D&D Movie/TV What would a good D&D movie be like?

[Remathilis]

They managed to spin "Pirates of the Caribbean" into a wildly successful film series from far less than D&D gives them.

This.

In an era where every major release is either a reboot or based on YA fiction, it'd be nice to see an original Franchise. The D&D movies weren't bad because they were original, they were bad because they were cheap: cheaply written, cheaply directed, and cheaply produced. The kernel of story in the first one (for example) is moderately solid; young thieves break into a mage academy, stumble into a an apprentice mage and meet a drunken dwarf and a stoic elf, brave a thieves guild, find a magic map, recover said magic map, get an artifact, and use the artifact to stop evil wizard from taking over world. Oh, and a giant dragon battle. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS PREMISE. Its execution was god-awful, but when people criticize the D&D movie, its not for its concept. Its for its casting (Wayan Bros), for its hammy acting (Atzzzzzzz....), its effects (beholder dogs) and other questionable choices (blue lipstick, really?) Even the script was maybe 3 or 4 good revisions away from being decent. Even the actors weren't bad, given that they were told to ham it up and be over-the-top. A different director could have got a better performance out of most of them.

Getting stuck in the "Drizz't or Dragonlance" mindset that's its the only way of being successful (only an established franchise with a nostalgic fanbase) isn't going to make this success. They need a quality concept and a compelling story. Drizz't alone won't save this project. Something new is riskier, but its not the same story rehashed again.

Besides, isn't WB just using its "Chainmail" script, retro-fitted the the Realms anyway?

 

[Pickles III]

It would be like Guardians of the Galaxy.

(I've not looked at the rest of the thread so may be repeating)

 

[billd91]

I'm saying look at the evidence. The race-themed backlash against properties predominantly casting non-whites in roles in which they will be using makeup to simulate alien skin tones borders on nil, even when those skin tones somewhat resemble those of earthly races. It neatly sidesteps the issue of raising the specter of "blackface" being echoed in brown/black/blue/purple skinned aliens.

Instead, minority geeks such as myself were happy to see Klingons get played by guys like Michael Dorn and James Worthy instead of Patrick Warburton and Larry Byrd.

The people behind Star Trek did a great job of integrating actors, white and black, into the Klingon race. But I think any D&D movie would be tracking into more dangerous grounds given the nature of the Drow. Being black is one of their important contrasting elements with surface elves, as is having an evil society. I suspect that will be a far more controversial issue to present than black actors playing Klingons. I think media critics will spot the issue with any form of the high profile, big budget movie that Hasbro seems to want for the D&D trademark and make it a very uncomfortable sell.

 

[stoloc]

And they should do what Lego did--wrap it in a meta-narrative. Show the triumphs and fears of the character echoed in the triumphs and joys of the players. Even if its just a single scene after the credits where all the players are eating shawarma and talking about how awesome that session was. Maybe the elf and the dwarf that were flirting in the game are also flirting in real life, and one of them asks the other out. You could use it to provide closure for in-game plots like that. But the meta-plot is what I really, really want to see. It's what sets D&D apart from any other game--it's a social game. You play it with your friends, and spend the whole time talking. It's like a party in your friends' shared imagination, and I think that needs to be represented.

But Hasbro is probably going to make it a generic Forgotten Realms movie, because that's the brand they're trying to grow.

The post credit wrap up with the players is a brilliant idea imo. However I would think that would keep you from using established characters.

 

[Queer Venger]

It would be like Guardians of the Galaxy.

(I've not looked at the rest of the thread so may be repeating)

This. It shows it can work, and there is an audience. A film can be fun and campy and at the same time entertaining. If it takes itself too seriously it fails.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Anything can fail, for any reason. Usually the factors that lead to a cinematic failure are complicated, and come from several different sources at once (director and producers; acting; script; I'd say that 'tone' is a very minor one compared to these). Note that these factors - which affect its critical success - are different from those determining whether it makes money. That has, from what I know, a lot more to do with different factors, which have only a tenuous connection to the first set (word-of-mouth, obviously, but also critic reception, advertising campaigns, fanbase, how different audiences relate to it, star power).

A film can be successful when based on established novels (most superhero films directly lift parts of their plot from the comics, though usually mixing them together; this is what I suspect we'll see) or when not (Lego movie, uh, most other movies really). I think that this is simply something that affects the script and fanbase factors mentioned above, and probably not in simple ways.

As far as tone: well, even sticking to the Marvel films we can see that a wide range of tones can work (Captain America 2 is a much more serious film than Guardians or Iron Man 1). Film makers have tended towards the serious for nerd-genre films for a while - Star Trek Into Darkness, Batman Begins - but that probably reflects the fashion among Hollywood writers and directors as much as anything, especially in light of the fact that Disney usually makes money on films that are partly comedic. I mean, Zach Synder would make a dark D&D film just because, from what I can tell, he likes making dark films.

Personally, I think that a cross between Iron Man 1 (establishes a universe by focusing on one guy, funny, works as a standalone) and the Fellowship of the Ring (ensemble cast, serious, sort of works alone but clearly stands as part one) is what would work best. But, uh, then I've just described all films ever so...

 

[gyor]

Am I the only one who hopes it has nudity Game of Thrones style?

 

[Mercule]

You can't do a good D&D movie. D&D is a medium for stories and settings, not a story or setting on its own.

You could, however, do a fantastic Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, etc. movie.

This is the biggest issue D&D has, right now. They have a brand manager, but don't have any idea what their brand actually is. They're trying to push the Forgotten Realm brand into the D&D brand and use the D&D brand where they should use the Forgotten Realms (or another) brand.

Honestly, I'd love to see an Eberron movie. That would be a fun ride in the vein of Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[MadPuppy]

Am I the only one who hopes it has nudity Game of Thrones style?

Nope I second this

 

[delericho]

You can't do a good D&D movie. D&D is a medium for stories and settings, not a story or setting on its own.

Presumably, the same way you can't do a good Lego movie?