log in or register to remove this ad

 

General D&D Movie Moves Forward With Deal With Former Marvel Exec Jeremy Latcham

The shadow elves from Mystara weren't darkskin. And even if one or more of the heroes are darkskin, there is a little "drow" may become a racist nickname in a future, or for the reverse sexism.

What about a cartoon? Hasbro can do it with its own studio, Allspark. The key is a good story, and they can work with a partneship.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Because Drow have always been depicted as having Caucasian features and gray skin. Blacks do not have Caucasian features or gray skin.
Pretty much every black person I know really strongly dislikes when people refer to black people as “blacks”, just FYI.

Also, Drow have never had grey skin. They have black skin with blue to purple undertones usually. Sometimes light enough to just be dark purple instead, but grey? I’ve never seen it.
All that aside, faithfulness to the exact visual aesthetic isn’t important, at all.
the Drow can be blue and range in features from west African to South Asian, as long as it works on camera.
It's difficult for black to show much dept in art which is why in the old comics Superman had blue hair and we have purple or gray drow.

But yes, I think "the evil elven race is just white people in black face with pointy ears" or "black actors in pointy ears depict a race that overwhelmingly evil" then I think there could well be an issue.

In addition, there are very few people that have skin tone dark enough to match what is depicted for drow.
And there should just be dark skinned elves, anyway. The Drow, if they appear, shouldn’t have human hair or skin tone.

Showing an enclave of good surface Drow who are still very different from their neighbors, and having a character be from there, would pretty well do the trick, IMO.
 

Traycor

Explorer
It just strikes me as a completely unnecessary risk, when there is so much material that can be drawn from that have none of the issues. Why take that risk?
I haven't seen any recent numbers, but drow have consistently been one of the most popular D&D villains. Just like how the Spider-Man movies used Green Goblin over and over or Batman used Joker over and over, the studio is going to default want the most popular members of the rogues gallery for the film.

Really, I don't even think it's a risk if it's done right. The people doing concept designs and the ones doing makeup tests will ask all these same questions, and they will find film-appropriate solutions.
 

ardoughter

Adventurer
I haven't seen any recent numbers, but drow have consistently been one of the most popular D&D villains. Just like how the Spider-Man movies used Green Goblin over and over or Batman used Joker over and over, the studio is going to default want the most popular members of the rogues gallery for the film.

Really, I don't even think it's a risk if it's done right. The people doing concept designs and the ones doing makeup tests will ask all these same questions, and they will find film-appropriate solutions.
The popularity of drow among D&D fans is immaterial. If I were in charge of a D&D movie I would want the D&D movie to be the foundation of a franchise. Like Iron Man founded the MCU. So I just do not see the need to risk any unnecessary controversy. The Drow could be brought into a later movie.

You know what? This D&D movie does not need Drow, it needs Dragons.
 


darjr

I crit!
AhahaahH!!!

WotC wouldn’t include the VERY actors in their new movie. Not right in front of our faces months ahead of any kind of announcement and laugh into their sleeves?

no. They never do anything like that.
 

Traycor

Explorer
It's difficult for black to show much dept in art which is why in the old comics Superman had blue hair and we have purple or gray drow.
The issues you're describing hold true for film. Plus, all art has had purple/blue/gray drow for decades. That's what even the fanbase expects.
 


Traycor

Explorer
"Past peak" was 20 years ago. It's been down hill from there.

Who knows? No one read them.
You got me curious, so I looked up Timeless, the book just before the most recent one, and that book says that it was both a New York Times and USA Today best seller.
 

I will eat my shoe if the movie is a remake of any Drizzt Do'Urden book.

I am fairly certain the movie will take place in modern-day Toril, around 1494 DR, and the Drizzt books started out more than 100 years in the past of FR.
 

You got me curious, so I looked up Timeless, the book just before the most recent one, and that book says that it was both a New York Times and USA Today best seller.
If something even cracks the top 50 or top 100, or however big the official list is, even for one week, it can be called that. More important is how high on the list it got and how many weeks it stayed on the list. For example, Timeless by Salvatore debuted at 14 on the NYT's hardcover fiction list on Sept 22, 2018. It also looks like the NYT only does a top 15 list now, so no clue where it went from there, other than down. And the sequel, Boundless did not even pop into the top 15 when it was released, but no clue if it would have been top 20 or top 50, etc, since the big charts seem to be a thing of the past. And I have no clue how to dive into Amazon's past to see how high they debuted there.
 

Traycor

Explorer
If something even cracks the top 50 or top 100, or however big the official list is, even for one week, it can be called that. More important is how high on the list it got and how many weeks it stayed on the list. For example, Timeless by Salvatore debuted at 14 on the NYT's hardcover fiction list on Sept 22, 2018. It also looks like the NYT only does a top 15 list now, so no clue where it went from there, other than down. And the sequel, Boundless did not even pop into the top 15 when it was released, but no clue if it would have been top 20 or top 50, etc, since the big charts seem to be a thing of the past. And I have no clue how to dive into Amazon's past to see how high they debuted there.
Not sure what point we're trying to make here. It was said that Drizzt stopped being popular 20 years ago... but that book was a NYT & USA Today Best Seller, so we know that isn't true.

Does that mean Drizzt is going to headline the movie? Of course not. But to try to claim he isn't the most popular/well known D&D character flies in the face of facts.
 


Does that mean Drizzt is going to headline the movie? Of course not. But to try to claim he isn't the most popular/well known D&D character flies in the face of facts.
He may be, but given the decline in the D&D novels, and the influx of new younger 5e-only players that position has probably been taken by Nott the Brave and other streaming characters.

But whichever it is, you are still talking about which is the least unknown out of a group of characters no one has ever heard of. There ARE NO D&D CHARACTERS BIG ENOUGH TO OPEN A MOVIE. And thus, no reason not to start with completely new written-to-be-cinematic characters.
 

Drizzt is very popular among fandom, a noble heart with a face of bad guy, but he is totally unknown by the public. A movie or a serie about Drizz will be in the next phase, maybe, but not yet now.

And we can use other different drow characters, for example a female drow with a love-hate relation and lot of unresoluted sexual tension with a male elf. This would allow some pieces of comedy, and public like this. Or a human thief with Caucasian traits who steals the wrong cursed magic item and she becomes a drow (or maybe she asked a wish about longevity as elves and the genie fullfilled her wish with a wicked interpretation).
 

Any "always evil" humanoid race is problematic for D&D, and something to play down or gloss over going forward. And drow are simply not very interesting - they look cheep and they have been done on film before. D&D has a far more interesting carnival of monsters to draw upon.

And frankly, their isn't room for emo angsty characters of any race in a modern D&D movie. Teen angst is something else that has gone out of fashion - probably because today's young people have real problems to worry about.
 

Traycor

Explorer
There ARE NO D&D CHARACTERS BIG ENOUGH TO OPEN A MOVIE. And thus, no reason not to start with completely new written-to-be-cinematic characters.
Personally, I hope it's original (and it very well might be, especially based on old leaks). However, you're quote above is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the film business works. They look for anything to potentially boost the popularity of the end product. A character like Drizzt that still hits the NYT best seller list is one more little boost. There are tons of factors like that. Actors, Directors, Producers, Villains, Creatures, Setting, Cities, etc... All those little things matter, each an attempt to boost the popularity just a bit. Some executive somewhere asked for lists of all the most popular aspects of D&D and asked for them all to be smashed together. Then it's the director/producer/writer's job to push back on that.
 

Traycor

Explorer
A movie or a serie about Drizz will be in the next phase, maybe, but not yet now.
The biggest challenge in adapting Drizzt to film is that his story would need to be changed heavily (think how MCU changes their characters' backstory).

Dark Elf Trilogy - First book or book and a half have no humans. That's problematic.

The Crystal Shard - (Very similar to TLotR) - Powerful artifact that tempts/corrupts - Must assault a tower surrounded by an army of orcs - destroying the tower destroys the army.

Streams of Silver - (VERY similar to The Hobbit) - Help an aging Dwarf king find and reclaim his lost mountain where the dwarves delved too greedily and too deep.

Thus, if (when?) we see Drizzt on film, I think his backstory will be heavily changed or largely glossed over.
 



Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top