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

[weldon]

A D&D movie needs 3 elements: heroic fantasy, an ensemble cast (the party), and a good (can we hope for great?) story. Any other overt connections to the tabletop game or the FR novels only threaten its success.

I don't think the hobby needs people watching the movie asking, "will playing the game be like watching this movie?" Instead, I think the hobby would benefit from people seeing the movie and asking, "Can I get more stories like this one in other D&D products?"

 

[Greg K]

A D&D movie needs 3 elements: heroic fantasy, an ensemble cast (the party), and a good (can we hope for great?) story. Any other overt connections to the tabletop game or the FR novels only threaten its success.

I don't think the hobby needs people watching the movie asking, "will playing the game be like watching this movie?" Instead, I think the hobby would benefit from people seeing the movie and asking, "Can I get more stories like this one in other D&D products?"

I don't necessarily agree with you regarding overt connections, but I do agree with you on the rest of the post.

 

[Greg K]

I'm not vehemently opposed to seeing a Drizzt focused movie, but if they decide to use the Icewind Dale trilogy as the basis for the story, I hope they clean it up. A lot.

And this is what I think would happen. When was the last time Hollywood did an exact faithful translation of a novel to film?

 

[JNC]

No love story would help. Characters finding love is boring. Why do movies think love is good filler? Sure it is cheap.

A Star Trek TV show style, decision making, with minimal action scenes would work for me. Less is more, with good plot and character involvement.

 

[Hussar]

Don't mix up your preference for "this is what a D&D world is". Your description of beetles pulling carts and clerics on flying whosits does not describe Gary's Greyhawk as published in the Gord novels (at least those I read). It does not fit the original Dragonlance trilogy. It does not fit the early Forgotten Realms books that read. Your description is merely one way a D&D world can be approached .

You're missing my point though. Grey hawk is, from an uninformed standpoint, largely a Middle Earth ripoff. Yes, I know it isn't but if you come from a non-gamer POV, it's pretty much Middle Earth. Same races, same magic level in public. Grey hawk brings nothing original to the table that people haven't seen several times over the past fifteen years or so.

Dragon lance might serve a little better, mostly because it's a story, rather than a setting. But again, you've got stock Tolkien races, replace orcs with draconians (even down to the whole "created race thing") and there's some pretty obvious parallels.

I don't think a D&D movie should be based on what D&D was thirty or forty years ago. It should be based on what D&D is now. And that's Star Wars cantina far more than Dragonlance. Heck, there's a classic Lockwood painting from 3e that says it best:

 

[Greg K]

I don't think a D&D movie should be based on what D&D was thirty or forty years ago. It should be based on what D&D is now. And that's Star Wars cantina far more than Dragonlance. Heck, there's a classic Lockwood painting from 3e that says it best:

Personally, I'll take how it was thirty or forty years ago. Then again, in my opinion and every gamer I know from San Luis Obispo to San Diego whom is in their early twenties to mid-forties (save one or two that like Eberron) is WOTC has good mechanics and "crappy" take on settings/style). Others anecdotals and mileage may vary

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Sure, I can't deny that they work. They're just over-used.

Plus, they're not really a D&Dism - although some few of the D&D novels (video games, etc) have the fated hero, it's very unusual for a D&D campaign to feature the same. Both because it's risky tying your plot to one PC who may well die, and also because it's a group game and so not too wise to spotlight one character so much.

It's used because it is the story. The monomyth. We are psychologically programmed to respond to it, and to want to see/hear/read it again, and again, and again. It's the pizza of stories. Now, there are a few other stories out in the world, but none of them have as strong and as constant of an appeal.

That's not saying that D&D can't use some other story, but there really aren't very many (I can't recall the number someone came up with, but it was in the teens I think). So if you really want to avoid the monomyth, you're going to have to be picking another one of the handful of stories that has existed for thousands of years.

It's kind of a pet peeve of mind when people talk about things being over-used, trite, whatever, when those are usually that way for a very good reason that is inseparable from the human condition.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I think the most likely reason a D&D movie will fail is the same reason the first D&D movie failed: Trying to do too much.

Where did it go wrong?

(1a) "This is a D&D movie right? So let's have dragons and dungeons and dungeons and lotsa dragons when we save the princess (queen) at the end!" Way too much stuff going on.
(1b) Letting the name "Dungeons & Dragons" get in the way of a good tale is a terrible idea.

(2) Too many characters. The movie did not let any of them (except me, Snails) breathe.

(3) Not understanding the genre properly. Yes, a heroic fantasy will always have a good helping of melodrama, but melodrama does not need to be dry. Star Wars, Babylon 5, Pirates of the Carribean all blended in humor without being goofy. Well drawn melodrama characters have a lot of room for humor, because the characters, by their fundamental nature, have blind spots that lead to interesting misunderstandings (e.g. Season 7 of Deep Space 9). In fact, melodrama without properly blended in humor is going to feel boring or childish to typical audience members.

(4) #2 + #3 = the actors all look wooden. There was nothing wrong with the cast, some of them had fine careers both before and after. Write material that competent actors will be able to work with, rather than hoping the next Harrison Ford or Sean Connery will rescue the movie from weak writing.

(5) An amazing world of fantastic fantasy stuff is not automatically a plus. It can burn through effects budget quickly without endearing the movie to the audience. IMO Willow was one of the better pre-LotR fantasy movies; the story made enough sense without overwhelming us with weird stuff. Likewise, the first Harry Potter story is incredibly small plotwise, because Rowlings did not want to overwhelm with her weird world -- she wanted us to get to know the main characters instead.

If D&D is intended to be a movie franchise, too much is more likely to be lethal than too little.

 

[Hussar]

Personally, I'll take how it was thirty or forty years ago. Then again, in my opinion and every gamer I know from San Luis Obispo to San Diego whom is in their early twenties to mid-forties (save one or two that like Eberron) is WOTC has good mechanics and "crappy" take on settings/style). Others anecdotals and mileage may vary

The plural of anecdote is not data.

If you were right, then WOTC and Paizo should be complete failures. D&D, since at least 3e, has been depicted like that Lockwood image above, not Greyhawk.

Or, are you saying that WOTC and Paizo are completely out of touch with what gamers want and how gamers play the game?

 

[Greg K]

The plural of anecdote is not data

Correct, which is why I specified both I was commenting with respect to players whom I, personally, know and that "others' anecdotals may vary".