New D&D movie in the works?

[Set]

The second movie was meh. It was like a shout-out fest of geeky D&D references, but not a single one of the characters leapt out and grabbed my interest. I didn't even *notice* the wizard in the party until she teleported into a pillar, and the scene where the paladin-dude has to remove her arm was the first time in the entire movie I felt a glimmer of interest in the fate of anyone or anything in the film.

The first movie was deeply frustrating, because it had glimmers of genius, dragged down by a staggeringly bad performance by Jeremy Irons, some almost-as-bad scenery-chewing from Bruce Whats-his-name as Damodar, and a Wayans brother doing what they do best, which is about as bad as Jeremy Irons worst performance ever. The stuff with the rogue going through the maze / challenge in the thieves guild was really cool.

A third movie, if something like that is needed, should be limited to a four person party, with no redundancy, to avoid neglecting each role / character. Having the foes be utterly nonhuman would save any issues with characterizing them (and taking away from character development time for the core four). Mind Flayers or whatever would work fine, distant, alien, malevolent. If the movie works, future films can have more deeply characterized opponents, as the protagonists will be established.

On the other hand, having a series of films set in different settings, one set in the Forgotten Realms, one in Eberron, etc. could be neat. Just a few elements of the relevant culture could be introduced.

 

[Henry]

All the nay-saying that goes on about a "good" D&D movie just means it hasn't been done yet. It's a property rife with opportunity of a great movie.

As for the Drizzt story: I've often thought it would make a good movie, because the storyline has both plenty of action and a story lesson that is pretty easily translatable and digestible to a mass audience.... however, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced there will be some really silly backlash that would probably get legs in the media. Some people got upset about Jar Jar Binks and Temuera Morrison in Star Wars, think about a dark-skinned man who comes from a dark-skinned culture (which is almost exclusively evil), comes out to the surface to hang out with a white girl who is good and true and accepts him? The real plotline is more complex (you'd have to emphasize the prejudice on ALL sides, for one, to remind people what's so special about Bruenor, Wulfgar, and Catti-Brie) but I can already see the poster boards marching up and down in front of the movie theatre, with some group or other wanting its 15 minutes of fame by demonizing the small-budget movie opportunity...

If they did it, I'd say stick with the basic plotline of Streams of Silver, streamline the plot some (maybe Catti-brie was along from the start, or joins them mid-way through after Entreri takes her as bait, and lets her go as part of a plan), and stick to a few key scenes (Drizzt and the companions being turned away at Nesme for Drizzt's race, Maybe drizzt and the rest at Longsaddle to show kindly people who DO accept him, the entry into mithril hall, Drizzt and Entreri's brief battle, and a huge endscene with Shimmergloom that kills off Bruenor but sets up Entreri as the next villain, because Entreri came for the pendant but stuck around for Drizzt, that sort of thing).

Skip Sidney and the Luskan Plotline, vastly simplify the Regis/Gem/Entreri story (maybe in flashbacks for setup for a second film), skip a lot of the Crystal Shard stuff, and simplify or eliminate all the Magic Item talk (except for Aegis-Fang, since it's so iconic to Wulfgar) - the story should be more about the Characters and their basic drives, than about cramming in as many D&D trimmings as possible. The "D&D" will show through in the basics - the dungeon delving, the monsters, the magic, and the FREAKIN' DRAGON.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Henry, I think your worst fears are correct here, especially that there is a 13 page thread here on the meaning of story and roleplay. Talk about angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Thinking some more about this, I do not think that the movie maker should not overly concern themselves with the party nature of the normal D&D game. The game is generally ensemble but the books that I have read are not there is no reason that the film should be either.
Another thing that occurs to me is that a number of tropes in D&D are common to the Western, you could run the plot of Shane, The Searchers, Stagecoach or Gunfight at the OK Coral as D&D modules, or movies.

 

[roguerouge]

The first D&D movie (IMO) had a pretty decent movie buried under poor direction. The acting (mostly) was okay to good, the production values were good, the screenplay was good, the cast was excellent . . . . but all of that ruined by a first-time director with no talent and the arrogance to skip film school and just buy his way into his first film. Which is one of the reasons I think most people hate the film so much!!! It had soooooo much potential squandered!

Obviously, my opinions don't mesh with the standard wisdom!!!

At least you admit that... my friend and I were howling with laughter after the credits, and the rest of the audience joined in. Then one kid, sitting alone in the front row, turned around and yelled that we were ruining the movie. That set off the entire audience again.

I haven't heard an audience laugh so fully at something since they did the Digital sound check at the theater and it was full of scratches and skips.

 

[roguerouge]

As for the Drizzt story: I've often thought it would make a good movie, because the storyline has both plenty of action and a story lesson that is pretty easily translatable and digestible to a mass audience.... however, the more I think about it the more I'm convinced there will be some really silly backlash that would probably get legs in the media. Some people got upset about Jar Jar Binks and Temuera Morrison in Star Wars, think about a dark-skinned man who comes from a dark-skinned culture (which is almost exclusively evil), comes out to the surface to hang out with a white girl who is good and true and accepts him? The real plotline is more complex (you'd have to emphasize the prejudice on ALL sides, for one, to remind people what's so special about Bruenor, Wulfgar, and Catti-Brie) but I can already see the poster boards marching up and down in front of the movie theatre, with some group or other wanting its 15 minutes of fame by demonizing the small-budget movie opportunity...

Drow have always been an extremely problematic part of our hobby, no question. While those novels are about trying to rehabilitate the concept, I strongly doubt that you could do a Drizzt story for a mass audience. The only way I could see it working is as a Blaxploitation fantasy movie, like Shaft wielding scimitars...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Who's the spell-slingin' drow
whose swordsmanship makes you go wow?
(Drizzt!)
You're damn right
Which dark elf
would risk his neck for someone else?
(Drizzt!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
when there's danger all about
(Drizzt!)
Right on
You see this cat Drizzt is a bad mother--
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Drizzt
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
but no one understands him but his woman
(Drizzt Do'Urden)

 

[mhensley]

I was able to watch the entire first film without my attention wandering off. I practically fell asleep trying to watch the second, it was so boring and poorly written.

The first D&D movie (IMO) had a pretty decent movie buried under poor direction. The acting (mostly) was okay to good, the production values were good, the screenplay was good, the cast was excellent . . . . but all of that ruined by a first-time director with no talent and the arrogance to skip film school and just buy his way into his first film. Which is one of the reasons I think most people hate the film so much!!! It had soooooo much potential squandered!

The second film was just terrible. Mediocre acting at best, crap production values, boring story, better direction but still not good . . . . the film just didn't stand out in any way other than the D&D logo at the beginning. And the weird face paint and hair dos of some of the characters, like the priest guy . . . shudder!

Obviously, my opinions don't mesh with the standard wisdom!!!

I totally agree. The first movie was a kooky B-movie but it was fun to watch with my gaming buddies. The second movie put me to sleep.

 

[summonedmonkey]

Personally, I always wanted to see a movie version of the Tomb of Horrors. Don't even mention anything about D&D in the title, just call the movie "Tomb of Horrors". Have a party of 8 or so adventurers (all human) go in, and have only 1 or 2 characters make it out alive. Have one of the characters be a traitorous thief or assassin. The promotions for the film could have a tag line like "Who will make it out alive?", "The deadliest adventure", or "Heroes don't always live."

Hellz yeah, great minds think alike. I, also, have yearned for the very same thing. Great taglines, too, bro.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Who's the spell-slingin' drow
whose swordsmanship makes you go wow?
(Drizzt!)
You're damn right
Which dark elf
would risk his neck for someone else?
(Drizzt!)
Can ya dig it?
Who's the cat that won't cop out
when there's danger all about
(Drizzt!)
Right on
You see this cat Drizzt is a bad mother--
(Shut your mouth)
But I'm talkin' about Drizzt
(Then we can dig it)
He's a complicated man
but no one understands him but his woman
(Drizzt Do'Urden)

I'd watch that.

 

[coyote6]

Whoever it was who suggested that a D&D movie be named (and modeled) after classic modules probably has the best instinct on it.

I agree. Making a "D&D movie" seems to me sort of like making a "Monopoly movie". Are you going to have a movie about people kicking in doors, killing the residents, taking their stuff, and trading out their old gear for new stuff? The story's got to go beyond that, like Pirates of the Caribbean did, to be a good movie. (And frankly, for me, PotC was made by the actors, especially Depp & Rush. Replace them with random actors, and I'd bet you probably don't get sequels.)

So, IMO, if you want a good D&D movie, you need to start with a setting or even a specific adventure.

I'm not sure ToH would make a good fantasy movie; move it to the modern day and loot the CW and Fox shows for young actors, and you could probably get a standard issue PG-13 horror movie out of it. It won't be very D&D-like, though. Leave it as a fantasy, and you'll probably end up with a mess -- horro movie fans would probably be confused as to why as a "Thirteen Ghosts"-type movie is inexplicably stuck in some cheap LotR-knock off, and LotR fans (who aren't D&D players) would be wondering why they're watching a cheesy PG-13 horror flick.

I'd think something from Forgotten Realms would be the best bet; the novels have sold pretty well, for a long time. If not Drizzt & co., then let the Knights of Myth Drannor save the Dalelands from orcs or gnolls or whatever.

After that, something based on Against the Giants or the Slave Lords or ToEE. All three have villains with names, backgrounds, and characters. All the giants might be a bit too expensive for live action, and vulnerable to looking cheesy as hell, so maybe the last two. Of course, trying to cram those module series/mega-adventures into one movie would probably tend to lead towards suckage, so I'd just start at the beginning.

Turn the Village of Hommlett into a movie, or have Our Heroes trying to free loved ones (and the loved ones of their employers, so you can a couple of ruthless mercenary characters) from nefarious Slave Lords.