Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HeapThaumaturgist" data-source="post: 3765118" data-attributes="member: 12332">Mostly because of the implied oddities in social strata and magical staples that departed from the core assumptions of the game.The D&D Movie would have been most likely best served with either the Points of Light type setting (which is not a new concept, but is a new concept ... I.E. a non-defined setting in which Here Be Dragons is a real warning and not a whole lot is otherwise defined or known) or something like Greyhawk ... which has enough tidbits to be "Oh, WOW!" for the old guard while being fundamentally Bog Standard D&D for presentational purposes.With the ruling wizard caste and the big magical city and the Dragons Aren't Intelligent ... Beholders are eye-laden guard-creatures ... etc.  There wasn't much that made it Dungeons and Dragons.  It was "A Fantasy Movie".   IIRC, the second movie (still in Izmer) then either introduced or re-upped that the setting had no standardized Clerics (though they had a Cleric).I would hazard to suggest that a "good" D&D movie would have presented a group with the Usual Suspects of a defined Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric.  The setting would have included a pantheonistic religious background, cabbalistic wizards in towers, and noble woodland elves (as opposed to the short tribal elves that seemed an entirely different racial stock from their leadership).  The Theives' Guild bit was spot-on.The second movie, for all its lacking, did a better job in many respects.  The Ring of the Ram, a Cleric, etc.  It had many more call-outs to D&D than the first movie, which seemed largely to be A Fantasy Movie with no real setting ties that yelled D&D.--fje</blockquote>

Verification