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

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean, if you do the typical setup with an elf, dwarf and halfling, it's too derivative. All the "standard" D&D races are yanked straight from Tolkien. Why not actually use D&D races in a D&D movie? Main guy is human, but, his buddy is a dragonborn. What's the problem?

I think you have a good point, there.

Hmmm...how about this for an adventuring party:

1) a young human warrior fresh off the farm- let's make her a woman, maybe even a Warlord type- who was magically whisked away from her homeland

2) an Awakened wolf who has been her companion her whole life

3) a Warforged ranger who is searching for his lost love

4) a Wemic barbarian who cannot find the ability to Rage

5) a Scarecrow bard whose mind has been clouded


And they're all off to go talk to a powerful arcanist for help in their respective quests...




But seriously, I DO think it would be cool to have something like a Lizardman or Dragonborn included in the party as a silent hulking, hooded figure...until his true nature is revealed. Or a Githzerai monk whooping asses with his quarterstaff.

 

[aramis erak]

If you were in charge of making the next D&D and movie and wanted it to be good, how would you do it?

step one: let neither Courtney Solomon nor Ken Whitman anywhere near it. While both have great ideas, they have lousy follow-through, and their movies somehow always feel a bit underdeveloped.

Step 2, have the writers actually play D&D before writing the script. Have the script come from their actual play.

Step 3: Then, put them in screenwriter mode with the transcripts.

Specifically, how would it represent Dungeons & Dragons in plot, characters, conventions, etc? How it would it be both a good movie, and a good D&D movie? How can it appeal both to those familiar with gaming and to mainstream audiences?

You can get all the money and talent you need, so don't worry so much about the logistics. What does the movie end up looking like?

More than likely? "Attack the castle and face the dreaded animated Gazebo!"

 

[Mirtek]

Step 2, have the writers actually play D&D before writing the script. Have the script come from their actual play.

Better not. How goes the saying?

Record of Lodoss War is what you aim for, Slayers is what you end up with

 

[delericho]

You can't avoid it; the protagonist is

Spoiler

the son of Bhaal

and Sarevok is trying to kill him for it. Without that, there is no plot.

Ah. I had thought that plot point only came in with the second game. If it is indeed indispensable, then I'd rather they do something else - the one fated saviour trope is horribly over-used in fantasy stories.

 

[wedgeski]

Earlier someone said that Harry Potter isn't what they want to see. But, honestly, I think as far as the world goes, Potterverse is probably closer to a D&D world than Conan. Revel in it.

Agreed. Dumbledore vs. Voldemort at the end of Order of the Phoenix is pure D&D...and pretty breathtaking, I have to say (especially for Tom, Ithangyou).

 

[Charles Rampant]

D&D does have its own, rather distinctive, set of assumptions that add up to something that you could make a unique visual and dramatic vibe in the film. I mean, Raise Dead, Teleport, adventuring parties, millions of monsters everywhere, that sort of thing; none of these appear all that commonly in Fantasy fiction and films, and all the magical races and classes help to make it hard (as noted by [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) to use it for anything other than a D&D world. Think of it as the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek; they are both wildly derivative at their core, and yet subtle changes in visual look, technological assumptions, and dramatic focus lead to really different viewing experiences at the end. Just so with D&D versus Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. The Monster Manual, as noted when it came out, has a lot of assumptions baked in that, when taken together, suggest a base-line 'D&D world' ecology and history.

I think that there is plenty of room to move within an aesthetic and dramatic mold established by D&D that lets you be both 'good' and set out a unique franchise-able brand 'image' as it were. If anything, it will be in danger of looking a lot like a video-game world, thanks to the open and consistent apeing of D&D assumptions by video games for the last few decades. The biggest concern, for me, is that they had this 'Chainmail' script already written before they had an agreement in hand. This suggests that WotC/Hasbro are basically advising on changes to an extant script, rather than advising the groundwork for a fresh creation. So there is a danger that we get something that is really a generic teen drama script, with a few D&D buzzwords sprinkled on top. The name of the script, however, gives hope that the writer has taken D&D's history and distinctive elements in mind when creating his script. Let's hope that he spent some time on research before writing!

Also, I'd love a Baldur's Gate film, but I'm not sure whether WotC would have the legal rights to openly ape the storyline of it in other media?

 

[Ristamar]

As far as the idea that you can't do "D&D" as a movie, I would point to several popular movie titles that have certainly started with less. Pirates of the Carribean is based on a, what, ten minute Disney World ride. Disney's taking another swing at the cat with Tomorrowland. Not sure how well it's doing, but, it's certainly being tried.

Pirates also had a lot of star power in its cast along with a massive budget and the limitless marketing muscle of Disney. Unless you're basing a movie's potential success solely on an established fiction, "starting with less" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

[Ristamar]

Ah. I had thought that plot point only came in with the second game. If it is indeed indispensable, then I'd rather they do something else - the one fated saviour trope is horribly over-used in fantasy stories.

The first game never pushes the theme of the protagonist being a chosen savior. If anything, (s)he's just trying to live a normal life and gets swept up in the chaos (which is, admittedly, another trope). Sarevok, on the other hand, is all in with the idea that he alone is fated to become the new Lord of Murder.

 

[Hussar]

Pirates also had a lot of star power in its cast along with a massive budget and the limitless marketing muscle of Disney. Unless you're basing a movie's potential success solely on an established fiction, "starting with less" is a bit of a misnomer.

Yet, despite having the exact same power behind it, and a far more established fiction, John Carter flopped badly.

We were discussing the idea of using established D&D fiction as the basis for a movie. My point is that lots of successful movies have been based on much, much less than a full series of novels, and done quite well.

 

[billd91]

Pirates also had a lot of star power in its cast along with a massive budget and the limitless marketing muscle of Disney. Unless you're basing a movie's potential success solely on an established fiction, "starting with less" is a bit of a misnomer.

I think you're forgetting that Pirates of the Caribbean wasn't expected to be the runaway success it was. Remember the last Disney attraction made into a movie before Pirates? The Country Bears. Yeah. Making movies based on Disney attractions was no sure thing. Pre-release press expected Pirates to flop.

It did have a $140 million budget and it was produced by the Disney juggernaut, but it was considered for straight-to-video treatment a few years earlier. As far as the star power goes, Johnny Depp is a wonderful actor, but he's not exactly a reliable draw, in part, because he works on quirky projects, many of which may appeal to him... and not that many other people. Orlando Bloom was buzzing thanks to Lord of the Rings but did that translate into leading man draw? Hard to say. Kiera Knightly had made Bend it Like Beckham but her big draw years would come after Pirates of the Caribbean.

Now compare it to its contemporary movie, Haunted Mansion, which had a $90 million budget, star power that was probably more bankable than Johnny Depp in Eddie Murphy, the same Disney marketing juggernaut, and based on another well-loved Disney ride. Why did Pirates do so well while Haunted Mansion did not?

It didn't suck. It not only didn't suck, it was unexpectedly fantastic. The story was fun and exciting. The acting was fun to watch, from the earnest Will Turner, to the warped Jack Sparrow and Hector Barbossa, down to the memorable Pintel and Ragetti. Unfortunately, trying to capture the same thing with any other movie is a bit like catching lightning. Everybody wants to do so, but only a small portion will succeed. It's hard to rely on doing so - but there are ways to make it more likely - none of which, I think, depend on marketing muscle, well-known star power (as opposed to passionate ability whether from a well-known star or not), or a massive budget.