Cast the iconic D&D characters

[Firebeetle]

I suppose if we were going to cast an Iconic movie, we'd also have to come up with a plot and setting for it...

I'm thinking TV show would be far more successful than another movie. D&D lends itself well to an episodic premise by it's very nature. Movies simply need more plot and characterization to be effective, which doesn't leave enough room for kicking in doors and stealing treasure.

Most of all, we already have two failure movies, why make more?

For setting, while I want to go Greyhawk, perhaps it would be better to go unique, since the standard v3.5 pantheon is *seriously* paired down from there. Doesn't mean that some elements can't be borrowed from that setting though.

[sarcasm]That worked so well in the last two films. [/sarcasm] It must be Greyhawk. Iconic characters. Iconic setting. Iconic NPCs, monsters and villains for that matter. WHO ARE the iconic monsters and villains of D&D?

NPCs:
Mordenkainen
Melf
Bigby
Leomund
Tasha
who else?

Monsters:

Mind Flayers
Beholders
Drow
Githyanki
who else?

Villains:
Warduke
There has to be more than just Warduke!

And for plot... um... (snip)

Mistake number one, plot before characters. Figure out your villain first, then his/her agenda, then what the characters will do, then you get your plot.

Incidentally, it is terribly important point but hugely overlooked as to HOW the characters relate. This needs to be much more than snide remarks. We need love triangles, old rivalries, grudges, past romances, stuff like that. These characters must be about what they want and how they work together to satisfy everyone's goals.

 

[Klaus]

A DnD TV series would *have* to follow the steps of Firefly. The episodes plots are just an excuse to develop the characters. You can easily have, say, mind flayers fulfilling the niche of big bad evil dudes who manipulate stuff from the shadows and we won't see them fully until the ending of Season 1, when they monitor our heroes though a crystal ball and think to each other "everything is going as planned".

 

[Ranger REG]

Most of all, we already have two failure movies, why make more?

Because D&D is as iconic as vampires, and you know how many good (and bad) vampire movies out there.

Besides, Rankin-Bass made two mediocre Tolkien/Middle-Earth films before PJ performed his miracle. Perhaps the third time is the charm ... but this assumes you, Courtney Solomon ( ), relinquish the film right to someone more qualified (i.e., better than you) to do fantasy films.

 

[glass]

Glass -> Re; Kristin Kreuk picture: she's rubbing herself against a rock singer in a movie about 4 youngsters who travel to Europe. One of the youngsters is Michelle "Dawn Summers" Trachtenberg, who dressed *very* skimpily in this movie.

This movie? I avoided it like the plague. I wish I hadn't, now!


glass.

 

[Klaus]

It is surprisingly funny.

Plus how can you beat Lucy Lawless as the owner of a brothel in Amsterdam?

 

[Kaodi]

Well...

You talk about having all of these classic characters and monsters appear, but this is supposed to be a serious venture, not a bloody parade of every last " iconic " thing out there.

If we were to look at this is game related terms, I definately don't think I would start out most of the characters at 1st level, even though that might be the " iconic " thing to do. Being a small fry works great at the gaming table, but making a good television series out of a bunch of weak, incompetent characters is not likely to be succesful in this genre. 3rd or 4th would be ideal, I think, so that we don't quite have Mialee laying flat whole groups of bad guys yet with her fireball, but we do have a group that can lay the smackdown on your average gang of goblins and orcs.

Like I said before, we don't want to lay out our hand in the couple episodes, or even the first two seasons. I'd hold back 3/4 of the iconic monsters, and maybe throw in one, or at most two, powerful NPCs to act as patrons, or cameos.

You keep talking about what didn't work in the first two films, and you lambast the people involved as incompetent, but what you don't seem to acknowledge in your criticisms based on the movies is that those elements that didn't work, didn't work because they were implemented by people who were incompetent. If I make a movie about Richard III and it sucks, then I make a movie about King Lear, and it sucks, does that mean that Shakespeare is no good for making movies?

End rant. Now, where was I? Even if my plot idea sucked, or wasn't fleshed out very well, the reason I was thinking of a half-demon fighter/sorcerer is because I wanted that evil-looking, hulking warrior who possessed some magical abilities to boot. No liches, no dark elves, no githyanki, no illithids. They're all scrawny. And the half-demon may also relate better to the audience because he represents the darkest side of a human, and basically has a human outlook, taken to an extreme by his wickedness and power, whereas most of the others are somewhat alien. Aliens mastermind villains are great if the series has some staying power, but its better to cast the net wide before you draw it in tight.

 

[Firebeetle]

You talk about having all of these classic characters and monsters appear, but this is supposed to be a serious venture, not a bloody parade of every last " iconic " thing out there.

I fail to see how including the iconics negates a serious effort. Further, it's proven successful, Hercules was "myth of the week" and worked well beyond all expectations.

If we were to look at this is game related terms, I definately don't think I would start out most of the characters at 1st level, even though that might be the " iconic " thing to do. Being a small fry works great at the gaming table, but making a good television series out of a bunch of weak, incompetent characters is not likely to be succesful in this genre. 3rd or 4th would be ideal, I think, so that we don't quite have Mialee laying flat whole groups of bad guys yet with her fireball, but we do have a group that can lay the smackdown on your average gang of goblins and orcs.

I think they should be low-level and get their butts pasted often. It's fun and increases drama if the audience doesn't know if they'll win or not. If they lose often and die every now and then, you accomplish that.

Like I said before, we don't want to lay out our hand in the couple episodes, or even the first two seasons. I'd hold back 3/4 of the iconic monsters, and maybe throw in one, or at most two, powerful NPCs to act as patrons, or cameos.

What makes D&D different than LotR? iconic monsters and characters. Lay 'em on, we DON'T want to be seen as a LotR rip-off. Remember the Batman rip-off Flash show? Nobody else does either.

You keep talking about what didn't work in the first two films, and you lambast the people involved as incompetent, but what you don't seem to acknowledge in your criticisms based on the movies is that those elements that didn't work, didn't work because they were implemented by people who were incompetent. If I make a movie about Richard III and it sucks, then I make a movie about King Lear, and it sucks, does that mean that Shakespeare is no good for making movies?

I think ideas that don't work really don't work and it is foolishness to pursue them again. If you want to develop a franchise then develop it, don't use it to do something else.

and I've never seen a Richard III or King Lear I didn't like. In fact, Ian McKlellan Richard III is one of my favorite films, as well as "Ran", Kirosawa's Lear adaptation.

End rant. Now, where was I? Even if my plot idea sucked, or wasn't fleshed out very well, the reason I was thinking of a half-demon fighter/sorcerer is because I wanted that evil-looking, hulking warrior who possessed some magical abilities to boot. No liches, no dark elves, no githyanki, no illithids. They're all scrawny. And the half-demon may also relate better to the audience because he represents the darkest side of a human, and basically has a human outlook, taken to an extreme by his wickedness and power, whereas most of the others are somewhat alien. Aliens mastermind villains are great if the series has some staying power, but its better to cast the net wide before you draw it in tight.

I just think it's not the time to discuss plot. If you need a hulking villain, we have Warduke. done. I don't see a problem with scrawny and fans will definately be expecting drow, beholders, liches, and mind flayers.

 

[Kaodi]

Shakespeare

If you have never seen a version of Richard III you didn't like, I urge you to seek out the video documentaryish-thing that features Al Pacino trying to make a production of Richard III. In my ultra-enlightened, vastly superior to all-comers opinion (Did you note the sarcasm?), Al Pacino as Richard III -sucked-. The documentary doesn't show much of a finished production, but I didn't like the feel of him as that character at all.
Now mind you, I have nothing against Al Pacino, and not too long ago I saw him in The Merchant of Venice, as the Jewish merchant (I don't know the name), and I thought he was awesome.
Anyway, in school, we saw the Ian MacKellan Richard III, and I thought it was pretty good.

Back to the real discussion of this thread (No, not Michelle Tractenberg and EuroTrip, though I am a fan of both), you're right that the Myth parade worked for Hercules, but that wasn't really attempting to be anything, just a succesful show. In Dungeons & Dragons, however, the focus is more on one theme drawn out over a lengthy adventure. While making really long story arcs for the series might now work, it would be nice to see some run for 5-7 episodes before being resolved. And in that space, you *could* fit a number of different environments and monsters, like how the Eberron series of modules goes from Sharn, to the Mournland, to Xen'drik, etc. (I'm probably missing some steps, I've never played it, but I think thats the gist of it), where each episode is one part of the adventure.

Anyway, I have to split to go game for the first time in a month, and my sister is on my back (How dare she question my using messageboards, that telephone talker, computer chatting punk?). We can continue this somewhat interesting, perhaps mildly hostile discussion later.

Bye.

 

[Ranger REG]

What makes D&D different than LotR? iconic monsters and characters. Lay 'em on, we DON'T want to be seen as a LotR rip-off. Remember the Batman rip-off Flash show? Nobody else does either.

I do remember. Just didn't know you toddlers have seen it since it was before your time.

Personally, I don't care if they rip off (or perhaps "inspired" is a better word) from LOTR or Pirates of the Caribbeans. If they look at these films as aspiring models for an improved D&D film (a perfect marriage of story and effects), rather than going off the tangent like you -- Courtney Solomon -- did, then we may see some increase in audience attraction and less ranting.