D&D Movie/TV First Footage of D&D Honor Among Thieves: Dungeons, Dragons, Teamwork, With Superhero Vibe

EN World member OB1 saw some of the first footage of next year's Dungeons & Dragon movie, Honor Among Thieves, confirming "dungeons, Dragons, and party teamwork with a bit of a superhero movie vibe". The roughly 30-seconds of footage was shown as part of Paramount's promotional reel played at CinemaCon.

Here is a quick hit of what I saw. Note that the 30 seconds or so was split up over 7 or 8 smaller shots interspersed in a larger product reel for other Paramount product. I was focusing hard to recognize when they were showing Dad Hat (All credit to my co-worker for realizing that the title shortens to Dad Hat) footage, but it made it very tricky to really get the details for the scenes. I will say that the overall look was absolutely amazing for being this far out. Easily on par with what you would expect from a Marvel theatrical release. Costumes all looked good, sets all looked good.

• Chris Pine on horseback riding next to Michele Rodriguez talking about 'needing a team for this'
• A blue? dragon flying overhead away from camera while characters flee underneath on horseback
• A big city, I'm guessing Waterdeep, from an overhead, aerial view
• Sophia Lillis (I think) pulling back on a slingshot wristband to fire something (there were two moments of this)
• Big action sequence in an outdoor arena like setting with pillars growing out of the ground that some heroes jump across while others fire off bows/magic,etc
• Rege-Jean Page on horseback heading towards some ruins, reminded me of something straight out of an old module but I can't put my finger on which one. Sort of half, simple stone wall buildings on a hilltop spread out over 100 meters or so
• A character in a long shot (I think Chris Pine but not sure as it was very quick) dancing? under an archway - reminded me more of being under Otto's Irresistible Dance than something he was doing on purpose. On the flip side, it could be a bard character spellcasting as I think he had an instrument in his hands (sorry bard haters)
• A spell that felt like a wizard casting shield against an attack. I think it was Rege-Jean but can't be certain.
• Don't remember seeing Hugh Grant in the footage, and no plot details
• Definitely had a fun, action packed vibe to it. Definitely not grim-dark

As for the superhero vibe I got, yeah, it felt somewhat like a fantasy version of Guardians of the Galaxy. I could imagine the marketing campaign for this leaning into this is Marvel meets Game of Thrones as a way to make the concept accessible to a larger audience not fully familiar with D&D style medieval fantasy.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't mind it, but where I can see it throwing people off is that a "real" alternate reality wouldn't feel like a Mashup of real world culture, but have an organic and dynamic uniquenesses of it's own. I accept it as a price of imagining fantastic cultures and world with a visual vocabulary limited somewhat by reality, but I can understand if it breaks verisimilitude for some people.

It you tried to work through the implications of D&D magic and monsters in a world with verisimilitude, you would end up with something that did not bare any resemblance to either the real world or any D&D setting.

D&D only works if you can accept six impossible things before breakfast.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is it possible for something to be anachronistic when it is not set in any particular period of history?

I mean, that's a fair question - but D&D has always been trying very hard to prove that it can be!

More seriously the wild mish-mash of technologies and cultures and ideas in D&D tends to be anachronistic within any given setting, so being better or worse of course. It doesn't really matter usually because D&D doesn't try to present itself as "realistic".

It you tried to work through the implications of D&D magic and monsters in a world with verisimilitude, you would end up with something that did not bare any resemblance to either the real world or any D&D setting.

Yup.

Essentially you're likely to end up with something like Earthdawn, because that's basically what Earthdawn did, which was say:

A) How can we make D&D "make sense" in terms of things like levels, monsters being everywhere, tons of magic, dungeons existing and so on. Levels become an actual thing (I forget what they're called), that your character performs a ritual to obtain, for example, so you can actually refer to them in-game.

and

B) How can we make D&D more playable and give everyone more and more fun stuff to do.

Earthdawn was, frankly, a massive success on a technical/conceptual level here (especially for 1993!), and actually I think if we'd had social media and so on back then, I think it would have been a massive financial success and been a huge hit for FASA, but as it was, coming at the dawn of the internet, a lot of people didn't even really understand what it was or why it was and it seemed like just higher-budget fantasy heartbreaker, and by the time it might have broken out of that FASA had fallen apart and its properties were being shuffled around and D&D was getting a new edition and so on. I remember when 4E came out people suddenly started talking about Earthdawn a lot, because 4E did a lot of the same things, had a lot of the same thinking, but in a more constrained way, and indeed for a long time there was a licensed "Earthdawn for 4E" setting thing planned, but I don't think it ever happened.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, that's a fair question - but D&D has always been trying very hard to prove that it can be!

More seriously the wild mish-mash of technologies and cultures and ideas in D&D tends to be anachronistic within any given setting, so being better or worse of course. It doesn't really matter usually because D&D doesn't try to present itself as "realistic".

Yup.

Essentially you're likely to end up with something like Earthdawn, because that's basically what Earthdawn did, which was say:

A) How can we make D&D "make sense" in terms of things like levels, monsters being everywhere, tons of magic, dungeons existing and so on. Levels become an actual thing (I forget what they're called), that your character performs a ritual to obtain, for example, so you can actually refer to them in-game.

and

B) How can we make D&D more playable and give everyone more and more fun stuff to do.

Earthdawn was, frankly, a massive success on a technical/conceptual level here (especially for 1993!), and actually I think if we'd had social media and so on back then, I think it would have been a massive financial success and been a huge hit for FASA, but as it was, coming at the dawn of the internet, a lot of people didn't even really understand what it was or why it was and it seemed like just higher-budget fantasy heartbreaker, and by the time it might have broken out of that FASA had fallen apart and its properties were being shuffled around and D&D was getting a new edition and so on. I remember when 4E came out people suddenly started talking about Earthdawn a lot, because 4E did a lot of the same things, had a lot of the same thinking, but in a more constrained way, and indeed for a long time there was a licensed "Earthdawn for 4E" setting thing planned, but I don't think it ever happened.

I run campaigns that I believe are more or less believable and consistent given the assumptions of D&D. Not all races are naturally evolved, many are created. Technology is kind of all over the board because they aren't using real world fabrication methods and so on. There are not monsters everywhere (except of course where there are ), much of the action in my games is based on urban adventures with people being the biggest monsters. Occasionally those people are also lycanthropes, vampires or made deals with a devil but the origin is still ordinary people doing evil. You have to go fairly far afield to get any traditional monsters most of the time.

It will never be perfect of course, but if you don't want video game style games where there's a troll under every bridge the game still works just fine. Maybe the games you're involved with aren't believable, that doesn't mean all campaigns or campaign worlds are a mess.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I run campaigns that I believe are more or less believable and consistent given the assumptions of D&D. Not all races are naturally evolved, many are created. Technology is kind of all over the board because they aren't using real world fabrication methods and so on. There are not monsters everywhere (except of course where there are ), much of the action in my games is based on urban adventures with people being the biggest monsters. Occasionally those people are also lycanthropes, vampires or made deals with a devil but the origin is still ordinary people doing evil. You have to go fairly far afield to get any traditional monsters most of the time.

It will never be perfect of course, but if you don't want video game style games where there's a troll under every bridge the game still works just fine. Maybe the games you're involved with aren't believable, that doesn't mean all campaigns or campaign worlds are a mess.

Yeah. Different people have different levels of verisimilitude. People with backgrounds in subjects like ecology or history are going to see problems which are not apparent to those without specialist training. To take your example. too many trolls isn't the only potential issue. If you have too few, there will not be a viable population. And your viable population of trolls requires a viable population of prey species. And that is eventually going to lead to conflict with humans. And once the humans get ahold of trolls they are going to weaponize them, use them as beasts of burden, farm their flesh as an unlimited food supply, etc. Any ecologist will tell you that adding or removing a single species from an ecosystem will drastically change the system, and any historian will tell you humans will ruthlessly exploit any resource they come across.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah. Different people have different levels of verisimilitude. People with backgrounds in subjects like ecology or history are going to see problems which are not apparent to those without specialist training. To take your example. too many trolls isn't the only potential issue. If you have too few, there will not be a viable population. And your viable population of trolls requires a viable population of prey species. And that is eventually going to lead to conflict with humans. And once the humans get ahold of trolls they are going to weaponize them, use them as beasts of burden, farm their flesh as an unlimited food supply, etc. Any ecologist will tell you that adding or removing a single species from an ecosystem will drastically change the system, and any historian will tell you humans will ruthlessly exploit any resource they come across.

But the discussion of trolls as an example assumes real world genetics. If they replicate by asexual reproduction then as long as there's one and enough food their population can always recover.

I also don't assume they could be domesticated to any degree (although that could be a cool aspect of a setting). We may have gorillas in zoos, but we haven't figured out how to make them slaves yet.

Food supply is a bigger issue which I've always had a problem with for various settings. I have my own workarounds and other thoughts on this, but it's off topic.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But the discussion of trolls as an example assumes real world genetics. If they replicate by asexual reproduction then as long as there's one and enough food their population can always recover.

It doesn't matter how something reproduces, for verisimilitude it still has to fit into the ecosystem. For example, a species that reproduces by binary fission will expand until constrained by external factors.

I also don't assume they could be domesticated to any degree (although that could be a cool aspect of a setting). We may have gorillas in zoos, but we haven't figured out how to make them slaves yet.

The don't reproduce fast enough to make good slaves. Humans breed faster. We have figured out how to eat them though.

The only way for a D&D world to make sense is not to look at it too closely.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think the owl folk in our Witchlight campaign used the UA version, but I wasn't DMing that one, so I don't know everyone's character details.

 

[Oofta]

It doesn't matter how something reproduces, for verisimilitude it still has to fit into the ecosystem. For example, a species that reproduces by binary fission will expand until constrained by external factors.

Just depends on how they work. Maybe trolls are omnivores that only reproduce when they have an excess of protein and they aren't particularly good at hunting. Maybe they're basically incapacitated while reproducing which makes them vulnerable to predators, including to other trolls.

I mean, it's not like there have been times in earth's history when six and a half ton predators walked the earth. Except when there were, of course.

The don't reproduce fast enough to make good slaves. Humans breed faster. We have figured out how to eat them though.

We've only domesticated a tiny, tiny percentage of wild animals.

The only way for a D&D world to make sense is not to look at it too closely.

That may be true for your world. It may be true from many published campaigns. My world is not monster world. Making assumptions about other people's campaign worlds is pretty meaningless.

 

[Mallus]

Is it possible for something to be anachronistic when it is not set in any particular period of history?

D&D makes pan-anachronism a thing!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Just depends on how they work. Maybe trolls are omnivores that only reproduce when they have an excess of protein and they aren't particularly good at hunting. Maybe they're basically incapacitated while reproducing which makes them vulnerable to predators, including to other trolls.

I mean, it's not like there have been times in earth's history when six and a half ton predators walked the earth. Except when there were, of course.

In an ecosystem it doesn't matter if it's a large predator or a tiny plant, they are all equally critical.

We've only domesticated a tiny, tiny percentage of wild animals.

The rest we kill and eat, kill for fun, or destroy their habitats, because they are "useless".

That may be true for your world. It may be true from many published campaigns. My world is not monster world. Making assumptions about other people's campaign worlds is pretty meaningless.

No, it's true for all worlds, monsters incredibly rare makes, if anything, less sense than monsters everywhere. And magic would change the way people live, build, produce food, communicate, organise their society, view the world. And that's before you get to the pro-active gods stirring the pot. Your world might make sense to you, but I assure you, anyone who wanted to could rip it to shreds. D&D functions because we choose not to look at the holes.