D&D Movie/TV There’s a Baldur’s Gate TV Show Coming!

​

According to Deadline, there’s a TV show based on Baldur’s Gate 3 coming from US TV studio HBO and the co-creator of The Last of Us—another TV show based on a popular video game.

Craig Mazin will “create, write, executive produce and showrun” the TV adaptation. Other executive producers include Hasbro's Gabriel Marano, plus Jacqueline Lesko and Cecil O'Connor.

Chris Perkins—who used to work at WotC—will be acting as a consultant for the show.

Larian Studios, which made the bestselling video game, is not involved with the TV show. When Larian CEO Swen Vincke was asked if any of Larian’s writers were contributing, he answered “Not to my knowledge. But Craig did reach out to ask if he could come over to the studio to speak with us. From the conversation we had, I think he truely is a big fan which gives me hope.”

The show will be a sequel to the video game, rather than a retelling of it (as was done with The Last of Us).

Mazin said “After putting nearly 1000 hours into the incredible world of Baldur’s Gate 3, it is a dream come true to be able to continue the story that Larian and Wizards of The Coast created. I am a devoted fan of D&D and the brilliant way that Swen Vincke and his gifted team adapted it. I can’t wait to help bring Baldur’s Gate and all of its incredible characters to life with as much respect and love as we can, and I’m deeply grateful to Gabe Marano and his team at Hasbro for entrusting me with this incredibly important property.”

The show will feature both characters from Baldur’s Gate 3 and new characters.

Separately, Netflix is still producing Shawn Levy’s Forgotten Realms based TV show.

 

[Zardnaar]

They don't though.

This has been shown time and time again.

Those fans have a good idea of what they, personally and specifically, like and dislike, but not the larger group of people who will go and see a movie or play a game or the like. "Serious fans" have very often predicted something would a hit or a flop based on their personal tastes, and been completely wrong.

Your specific examples don't support your position. Let's look at them.

Sonic - This was immediately widely mocked. It wasn't "Sonic fans" who said it was wrong, it was literally everyone who had ever seen Sonic before, hell, even some people who hadn't but were repulsed by this creepy thing. Nobody liked the design to the point that there's been some (not entirely baseless) speculation the whole thing was a publicity stunt - because it was so far out from release it was very easy for them to "fix" it, and doesn't seem to have cost the movie a lot to do so.

So you didn't need "serious fans" to tell you this. The "serious fans" just agreed with everyone else.

4E's marketing - Again, you wouldn't need "serious fans" to tell you "insulting all the previous editions is a bad idea". You just need to not be in an echo-chamber, which apparently WotC's marketing department must have been at the time.

"Serious fans" can also get things very wrong by contributing to echo-chambers too. For example, when Blizzard wanted to introduce Real ID which would show your actual, RL email address to basically random people in WoW (potentially including your RL name - most people's did, and at the time it was extremely painful to try and change the email associated with your WoW account, and it kind of still is), they sold this as "Well everyone is called stuff like John Smith, that's not going to be a problem!" because to them, "everyone" was the extremely white, extremely male echo-chamber at Blizzard. And a lot of "hardcore fans" defended this, because they too were mostly extremely white and extremely male

A more complex example might be the Classic servers for WoW. Originally WoW's director said, famously "You think you want it but you don't!" re: Classic servers. Blizzard later changed their mind and created those servers, and initially they were a big hit (like 4E, actually), seemingly proving the previous director wrong. But the numbers have declined extremely hard, and Classic servers are now mostly just a weird place full of horrible people and the worst behaviour you'll find in WoW. The earlier director was absolutely right in that they aren't generally popular with WoW's audience as a whole, and the only people who seem to like them are a peculiar species of "hardcore fans" or "serious fans" who are quite unpleasant to be around, quite anti-social (ironic, given Classic requires more social behaviour). But he was wrong in that that specific kind of fan, and basically nobody else, does like them. In a weird way they serve as a kind of useful "self-exclusion zone" by attracting some of the worst of the worst to them, but they also unfortunately drive away returning players who think they'd like to play early WoW again, only to find it's full of incredibly obnoxious people who want to tell you how bad and dumb you are (which, like, I played early WoW, it wasn't even 10% as bad as this).

I dont think its absolute. We have seen a lot of things tank because they've ignored the fans and often dumbed things down to appeal to the masses. Going from R16vto R13 is a common one. Dilutes what made something appealing to begin with.

Youll always find people moaning if you look hard enough. Its when things reach a crescendo dont ignore that.

 

[Zaukrie]

I wish they hadn't tied this to BG3 at all. We're already seeing it in this thread. Tying it creates expectations......

 

[Artamo]

I wish they hadn't tied this to BG3 at all. We're already seeing it in this thread. Tying it creates expectations......

I don’t know if it makes a difference whether it’s tied to D&D or Baldur’s Gate 3 or whatever they chose. There’s always going to be expectations when it comes to movie or tv show adaptations.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wish they hadn't tied this to BG3 at all. We're already seeing it in this thread. Tying it creates expectations......

Havent seen to much one true wayism here.

Game has some massive left over plot threads with several characters.

I suspect they'll probably go with the popular obvious good endings but could be wrong.

Redeemed shadowheart/Asterion, Laezel opposing Vlaakith etc

 

[Dire Bare]

I wish they hadn't tied this to BG3 at all. We're already seeing it in this thread. Tying it creates expectations......

Yeah . . . that's an attitude I don't understand. That placing the tv story after the story of the game is somehow problematic.

Sure, folks are making that complaint here and elsewhere on the intertubes, but . . . well, I just don't get it.

If Gale shows up in the tv show, but he died in SOME of the game's endings . . . so what? I think most folks are going to be just fine with it. I think the folks making a big internet stink are, as often happens, seriously overreacting.

 

[Nicholas Reed]

Mark my words: This show will put up Game of Thrones Season 4 numbers and critical reception.

 

[Dire Bare]

I don’t know if it makes a difference whether it’s tied to D&D or Baldur’s Gate 3 or whatever they chose. There’s always going to be expectations when it comes to movie or tv show adaptations.

Yup. With the "oh no, expectations" logic . . . we'd never get adaptations of anything.

Cranky fans complained about the movie, "Honor Among Thieves". Cranky fans are going to complain about the Forgotten Realms tv show in the works (the one not based on BG3). And cranky fans are going to complain about the Baldur's Gate tv show in the works.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Mark my words: This show will put up Game of Thrones Season 4 numbers and critical reception.

In season 1? I doubt it. You don't get those kind of numbers, nor is your production that competent, in a season 1, typically.

And that's assuming a lot. This is a show with several potential points to fall down on:

1) Not giving a compelling onboarding point to people unfamiliar with the game story, which is pretty insanely dramatic. This is going to be a show about people who just saved the world. If they were just retelling the game story, I think it'd be a lot, lot easier to onboard people, but that's not the road they've chosen. And this is an easy place to fall down - competent people have done before. It'll take some quite skilful writing to do this right.

2) Ideas beyond their budget. This show is a fundamentally expensive proposition. If we assume the original companions are the leads, which seems to be the case, we've already got two cast members needing extremely serious prosthetics, and everyone except Gale needs some. Then you have to do a lot of location shooting and FX shooting if the show isn't going to look like trash, and there are likely to be tons more prosthetics and so extensive costuming for all the guest stars, recurring characters and extras. And a bunch of FX for magic which is much more aggressively deployed in D&D than in most fantasy settings in TV/movies. If they don't get the budget to do that, it's going to make the show look cheap and audiences, even ones unfamiliar with the game, will notice.

3) Misreading or miscasting any of the characters. Sure, people who played the game won't be the core audience, just part of it, but if they don't nail and each and every one of the main characters in both casting and writing, people, including countless people who never played the game, are going to be talking about it. A lot.

4) Not telling a compelling story. I think there probably is a story of "We saved the world, now what?!?" that you can tell here, but will they? Again instead of taking the obvious option, which could probably have given them an easy three seasons (and the settings would even have fit with the increasing budget you'd get over time!), they're setting it post-game.

5) All the pitfalls any other show has. They're just in addition to these!

Plus the FR/BG isn't as accessible or obvious or relatable a setting as Game of Thrones had. GoT is very close to historical fiction in a lot of ways, so relatively easy to relate to (esp. S1-4). The FR is... not that.

TLDR, but I think you're really going for an outside bet there lol.

 

[Zardnaar]

In season 1? I doubt it. You don't get those kind of numbers, nor is your production that competent, in a season 1, typically.

And that's assuming a lot. This is a show with several potential points to fall down on:

1) Not giving a compelling onboarding point to people unfamiliar with the game story, which is pretty insanely dramatic. This is going to be a show about people who just saved the world. If they were just retelling the game story, I think it'd be a lot, lot easier to onboard people, but that's not the road they've chosen. And this is an easy place to fall down - competent people have done before. It'll take some quite skilful writing to do this right.

2) Ideas beyond their budget. This show is a fundamentally expensive proposition. If we assume the original companions are the leads, which seems to be the case, we've already got two cast members needing extremely serious prosthetics, and everyone except Gale needs some. Then you have to do a lot of location shooting and FX shooting if the show isn't going to look like trash, and there are likely to be tons more prosthetics and so extensive costuming for all the guest stars, recurring characters and extras. And a bunch of FX for magic which is much more aggressively deployed in D&D than in most fantasy settings in TV/movies. If they don't get the budget to do that, it's going to make the show look cheap and audiences, even ones unfamiliar with the game, will notice.

3) Misreading or miscasting any of the characters. Sure, people who played the game won't be the core audience, just part of it, but if they don't nail and each and every one of the main characters in both casting and writing, people, including countless people who never played the game, are going to be talking about it. A lot.

4) Not telling a compelling story. I think there probably is a story of "We saved the world, now what?!?" that you can tell here, but will they? Again instead of taking the obvious option, which could probably have given them an easy three seasons (and the settings would even have fit with the increasing budget you'd get over time!), they're setting it post-game.

5) All the pitfalls any other show has. They're just in addition to these!

Plus the FR/BG isn't as accessible or obvious or relatable a setting as Game of Thrones had. GoT is very close to historical fiction in a lot of ways, so relatively easy to relate to (esp. S1-4). The FR is... not that.

TLDR, but I think you're really going for an outside bet there lol.

Ironically best GoT is the lower budget ones.
Makeup and prosthetics are reasonably cheap.

Assumptions either way about the shows quality are premature imho.

 

[OB1]

In season 1? I doubt it. You don't get those kind of numbers, nor is your production that competent, in a season 1, typically.

And that's assuming a lot. This is a show with several potential points to fall down on:

1) Not giving a compelling onboarding point to people unfamiliar with the game story, which is pretty insanely dramatic. This is going to be a show about people who just saved the world. If they were just retelling the game story, I think it'd be a lot, lot easier to onboard people, but that's not the road they've chosen. And this is an easy place to fall down - competent people have done before. It'll take some quite skilful writing to do this right.

2) Ideas beyond their budget. This show is a fundamentally expensive proposition. If we assume the original companions are the leads, which seems to be the case, we've already got two cast members needing extremely serious prosthetics, and everyone except Gale needs some. Then you have to do a lot of location shooting and FX shooting if the show isn't going to look like trash, and there are likely to be tons more prosthetics and so extensive costuming for all the guest stars, recurring characters and extras. And a bunch of FX for magic which is much more aggressively deployed in D&D than in most fantasy settings in TV/movies. If they don't get the budget to do that, it's going to make the show look cheap and audiences, even ones unfamiliar with the game, will notice.

3) Misreading or miscasting any of the characters. Sure, people who played the game won't be the core audience, just part of it, but if they don't nail and each and every one of the main characters in both casting and writing, people, including countless people who never played the game, are going to be talking about it. A lot.

4) Not telling a compelling story. I think there probably is a story of "We saved the world, now what?!?" that you can tell here, but will they? Again instead of taking the obvious option, which could probably have given them an easy three seasons (and the settings would even have fit with the increasing budget you'd get over time!), they're setting it post-game.

5) All the pitfalls any other show has. They're just in addition to these!

Plus the FR/BG isn't as accessible or obvious or relatable a setting as Game of Thrones had. GoT is very close to historical fiction in a lot of ways, so relatively easy to relate to (esp. S1-4). The FR is... not that.

TLDR, but I think you're really going for an outside bet there lol.

@Ruin Explorer the way I read the article announcing this, the companions aren't going to be the main characters of this new story. It will be an enitrely new, low level party in a Baldur's Gate where the Absolute was just defeated. The compaions will be relegated to NPC/cameo status.

Seems like a lot of your potential falling down points are covered by the show going in that direction...