D&D 5E (2014) The RPG or the Brand?

[Gecko85]

I think the best thing they can do if they make more movies is to *not* have "Dungeons and Dragons" in the name. Give the movie a name...and have D&D, WotC, etc. at the very end...not in the title.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I feel like D&D is stuck in this weird place where they have a lot of the elements to create a great media property, but the heart and soul of the RPG is in conflict with the key pieces that would be needed to grow it into a huge brand.

That's not an insurmountable problem. Imagine a movie where some ordinary guy from the real world gets accidentally kidnapped/summoned into a world of legend and then has to become a hero, a la Ash of Army of Darkness fame. You could make a fantastic movie with compelling characters and lots of Crowning Moments of Awesome, throw in some D&D-branded monsters (e.g. he fights a bulette in one scene), and brand the movie "Dungeons and Dragons" without ever using any 5E D&D conventions like "parties" or "homogenous party levels" or "balanced encounters". (In fact, balanced encounters are intrinsically boring and should be avoided in movies at all costs; arguably they should be avoided during play as well.) Maybe the plot of the movie wouldn't play out much like a typical RPG session, and maybe longsuffering grognards would have to spend years afterwards correcting everyone who thinks that "playing D&D" means actually running around with long swords and pretending to be Thok the Barbarian (who isn't even in most campaigns, they just made Thok up for the movie, dude!)... but it could still be a fantastic movie and drive the brand.

TLDR; a great movie which conflicts with the "heart and soul" of the RPG will cause Internet arguments but no real damage.

P.S. To be honest, I think the "heart and soul" of D&D pretty much requires the movie to transport a real-world character into the game world, because the heart and soul of the game is about players temporarily becoming PCs in another world. I won't say "escapism" or "wish fulfillment" although those are gateway experiences, but I do think that a movie that was all about Elminster doing stuff to Manshoon would be missing a central component of the D&D experience even if it captured the Forgotten Realms experience perfectly. (Is Manshoon still around? It's been a long time since I read those books...)

 

[Sailor Moon]

If you were to make a movie then the Dragonlance Trilogy would be your best bet. It jas everything you need for a proper movie.

 

[Parmandur]

That's not an insurmountable problem. Imagine a movie where some ordinary guy from the real world gets accidentally kidnapped/summoned into a world of legend and then has to become a hero, a la Ash of Army of Darkness fame. You could make a fantastic movie with compelling characters and lots of Crowning Moments of Awesome, throw in some D&D-branded monsters (e.g. he fights a bulette in one scene), and brand the movie "Dungeons and Dragons" without ever using any 5E D&D conventions like "parties" or "homogenous party levels" or "balanced encounters". (In fact, balanced encounters are intrinsically boring and should be avoided in movies at all costs; arguably they should be avoided during play as well.) Maybe the plot of the movie wouldn't play out much like a typical RPG session, and maybe longsuffering grognards would have to spend years afterwards correcting everyone who thinks that "playing D&D" means actually running around with long swords and pretending to be Thok the Barbarian (who isn't even in most campaigns, they just made Thok up for the movie, dude!)... but it could still be a fantastic movie and drive the brand.



TLDR; a great movie which conflicts with the "heart and soul" of the RPG will cause Internet arguments but no real damage.



P.S. To be honest, I think the "heart and soul" of D&D pretty much requires the movie to transport a real-world character into the game world, because the heart and soul of the game is about players temporarily becoming PCs in another world. I won't say "escapism" or "wish fulfillment" although those are gateway experiences, but I do think that a movie that was all about Elminster doing stuff to Manshoon would be missing a central component of the D&D experience even if it captured the Forgotten Realms experience perfectly. (Is Manshoon still around? It's been a long time since I read those books...)

Dan Harmon has talked about how he'd do a D&D movie that way, with a group of buds starring known D&D playing actors like Vin Diesel or Will Ferrell working together, Galaxy Quest style. I'd watch it!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't think I'd watch a Galaxy Quest-style movie. But I'd watch one more like The Sorcerer's Apprentice. (Just make all the fights take place on Toril instead of in New York, and make the love interest everyone from Toril as well.)

The point it, a movie doesn't need to have the same narrative structure as a game session. You can build the brand with any movie, as long as 1.) It's good, and 2.) It has TSR's IP in it somewhere.

 

[Mark CMG]

If you were to make a movie then the Dragonlance Trilogy would be your best bet. It jas everything you need for a proper movie.

Except a modern connection to D&D. If DL becomes the film-face of D&D then it needs to be supported with RPG products and getting the people, like Margaret Weis, back on board for such an expansive effort would cost a great deal of money. That also assumes she would want to put her own business efforts in RPGs aside for however long a period that would take. Furthermore, as RPG products, DL has a reputation for railroadiness which would have to be overcome. I'm guessing DL would be seen as having too much baggage to be used as a film property.

 

[aramis erak]

Some things surprise us like John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Green Lantern. I really didn't think any one of those could be a failure and the list could be much longer. I'm not sure what the answer is for how to make a successful D&D movie but it seems there are as many negatives as positives for each setting and known character in the D&D stable, not the least of which if you do one many folks are upset you skipped their favorite. It's a divided audience before you even put pen to paper, and that's your 'base' audience, the ones you would hope were already in your corner.

John Carter: No surprise, really. It's not that well known outside geekdom anymore. Good movie... not even all that unfaithful... except for the clothing issues (namely, that there was any).

Lone Ranger: Haven't seen it. But when Depp plays Tanto, I begin to wonder what drugs the casting director is on. Plus, the previews were horrible. Lots of flop potential. So, no real surprise there.

Green Lantern: It's DC & not Bats and & not Supes... it's doomed. DC hasn't had a successful movie that wasn't Bats or Supes in decades.

The real surprise is that DC has succeeded on TV where they keep failing on the big screen. Arrow and Flash. (Not sure about Gotham... I know that I gave it a shot, and didn't care for Gotham.)

And the thing is, the Bat-fans of the movies don't seem to be the same group of nerds as the Bat-Fans of the comics. A large overlap, but a lot more like me: I watched the 60's show as a kid, in reruns, then the Keaton films, then the Nolan films... But I don't think I've ever read a Batman comic. My friends who read the comics whinge on about the movies for the most part, and cringe when confronted with Adam West.... Likewise, I've read maybe ONE superman comic. I've seen the movies. Including some of thethe old B&W TV shows. But both sides like the toys and games...

D&D movies, if done well, don't need to be nearly as iconic, but they need to be done well. I'm not certain Courtney Solomon can do anything well. We need to see stuff that can be reasonably replicated by the mechanics. In fact, being too faithful can be as bad as not faithful enough.

 

[Mark CMG]

D&D movies, if done well, don't need to be nearly as iconic, but they need to be done well. I'm not certain Courtney Solomon can do anything well. We need to see stuff that can be reasonably replicated by the mechanics. In fact, being too faithful can be as bad as not faithful enough.

What did you think of D&D II and III?

 

[delericho]

What did you think of D&D II and III?

D&D2 was better than the original in every respect, except that it was so utterly lacking in any vitality as to suck all enjoyment from it. The first film is terrible, but it at least has a quantum of fun.

D&D3 was unremittingly awful. The only good bit was when the Paladin swore an oath of chastity... just like his father, and his father before him.

 

[mflayermonk]

The best D&D movie would actually be one about Gary Gygax. Creation of the game, rag tag assortment of laughable oddballs, evil suits, Gygax sells his interest in TSR.

Low cost to make and biopics have been relatively successful thanks to Aaron Sorkin. Things such as Moneyball or the Social Network have shown you can make money in theaters with these. And "The Good Ship Oddball" is successful now too with shows such as Big Bang Theory and Silicon Valley. That TSR starting crew would make a great misfits vs the world narrative.