D&D Movie/TV Update on D&D TV Show -- Underdark, Small, 6-10 Episodes

Writer Derek Kolstad (John Wick) has shared an insight into the upcoming D&D TV show with Collider, which he says will be 6-10 serialized episodes with an Underdark element.

His approach is a "tinier sliver" of the world, compared to epic stories like Lord of the Rings. He compares it to Star Wars and Jaws. He mentioned that he's like to go "deeper and deeper into the Underdark".

"In the first Star Wars, you heard about Jabba the Hutt and you don't see him until the third one because you earn at that point, and whatever the budget was for the third one compared to the first one, who cares, right? And I think in Dungeons and Dragons, who has this massive, dedicated community of acolytes, I don't want to suddenly throw everything on screen and say, 'Here's the buffet.' You'd much rather keep the story intimate. When you think of our favorite movies, I'd rather do the First Blood version. It's a guy in the woods being hunted. And it's very small, but you allude to the other things through conversation."

As yet the show is untitled. Kolstad talked a bit about legal meetings and available characters for use. It sounds like he wants to set it towards the end of any 'metaplot' that D&D might have -- "... don't want to go in the middle of the mythos. I want to come near the end where everything is canonical, it's biblical, it's happened. Or, it's about to happen. That way you can revisit certain sequences and storylines that everyone loved in the past through flashback, but where we go is new"

 

[Feyfiendmonsterer]

I'd really like to ensure that things never ever on screen before (which must cover around 80% or more of D&D creations and lifted adaptions of creatures in world mythology, especially Greece, Europe and the Far East get straight on. Myconids, Destrachans, Cloakers, Bulettes, could feature in an Underdark bit, and also Duergar, Drow, Deep Gnomes and Morlocks; anything far from what's already recognisably a monster on screen the few times fantasy or horror films chuck up decent non-human beings. While above ground is better, mostly, for portraying all were-creatures that AREN'T Werewolves (what a thrill to come across a lycanthrope that's NOT a Werewolf on film or TV (!), I'd also not like a chance passed up to portray any amount of differing Undead types, as when you think about it, barely ANY of them have even been done properly or even at all. After all, the Hollywood idea of Zombies, has nothing to do with what a Zombie is. But when you look at all the types that D&D have wrung out of the Undead template, married to what FX can do now, aurely no time like the present! What would be good, surely, is if this show runs to a number of episodes, all of them could have a different setting: (1) Underdark (2) Forest (3) Hills (4) Marshland (5) Desert (6) Tropical Island taking in beach coves, Jungle & a mounting volcano (7) Tundra and Ice (8) On a sea's surface (9) Under the sea but able to breathe water safely for a limited time (10) Floating through a magical air-space through one portal after another. trying to find gravity. Then there would be a great mix of foes and even friendly creatures, a number of whom specific to just one type of environment, but others can live in many.

 

[billd91]

Huh. Not seeing it.

It pretty much means you're being ignored and that user is set up to force reciprocity on the ignoring behavior.

 

[Oofta]

Gully dwarves. An entire race of mentally challenged people written for laughs and tragic sympathy.

Overall, the way Dragonlance treats race is, well, how D&D has treated race and is problematic in today's society. For good reason, IMO.

I had completely forgotten about gully dwarves. Now that I think back kender were basically a "joke" race as well. Some people thought they were funny.

 

[Oofta]

Huh. Not seeing it.

If a person has you on ignore, you can no longer see there posts unless they specifically turn that feature off. It can make things confusing.

 

[Dire Bare]

I had completely forgotten about gully dwarves. Now that I think back kender were basically a "joke" race as well. Some people thought they were funny.

Yeah, kinda aside from the whole "entire race trends as evil" schtick that D&D suffers from in general, Dragonlance also treats the small races problematically, including gully dwarves, kender, and gnomes. This isn't something Dragonlance is alone in, the silly "jokey" races show up in fantasy stories with strong "fairy tale" vibes, like the Dark Crystal. But when these races of creatures are presented as essentially sentient species you can play as . . . .

How much of a problem is it? Varies with the tone and style of storytelling, and of course the "eye of the beholder". I love Dragonlance, but would not want to see a new adaptation that doesn't address how D&D, and Dragonlance, treats "race".

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Jokey small races is easily fixed. Take them seriously and treat them with respect. (They can still be funny and/or cute, just do it with respect.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Gully dwarves. An entire race of mentally challenged people written for laughs and tragic sympathy.

Overall, the way Dragonlance treats race is, well, how D&D has treated race and is problematic in today's society. For good reason, IMO.

Not to mention people with learning disorders.

Then there are the ADHD gnomes...

Actually, I think I've just discovered an new learning disorder: Disempathica. Also known as "sensitivity blindness".


But one thing we do know about the TV show is it's aint Dragonlance, so this is off topic.

 

[Coroc]

Maybe, but Drow, as written, are also intensely problematic these days. And steps taken to remedy that would also be intensely problematic among toxic fans. If I wanted to get any D&D media going, whether TV or movies, I'd be staying away from them as much as effing possible.

And this is the problem, instead of portraying them as the inhumane cruel psychopathic monster anti-elf, an evil twin to the (as unrealistic, because as purely fictional) peaceful natureloving lightskinned "relatives",
these days reflections and projections (look up these two words in the context of psychoanalysis if you do not know these as psyhological terms you might learn a lot of eye opening facts) are running wild to achieve what?

Yes what? Conciousness about stereotypes/prejustice/everyday racism and sexism?

Sorry, it is only my opinion and maybe i am in the minority there or maybe i am getting old, but my rich personal experience on these things tell me that going down that route will improve nothing, not even our hobby.

If you ban drow because of their appearance then you have to ban Drizzt also. So a recognizable icon of D&D is bad for business these days because some loud crowd might project something into him,which he does not stand for -the one good aligned drow exception proving not everyone with darker skin color is automatically evil aligned- nope. That was never Drizzts game, it was the one DROW who proved not every DROW is evil aligned. That is a big difference which you might not notice at once, because the fictional stereotype is not negated but confirmed.

We have a saying in my country roughly translating to " The exception is confirming the rule" and that is exactly what gets enforced here.

 

[Delazar]

Didn't we have Dark Elves in the Marvel universe? They were portrayed as generally evil, right? What's the problem?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Didn't we have Dark Elves in the Marvel universe? They were portrayed as generally evil, right? What's the problem?

This is how the MCU did it:

* They where pale grey skinned.

* They where portrayed by both white and black actors.

* Their leader was evil, but the rest are just personality-less drones, thus avoiding making them "generally evil".

* None of them are female, thus avoiding the "Matriarchies are evil" trope.