Dungeons & Dragons (2000) was a passion project turned cinematic disaster

[GreyLord]

Honestly no idea what this means...?

5e (started with 3e so those with 3e wouldn't be isolated from it as those from earlier D&D or other types of RPGs) has it's own anachronisms that are different than what standard fantasy tropes are.

For example, Kenku are not a standard Fantasy trope and neither are Tieflings. People will not be familiar with these types of creatures in a movie. Without any explanation of why this weird druid lady (if they place that she is a druid) has horns, they have no idea what is going on or why. The movie does a particularly bad role in explaining such things and unless you are familiar with the games which run them (3e had them, but tieflings didn't really become a thing until 4e), you have no idea why or what on some of these things.

You have a bard, but bards are not something that is necessarily a standard Fantasy item. More people will be familiar with a Bard as you can see them through history and quite a number of fantasies have them, but they aren't something the general public really associates with Fantasy.

With historical tropes Bards were not normally those who waltzed and danced around, they were more warriors and figures of historical yore (Homer, Odysseus, those types for Greek Lore). Even in D&D, Bards were an off class in 1e, non-existent really in BX and BECMI, and started to become a standard class in 2e, but in that were more of Jack of All-Trades than what they became in 3e and then evolved into what they are in 5e.

That's one of the Big Main Characters of the movie.

There are various spells and other items (dealing with the little girl for example) that just...aren't fully explained in the movie and rely on you knowing and understanding what they are. Something every 5e player would know most likely, but some of them, even an older player would not be familiar with.

Things such as that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I’ve only seen the first 2 D&D movies. No desire to delve deeper.

 

[Deset Gled]

5e (started with 3e so those with 3e wouldn't be isolated from it as those from earlier D&D or other types of RPGs) has it's own anachronisms that are different than what standard fantasy tropes are.

For example, Kenku are not a standard Fantasy trope and neither are Tieflings. People will not be familiar with these types of creatures in a movie. Without any explanation of why this weird druid lady (if they place that she is a druid) has horns, they have no idea what is going on or why. The movie does a particularly bad role in explaining such things and unless you are familiar with the games which run them (3e had them, but tieflings didn't really become a thing until 4e), you have no idea why or what on some of these things.

You have a bard, but bards are not something that is necessarily a standard Fantasy item. More people will be familiar with a Bard as you can see them through history and quite a number of fantasies have them, but they aren't something the general public really associates with Fantasy.

With historical tropes Bards were not normally those who waltzed and danced around, they were more warriors and figures of historical yore (Homer, Odysseus, those types for Greek Lore). Even in D&D, Bards were an off class in 1e, non-existent really in BX and BECMI, and started to become a standard class in 2e, but in that were more of Jack of All-Trades than what they became in 3e and then evolved into what they are in 5e.

That's one of the Big Main Characters of the movie.

There are various spells and other items (dealing with the little girl for example) that just...aren't fully explained in the movie and rely on you knowing and understanding what they are. Something every 5e player would know most likely, but some of them, even an older player would not be familiar with.

Things such as that.

FWIW, I think that those things are essential. Without D&Disms, it would be Just Another Generic Fantasy Movie. And relying on the current edition seems like an obvious choice. YMMV.

I don't remember as many references in D&D 2000 (admittedly, it's been a while), and some of the ones I do remember were pretty stupid. For example, watchdog beholders.

 

[Aeson]

5e (started with 3e so those with 3e wouldn't be isolated from it as those from earlier D&D or other types of RPGs) has it's own anachronisms that are different than what standard fantasy tropes are.

For example, Kenku are not a standard Fantasy trope and neither are Tieflings. People will not be familiar with these types of creatures in a movie. Without any explanation of why this weird druid lady (if they place that she is a druid) has horns, they have no idea what is going on or why. The movie does a particularly bad role in explaining such things and unless you are familiar with the games which run them (3e had them, but tieflings didn't really become a thing until 4e), you have no idea why or what on some of these things.

You have a bard, but bards are not something that is necessarily a standard Fantasy item. More people will be familiar with a Bard as you can see them through history and quite a number of fantasies have them, but they aren't something the general public really associates with Fantasy.

With historical tropes Bards were not normally those who waltzed and danced around, they were more warriors and figures of historical yore (Homer, Odysseus, those types for Greek Lore). Even in D&D, Bards were an off class in 1e, non-existent really in BX and BECMI, and started to become a standard class in 2e, but in that were more of Jack of All-Trades than what they became in 3e and then evolved into what they are in 5e.

That's one of the Big Main Characters of the movie.

There are various spells and other items (dealing with the little girl for example) that just...aren't fully explained in the movie and rely on you knowing and understanding what they are. Something every 5e player would know most likely, but some of them, even an older player would not be familiar with.

Things such as that.

None of the nonhuman beings were explained.
One of my chief complaints was that the druid, bard and paladin didn't cast spells. The party was 4/5 spellcasters but only one cast spells, and badly in the beginning.

 

[payn]

5e (started with 3e so those with 3e wouldn't be isolated from it as those from earlier D&D or other types of RPGs) has it's own anachronisms that are different than what standard fantasy tropes are.

For example, Kenku are not a standard Fantasy trope and neither are Tieflings. People will not be familiar with these types of creatures in a movie. Without any explanation of why this weird druid lady (if they place that she is a druid) has horns, they have no idea what is going on or why. The movie does a particularly bad role in explaining such things and unless you are familiar with the games which run them (3e had them, but tieflings didn't really become a thing until 4e), you have no idea why or what on some of these things.

You have a bard, but bards are not something that is necessarily a standard Fantasy item. More people will be familiar with a Bard as you can see them through history and quite a number of fantasies have them, but they aren't something the general public really associates with Fantasy.

With historical tropes Bards were not normally those who waltzed and danced around, they were more warriors and figures of historical yore (Homer, Odysseus, those types for Greek Lore). Even in D&D, Bards were an off class in 1e, non-existent really in BX and BECMI, and started to become a standard class in 2e, but in that were more of Jack of All-Trades than what they became in 3e and then evolved into what they are in 5e.

That's one of the Big Main Characters of the movie.

There are various spells and other items (dealing with the little girl for example) that just...aren't fully explained in the movie and rely on you knowing and understanding what they are. Something every 5e player would know most likely, but some of them, even an older player would not be familiar with.

Things such as that.

Ok... I gotta say I think you have things totally backwards. Its been 26 years since 3E launched and 4E has been done for over 10. Millennials grew up watching weird ass cartoons, with complex characters and concepts. Since the Lord of the Rigns films in 2000, there has been a plethora of fantasy offerings of all types. I dont think folks will have a hard time following along or going with it.

Lets look at the bard as you say. I think if they made one as you point out, they would be asking, "where is the lute? Where is the spoony behavior?" Event he Witcher bard follows the modern suit. Which isnt event hat modern its been like this for 30 plus years.

You may be discounting the fact that DADHAT dropped in the middle of a major franchise sandwich which likely hurt its sales more than not sticking to 70's litt class lore.

 

[GreyLord]

Ok... I gotta say I think you have things totally backwards. Its been 26 years since 3E launched and 4E has been done for over 10. Millennials grew up watching weird ass cartoons, with complex characters and concepts. Since the Lord of the Rigns films in 2000, there has been a plethora of fantasy offerings of all types. I dont think folks will have a hard time following along or going with it.

Lets look at the bard as you say. I think if they made one as you point out, they would be asking, "where is the lute? Where is the spoony behavior?" Event he Witcher bard follows the modern suit. Which isnt event hat modern its been like this for 30 plus years.

You may be discounting the fact that DADHAT dropped in the middle of a major franchise sandwich which likely hurt its sales more than not sticking to 70's litt class lore.

You are taking the view of someone familiar with D&D, and specifically 5e D&D.

Most people have no idea what a Tiefling is. It wasn't even a core race until 4e for those who play D&D. Most people have no clue what D&D players stereotype as a bard or think of when they see a bard.

For a main you probably should have a zero to hero (like HP or LotR), a Warrior type (someone they can relate to as they have no magic and face things like...a warrior), or a complete fantasy type (wizard spellcasting character which is entirely engulfed in the magic quota).

HaT did none of that. Digging into the D&D tropes can be done, but if you want it to appeal more to general audiences, you have to also make it more accessible to general audiences.

IMO of course. Obviously you have those that disagreed with that in regards to the movie/film.

 

[payn]

You are taking the view of someone familiar with D&D, and specifically 5e D&D.

Most people have no idea what a Tiefling is. It wasn't even a core race until 4e for those who play D&D. Most people have no clue what D&D players stereotype as a bard or think of when they see a bard.

For a main you probably should have a zero to hero (like HP or LotR), a Warrior type (someone they can relate to as they have no magic and face things like...a warrior), or a complete fantasy type (wizard spellcasting character which is entirely engulfed in the magic quota).

HaT did none of that. Digging into the D&D tropes can be done, but if you want it to appeal more to general audiences, you have to also make it more accessible to general audiences.

IMO of course. Obviously you have those that disagreed with that in regards to the movie/film.

Yeap, still think you got this backwards. You don’t need to be deep into any D&D to get this movie. In fact, a lot of D&D fans complain it isn’t enough D&D and too general. It’s no more difficult to get than Guardians if the Galaxy was.

Also I’m not a 5E generation or whatever you have taken to calling it. I’m gen x and can see the general appeal of DADHAT.