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.

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!

 

[Parmandur]

Wrong.

Because their will never be a universal definition of a "good movie". You have presented you have a strong opinion of what would and would not make a "good movie", and that you will only be happy if your definition of "good movie" is what results. I think that you may agree that others might will certainly have contrary definitions. Therefore such an objective is at least insufficiently formulated.

Having a movie that any one person, regardless of how big a fan they are, thinks is a "good movie" but that is a financial failure would result in at least;
- reduction in resources and support for WotC's future D&D RPG products
- reduction or slowing in the larger social acceptance of D&D

Since;
- their is no universally objective "good movie"
- critics are showing themselves to be less and less representative of society at large
- financial failure would be detrimental to the D&D hobby,
therefore, financial success is the most important criteria or objective.



Agreed. This simply supports the above statement that "their is no universally objective "good movie"".

I agree with you that the most important quality in a D&D movie, especially for hobbyists, is financial success. However, that does not mean that aesthetic judgements are purely subjective in value: but that discussion is outside the pale of hoping All-Spark makes fiscally successful toy commercials.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Gygax made a cartoon about kids from our world being sucked into D&D World, and had a script made for a movie along similar lines. We know nothing about what direction All-Spark will go with the movie post-WB, but a real world people sucked into the game is immenantly possible, and would play in Peoria.

The concept of a modern person being pulled into a medieval-like fantasy world has been done several times before, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. On the good side is Army of Darkness. On the bad side are the 2nd and 3rd In the Name of the King movies. On the less non-medieval side we have John Carter of Mars and now the new Jumanji movie. And of course, as others have said, the Chronicles of Narnia movies. This is a gimmick that I do not want to see used in a D&D movie.

 

[Parmandur]

The concept of a modern person being pulled into a medieval-like fantasy world has been done several times before, sometimes it works and sometimes it does not. On the good side is Army of Darkness. On the bad side are the 2nd and 3rd In the Name of the King movies. On the less non-medieval side we have John Carter of Mars and now the new Jumanji movie. And of course, as others have said, the Chronicles of Narnia movies. This is a gimmick that I do not want to see used in a D&D movie.

Yeah, that's fair: but we'll see what direction they go?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[hopeless]

How about your cast wake up on a shipwrecked filled beach guided by a guard to a camp overlooking the beach.
They're still stumbling when they're advised to make use of the gear they're most familiar with and told they need to venture through a warring battleground to reach the dubious safety of the closest settlement available.
I'm talking a live action version of Neverwinter modified to make a sensible story.
The cast could be time lost travellers from Earth or survivors from the various ships sunk by Valendra and her dracolich...

Would THAT interest you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here’s a thought: let Hollywood do what Hollywood does so well and so often- take a story, file off the serial numbers, and retell it.

Of Unknown Origin and Wrath of Khan are retellings of Moby Dick. Romeo & Juliet, King Lear, Hamlet, The Tempestand numerous other Shakespearean tales have been retold in other settings...even other planets. Star Wars, Firefly and Star Trek were all based on core plots & themes from other movies and TV shows.

There’s all kinds of great stories out there that could work if D&D-cised. For example, Don Quixote could work as a group of retainers help out an elderly knight on his last quest to combat giants. Actual giants.

I once reimagined Man with the Golden Gun as a Wellsian/Vernian circa-1900 supers adventure. It was awesome. Same basic plot could work for D&D characters.

 

[robus]

That’s a little too American Horror Story for safety. I like AHS, but that might be interpreted as being derivative, especially by professional critics.

Well there are the British Carry On films prior to that...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well there are the British Carry On films prior to that...

Never heard of them.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Wrong.

Because their will never be a universal definition of a "good movie". You have presented you have a strong opinion of what would and would not make a "good movie", and that you will only be happy if your definition of "good movie" is what results. I think that you may agree that others might will certainly have contrary definitions. Therefore such an objective is at least insufficiently formulated.

You still talking? It's just you said you were 'done' a few pages up, and your general patronising tone does not automatically qualify you as an authority.

Just because you are unable to hold any movie to some sort of aesthetic quality, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot. Yes these views are always subjective, but there is also still common ground, otherwise movie makers wouldn't bother striving for anything at all. The finances tend to look after themselves if the marketing is done right and the movie delivers with certain standards met. The notion that there is no such thing as a "good" movie, as you have argued is such a one dimensional outlook I'd be surprised if you watch anything other than free porn - which is the logical extent to what you are arguing. If it makes money as the only bottom line, then bully for you.

Personally, I have higher hopes for a D&D movie than that.

 

[LordEntrails]

(EDIT: removed accidental quote.)

You still talking? It's just you said you were 'done' a few pages up, and your general patronising tone does not automatically qualify you as an authority.

Why do you act like this? Regardless of what you think or want, I'm still entitled to partake in this discussion. Even if you don't understand what part of this discussion I am done with. Ignore me if you wish, continuing to insult me shows your character, not mine. Or perhaps we could just refuse to engage in personal insults?

Just because you are unable to hold any movie to some sort of aesthetic quality, doesn't mean the rest of us cannot.

I never said or implied any such thing.

Yes these views are always subjective, but there is also still common ground, otherwise movie makers wouldn't bother striving for anything at all.

That's something worth discussing.
What do movie makers strive for? Seems to me that many of them strive for financial success primarily. Yes their are "true artists" or whatever they wish to call themselves that strive for artistic values above finance, but very few of them are making major movies. But do either of us have support for what movie makers are actually striving for and what movies those movie makers those people are actually making (i.e. film school/academic, Hollywood, etc?)

The finances tend to look after themselves if the marketing is done right and the movie delivers with certain standards met.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I would argue that the financial failure of so many critically acclaimed movies shows that the finances do not look after themselves.

The financial failure of so many movies that have spend loads of money on marketing shows that marketing alone is not sufficient. This gets into what is "marketing is done right". Which I would tend to agree with

The notion that there is no such thing as a "good" movie, as you have argued ...

Ah no. You haven't read what I said carefully enough or have forgotten what you attributed to me above. This is no universal definition of a good movie, or as you attributed to me above, movie quality is subjective. I've never said that quality is not worth discussing. I've said financial success is more important than subjective quality. I think I may have said earlier that I wasn't interested in discussing subjective quality.

...is such a one dimensional outlook I'd be surprised if you watch anything other than free porn - which is the logical extent to what you are arguing. If it makes money as the only bottom line, then bully for you.

Thanks for the insult. You've gotten the last one in so can we stop them now?

Again, I've never said their is only one thing of importance about the movie. I have said financial success is, imo, the most important one. That does not mean that nothing else is important. Though I understand it is very easy to turn any comment into a one dimensional statement so that it can be argued with, such is disingenuous and not productive.

Now, back to my statement that financial success is the most important criteria for the movie. Do you disagree? Why? Please explain.

 

[TrippyHippy]

(EDIT: removed accidental quote.)


Why do you act like this? Regardless of what you think or want, I'm still entitled to partake in this discussion. Even if you don't understand what part of this discussion I am done with. Ignore me if you wish, continuing to insult me shows your character, not mine. Or perhaps we could just refuse to engage in personal insults?

......aaand...STILL talking......I knew that was wishful thinking when you first declared you were 'done!'

I never said or implied any such thing.

Yes you have. You have dismissed all concerns over a directors style - or lack of it - and declared that all our views about what makes a 'good movie' are irrelevant because the only objective measure is commercial success. That has a clear implication.

That's something worth discussing.
What do movie makers strive for? Seems to me that many of them strive for financial success primarily. Yes their are "true artists" or whatever they wish to call themselves that strive for artistic values above finance, but very few of them are making major movies. But do either of us have support for what movie makers are actually striving for and what movies those movie makers those people are actually making (i.e. film school/academic, Hollywood, etc?)

They strive to making a good movie - something you dismiss.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I would argue that the financial failure of so many critically acclaimed movies shows that the finances do not look after themselves.

The financial failure of so many movies that have spend loads of money on marketing shows that marketing alone is not sufficient. This gets into what is "marketing is done right". Which I would tend to agree with

Ah no. You haven't read what I said carefully enough or have forgotten what you attributed to me above. This is no universal definition of a good movie, or as you attributed to me above, movie quality is subjective. I've never said that quality is not worth discussing. I've said financial success is more important than subjective quality. I think I may have said earlier that I wasn't interested in discussing subjective quality.

There is a bigger commercial picture than simply whether the movie makes money or not. The brand itself needs to be enhanced, and that requires a movie that the wider audience, as a collective, generally considers to be good.

Thanks for the insult. You've gotten the last one in so can we stop them now?

Again, I've never said their is only one thing of importance about the movie. I have said financial success is, imo, the most important one. That does not mean that nothing else is important. Though I understand it is very easy to turn any comment into a one dimensional statement so that it can be argued with, such is disingenuous and not productive.

Now, back to my statement that financial success is the most important criteria for the movie. Do you disagree? Why? Please explain.

It's not an insult, it's a logical extension of what you are arguing. If the movie makers just wanted to make money, then they could just do it through making a porn movie - and ignore any aesthetic whatsoever, so long as it made money. For the sake of the brand, and most gamers aesthetic tastes however, I hope they don't do this.