The Best Movie About RPGs in 2018 (So Far)

There's been plenty of talk about the future of movies inspired by tabletop games, but the end of 2017 brought a surprise: a movie about a game that doesn't exist. Although it uses video game tropes, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle has a lot to say about role-playing games. If you haven't seen the movie, this discussion contains SPOILERS.

[h=3]"Many Effects"[/h]The concept behind Jumanji was established in a children's book by Chris Van Allsburg: kids play a board game and the game's effects seep into real life. Jumanji was a jungle-themed game where the players would face increasingly hostile animals and characters.

The book was the inspiration for the movie of the same name, starring Robin Williams as Alan Parrish, a boy trapped in the game for over 26 years before Judy and Peter Shepherd unwittingly release him. Like the book, it featured animals and a big game hunter named Van Pelt. Williams mentioned that the name of the game was actually the Zulu word for "many effects," but that's more speculation than fact (some supposedly Zulu speakers have contradicted this claim).

The most recent film, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, is less a sequel and more a reimagining, with a character similar to Parrish trapped in the game, Alex Vreeke. Before he is sucked into the game, Vreeke rejects it with a sneer, saying, "who plays board games anymore?" In a sign of the changing times, Jumanji refashions itself as a video game -- but despite its video game roots, this new version of Jumanji is a lot like a role-playing game.
[h=3]Welcome to the Jungle[/h]The protagonists are four archetypes established by The Breakfast Club: the brain (Alex Wolff as Spencer Gilpin), the athlete (Ser'Darius Blain as Anthony "Fridge" Johnson), the basket case (Morgan Turner as Martha Kaply), and the social media-obsessed princess (Madison Iseman as Bethany Walker). They're in detention for a variety of reasons, which turns into an exercise in recycling magazines by removing staples. It also just happens to have the video game version of Jumanji, which of course our four hapless teens decide to play. That's when the fun really starts.

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is as much a deconstruction of poor game design as it is a takedown of high school tropes. Spencer's avatar is Dr. Smolder Bravestone the archaeologist (Dawyne Johnson, intentionally playing against type as Spencer's nebbish germaphobe). Fridge picks Franklin "Mouse" Finbar the zoologist (Kevin Hart), because he misread his name as "Moose." Mouse is slow, weak, and vulnerable to cake, but he carries the backpack for our hero -- an inverse of Fridge and Spencer's relationship, in which Spencer does Fridge's homework for him. Martha ends up as Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan), a redheaded "dance fighter" who wears skimpy outfits. Most hilarious of all is poor Bethany, who is transposed into the "curvy genius," Professor "Shelly" Oberon (Jack Black).

Jumanji goes beyond mocking video games into what it means to role-play someone else who is radically different from you. Each character has three lives, which means that the players take more risks early on and become more cautious as the game progresses. At heart Jumanji wrestles with what Live-Action Role-Players (LARPers) call "bleed".
[h=3]Bleeding Out[/h]LARP scholar Sarah Lynne Bowman explains what bleed is in the context of role-playing:

Participants often engage in role-playing in order to step inside the shoes of another person in a fictional reality that they consider “consequence-free.” However, role-players sometimes experience moments where their real life feelings, thoughts, relationships, and physical states spill over into their characters’ and vice versa. In role-playing studies, we call this phenomenon bleed.


Bowman classifies bleed in two forms: bleed-in, in which feelings of the player affect the character; and bleed-out in which events in the game affect the player. Bleed-in is the source of much humor in Jumanji, where the strong are now the weak, the weak now the strong, and females are now males. The players discover that they must rely on other strengths than the archetypes associated with them (strong, attractive, smart). In doing so, the characters help their players grow emotionally: Spencer learns to be brave, Fridge learns to be a team player, Martha becomes more confident and Bethany learns to sacrifice for others.

Although Jumanji is nominally about video games, it emphasizes teamwork as necessary to survival. Co-creator of D&D, Gary Gygax, would agree:

The essence of a role-playing game is that it is a group, cooperative experience. There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you’re involved in, whether it’s a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agents or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.


In Jumanji, the only way the players can succeed is by working together. It's a lesson we can only hope the upcoming D&D film will feature prominently.

Mike "Talien" Tresca is a freelance game columnist, author, communicator, and a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to http://amazon.com. You can follow him at Patreon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Michael Tresca

Michael Tresca

My biggest criticism is how they ended the second movie in the middle of a fight with Smaug, and then finished him off at the beginning of the Third Movie, and the rest of the Movie was of five armies fighting over the Dragon's treasure. Usually in a Dungeons and Dragons adventure, what happens after the party defeats the dragon is a bit anticlimactic. Its fine if you are watching all three movies at home one after another, but if you just bought movie tickets and you are watching the movie in a theater, it kind of sucks!
I agree with that. The idea of naming a movie "The Desolation of Smaug" while leaving the actual desolation till the next movie made no sense to me.

I'd have been quite happy for The Hobbit to have been split into two, leaner, two hour movies - which was the original plan - and cut out an awful lot of the extra stuff that they added to the story. For me, as an example, one of the charms of Gandalf in The Hobbit was the way in which he kept disappearing and then popping up again. In the movies, they tried to include all his activities taken from LotR appendices and, in my mind, just made the tone less upbeat. The Hobbit movies weren't a complete disaster, but they were at their best when they actually had a bit of a romp like in the book, and spent less time trying to get a load of unsolicited backstory into the mix. The confused tone permeated into a lot of extra things like fight sequences - which had a more cartoony feel (killing orcs with single shots, headbutts, etc) but we were also meant to feel sad when characters died.

So, yep, lots of problems. It does provide some pointers to how to do a good D&D movie though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Lord of the Rings
[video=youtube_share;V75dMMIW2B4]https://youtu.be/V75dMMIW2B4[/video]
Dungeons & Dragons Movie
[video=youtube_share;t3Z-Hh1p1P4]https://youtu.be/t3Z-Hh1p1P4[/video]
How do these two compare? Lord of the Rings shows how a Dungeons & Dragons movie could be done better.
What do you think?

Here are some things that come to mind.
1) What's with the blue lipstick? That doesn't help.
2) Maniacal laughter?
3) Over acting
4) Characters that just don't seem to belong in the setting.

The Lord of the Rings feels more medieval, it doesn't feel like a bunch of actors playing dress up. One character seems to play the role of Jar Jar Binks in the Dungeons & Dragons movie.

Lord of the Rings had a few comedic moments concerning a pair of hobbits, but the movie had a deadly serious quality to it. Sauron makes a much better villain than the guy with the maniacal laughter.

Any other observations?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

My biggest criticism is how they ended the second movie in the middle of a fight with Smaug, and then finished him off at the beginning of the Third Movie, and the rest of the Movie was of five armies fighting over the Dragon's treasure. Usually in a Dungeons and Dragons adventure, what happens after the party defeats the dragon is a bit anticlimactic. Its fine if you are watching all three movies at home one after another, but if you just bought movie tickets and you are watching the movie in a theater, it kind of sucks!

The fact that Smaug dies at the start of the third movie (before even the title appears!) shows in my opinion that these were originally meant to be just 2 movies, not 3.
 

My biggest criticism is how they ended the second movie in the middle of a fight with Smaug, and then finished him off at the beginning of the Third Movie, and the rest of the Movie was of five armies fighting over the Dragon's treasure. Usually in a Dungeons and Dragons adventure, what happens after the party defeats the dragon is a bit anticlimactic.
Well, I always thought what was great about "The Hobbit" (the novel), was how it showed that sometimes the _real_ problems only start with slaying a dragon. How do you transport that vast treasure hoard? How do you keep others from robbing it from you?

So, that in itself doesn't make the way they split up the story for the movies a bad thing. My main complaint about the movies is that they tried to turn it into "Lord of the Rings II" rather than treating it as the quite different kind of story that it is.
 


No, not at all. Most gaming tables do nothing of the sort. I've never yet been at a D&D gaming table in 35 years of play where the cleric engaged in actual ritual, recitation of spells, used any religious paraphernalia as props, or even to any really significant degree regularly played out the duties of being a priest of priestess.

You mean that Fighter Players have to show their weapon skills and feats of strength and Thief Players have to show their slight of hand skills and sneakiness but you dont make Cleric Players actually have to do their rituals and spells?

That does not seem very realistic.
 

Any other observations?

The difference between "Skyfall" and "SPECTRE" shows that the gap between a really good movie and a mediocre one is actually very small - you can have the same stars, the same director, comparable budgets, and scripts built to the same formula, and yet can get very different results.

So I'm less concerned about what goes into the D&D movie (in terms of trappings, but also things like tone) than I previously would have been - I'm hoping that the team that do so are good at what they do (and there's some hope on that front) and that they approach the job 'right' (and there's some hope on that front)... but then there's an awful lot that will still be down to the fine detail.
 

Oh, and "The Hobbit" should have been one movie, should have cut almost all the extraneous material, and should have been much lighter in tone.

Basically, they should have made "The Hobbit", rather than "Lord of the Rings, Episodes 1, 2 and 3".
 

The difference between "Skyfall" and "SPECTRE" shows that the gap between a really good movie and a mediocre one is actually very small - you can have the same stars, the same director, comparable budgets, and scripts built to the same formula, and yet can get very different results.

So I'm less concerned about what goes into the D&D movie (in terms of trappings, but also things like tone) than I previously would have been - I'm hoping that the team that do so are good at what they do (and there's some hope on that front) and that they approach the job 'right' (and there's some hope on that front)... but then there's an awful lot that will still be down to the fine detail.

I think language is very important, and I don't mean English and French, there is an actor in the D&D movie trailer that dresses the part but talks like he comes off of the streets of Los Angeles, he is sort of a comic relief character, but his word choices and other mannerisms destroys the illusion that were in a different world I get the impression of an actor who gets into costume and straps on a sword but doesn't act the part of an authentic character from this world. I guess what I'm driving at is that a fantasy world should operate on its own internal logic and has to be self consistent, just as if it were a historical drama. if the actors don't actually get into the World, then instead of seeing characters I see actors. In Lord of the Rings, the actors did a pretty good job of portraying their characters. I think a big mistake of low budget fantasy movies is to have castles, swords and knight, but portray 21st century modern characters in them. Actors really have to get away from their modern selves when acting their roles, they have to avoid using modern slang, sometimes it helps to use Shakespearean English for example as it separates the modern world from the world we're attempting to portray.
 

Oh, and "The Hobbit" should have been one movie, should have cut almost all the extraneous material, and should have been much lighter in tone.

Basically, they should have made "The Hobbit", rather than "Lord of the Rings, Episodes 1, 2 and 3".

They would have had to cut out a lot of scenes that were in that movie in order to get it to run 2 hours, you also wouldn't get to develop the individual personalities of those dwarves either.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top