dave2008
Legend
But "the Barbarian" is by far the better movie IMO, and it is rated R.
D&D General Best on screen adaptation of D&D
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Barbarian is the better movie, but Destroyer is far more akin to a D&D adventure. What makes a good adventure isn't the same as what makes a good movie.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
dave2008
Legend
The OP title had the caveat "and enjoyable." For me Barbarian's enjoy-ability outweighs Destroyer's D&D-ability. Barbarian is enough like D&D (wizard, rouge, 2 fighters against an evil wizard, steal treasure, fight monsters, etc. - heck they even get a patron to send them on an adventure) to pass and is much more enjoyable.
dave2008
Legend
Now that I have thought about more, how is Destroyer "far more akin" to a D&D adventure than Barbarian? Once Conan's band of comrades gets together in Barbarian (i.e. when the "game" starts, everything else is backstory), it seems very much like a D&D adventure(s) to me. I don't really feel Destroy improves on that much if at all.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Saw it when I was a kid. But then again, I also have distinct memories of watching Poltergeist, Blood Beach, Excalibur, and other questionable children's viewing.
Anyway, my votes went to The Gamers, the Mythica series, and Hawk the Slayer. As awesome as many of many of these movies are, I think a proper D&D movie needs to have a proper adventuring party. Are these my favorite movies of the list? No, not necessarily. That would probably be Conan the Barbarian. But, despite Barbarian and Destroyer featuring characters adventuring alongside Conan, they tend to hew more to sidekicks than an ensemble. The movies are ever about Conan's journey.
Anyway, my votes went to The Gamers, the Mythica series, and Hawk the Slayer. As awesome as many of many of these movies are, I think a proper D&D movie needs to have a proper adventuring party. Are these my favorite movies of the list? No, not necessarily. That would probably be Conan the Barbarian. But, despite Barbarian and Destroyer featuring characters adventuring alongside Conan, they tend to hew more to sidekicks than an ensemble. The movies are ever about Conan's journey.
Ice Pirates.
PG.
Great Kids Movie!
....
Well, it was a different time. What can I say.
For me, the roles in the Destroyer were clearly more D&D defined. Malak was the thief, Conan was a barbarian, Bombaata was the fighter, Zula was a monk, Akiro was a wizard who was part of the actual party, not just for a scene. In Barbarian, the "party" were all just kinda a mix between a fighter/thief in a blurry way. And Destroyer had that campy feel that most D&D campaigns did
the Jester
Legend
Absolutely Krull.
You're really cutting the essence of D&D pretty thin, then, and lopping off two of its limbs while you're at it. D&D has always had sci-fi elements in it, from the very beginning. Blackmoor, Temple of the Frog, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Spelljammer half-machine templates, warforged (and really, Eberron in general)... And that's not to mention fantasy-only games with distinctly non-medieval setting. I've been in modern but magic games, stone age games, etc.
D&D is far broader than medievalesque fantasy alone.
You're really cutting the essence of D&D pretty thin, then, and lopping off two of its limbs while you're at it. D&D has always had sci-fi elements in it, from the very beginning. Blackmoor, Temple of the Frog, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Spelljammer half-machine templates, warforged (and really, Eberron in general)... And that's not to mention fantasy-only games with distinctly non-medieval setting. I've been in modern but magic games, stone age games, etc.
D&D is far broader than medievalesque fantasy alone.
Those were always just outlier one offs. Like D&D deciding to change it's hair style, or put on stone washed jeans. An experiment that wasn't part of what the core of D&D is. I feel pretty comfortable saying that when most people are being introduced to D&D, they are shown a medieval fantasy world and not a sci fi world. And that's what this thread was about--something to best capture what D&D is, and I'm sure you'll agree that D&D as a whole is more medieval fantasy than it is spelljammer.
Also, as I noted (and in the part you quoted), I had to limit it. Otherwise I'd have over 100 poll options, which would be worthless. A poll is only as good as the scope is defined.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Timespan, pacing and lack of cheese mostly. The first film takes place over something like 20 years. There are lots of time gaps over which we can assume "stuff happened" but it isn't "played" through.
Destroyer does not improve on anything, but the storyline follows the typical beats of a D&D adventure.
1) The party meet up;
2) They are given a quest to find a McGuffin;
3) They fight monsters and escape traps;
4) They retrieve the McGuffin from a minor boss;
5) The quest giver betrays the party;
6) Bad stuff happens and the party has to fight a big boss monster.
It all happens sequentially, over the course of a few weeks, with no gaps where other adventures could have happened, and it isn't a solo adventure for half it's run time.
Last edited:
the Jester
Legend
Let me start by saying that I get the practicalities here. A poll with 500 options is pretty useless. Buuuuuut.....
Nope! Both Eberron and Spelljammer were entire settings with whole product lines dedicated to them. That's hardly an outlier or one off.
I get that not everyone played SJ or ran through S3, but plenty of people did. Heck, I have run a conversion of S3 in 5e, and I know another group that has also done so. And Spelljammer has reared its head in every edition since 2e so far.
As an aside, I'm not sure who is qualified to put limiters on what the core of D&D is. Let's not gatekeep.
Anyhow, I do agree that most people, upon being introduced to D&D, are shown a fantasy world (though I'd argue that the typical intro is the Realms, which is more Renaissance style than medieval, in my judgment, but that's splitting hairs). But claiming that that defines the core of D&D is like saying, "Most campaigns don't reach above 10th level, so core D&D only includes up to level 10", or perhaps, "Most campaigns never use beholders, so beholders aren't part of core D&D".
But here's the thing. Krull, as I said above, seems to me to be the quintessential D&D adventure movie. You have a party of diverse adventurers, you have various encounters on the way to the evil fortress (that moves by magic!), you have magic weapons (the glaive). The fact that the trappings are spraypainted with science fiction doesn't change it- and it even looks and feels like a strictly fantasy movie unless you squint at it.
I just think that by limiting your poll in the way you did, you've overlooked at least one perfect D&D movie.
I do get that you only have so many options that you can put in, but I think Krull is a far better D&D movie than most of the ones you posted. I think it captures what D&D is far better than many other medieval movies.
And that's fair. The number of options is already pretty high. I just feel like D&D encompasses so much more than medieval fantasy, from Gothic horror to high political drama, and I don't think the setting or the trappings of the setting are that big of a piece of what makes D&D... D&D.
Nope! Both Eberron and Spelljammer were entire settings with whole product lines dedicated to them. That's hardly an outlier or one off.
I get that not everyone played SJ or ran through S3, but plenty of people did. Heck, I have run a conversion of S3 in 5e, and I know another group that has also done so. And Spelljammer has reared its head in every edition since 2e so far.
As an aside, I'm not sure who is qualified to put limiters on what the core of D&D is. Let's not gatekeep.
Anyhow, I do agree that most people, upon being introduced to D&D, are shown a fantasy world (though I'd argue that the typical intro is the Realms, which is more Renaissance style than medieval, in my judgment, but that's splitting hairs). But claiming that that defines the core of D&D is like saying, "Most campaigns don't reach above 10th level, so core D&D only includes up to level 10", or perhaps, "Most campaigns never use beholders, so beholders aren't part of core D&D".
But here's the thing. Krull, as I said above, seems to me to be the quintessential D&D adventure movie. You have a party of diverse adventurers, you have various encounters on the way to the evil fortress (that moves by magic!), you have magic weapons (the glaive). The fact that the trappings are spraypainted with science fiction doesn't change it- and it even looks and feels like a strictly fantasy movie unless you squint at it.
I just think that by limiting your poll in the way you did, you've overlooked at least one perfect D&D movie.
I do get that you only have so many options that you can put in, but I think Krull is a far better D&D movie than most of the ones you posted. I think it captures what D&D is far better than many other medieval movies.
And that's fair. The number of options is already pretty high. I just feel like D&D encompasses so much more than medieval fantasy, from Gothic horror to high political drama, and I don't think the setting or the trappings of the setting are that big of a piece of what makes D&D... D&D.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
OB1
Jedi Master
Somehow skipped over the "medieval" qualifier in the OP. And while I agree with @the Jester that D&D is a fantasy RPG (that leans towards Renaissance in it's most popular setting but encompasses a wide swath of fantasy, including modern and sci-fi settings) for the purposes of this thread I'll throw out my revised top 3 on screen adaptations of Medieval Style Fantasy D&D.
1. Game of Thrones (especially seasons 6-8)
2. LOTR/Hobbit (Peter Jackson)
3. Dragonslayer
*Note that I'd put Conan into an Ancient Fantasy setting and Witcher into Renaissance Fantasy
1. Game of Thrones (especially seasons 6-8)
2. LOTR/Hobbit (Peter Jackson)
3. Dragonslayer
*Note that I'd put Conan into an Ancient Fantasy setting and Witcher into Renaissance Fantasy
Surprised Narnia has 0 votes. I wouldn't expect it to win, but as far as iconic party based fantasy goes, it's second only to Tolkien in popularity.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
As much as I love the Chronicles of Narnia, are there any documented influences of it on D&D? Maybe the Wand of Frost springs to mind.
You assumed correct. "The Archer: Fugitive From the Empire" was a failed pilot in the U.S., It was later released in Europe as a movie under the title, "The Archer and the Sorceress"
Speaking of that pilot, II still wonder how to write up Estra in D&D. She does not wear armor and casts magic. However, other than the guardian that she summoned upon first encountering Toran (see below) and a strong gust of wind (that may or may not have been part of the summoning spell), I don't recall her using magic in combat. Upon first encountering the false Lazar-Sa, later in the episode, she is on horseback and grabbed a spear or javelin which she hurled at him (she might have even been galloping towards him). Then, later in the final battle in the lair of the false Lazar-sa, she fights with a large dagger or short sword.
As for her magic abilities, she demonstrates a few abilities, but did not regularly use magic in combat. As stated above, she summoned a guardian upon first encountering Toran, whose father had killed her mother sometime prior to the episode. The guardian is destroyed and never summoned again during the episode which took place over many days- perhaps weeks. During that encounter, she also summoned a very strong wind in the cave which may or may not have been part of the summoning spell.
Other abilities she demonstrated include the following: Conversing with the spirit of her mother, the former oracle in her sleep (or was it meditation). If I recall, correctly, her mother also spoke to her during the encounter with Toran. Later in the episode, she appeared to have entered the dream of Toran. Finally, she had an amulet or necklace with a horse, snake, and bird. By tapping the appropriate animal on the jewelry, she could summon it. She summoned the horse for riding, a bird for spying, and panther (that she also used for spying and not for combat during the episode).
Tony Vargas
Legend
Frankly that last bit is the only supernatural power I recalled that character demonstrating.
She in no way resembles the classic class, but, thematically, I always though she seemed like a Druid.
...
Really, there's very little on the poll that's at all true to traditional D&D magic:
Magic is sub-divided into Magey magic and Divine magic, the former does more and is even flashier, the latter can heal.
Magic somes in spells and magic items. Spells are limited by the power of the caster, items can be completely arbitrary.
Spells must be memorized (mages from a book, divine spells are prayed for), are forgotten when cast, and re-memorized later.
Casting requires up to 3 components.
Verbal spells require the caster be able to speak clearly.
Material components are things the caster needs to have and manipulate to cast the spell.
Somatic spells require the caster have his hands free (later only one), and be able to make gestures so complicated and complex that it's impossible to perform them in any sort of armor (later, merely with a chance of spell failure). Divine magic apparently uses simpler gestures, because it can be cast in armor.
Spells do the same thing every time you cast them, maybe with a slider of some kind or a choice of a few options within the spell, but, generally, when you memorize a spell, what it's going to do when cast has been determined in advance.
Whatever the components, casters have to be relatively still & undisturbed to complete a spell. For anywhere from 6 seconds (1 segment) to a minute (round) or more. Later, of course, round were compressed to 6 seconds, and casting times proportionately reduced to almost nothing. Now, they're just 'actions' and prettymuch can't be interrupted.
Not even the D&D-branded ones I've seen, though there are a few on the list I hadn't even heard of.
Tolkien and Lewis worked together in how they portrayed good vs evil, or law vs chaos, which was the influence behind the alignment system. Also, rather than a specific thing, the mythology of Lewis was used to inspire a lot of things in D&D. Same mythology Tolkien used (Christian mythology), but Tolkien gets all the credit. Which is odd when you think about it, because both Tolkien and Lewis pulled from the exact same mythology in their respective stories.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
The inter-influencing of Tolkien and Lewis is definitely a thing. That being said, the religious pantheism of D&D maps better to Tolkien (sure, there was Eru Iluvatar as the chiefest and greatest, but it still presents a pantheon with different domains beneath him) than the monotheism of Lewis.
Buuuut, Lewis also presents Narnia as an amalgamation of different cultures and folklore from around the world, much like D&D.
Buuuut, Lewis also presents Narnia as an amalgamation of different cultures and folklore from around the world, much like D&D.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
