D&D Movie/TV New D&D Movie: July 23rd 2021

It's official - the new Dungeons & Dragons movie is coming, and it's coming in four years - July 23rd, 2021, as announced by Paramount.

It's official - the new Dungeons & Dragons movie is coming, and it's coming in four years - July 23rd, 2021, as announced by Paramount.

dungeons-and-dragons-banner.jpg


We already know that the movie will be produced by the Lego Movie's Roy Lee, that it will be directed by Rob Letterman (Goosebumps, Monsters vs. Aliens, Shark Tale). Originally scripted by David Leslie Johnson (Wrath of the Titans), it's now being written by Joe Manganelio, might be Dragonlance and then again might feature the Yawning Portal, and will adopt a Guardians of the Galaxy tone. Oh, and that we should take everything I just said with a pinch of salt as the movie appears have jumped from WB to Paramount at some point in the process!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

werecorpse

Adventurer
Like it or not financial success is the most important thing otherwise there is unlikely to be a follow up movie.

I enjoyed Jack & the Beanstalk and John Carter of Mars. Both financial failures so they are solo movies and studios are less likely to take a risk with that style of movie. I'd call them both fantasy adventure style.

I didn't enjoy the Last Jedi but it should be a financial success which is great because while I didn't enjoy it I would like the studio to make more Star Wars films some of which I may enjoy (I enjoyed Rogue One but am ambivalent towards The Force Awakens). I hope the next one is better.

so if the D&D movie is one I don't particularly enjoy but makes tons of money then there is hope for more - some of which I may enjoy.

wierd logic but there you go.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Although actually I agree. I'm sure no matter how good (or bad) the movie is there will be whining because the movie wasn't done exactly according to people's vision of what it should have been. I personally enjoyed The Hobbit movies even if they did differ from the book because it was a high quality fantasy movie (although I think Jackson probably could have done a better job if he had been attached from the very beginning). I liked TLJ because I didn't get all hurt because _____ or when _____ didn't go as I thought it should have because it wasn't my story to tell.

Just for the point of knowing, but Peter Jackson and co were always involved in the production of The Hobbit movies from the beginning, but they wanted Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labrynth) to direct it. He was part of the movie development, and involved in making what was planned to be a two-part movie up until there was a union strike for crew workers. I can't remember what the demands were, but the length of the strikes meant that del Toro couldn't wait any longer and left the project. Jackson then took up the directoral mantle again, the decision to turn it into three movies happened, and they were eventually released with mixed reviews.

I also think the movies weren't bad, just not very good adaptations of the source material - mainly because they tried to turn it into an epic, when it wasn't one. Peter Jacks actually lives about 20 minutes drive from where I live too (had to get that name check in there somehow!).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

werecorpse

Adventurer
Can we get that in writing? And we need more information. Nerf guns? Dual-wielded hand crossbows? Ballistae? ;)

Although actually I agree. I'm sure no matter how good (or bad) the movie is there will be whining because the movie wasn't done exactly according to people's vision of what it should have been. I personally enjoyed The Hobbit movies even if they did differ from the book because it was a high quality fantasy movie (although I think Jackson probably could have done a better job if he had been attached from the very beginning). I liked TLJ because I didn't get all hurt because _____ or when _____ didn't go as I thought it should have because it wasn't my story to tell.

For example if they do a DragonLance movie and cut the whole Goldmoon/Riverwind romance because it's not necessary to the story some people would scream bloody murder about how their story was ruined. So we can speculate all we want about what the movie will be like, but it's not our movie. When it opens up, I'll watch it as someone else's story and vision and judge it on it's merits at that point.

Agreed. But judging it on its merits doesn't exclude disliking it if it takes a known story or character and treats them inappropriately. Like say making Riverwind a backstabbing betrayer. Removing a character from a story but keeping others consistent with material is fine. LOTR did just that.

I dislike TLJ for many reasons not just because of the way it treated known characters. You could easily remove all characters from the first series from TLJ and it would make no difference to the plot or story and only a tiny difference to any other character arcs.
 


Dire Bare

Legend
Like it or not financial success is the most important thing otherwise there is unlikely to be a follow up movie.

I enjoyed Jack & the Beanstalk and John Carter of Mars. Both financial failures so they are solo movies and studios are less likely to take a risk with that style of movie. I'd call them both fantasy adventure style.

I didn't enjoy the Last Jedi but it should be a financial success which is great because while I didn't enjoy it I would like the studio to make more Star Wars films some of which I may enjoy (I enjoyed Rogue One but am ambivalent towards The Force Awakens). I hope the next one is better.

so if the D&D movie is one I don't particularly enjoy but makes tons of money then there is hope for more - some of which I may enjoy.

wierd logic but there you go.

The recent DC Comics movies are a good counter to your "money over all" claim. Wonder Woman was a knock-out commercial and critical success, with both critics and audiences. However, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Justice League were all met with decidedly mixed reactions from critics and movie-goers. But ALL of the films made crap-tons of money. If money were all, there would be no problem. But, Warner Brothers has been working damage control for years now, and has tried (unsuccessfully so far) to right the ship and bring the whole franchise up to the quality of Wonder Woman.

Hollywood films DO have to make money, as they cost so much money to produce and the studios want to make their investments back with lots of profit they can hide in their accounting books. There is very much a level of "this is business". However, movies are also art, and (most of) the folks making them . . . studio execs, producers, directors . . . consider themselves artists and want to create art that people respond to positively, emotionally . . . films that resonate AND rake in the cash.

Jack in the Beanstalk wasn't a bad film, many enjoyed it, but 20 years from now you will likely forget all about it. John Carter was (of course) based on a beloved property, but one most audiences are unfamiliar with, and again, not really a bad film, but . . . . The DC movies are also not bad, but the DC comics fandom is wide and passionate, and the films made too many missteps with beloved characters. The same could be said of the Star Wars prequels and the current Star Wars sequels. They aren't bad films, but the original trilogy, flawed as it was, has taken on almost biblical status.

Of course, another factor, specially with long-standing beloved properties like Star Wars and DC Comics, is that hardcore fans can get nitpicky and entitled, making loud, angry criticisms that leave others scratching their heads in confusion. Hardcore Star Wars fans decided to hate the prequels, but yet the kids who grew up with those movies often love them. The same is happening, although with less nerdrage, with the new Star Wars films. Young people new to the franchise don't have the same reverence for the OT, and often enjoy the newer films. I personally love the DC characters, but didn't grow up reading comics, so I take less umbrage with the new DC films than some of my pals who've been reading comics since they were in diapers.

All of this is generalizing, of course, and YMMV. Money is important with studio films, but it is hardly the only factor, or necessarily the overriding factor. What makes a film "good" or a "success" is complicated, with profit being one important piece of the puzzle.
 


hopeless

Adventurer
I liked the first Hobbit movie, the second was fine just can't get far watching the third!

Doesn't know the Carry On Movies?

Didn't know that was actually possible try to avoid the Carry On Columbus though you'll find it better that way!

Have you watched the "Shine on me" YouTube video?

Now imagine Eberron as a mix of Halo meets Hercule Poirot in a fantasy world!
 



Parmandur

Book-Friend
The recent DC Comics movies are a good counter to your "money over all" claim. Wonder Woman was a knock-out commercial and critical success, with both critics and audiences. However, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman, and Justice League were all met with decidedly mixed reactions from critics and movie-goers. But ALL of the films made crap-tons of money. If money were all, there would be no problem. But, Warner Brothers has been working damage control for years now, and has tried (unsuccessfully so far) to right the ship and bring the whole franchise up to the quality of Wonder Woman.

Hollywood films DO have to make money, as they cost so much money to produce and the studios want to make their investments back with lots of profit they can hide in their accounting books. There is very much a level of "this is business". However, movies are also art, and (most of) the folks making them . . . studio execs, producers, directors . . . consider themselves artists and want to create art that people respond to positively, emotionally . . . films that resonate AND rake in the cash.

Jack in the Beanstalk wasn't a bad film, many enjoyed it, but 20 years from now you will likely forget all about it. John Carter was (of course) based on a beloved property, but one most audiences are unfamiliar with, and again, not really a bad film, but . . . . The DC movies are also not bad, but the DC comics fandom is wide and passionate, and the films made too many missteps with beloved characters. The same could be said of the Star Wars prequels and the current Star Wars sequels. They aren't bad films, but the original trilogy, flawed as it was, has taken on almost biblical status.

Of course, another factor, specially with long-standing beloved properties like Star Wars and DC Comics, is that hardcore fans can get nitpicky and entitled, making loud, angry criticisms that leave others scratching their heads in confusion. Hardcore Star Wars fans decided to hate the prequels, but yet the kids who grew up with those movies often love them. The same is happening, although with less nerdrage, with the new Star Wars films. Young people new to the franchise don't have the same reverence for the OT, and often enjoy the newer films. I personally love the DC characters, but didn't grow up reading comics, so I take less umbrage with the new DC films than some of my pals who've been reading comics since they were in diapers.

All of this is generalizing, of course, and YMMV. Money is important with studio films, but it is hardly the only factor, or necessarily the overriding factor. What makes a film "good" or a "success" is complicated, with profit being one important piece of the puzzle.
Thing is, the DC movies are getting shaken up not because if art, but because of money. The DCEU movies have had ostensibly impressive grosses, but their net has been severely disappointing (though still profitable). They look at Marvel making piles of net income with the Guardians of the Galaxy or Dr. Strange, while the DCEU delivered under projections with Batman and Superman. It's all about meeting the numbers.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top