Pitch me your ulitmate D&D movie

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy DM_Rocco!

thanks for your time.

I think the Tomb of Horrors is an excellent idea, but I have to disagree with a lot of his treatment.

He is trying to shove a 50 pound tuna down a 5 oz can.

Its the Michael Bay Dungeons & Dragons Movie.

Ergo it will make a fortune at the box office while a vocal fanboy minority deride it at every opportunity.

I think he touches upon a few good ideas, like the named sample D&D 3.+ characters like Lidda and Amber, although, I guess I never thought of Amber as Evil.

Amber is actually dominated by the Vampire Priestess Drelzna.

I also like him bringing back staples from the past like Warduke. I think that is a good idea, mixing the present and the past.

I also like the use of familiar magical items like the ice sword and belts of giant strength,

I was trying to think which items would make for a good visual spectacle, were quintessentially D&D and we had never seen in fantasy movies before.

but I don't think you need to camera zoom in on every magic item every time something special happens. A slight glow from the weapon or item, while keeping a regular camera angle, will make it more realistic and force the watchers to see it again to notice small things like a magic item going off or aiding a character.

I was thinking it would not so much be a zoom in, but more of a 'getting the item in question in shot while a glint of light plays over the item in question.

If you have seen the movie Roadhouse (with Patrick Swayze) there is a scene when some 'toughs' walk into the nightclub and one of them has a 1 inch (razor) blade jutting from the tip of his boot. A glint of light traces over the edge of the blade. Something like that.

I think his treatment also takes away from the whole point of the module. It is not called the life and death of Acererack, it is called the Tomb of Horrors and he skips over the tomb and dumbs it down into a five minute encounter.

Irrelevant. I don't think the module played through as written would make for a great movie. But it has the name, it has the characters and it has the history - so its a useful springboard for the more epic adventure movie I want to see/tell.

I think the subplots are fine, but he obviously has epic, or nearly epic, level characters fighting a Tarrasque, a demi lich and Orcus. The original module was for much lower powered characters that had to think their way through the tricks and traps and I don't think this treatment shows that so much as destroys the legacy of the Tomb of Horrors.

Were Gandalf, Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli not epic or near epic!?

Personally I have become tired of the "we need to start these guys out at relatively low level" approach. Can we not get to see Balrogs, a herd of Oliphants, a flight of dragons and an army of trolls. Lets put some epic spectacle in there.

Also I think you overestimate their power. They only banish a wounded Orcus (not kill him outright), they only subdue a Tarrasque by dropping the Wand of Orcus into its mouth and they only defeat Acererak indirectly (technically Orcus summons him for his failure).

Now, if it was up to me, I would suggest a simple plan of a trilogy.

I already have a quodrilogy planned featuring more icons.

The second, Queen of Spiders, involves Eclavdra (with Kas as her awakened bodyguard) and Lolth attempting to usher in a new Ice Age (to weaken the surface races enough for the drow to overwhelm them). The heroes are joined this time by a Half-Orc Paladin (w. Holy Avenger) and a Half-Elf Bard (w. Dancing Sword); who is really a half-drow.

The third, Isle of Dread, involves Obmi (aided by Lum the Mad) using the Axe of the Dwarf Lords to awaken an army of constructs beneath a tropical island that is home to a Cult of Demogorgon (and involves a fight between a T-Rex shapechanged Druidess character and Demogorgon...in something of a nod to King Kong). New characters added to the group are a Ranger (we have to give him the force bow) and a female Druidess.

The fourth I'll keep under wraps for now.

First make The Tomb of Horrors, then the sequel, Return to the Tomb of Horrors (based on the module of the same name) and then the final installment, Horrors of the Night.

Each movie would be very basic in design

The Tomb of Horrors – a band of mismatched friends join together to save their homeland from the horrors of a deadly beast. Their only hope is a whisper in the dark that promises wealth and power should they find and defeat the ancient and fabled tomb of Horrors.

Return to the Tomb of Horrors – Evil is growing stronger in the dark places of the world and whispers of a powerful Wizard thought destroyed surface. The party of friends, retired from their now famous exploits in the first movie, are again lured to investigate the Tomb of Horrors as rumors of a dark temple creep into the realms. It is disturbing in the extreme to learn that this temple is built on the once vanquished sight of the Tomb of Horrors. The part basically follows most of the treatment for the adventure of the same name with some major side plots of evil revealed in a truly Darth Vader fashion.

Horrors of the Night – in the end of the 2nd movie, the party defeats for all time Acererack, but while they are away defeating the ancient wizard, Vecna and Venger find a way to unleash Orcus upon the world and this movie would bring about a battle of truly epic proportions as they take on the tribunal of the three most evil icons of the D&D universe.

The first part of his treatment is interesting and I like the idea of showing the bad guys and a little power primping. I think in the shadows there should be three cloaked or shadowed wizards who you really don't know anything about, but for nostalgia sake you later find out in the sequel that they are Vecna, Orcus and for those of old schoolers, Venger (but no Dungeon Master as that would be dorky). Now you have a tribunal of the most evil and vile wizards that D&D has ever known. They play no role in the first movie, but begin to show their vile nature in the sequel.

I would then have demons or imps or other agents of evil, use trickery and deceit to lure the party into the Tomb of Horrors. The main focus of the movie should be finding the Tomb and dealing with the Tomb. The party can be lured there by the promise of gold or an artifact long buried that can aid in the destruction of a great evil, like a Tarrasque for example, but I wouldn't dismiss the Tomb into a secondary role.

Too slow for my tastes. Hit the audience hard from the start and gather pace from there. I want to see a D&D Blockbuster, not a Direct-to-DVD release.

I would have to spend more time than I currently have to properly go over all of it. The long and the short of it is that I think he is on to something but I think he is also in desperate need of an editor. He could get all of what he wants done in a really cheesy movie or divide it over three movies, slow things down a bit to give proper characterization and develop a more secure and solid story.

Note: this is no slight to his hard work, just a simple critique.

I enjoy constructive criticism, so thanks for that. As for needing an editor you are probably on to something there, although the synopsis is unfinished clearly.

I do disagree with you on slowing things down or spreading it out into 3 movies. 'Proper Characterization' doesn't mean we cannot have great spectacle.

 

[DM-Rocco]

Hey, nice to see you again. I have been absent lately trying to write my magazine.

Howdy DM_Rocco!

thanks for your time.



Its the Michael Bay Dungeons & Dragons Movie.

Ergo it will make a fortune at the box office while a vocal fanboy minority deride it at every opportunity.

Well, there is something to be said about being able to have an enduring memory and a worth while project. I personally don't go for movies that are, "non-stop roller coaster rides from beginning to end." Shoot'em up was a good example of a really crappy movie with lot of action. The Sarah Conner Chronicles is a good example of a TV drama that has very good characterization and plenty of action, well balanced.

Amber is actually dominated by the Vampire Priestess Drelzna.

Did I miss that in the treatment or is that just inside info?

I was trying to think which items would make for a good visual spectacle, were quintessentially D&D and we had never seen in fantasy movies before.

I think flaming weapons, like in the Scorpion King, kind of suck, but that may just be the manner in which they are done. Visual effects should be like good armor or a steel weapon. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Take the first D&D movie, those weapons were obviously foam, no person is going to wield that clumsy huge foam ax and that armor really blew, it looked like tin foil. Now compare with Willow or Lord of the Rings and you have real steel weapons and functioning armor. It is there to support the character not steal the scene from the actor.

Think back on Gandolf battling the Balrog. His sword was glowing and it was obvious it held power, but it didn't glow every time he drew it and it didn't steal from his scene.

I was thinking it would not so much be a zoom in, but more of a 'getting the item in question in shot while a glint of light plays over the item in question.

If you have seen the movie Roadhouse (with Patrick Swayze) there is a scene when some 'toughs' walk into the nightclub and one of them has a 1 inch (razor) blade jutting from the tip of his boot. A glint of light traces over the edge of the blade. Something like that.
.

Something like that is fine, but when you start talking about a CSI shot every time a sword is thrust or a hammer hits, it gets old quick. Even in this you should just limit it and allow the story to flow. This is mainly something that should be done with the director, the actors and the camera, not close up zoom every time someone whips out a new magic items. Trust me, less is more and geeks everywhere will slow down a scene to find out why something happened.

Irrelevant. I don't think the module played through as written would make for a great movie. But it has the name, it has the characters and it has the history - so its a useful springboard for the more epic adventure movie I want to see/tell.

.

Then it shouldn't be The Tomb of Horrors, it should be called the Throne of Bloodstone.

The tomb itself is the protagonist and it is the main villian everyone is trying to defeat, Arcererak is just secondary. You can make an excellent movie based just on the adventure. There are plenty of horror flicks that deal with haunted ships, houses, castles, etc. You just need to make the Tomb have more of a personality and flesh a few things out. I would rather start simple in the first movie and just have one, maybe two locations, a small cast and a great story. You can do a lot with just the tomb and I think you are just using the tomb for name recognition and you will get a lot of people upset with you that you glossed over so much of the tomb.

Were Gandalf, Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli not epic or near epic!?

Personally I have become tired of the "we need to start these guys out at relatively low level" approach. Can we not get to see Balrogs, a herd of Oliphants, a flight of dragons and an army of trolls. Lets put some epic spectacle in there. .

I have nothing against epic characters, but it doesn't make a good starting ground.

No one, (I should correct myself and say mostly no one, ENers can be very fickle) wants to see a power group of characters dodge bullets without harm and kill everything with the blink of an eye lid.

That said, you don't have to show each being born and following them through childhood either. The original module was designed for mid level characters and there is nothing wrong with showing characters in the so called "Sweet Spot". It builds the characters into something more than could be accomplished by just having them power through everything, plus, again, you dismiss the Tomb be treating it as secondary.

Have them become epic in the sequel and then uber epic or even one become a God, in the 3rd movie. That is a more natural progression and opens more doors for adventure.

Also I think you overestimate their power. They only banish a wounded Orcus (not kill him outright), they only subdue a Tarrasque by dropping the Wand of Orcus into its mouth and they only defeat Acererak indirectly (technically Orcus summons him for his failure)..

Just a reminder, The Draco Lich was only a CR27 encoutner that the PC were able to battle because of uber bonuses. Orcus is still Orcus, with one arm or both. You have to be of a certain power level just to even think of battling them, so I really don't think I am over stating that at all.

You might be too closely tied to the Immortal Handbook to make a non epic movie

I already have a quodrilogy planned featuring more icons.

The second, Queen of Spiders, involves Eclavdra (with Kas as her awakened bodyguard) and Lolth attempting to usher in a new Ice Age (to weaken the surface races enough for the drow to overwhelm them). The heroes are joined this time by a Half-Orc Paladin (w. Holy Avenger) and a Half-Elf Bard (w. Dancing Sword); who is really a half-drow.

The third, Isle of Dread, involves Obmi (aided by Lum the Mad) using the Axe of the Dwarf Lords to awaken an army of constructs beneath a tropical island that is home to a Cult of Demogorgon (and involves a fight between a T-Rex shapechanged Druidess character and Demogorgon...in something of a nod to King Kong). New characters added to the group are a Ranger (we have to give him the force bow) and a female Druidess.

The fourth I'll keep under wraps for now.

Well, if this is a serious project you are working on to flesh out and present to Scott Rouse for consideration of a D&D movie, I would be happy to look it over and help you out so you don't screw it up

Seriously, if this is a serious proposal, I would be interested in lending a hand.

Too slow for my tastes. Hit the audience hard from the start and gather pace from there. I want to see a D&D Blockbuster, not a Direct-to-DVD release.



I enjoy constructive criticism, so thanks for that. As for needing an editor you are probably on to something there, although the synopsis is unfinished clearly.

I do disagree with you on slowing things down or spreading it out into 3 movies. 'Proper Characterization' doesn't mean we cannot have great spectacle.

LOTR had great action yet it was slow enough to have real drama and good characterization. I think you are trying to cover way too much in a short span of time, but the only real way to know is to do a rough draft of a screen play.

 

[Av3rnus]

Don't really have a pitch, but I do have a few thoughts.

First off, I definitely agree that D&D would probably work better, in terms of story, as a TV series. Instead of trying to cram as many aspects of D&D as possible into two hours, they could instead be dropped in as needed: this week the adventurers battle a white dragon in a wintry valley, and next week they sneak through a filthy sewer only to find their way barred by an otyugh, babbling to itself with all the coherence of a four-year-old.

Hercules/Xena would certainly be good examples to follow, but even better might be Stargate SG-1/Atlantis. I think those latter two in particular strike a good balance of action, suspense, drama, and humor. They also do a good job of keeping the characters working together as an ensemble, without any of them stealing the show too much.

Animated could work, but my tendency is to imagine D&D as live-action, and I think it would have greater potential for success as such. It would be tricky, though, to keep the budget under control without skimping on monsters and exotic locations.

A live-action movie could certainly get away with a much higher budget. In the case of a movie, my best suggestion would be this:

Use the 'points of light' setting, and get Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy, Blade II, Pan's Labyrinth) to make it.

Want an elaborate and thrilling fight, with magic slinging left and right? He can do that. Want good performances out of actors under a ton of makeup and prosthetics? He can do that. Want creepy, malevolent monsters and suspenseful dungeon crawls? He can do that. With del Toro, I think we'd get a very good action-adventure fantasy that respects the source material.

 

[diaglo]

i think i missed this the first time around.


Director William Friedkin 12 Angry Men(1997) remake of the 1957 movie
Storyline
A bunch of high school buddies get together at the funeral of their DM. (Big Chill scene) The widow of the DM invites them to her house to have anything of his old junk. She is living in the house of the DM's parents. In the basement they discover the game they left behind after a big argument. They decide to finish the module. But they need replacements for some of the group. The DM for sure. As they argue over who will DM. Flash back scenes of their youth are interspered. What was going on back then. What they do now is discussed. How they got out of touch.
They reenact the argument. (12 Angry Men style). The storyline is about them and how D&D influenced them. How they succeeded or failed in careers, marriages, business, or life b/c they played.

Most of the scenes take place in the basement of the house. With intermixed flashbacks to the present or the depictions of some glorious old battles their PCs fought.

edit: plenty of "misremembered" disagreements too. and also in jokes. and quotes from books and movies.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't have a pitch, I just have a suggestion if something is ever really done: Keep the D&Disms to a bare minimum. When you put them in, make it subtle. When it is too obvious it makes me feel like somebody is trying to prove it's a D&D movie because they say it is D&D rather than making the movie feel like D&D.

You can use the rules of the game to put recognizable things into the movie, but don't call attention to it. Let the fans of the game figure out what spell was cast or what feat a character has; don't have them shout it out when casting, or discuss around the fire how they can use their "Split the Tree" ability to take down two foes.

If its done right a D&D movie will market the game by being fun and exciting and make some people realize they can use the game to create their own fun and exciting stories.

 

[DM-Rocco]

i think i missed this the first time around.


Director William Friedkin 12 Angry Men(1997) remake of the 1957 movie
Storyline
A bunch of high school buddies get together at the funeral of their DM. (Big Chill scene) The widow of the DM invites them to her house to have anything of his old junk. She is living in the house of the DM's parents. In the basement they discover the game they left behind after a big argument. They decide to finish the module. But they need replacements for some of the group. The DM for sure. As they argue over who will DM. Flash back scenes of their youth are interspered. What was going on back then. What they do now is discussed. How they got out of touch.
They reenact the argument. (12 Angry Men style). The storyline is about them and how D&D influenced them. How they succeeded or failed in careers, marriages, business, or life b/c they played.

Most of the scenes take place in the basement of the house. With intermixed flashbacks to the present or the depictions of some glorious old battles their PCs fought.

edit: plenty of "misremembered" disagreements too. and also in jokes. and quotes from books and movies.

I think this works in more ways than one.

First, you get around the dork factor of things like a mage say "magic Missile" or "fireball" when she cast a spells.

Two, you can have scenes from the fantasy world, like a rogue trying to pick a lock and then real world comments mixing in, like someone behind the rogue saying, "I paid for pizza last time, it's you turn."

Granted, it is not going to be your LOTR action film, but the D&D fans will pick up on everything and the concept of 12 angry PCs is a theme that just about anyone, even non D&D dorks, can enjoy.

You could even have a whole Gaurdian of the Flame type thing happening.

A different approach, but I think it is brilliant in its simplicity.

 

[Klaus]

I think this works in more ways than one.

First, you get around the dork factor of things like a mage say "magic Missile" or "fireball" when she cast a spells.

Two, you can have scenes from the fantasy world, like a rogue trying to pick a lock and then real world comments mixing in, like someone behind the rogue saying, "I paid for pizza last time, it's you turn."

Granted, it is not going to be your LOTR action film, but the D&D fans will pick up on everything and the concept of 12 angry PCs is a theme that just about anyone, even non D&D dorks, can enjoy.

You could even have a whole Gaurdian of the Flame type thing happening.

A different approach, but I think it is brilliant in its simplicity.

If stuff like this is what you want in a D&D movie, there's The Gamers and The Gamers 2 to take care of that.

Specially 2. 2 rocks.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy DM-Rocco!

Hey, nice to see you again. I have been absent lately trying to write my magazine.

Good luck with that, been a bit busy myself...then again I am always busy.

Well, there is something to be said about being able to have an enduring memory and a worth while project. I personally don't go for movies that are, "non-stop roller coaster rides from beginning to end."

You must hate the Indiana Jones, Star Wars and Pirates of the Caribbean movies then?

Shoot'em up was a good example of a really crappy movie with lot of action.

I haven't actually seen that yet, although from the trailer it seems more a kind of over-the-top movie with nods to Japanese Anime or Video Games.

The Sarah Conner Chronicles is a good example of a TV drama that has very good characterization and plenty of action, well balanced.

Saw the first episode, it was interesting, but I need to see more to form an opinion.

Did I miss that in the treatment or is that just inside info?

I certainly didn't make it clear enough, apologies for that.

I think flaming weapons, like in the Scorpion King, kind of suck, but that may just be the manner in which they are done. Visual effects should be like good armor or a steel weapon. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Take the first D&D movie, those weapons were obviously foam, no person is going to wield that clumsy huge foam ax and that armor really blew, it looked like tin foil. Now compare with Willow or Lord of the Rings and you have real steel weapons and functioning armor. It is there to support the character not steal the scene from the actor.

Think back on Gandolf battling the Balrog. His sword was glowing and it was obvious it held power, but it didn't glow every time he drew it and it didn't steal from his scene.

Agreed. As I state at the top of my synopsis, a fantasy movie needs to be played more seriously to be taken seriously. That would extend to the armour and weapons.

Something like that is fine, but when you start talking about a CSI shot every time a sword is thrust or a hammer hits, it gets old quick. Even in this you should just limit it and allow the story to flow. This is mainly something that should be done with the director, the actors and the camera, not close up zoom every time someone whips out a new magic items. Trust me, less is more and geeks everywhere will slow down a scene to find out why something happened.

It certainly isn't something I would want overplayed.

Then it shouldn't be The Tomb of Horrors, it should be called the Throne of Bloodstone.

The latter title is meaningless, the casual moviegoer has no conception of Bloodstone, but they'll have an idea what a tomb is and what horrors are.

Also Throne of Bloodstone isn't the most iconic adventure and other than featuring Orcus has no bearing on my synopsis.

The tomb itself is the protagonist and it is the main villian everyone is trying to defeat, Arcererak is just secondary.

Irrelevant, we are not making the module into a movie. We are making a D&D movie that uses elements from the module.

You can make an excellent movie based just on the adventure.

Debatable.

There are plenty of horror flicks that deal with haunted ships, houses, castles, etc. You just need to make the Tomb have more of a personality and flesh a few things out. I would rather start simple in the first movie and just have one, maybe two locations, a small cast and a great story.

'Start simple' to me means televison show, or direct-to-dvd movie. Thats all well and good, but I am trying to design a D&D Action-Adventure Fantasy Blockbuster.

You can do a lot with just the tomb and I think you are just using the tomb for name recognition

Correct. I am using the name, the villain and the tomb itself (each D&D movie needs a Dungeon). Beyond that the module is irrelevant for our purposes, though some of the Tomb's traps and Monsters (the Skeletal Tomb Guardian for instance) may appear.

and you will get a lot of people upset with you that you glossed over so much of the tomb.

Is this the "Flames on Optimus" debate all over again?

I have nothing against epic characters, but it doesn't make a good starting ground.

No one, (I should correct myself and say mostly no one, ENers can be very fickle) wants to see a power group of characters dodge bullets without harm and kill everything with the blink of an eye lid.

So the (single handed) defeat of the Balrog, (single handed) defeat of a Dragon and Witch King and (single handed) defeat of an Oliphant by LotR characters had ENWorlders up in arms did they?

That said, you don't have to show each being born and following them through childhood either. The original module was designed for mid level characters and there is nothing wrong with showing characters in the so called "Sweet Spot". It builds the characters into something more than could be accomplished by just having them power through everything, plus, again, you dismiss the Tomb be treating it as secondary.

As far as I am concerned the characters would be about 13-15th-level (In terms of 3rd Edition that is). The heroes would be notably weaker than the villains but through teamwork, sacrifice and a bit of luck would win through.

Have them become epic in the sequel and then uber epic or even one become a God, in the 3rd movie. That is a more natural progression and opens more doors for adventure.

I hadn't planned for any of them to necessarily become epic or a god in any of the movies. Though if 14th (average) in the first movie, maybe they would be about 2 levels higher in each sequel.

With the exception of the hobbits, none of the fellowship seemed to level-up over the course of the trilogy because they were all seasoned adventurers.

Just a reminder, The Draco Lich was only a CR27 encoutner that the PC were able to battle because of uber bonuses.

Orcus is still Orcus, with one arm or both. You have to be of a certain power level just to even think of battling them, so I really don't think I am over stating that at all.

In the context of both stories I don't think Orcus is necessarily more powerful than the Balrog from LotR.

You might be too closely tied to the Immortal Handbook to make a non epic movie

If by epic you mean epic spectacle (as opposed to something 21st-level and counting) then I agree.

Well, if this is a serious project you are working on to flesh out and present to Scott Rouse for consideration of a D&D movie, I would be happy to look it over and help you out so you don't screw it up

Hadn't thought of sending a proposal to Scott, but now that you mention it maybe I should tidy things up a bit, flesh it out a bit more and send it to him, you never know your luck.

Seriously, if this is a serious proposal, I would be interested in lending a hand.

Thanks, glad you think it has potential. I always consider myself a designer first and writer second, so its nice to get an opposed viewpoint.

LOTR had great action yet it was slow enough to have real drama and good characterization. I think you are trying to cover way too much in a short span of time, but the only real way to know is to do a rough draft of a screen play.

While the inevitable comparisons would happen, I am not trying to make the next Lord of the Rings, I am trying to make the next Dungeons & Dragons movie. If every fantasy movie has to be the next Lord of the Rings then you may as well just shoot yourself in the head rather than try.

While I love the Lord of the Rings movies, I do think their long running time drags a bit too long. I'd be more likely to pop in one of the Conan dvds for my quick self-contained fantasy fix than have to set aside 10 hours to watch the Rings trilogy.

Also its worth pointing out that D&D is more fantastical than Middle-Earth. Its high fantasy, where the heroes all have magic items. To that extent the D&D movie should be more brash and in a way D&D probably has more in common with Star Wars than Lord of the Rings (in terms of feel), at least thats the way I would want to represent it.

 

[Scott_Rouse]

Wow... that would be the equivalent of making the Spider-Man movie about laying around and reading comic books.

I think more like High Fidelity or Empire Records in a game store

 

[Scott_Rouse]

JonRog wrote The Core, Transformers and is now writing DC Comics' Blue Beetle (soon to leave for two unnanounced projects).

He is also a 4e playtester