D&D Movie/TV D&D Cinematic Universe. What would it be like? What do you want to see?

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Outside of combat, yeah, they would be pretty boring. It would be difficult to portray them as anything other than big scary monsters, no matter how smart they are in their stat blocks.

If they're smart in the stat block . . . make them smart outside of the stat block. Give Vecna and Asmodeus evil schemes that trick the party for most of the movie. Have Tiamat be convinced that she's justified in trying to destroy the world because it was stolen from her by the gods. Focus on Strahd's obsession with Tatyana and how his obsession with her is impacting his entire domain of dread. I could go on.

Interesting fight scenes + interesting personalities. Sounds like the recipe for a good movie villain. The Tarrasque would be boring as a villain just like Godzilla would be. But Tiamat, Vecna, Orcus, Asmodeus, Lolth, Acererak, and maybe Demogorgon could be good movie villains.

 

[Scribe]

As for D&D, I think they need to identify is as a shared franchise, not a shared universe. They need to get away from sequelitis, character cameos, and "you must have seen this to understand that". They need to do an Eberron movie, a Ravenloft movie, with no connection to Honor Amongst Thieves apart from the banner heading

This please, so hard.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If they're smart in the stat block . . . make them smart outside of the stat block.

What matters is the actor's ability to emote through the FX, not the complexity of their plot.

Give Vecna and Asmodeus evil schemes that trick the party for most of the movie.

Vecna and Asmodeus are fine. No problem for the actor's performance.

Have Tiamat be convinced that she's justified in trying to destroy the world because it was stolen from her by the gods

But Tiamat? Even if you CGI the actor's mannerisms onto the model, which head it the audience supposed to be looking at whilst she monologues?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

What matters is the actor's ability to emote through the FX, not the complexity of their plot.

That does matter, but I also feel that there are other things that can make a villain seem smart. Their henchmen, their scheme, and their impact on the world around them can all make them good villains without them even needing to appear on the screen.

But Tiamat? Even if you CGI the actor's mannerisms onto the model, which head it the audience supposed to be looking at whilst she monologues?

The red one is the one she favors the most, so probably that one. Or all of them, depending on which one she's speaking through at the moment.

I really don't think that would be as big of a problem as you think it would. I don't think "which head does the audience look at" is a major concern.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Their henchmen

Then the henchman is the main character, from the performance perspective. The monster is just a nuke.

The red one is the one she favors the most, so probably that one. Or all of them, depending on which one she's speaking through at the moment.

I really don't think that would be as big of a problem as you think it would. I don't think "which head does the audience look at" is a major concern.

What then are the heads that aren't talking doing? Hanging around looking lame, or distracting the audience from the head that is speaking?

There is a reason why the D&D cartoon had humanoid Venger do most of the interacting with the party, rather than his boss.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Then the henchman is the main character, from the performance perspective. The monster is just a nuke.

I specified that showing the henchmen could be used together with the BBEG's acting. And even if having the henchmen somehow makes the BBEG just a living nuke . . . that doesn't stop them from being a good villain.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I specified that showing the henchmen could be used together with the BBEG's acting. And even if having the henchmen somehow makes the BBEG just a living nuke . . . that doesn't stop them from being a good villain.

If the MCU has taught us anything, it's what makes a good villain is great acting, not lots of heads and a sack of hit points.

You can have Tiamat, CGI monster, in your movie, but the real villain is her henchman Venger, played by Hugh Laurie.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If the MCU has taught us anything, it's what makes a good villain is great acting, not lots of heads and a sack of hit points.

And a good/relatable/understandable plan (Thanos, Killmonger, Vulture), a connection to the characters (Killmonger to T'challa, Thanos to the Guardians and Loki, every Spider-Man villain to Spider-Man), and enough time on screen, and quite a few other things. There is not just one thing that will make a good villain. There are a lot of things necessary to make a villain good. Great acting is definitely important in that. But there are other parts necessary for it, too.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And a good/relatable/understandable plan

Well, demons have a plan that is easily understandable: destroy everything. It's just not very interesting.

a connection to the characters

Nah, this one is a tired superhero cliche, the sooner it dies the better.

 

[MNblockhead]

Outside of combat, yeah, they would be pretty boring. It would be difficult to portray them as anything other than big scary monsters, no matter how smart they are in their stat blocks.

I don't know. This may be a strange example, but The Beast in Krull was far more interesting OUTSIDE of the battle scene. I think a similar approach of having the big bad not fully revealled but communicating with minions etc. could work. The problem with demogorgon is that I don't know how you would portray him, regardless of budget, that wouldn't look kinda silly.