role-playing game.
[h=3]Welcome to the Jungle[/h]The protagonists are four archetypes established by The Breakfast Club: the brain (Alex Wolff as Spencer Gilpin), the athlete (Ser'Darius Blain as Anthony "Fridge" Johnson), the basket case (Morgan Turner as Martha Kaply), and the social media-obsessed princess (Madison Iseman as Bethany Walker). They're in detention for a variety of reasons, which turns into an exercise in recycling magazines by removing staples. It also just happens to have the video game version of Jumanji, which of course our four hapless teens decide to play. That's when the fun really starts.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is as much a deconstruction of poor game design as it is a takedown of high school tropes. Spencer's avatar is Dr. Smolder Bravestone the archaeologist (Dawyne Johnson, intentionally playing against type as Spencer's nebbish germaphobe). Fridge picks Franklin "Mouse" Finbar the zoologist (Kevin Hart), because he misread his name as "Moose." Mouse is slow, weak, and vulnerable to cake, but he carries the backpack for our hero -- an inverse of Fridge and Spencer's relationship, in which Spencer does Fridge's homework for him. Martha ends up as Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), a redheaded "dance fighter" who wears skimpy outfits. Most hilarious of all is poor Bethany, who is transposed into the "curvy genius," Professor "Shelly" Oberon (Jack Black).

Jumanji goes beyond mocking video games into what it means to role-play someone else who is radically different from you. Each character has three lives, which means that the players take more risks early on and become more cautious as the game progresses. At heart Jumanji wrestles with what Live-Action Role-Players (LARPers) call "bleed".
[h=3]Bleeding Out[/h]LARP scholar Sarah Lynne Bowman explains what bleed is in the context of role-playing:

Participants often engage in role-playing in order to step inside the shoes of another person in a fictional reality that they consider “consequence-free.” However, role-players sometimes experience moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa. In role-playing studies, we call this phenomenon bleed.


Bowman classifies bleed in two forms: bleed-in, in which feelings of the player affect the character; and bleed-out in which events in the game affect the player. Bleed-in is the source of much humor in Jumanji, where the strong are now the weak, the weak now the strong, and females are now males. The players discover that they must rely on other strengths than the archetypes associated with them (strong, attractive, smart). In doing so, the characters help their players grow emotionally: Spencer learns to be brave, Fridge learns to be a team player, Martha becomes more confident and Bethany learns to sacrifice for others.

Although Jumanji is nominally about video games, it emphasizes teamwork as necessary to survival. Co-creator of D&D, Gary Gygax, would agree:

The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.


In Jumanji, the only way the players can succeed is by working together. It's a lesson we can only hope the upcoming D&D film will feature prominently.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

Thomas Bowman

First Post
Would anyone want the D&D Movie to be done like this Jumanji ie: Characters playing characters. So you saw the players and the characters they were trying to play? Like you see in some web-series or would you prefer a straight fantasy movie?
dungeons-dragons.jpg

Do you want to make the Saturday morning cartoon Dungeons & Dragons into a live action movie?
th

Hank the Ranger

eric_cavalier_shield.png

Eric the Cavilier

diana_the_acrobat_by_nightwing1975-d9a4if9.jpg

Diana the Acrobat

th

Presto the Magician

th


Sheila the Thief

bobby.jpg

Bobby the Barbarian

So what do you think? Should they do a live action movie with these characters?
Lets see, what's missing? No Clerics and no Druids! I wonder how they are supposed to heal their hit points?
All the characters are human except for Uni the Unicorn, apparently Dungeon Master is some kind of Gnome, and their is Venger who is some kind of Infernal, maybe a Tiefling perhaps or a half-demon of some kind.
This would make the Dungeons and Dragons Movie sort of like Narnia.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


CM

Adventurer
If the D&D movie wove an engaging tale that occasionally pulled away so that you could see the players' reactions to the events unfolding, similarly to how The Princess Bride was set up, it could really work. The players don't need to be a big part of the story, but would serve to help connect casual moviegoers to the concept of the game itself and the fantasy of the story.

There's plenty of straight-up fantasy movies. One written with D&D tropes in mind might appeal to the gamer but it would have to really knock it out of the park, storywise, to be successful in other circles.
 

Ricochet

Explorer
Everything I've read about Jumanji seems awesome. Most things The Rock touches turns to gold, and is usually very enjoyable too!
 

Thomas Bowman

First Post
If the D&D movie wove an engaging tale that occasionally pulled away so that you could see the players' reactions to the events unfolding, similarly to how The Princess Bride was set up, it could really work. The players don't need to be a big part of the story, but would serve to help connect casual moviegoers to the concept of the game itself and the fantasy of the story.

There's plenty of straight-up fantasy movies. One written with D&D tropes in mind might appeal to the gamer but it would have to really knock it out of the park, storywise, to be successful in other circles.
I'm a little confused, why would the movie have to "pull back" to see the "player's reaction to the events unfolding"? Aren't the Players supposed to be an integral part of the events unfolding in the first place? I don't think they should waste too much movie time showing players at a table rolling dice, they had a scene like that in the movie ET The Extraterrestrial, but that movie was not about Dungeons and Dragons. I think if they intend to have a bunch of players get pulled into the Game, those players should get pulled into the game physically and have to deal with it, they should not be sitting comfortably at a table rolling dice, that is not what movie goers will pay for tickets to see. Have the players themselves deal with the monsters that are thrown at them. There was a novel which had that premise. Ever read the Sleeping Dragon by Joel Rosenberg?

310737.jpg


CAPTIVES OF SORCERY...
It began as just another evening of fantasy gaming, with James, Karl, Andrea, and the rest ready to assume their various roles as wizard, cleric, warrior, or thief. But sorcerous gamemaster Professor Deighton had something else planned for this unsuspecting group of college students. And the "game" soon became a matter of life and death as the seven adventurers found themselves transported to an alternate world and into the bodies of the actual characters they had been pretending to be.

Cast into a land where magic worked all too well, dragons were a fire-breathing menace, and only those quick enough with a sword or their wits survived, the young gamers faced a terrible task. For the only way they would ever see Earth again was if they could find the legendary Gate Between Worlds - a place guarded by the most terrifying and deadly enemy of all....
THE SLEEPING DRAGON

Suppose they made that book into a movie. The players are literally drawn into the setting they are supposedly playing. The Author created his own role playing game, he didn't use Dungeons and Dragons. The Game Master in that tory literally was a sorcerer, though the players at his gaming table didn't know that, he sent the players into that world for a specific reason. On of the players, I think his name was Jason, was a thief, he just picked to many pockets and got himself killed, he was sacrificed to show to the other players that this was not just game. The other players had to quickly adapt to their roles and their characters in order to survive, one of the players was a wizard, he ended up getting killed, much of the action that followed went into getting him resurrected, this involved making a sacrifice, and the player got resurrected in his own body rather than his character's body, he was an engineering college student, so he started applying his talents to solve various situations.
 


CM

Adventurer
I think if they intend to have a bunch of players get pulled into the Game, those players should get pulled into the game physically and have to deal with it, they should not be sitting comfortably at a table rolling dice, that is not what movie goers will pay for tickets to see. Have the players themselves deal with the monsters that are thrown at them.

To me, that premise is a bit hokey. Getting physically sucked into the game is a trope that's been done to death. I also don't like the implication that your character is just you with some special effects. At least Jumanji goes to great lengths to make the characters something their players aren't, taking them out of their comfort zones.

You can convey real emotion and high-stakes drama without having to put anyone's (real) life in danger. That's what RPGs are all about, so if you're going to make a movie about them, it should, foremost, stand for fun and enjoyment, not survival horror.
 

ddaley

Explorer
To me, that premise is a bit hokey. Getting physically sucked into the game is a trope that's been done to death. I also don't like the implication that your character is just you with some special effects. At least Jumanji goes to great lengths to make the characters something their players aren't, taking them out of their comfort zones.

You can convey real emotion and high-stakes drama without having to put anyone's (real) life in danger. That's what RPGs are all about, so if you're going to make a movie about them, it should, foremost, stand for fun and enjoyment, not survival horror.

Why would being sucked into a game imply that your character was the player with special effects? In the Guardians of the Flame series (The Sleeping Dragon mentioned earlier), the player were sucked into the game and became their characters... which were nothing like the players. One of the players was even wheelchair bound if I remember correctly.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I'd rather they went to Peter Jackson and asked him to do what he did in LotR (but not The Hobbit). A F&F template wouldn't interest me at all.

Except, I would argue that Peter Jackson does not know what he did in LotR, and is objectively a terrible director that stumbled into a one huge success that ultimately depended little on what he did. Outside of LotR, what would you cite that shows he's a good director? And as a writer, almost all his memorable scenes are verbatim lifts from other peoples works.

The LotR was a tremendous success in large part despite PJ rather than because of him. The elements of that success were:

1) He leveraged an existing robust creative community to provide art direction, costuming, and music that had been inspired by the book and had attempted to faithfully produce the elements of the book in different media. So much of the movie looks exactly like a Howe, Lee, or Naismith painting, which in turn looks like the words of a book brought to life.
2) By his own admission, he was influenced by Christopher Lee to reshoot many scenes more faithfully to the book, abandoning some of his earlier plans for large departures from the story.
3) The best beloved scenes, the ones that people rewatch over and over, are verbatim lifts of the Lord of the Rings story.
4) His mistakes as a director tend to be glossed over by fans of the movie, which you can do because you have 9 hours of movie so there is a lot in it that is good. Even though there is like 3 hours of dross in that, poorly filmed awkward and repetitive scenes, the stuff that is faithful to the story in part or in whole makes up for that.
[MENTION=27252]TrippyHippy[/MENTION] hits the nail on the head when he says that any movie has to be based on a good script and a good story. So much of what Hollywood does now is based solely on an idea for a movie, and then a demand to make a script for it. Almost every movie created that way is going to fail as a story, even if sometimes it is profitable. Any D&D movie that is initiated off of, "Gee, this intellectual property looks marketable." is going to fail. The only way for a D&D movie to succeed is if there is a script out there that is so good, anyone reading it says, "We have to make this into a movie."
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top