D&D Movie/TV Here's The D&D Movie Trailer!

"Who needs heroes when you have thieves?" The movie arrives March 3rd, 2023. Here's the trailer! When they said it was inspired by Guardians of the Galaxy, they weren't kidding! We have dragons, owlbears, mimics, gelatinous cubes, quips, and more!



There was also a clip shown at San Diego Comic Con where the party cast speak with dead, and got to ask five questions. Also, apparently, the D&D cartoon characters from the 80s have a cameo!

 

[Emrico]

They want to make the D&D brand a thing, not the Forgotten Realms. And the D&D brand is the one that has the heft to it - the number of people who have heard of Forgotten Realms outside of ttrpgs is mostly CRPG players.

Also the idea that once you make a bad movie with a brand that brand is forever tainted and can never be used again would be news to pretty much all of Hollywood.

Exactly This.

I've been playing D&D for 41 years and in that time have talked about it a LOT to family/friends/extended family.

I could say to any of them that there's a D&D Movie coming out and they would all know pretty much what that meant. If I said there's a Forgotten Realms Movie coming out I would get confused/clueless looks from 90% of them.

People who don't play know the brand. They don't know the setting names.

Paramount & Hasbro need people that don't play D&D but kinda/sorta know what it is on brand recognition to go see this movie if they want to build a film franchise on it.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Or how the Bumblebee movie was a reboot but they didn't want to full commit to calling it a reboot to not alienate fans of the Bayformers movies until the movie did well enough on its own.

If I was marketing this new movie, however, I'd try to get it out there as much as possible that it's unrelated the terrible old movies...

Honestly surprised anyone not into D&D would even remember those movies... they seem pretty forgettable.

The terrible old movie came out only just a bit before the LoTR films. 'X-men' was released around the same time. Spiderman shortly thereafter. This was, to me, the dawn of the mainstreaming of a lot of nerd culture.

For my experience at least, this elevation of comic stuff and LoTR did not carry D&D with it. TBH, I'm not even sure I've seen the movie, so much as I just know it was bad enough that my friends and I had no interest in going to the theaters to see it at the peak of teenage disposable income and free time. Considering the rennaissance in nerd culture that was on the horizon, the proof that we were a big enough, profitable enough audience to finally invest in, I'm not sure if there was a worse time to come out with a terrible movie.

All this to say, I can see good reason to want to reference the old movie for humor or possibly fan service for the few folks who might have seen and enjoyed the movie, but it would seem to be a particularly bad option as a necessary narrative starting place.

 

[Jer]

All this to say, I can see good reason to want to reference the old movie for humor or possibly fan service for the few folks who might have seen and enjoyed the movie, but it would seem to be a particularly bad option as a necessary narrative starting place.

I'm not sure that there's anyone who unironically enjoyed the movie. Although I suppose it's possible.

I do know a lot of people who enjoy the movie ironically. As in during a bad movie night mixed in with another bad movie like Birdemic or Miami Connection. Even there though it's a bit too boring to be the kind of bad movie that a lot of the folks who enjoy bad movies ironically want to watch. (IMO it is fun to watch it as if you're watching someone take their D&D sessions and put it on screen though. Dwarf disappears for a while? His player couldn't make it this week. Magic user just stops casting spells after a while? Must have run out of spell slots. But you have to live at the intersection of "liking bad movies" and "speaks D&D" to appreciate it in that way.)

 

[CleverNickName]

To avoid derailing the thread, I created an Owlbear Druid poll. Check it out.

D&D General - The Owlbear Druid: How Would You Do It? (A Poll)

By now, most of us have seen the trailer for "Honor Among Thieves," the new D&D movie. In this trailer, the tiefling druid Doric (played by Sophia Lillis) using the Wild Shape ability to transform into a friggin' owlbear! (It's at the 1:11 mark, in case you wanna see it again.) The Internet...

www.enworld.org

 

[Von Ether]

Exactly This.

I've been playing D&D for 41 years and in that time have talked about it a LOT to family/friends/extended family.

I could say to any of them that there's a D&D Movie coming out and they would all know pretty much what that meant. If I said there's a Forgotten Realms Movie coming out I would get confused/clueless looks from 90% of them.

People who don't play know the brand. They don't know the setting names.

Paramount & Hasbro need people that don't play D&D but kinda/sorta know what it is on brand recognition to go see this movie if they want to build a film franchise on it.

Agreed. I even suspect that we are reaching a point where the whole hobby is now being called D&D by those who have not to little familiarity.

 

[Staffan]

I know they keep referring to Pine as a Bard and there's reason to think he may not cast spells, but isn't that just bc a Rogue Mastermind with the Entertainer background?

Yes and no. The dude's carrying his lute in a fairly exposed manner into some pretty gnarly situations. That would imply that it's a tool on par with the paladin's sword or barbarian's axe, not just something you use to raise morale around the campfire.

Plus, the way the barbarian mentioned "Plus, he plays the lute" at the end of the trailer implies that it's a Chekov's Lute.

 

[Jer]

Agreed. I even suspect that we are reaching a point where the whole hobby is now being called D&D by those who have not to little familiarity.

That's actually how it has always been. Playing D&D has always been synonymous with role playing for folks who were outside the hobby.

However there are a lot more people who know what "playing D&D" even means now than in the past. Between Stranger Things and the Big Bang Theory my entire extended family apparently now finally understands what kind of game I was playing back in the 80s. Or at least they all want to tell me about it

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not sure that there's anyone who unironically enjoyed the movie. Although I suppose it's possible.

I do know a lot of people who enjoy the movie ironically. As in during a bad movie night mixed in with another bad movie like Birdemic or Miami Connection. Even there though it's a bit too boring to be the kind of bad movie that a lot of the folks who enjoy bad movies ironically want to watch. (IMO it is fun to watch it as if you're watching someone take their D&D sessions and put it on screen though. Dwarf disappears for a while? His player couldn't make it this week. Magic user just stops casting spells after a while? Must have run out of spell slots. But you have to live at the intersection of "liking bad movies" and "speaks D&D" to appreciate it in that way.)

Fair enough. I suspect I haven't actually seen it (or my brain has chucked all memory of it in the trash).

I've watched a lot of movies and there are only two movies I can remember that I've been mad at during the movie in the theater.

1. Batman v. Superman, because gun-toting Batman..c'mon man.

And

2. The Dark Tower because I hoped it would be the gateway to a big screen telling of one of my favorite series, but instead made that series radioactive (We're 5 years removed and I'd be shocked if we don't go another 5 before we even hear any serious rumors of folks taking another stab at it)

I guess I'd be curious to know, for the people who saw it at the time, how damaging it felt to the hobby. Did it feel like the Dark Tower, where it felt like a missed opportunity to bring D&D 'to the masses'? Or did it feel like Sharknado, where it was supposed to be bad and delivered?

 

[payn]

2. The Dark Tower because I hoped it would be the gateway to a big screen telling of one of my favorite series, but instead made that series radioactive (We're 5 years removed and I'd be shocked if we don't go another 5 before we even hear any serious rumors of folks taking another stab at it)

Yeap, not sure what happened there.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Looked like one dude got hit by the acid and it barely phased him.

Ran through the clip at 0.25% speed. Didn't see any direct hits, and the first group we see never gets back on screen. The only person I can think you may be talking about is a guy picking himself up from next to the acid stream, but we don't see how he ended up there. Possibly he was thrown around by the dragon's wings and was never it by the acid.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Really? What else would it look like? That is basically what it is doing after all.

My dragons don't suffer from GERD!

 

[Jer]

I guess I'd be curious to know, for the people who saw it at the time, how damaging it felt to the hobby. Did it feel like the Dark Tower, where it felt like a missed opportunity to bring D&D 'to the masses'? Or did it feel like Sharknado, where it was supposed to be bad and delivered?

So from my perspective, since I was a young man in my 20s at the time...

Years before the movie coming out TSR had gone bankrupt. A lot of us had thought that the hobby was at its lowest point then. Wizards had rescued D&D from the bankruptcy and had come out with a new edition of D&D. They were also kinda-sorta promoting the D&D movie that was coming out later that year - the game books for the new edition started dropping at the end of summer IIRC and the D&D movie was a December/January release I think. The stuff we were seeing about the D&D movie did not make it look good - even shown in its best light the bits we saw looked cheap. However we knew that finally a Lord of the Rings movie was on the horizon - it was already starting to be hyped even though it wouldn't be out for another year IIRC.

I think we all knew that the D&D movie wasn't going to be good but I remember thinking it was worse than I had thought it was going to be. The plot was nonsense, the acting was terrible - Jeremy Irons chewed as much scenery as he could but he couldn't bring any life to the rest of the cast. And Marlon Wayan's character Snails - oof.

The best i can say about the D&D movie is that everyone seemed to agree to just forget it ever happened. I remember thinking it disappeared really quickly from theaters. I don't think any of us thought it would damage the hobby at all - after the roller coaster of bankruptcy and new edition D&D felt like it had momentum to spare - but it definitely felt like a squandered opportunity that wouldn't have happened if Wizards hadn't been contractually obligated (that's how the promotion that Wizards did felt too - contractually obligated. At least it helped to somewhat set expectations for the movie).

That's how I remember it anyway - I'm sure others have different memories.

 

[OB1]

10M trailer views in the first 24 hours! To put into perspective, Avengers: Endgame and Spiderman: Far From Home hit 300Mish views in 24 hours, but are obviously huge, worldwide franchises. Shang-Chi, while part of the MCU, also did 10M trailer views in it's first day.

 

[MockingBird]

Fair enough. I suspect I haven't actually seen it (or my brain has chucked all memory of it in the trash).

I've watched a lot of movies and there are only two movies I can remember that I've been mad at during the movie in the theater.

1. Batman v. Superman, because gun-toting Batman..c'mon man.

And

2. The Dark Tower because I hoped it would be the gateway to a big screen telling of one of my favorite series, but instead made that series radioactive (We're 5 years removed and I'd be shocked if we don't go another 5 before we even hear any serious rumors of folks taking another stab at it)

I guess I'd be curious to know, for the people who saw it at the time, how damaging it felt to the hobby. Did it feel like the Dark Tower, where it felt like a missed opportunity to bring D&D 'to the masses'? Or did it feel like Sharknado, where it was supposed to be bad and delivered?

I watched it as soon as it came to DVD. It was bad. It felt like it was just thrown together with no love for the source material. I wanted it to be good but it just wasn't.

Also, Jeremy Irons was the only good thing about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So that last interview is a little interesting. It seems that they purposefully toned down the magic and "superpowers" for the cast (specifically they were talking about the Storm Barbarian's Rage). I'm sure the Sorcerer was still magic and the druid is an owlbear, but thinking about it, I think that could be a directors decision to help differentiate the cast. If everyone was doing magic then the paladin's glowing runes on their sword or the sorcerers powers wouldn't have been as cool as they seem to be in the trailer.

Can't say if it is a right or wrong decision, but looking at the flaming axe head again, I'm looking forward to a climax where the barbarian explodes into a fiery rage to fight some Red Wizards and their monsters.

 

[J.Quondam]

Even there though it's a bit too boring to be the kind of bad movie that a lot of the folks who enjoy bad movies ironically want to watch.

Those viewers are the ones who are unironically watching it ironically.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

10M trailer views in the first 24 hours! To put into perspective, Avengers: Endgame and Spiderman: Far From Home hit 300Mish views in 24 hours, but are obviously huge, worldwide franchises. Shang-Chi, while part of the MCU, also did 10M trailer views in it's first day.

That doesn't bode well for D&D: HAT, Shang-Chi barely made a profit (roughly 200 million to make, rule of thumb says that much again in marketing, and it only made 432 million), so they really need to up their game on marketing this movie.

 

[DarkCrisis]

So from my perspective, since I was a young man in my 20s at the time...

Years before the movie coming out TSR had gone bankrupt. A lot of us had thought that the hobby was at its lowest point then. Wizards had rescued D&D from the bankruptcy and had come out with a new edition of D&D. They were also kinda-sorta promoting the D&D movie that was coming out later that year - the game books for the new edition started dropping at the end of summer IIRC and the D&D movie was a December/January release I think. The stuff we were seeing about the D&D movie did not make it look good - even shown in its best light the bits we saw looked cheap. However we knew that finally a Lord of the Rings movie was on the horizon - it was already starting to be hyped even though it wouldn't be out for another year IIRC.

I think we all knew that the D&D movie wasn't going to be good but I remember thinking it was worse than I had thought it was going to be. The plot was nonsense, the acting was terrible - Jeremy Irons chewed as much scenery as he could but he couldn't bring any life to the rest of the cast. And Marlon Wayan's character Snails - oof.

The best i can say about the D&D movie is that everyone seemed to agree to just forget it ever happened. I remember thinking it disappeared really quickly from theaters. I don't think any of us thought it would damage the hobby at all - after the roller coaster of bankruptcy and new edition D&D felt like it had momentum to spare - but it definitely felt like a squandered opportunity that wouldn't have happened if Wizards hadn't been contractually obligated (that's how the promotion that Wizards did felt too - contractually obligated. At least it helped to somewhat set expectations for the movie).

That's how I remember it anyway - I'm sure others have different memories.

I thought it was... fine. Even though it had no real dungeons in it. My biggest WTF was the Beholder as a Guard Dog.

The direct to video sequels were better. I think it was the 2nd film (first DTV) that was actually good...ish.

 

[Ixal]

Only saw it now.
Half iconic D&D moments, half cringe with flashbacks to the first D&D movie.
And they seem to have stolen a lot from Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[OB1]

That doesn't bode well for D&D: HAT, Shang-Chi barely made a profit (roughly 200 million to make, rule of thumb says that much again in marketing, and it only made 432 million), so they really need to up their game on marketing this movie.

I was thinking quite the opposite. If they hit an $85M opening and $435M worldwide total on the first film in what is a new franchise, I have no doubt a sequel will be announced quickly.

Dune for example, had 9M trailer views in 24 hours, opened at $40M and grossed $400M worldwide on a $165M budget and is now in production on part 2.

That said, an opening of over $100M and a $600M+ worldwide total would be viewed as breaking out of the core audience and setting up a long running franchise. Getting there will largely depend on how audiences respond to the final film.