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

[Paul Farquhar]

Eberron: Adventures in Xen'drik- Indiana Jones-style jungle-crawling action movie with giants, scorpion drow, and ancient artifacts.

I don't really agree with this approach to Eberron. It's too close to generic D&D. Eberron is an opportunity to have unique Art Deco inspired visuals, and a Noir plot (and nary a pseudo-medievalism in sight). I would go more Maltese Falcon than Indiana Jones.

 

[RobJN]

A movie set in each game world, wherein the heroes find a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, whether it is their actual quest, or just a background treasure piece. Worlds-spanning, plane-hopping hijinks ensue as the various hero groups scramble to keep the assembled artifact out of the hands of Bargle the Infamous.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A movie set in each game world, wherein the heroes find a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, whether it is their actual quest, or just a background treasure piece. Worlds-spanning, plane-hopping hijinks ensue as the various hero groups scramble to keep the assembled artifact out of the hands of Bargle the Infamous.

There's not much point in using a different world unless you are going to tell a different type of story.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I don't really agree with this approach to Eberron. It's too close to generic D&D. Eberron is an opportunity to have unique Art Deco inspired visuals, and a Noir plot (and nary a pseudo-medievalism in sight). I would go more Maltese Falcon than Indiana Jones.

I'd watch anything set in Eberron, and I agree that leaning into what sets it apart from the other settings would help justify making a movie for it. I just immediately jumped to Indiana Jones, because that's how the setting is marketed a lot.

 

[RobJN]

There's not much point in using a different world unless you are going to tell a different type of story.

I didn't say all the movies would be the same story. That's the point of each game world: You can tell a very different story, emphasizing each world's 'niche.'

"Against the Giants" is very different from "Ravenloft," which is different from "Isle of Dread," which is different from "Dragons of Despair."

Take an iconic adventure from each world, adapt to film, sneak in a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, gather up all the loose strings in a Spelljamming/Planescape capstone. That's how I'd use the D&D Multiverse.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I want to see them focus on making one good, self-contained movie.

Quite right.

The desire to launch into a "cinematic universe" is always doomed unless the base is solid.

Let's assume HAT is very successful and popular. The next step would be to either make a sequel, or do another Forgotten Realms-set D&D movie, following different characters (perhaps with some minor crossover/link). If that too is successful and popular, you've got a fairly solid place to go from, but you need some seriously solid thinking about where the franchise is going to go, and to not move too fast. You can't expect to become the MCU, but you might well become something like Fast & Furious.

Basically though they need to land this one, then land another one set in the FR, then probably a sequel to this one, before anyone can even start talking "cinematic universe".

The only other settings which are likely to become relevant in the first few movies would be Spelljammer and Planescape, both of which would potentially work extremely well cinematically and are traditionally closely linked to the FR.

But the main thing would have to be to keep the quality of the movies up. If you wanted to cross over to another D&D world, Tal'Dorei would probably be a better bet than any WotC setting, at least initially. I could definitely see a movie where they ended up Sigil and then going through a few Prime Materials as part of a heist or scheme or the like, with brief visits to places like Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Greyhawk, and so on (carefully avoiding showing any key characters so you have casting freedom later).

Also, it would be really good if they could get an FR TV series or two going (as they'd been thinking) and ensure that they have "aesthetic compatibility" with this. The only slight concern I have about HAT is that the aesthetic isn't quite what I'd expect from "The Forgotten Realms" and is a little bit more "Generic Fantasy" (needs more oversized cabochon-cut gems! ), but that's a key part of what's made both the F&F movies and the MCU work, and what's made the DCU have problems. Aesthetics. Kevin Feige is famous for becoming obsessed with a slightly horrible colour-grading scheme and forcing it on a bunch of MCU movies, but that plus other choices did give MCU movies (and later series) a fairly consistent aesthetic until they had a firm enough base to play with it in more recent stuff (but even, say, Ms. Marvel's more outre aesthetic is till MCU-ish). So they need someone in that Kevin Feige roll to be pulling everything together. That would be Mike Mearls, given he's "Franchise Creative Director". Hopefully he's up to the task and can avoid future scandals.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I didn't say all the movies would be the same story. That's the point of each game world: You can tell a very different story, emphasizing each world's 'niche.'

"Against the Giants" is very different from "Ravenloft," which is different from "Isle of Dread," which is different from "Dragons of Despair."

Take an iconic adventure from each world, adapt to film, sneak in a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, gather up all the loose strings in a Spelljamming/Planescape capstone. That's how I'd use the D&D Multiverse.

It's a nice idea but I think it's putting the D&D first and the audience second, which is a mistake.

The audience needs to get attached to characters and to some extent the world around them. They can't do that if you do a bunch of films about different characters, in different settings, before you loop back. It'd be asking too much, especially as every movie would be an ensemble cast, something even the MCU avoids - the MCU has two ensembles - The Avengers, and The Guardians of the Galaxy (lol I wouldn't have expected to type that in, say, 2010! I would have expected to type "The Avengers and the X-Men"). The Eternals have basically been written out of Marvel's future for the most part, and we will see another small ensemble with the Fantastic Four, but equally, many of the Avengers are retired/deceased or well on the way there and the last Guardians movie is GotG3.

I think you want to stay on the FR, then add in SJ/PS elements before considering other settings. Of course if everything goes great it'd likely be worth making a couple of more experimental movies or shows about other settings to see how people respond.

 

[JEB]

Take an iconic adventure from each world, adapt to film, sneak in a piece of the Rod of Seven Parts, gather up all the loose strings in a Spelljamming/Planescape capstone.

As much as I'd like to see a Rod of Seven Parts metaplot for the D&D film franchise, non-gamers would just assume it's a rip-off of the Infinity Stones metaplot. But maybe they can come up with some spin that'd make it feel fresh.

 

[Shiroiken]

There's two ways they could do a DDCU, but I'd really rather they didn't. Since the first movie is set in the Realms, they could do various movies set in different parts of the Realms where the effects of the previous movie set up the next. The next is that they could do a movie for multiple settings that has a multi-planar enemy (Asmodius or a Demon Lord being the most likely candidate) that culminates in a Planescape film. While a shared universe is part of D&D's culture, it's not something that translates particularly well to film.

 

[Steampunkette]

Heavy Metal and the Loknar.

Some item or character or other piece that seems, at best, tangential to the core story of any given movie but that shows up in all of them, across the multiverse, connecting the stories across time and space as an anthology series that may, or may not, grow to be more.

Maybe it's the Eye of Vecna, or a Flametongue. Or a specific Bag of Holding or something. But it's just there, somewhere, in the background.