Ravenloft, the Movie

[Clint_L]

There’s a Dracula movie basically every other year and most aren’t good plus vampire shows so strahd makes more sense than even Dragonlance! Plus it’s vastly different from the other 99%

Most Dracula movies - they go to Transylvania for purchase-the fight over 3 bites-maybe some renfeield stuff-Dracula dies

Strahd brings heroes plural to barovia-the heroine is targeted but isn’t as helpless-search for some artifacts and fights ensue with some cool monsters- the big fight at the castle. . Maybe all the heroes don’t survive/suprise scares etc.

In the last 5 years I just checked there’s been a ton of vampire movies as it’s something Hollywood likes
Sinners
Abigail
Midnight mass
Renfeld
Last voyage of Demeter
Others as well day shift, morbius the invitation. I’d. Count 20 more

Bring in the classic party plus some red shirts from the town. Add in van richten/maybe his son plus the other npcs you got a hit Done right

You are not summarizing most Dracula movies very well.

Typically, they are not primarily set in Transylvania. London is the most used setting, but Demeter (I just watched it; it's not very good) is set almost entirely onboard the ship. And plenty are set in...well, pretty much any location you could imagine. "Dracula in America" is basically a subgenre to itself (c.f Renfield - fun; more of a superhero origin film). Plus there are a host of Dracula knock-off films, which is what this would be - is there anyone seriously arguing that Strahd is not a Dracula knock-off?

Most of these films are bad, but most are also B horror films, which is a wildly inconsistent genre, to say the least. And there are some absolute gems in there (big fan of the original Fright Night, and the Buffy movie, while a bit undercooked, was kind of a Dracula knock-off that launched the iconic series). I don't see much in the Strahd character that stands out as exceptionally different, but, sure, all it takes is a good script and filmmaker.

(Speaking of Buffy, that series' take on Dracula in the Season 5 premiere is excellent fun).

 

[wicked cool]

You are not summarizing most Dracula movies very well.

Typically, they are not primarily set in Transylvania. London is the most used setting, but Demeter (I just watched it; it's not very good) is set almost entirely onboard the ship. And plenty are set in...well, pretty much any location you could imagine. "Dracula in America" is basically a subgenre to itself (c.f Renfield - fun; more of a superhero origin film). Plus there are a host of Dracula knock-off films, which is what this would be - is there anyone seriously arguing that Strahd is not a Dracula knock-off?

Most of these films are bad, but most are also B horror films, which is a wildly inconsistent genre, to say the least. And there are some absolute gems in there (big fan of the original Fright Night). I dpn't see much in the Strahd character that stands out as exceptionally different, but, sure, all it takes is a good script and filmmaker.

The biggest difference could be as it all hypothetical is most Dracula movies he doesn’t fight the heroes except sometimes a quick scene and he uses sometime human followers/brides and it’s never a action movie/tv series

Dementir which was ok starts on a boat that leads to London but isn’t the cargo loaded in or near transalvania . Plus harker often gets trapped there etc as they try to be faithful to the book. Fright night underrated. Big fan of mcdowall

 

[Clint_L]

Because it's apropos as a deconstruction of Dracula tropes and also super entertaining:

 

[GreyLord]

Because it's apropos as a deconstruction of Dracula tropes and also super entertaining:

And then there are the Real Life Vampire which are far more scary than the fictional ones, much more alien in appearance, and have a far higher body count (and may have some of the highest body counts/deaths in the world).

Mosquitos
Ticks
Chiggers
Lice
Bed Bugs

Evil, Evil creatures that I wish we could absolutely exterminate to the very last one.

 

[Clint_L]

And then there are the Real Life Vampire which are far more scary than the fictional ones, much more alien in appearance, and have a far higher body count (and may have some of the highest body counts/deaths in the world).

Mosquitos
Ticks
Chiggers
Lice
Bed Bugs

Evil, Evil creatures that I wish we could absolutely exterminate to the very last one.

I would be cautious about eradicating entire species (families of species, actually) that have been around far longer than humans and are integral to many ecosystems.

Besides, only three of the hundreds of species of mosquitos are a problem for humans.

Wouldn't it make sense to focus on getting rid of the problematic diseases, instead (lyme, malaria, etc.)? Otherwise, if you got rid of those species of mosquito, the disease could find another vector as something else filled the same niche.

Also, animals doing what they do to survive and procreate aren't evil, any more than you are evil when you eat food. Really, from the perspective of almost every non-human animal, plant, fungus, etc., if any species is "evil, evil"...it's homo sapiens.

Edit: if we are focused on body counts...humans better look in the mirror. How many mosquitos have we killed? And everything else that lives?

 

[GreyLord]

I would be cautious about eradicating entire species (families of species, actually) that have been around far longer than humans and are integral to many ecosystems.

Besides, only three of the hundreds of species of mosquitos are a problem for humans.

Wouldn't it make sense to focus on getting rid of the problematic diseases, instead (lyme, malaria, etc.)? Otherwise, if you got rid of those species of mosquito, the disease could find another vector as something else filled the same niche.

Also, animals doing what they do to survive and procreate aren't evil, any more than you are evil when you eat food. Really, from the perspective of almost every non-human animal, plant, fungus, etc., if any species is "evil, evil"...it's homo sapiens.

Edit: if we are focused on body counts...humans better look in the mirror. How many mosquitos have we killed? And everything else that lives?

Okay, how about we just kill any of those living vampires that feed on human blood?

We've already done incalcuble damage to our ecosystems. If we killed these things off at least we would be making life better for many.

Mosquito's are considered the worlds deadliest animal...and for good reason.

Others leave scars, pain, itching...etc. I heard an news report recently that people are stopping using their mosquito nets in Africa due to bed bugs loving to inhabit those nets, creating a problem all around.

I'd first target the Mosquitos, but if there is an insect that lives primarly because it evolved to eat humans...do what we would do to vampires in the movies. We don't care that the vampire needs human blood to exist and to live as normal, we only want it dead. Same goes for the real vampires in our world.

In my own opinion. Let some other creature fill the gap or evolution come in to kill those vampires and nature evolves a system which excludes those types of monsters.

I'm all for it. It would minimize pain, suffering, and disease the world over. I'd say it's a much better goal than the ever rampant desire by many to have money and own more stuff.

 

[Aeson]

This conversation took a turn and I am here for it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

OP asked if it'd be a good movie. Not whether it's feasible.

They're deeply interrelated factors, that are basically impossible to separate without the OP specifying more parameters.

Movies that aren't really "feasible" tend to get very low budgets, usually a lower than what they "need" to do what they want to do.

@Morrus is spot-on in saying "Why wouldn't you use Dracula?". And that means, unless the OP specifies a budget and so on, which the film has mysteriously acquired, we naturally tend to be somewhat realistic about it, and look at what Ravenloft movie would be made, not, in an ideal world, could be made.

The thing is, directing, acting, script, editing, sound design, and actual specific concept can make the difference between a 10/10 movie and an 1/10 one. There's nothing inherent to Ravenloft that makes it likely to produce a good movie. It's not an exceptionally compelling or filmic setting. It doesn't have a story, and "typical" adventure story for Ravenloft is rather hackneyed and seems even a little bit childish. So if anything, there are inherent characteristics of Ravenloft that mean it would be harder to make a good movie set there specifically, than it would be to, say:

A) Make a Dracula movie.

B) To make a fantasy-world set horror movie which wasn't trying to be Ravenloft specifically.

If the question is just "would a Ravenloft movie be a good movie", because we have so few parameters, we kind of just have to look at the factors which make it more likely to be good, or more likely to be bad. And the "likely to be bad" factors applying to a Ravenloft movie wildly outweigh the "likely to be good" ones. I can enumerate them if you really want but it's kind of a laundry list.

 

[MGibster]

The thing is, directing, acting, script, editing, sound design, and actual specific concept can make the difference between a 10/10 movie and an 1/10 one. There's nothing inherent to Ravenloft that makes it likely to produce a good movie. It's not an exceptionally compelling or filmic setting.

What setting is likely to produce a good movie? Because I don't think any of them are. You point out that directing, acting, script, editing, sound design, etc., etc., are what you need for a good movie. Edge Runners isn't a good series because Night City made it likely to produce a good movie, it's good for all the things you say is needed to make something good.

I believer the original I-6 Ravenloft module has the kernel of an interesting story that would make for a good movie. Strahd is one of the most compelling villains in D&D's history and the story of a man trying to control a woman is pretty relevant these days.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What setting is likely to produce a good movie? Because I don't think any of them are.

I mean, probably not one designed for tabletop RPGs, I'd say.

TTRPGs don't want the same things from a setting that a linear narrative like a film or a book does, I'd suggest. It's much easier to try and adapt from a film or a book to a TTRPG (which usually involves a huge amount of blank-filling) than vice-versa.

Edge Runners isn't a good series because Night City made it likely to produce a good movie, it's good for all the things you say is needed to make something good.

Yes, true. Do note, though, that as a fairly generic cyberpunk setting (more generic and vague than 2020), Edgerunners' Night City 2077 setting at least gets in the way of the creatives less than the specific-yet-mostly-boring-and-old-guy-trope-y Ravenloft would.

That's the big problem here. A lot of D&D settings have significant elements that make making a film set in them harder than an original (or generic) fantasy setting created for that movie. You could disinclude them, or massively play them down - some you'd probably have to, but even that takes creative effort and typically drains the energy of a production (in my view) as compared to y'know, not using that setting. Especially if you involved Stradh etc. I think you could get more mileage out of one of the more bizarre and non-Hammer Horror-esque domains of dread. But the more classically Ravenloft you make it, the worse it's likely to be, the less well it's likely to do, too.

Ravenloft thus has, imho, has negative value as an IP, rather than positive. You could make a good movie despite it, but probably not because of it.