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

[fuindordm]

I agree with DEFCON--it would be better to start small.

The reason being that most D&D campaign settings are VERY rich in detail compared to what a single movie can express.

So pick a world, then zoom in to one interesting location, and tell a typical story for that world. Don't try to show the audience the world map--if you're in the FR, then you can have a Red Wizard walk by in the background without shoehorning Thay into the plot.

But to make it D&D: have a small number of POV characters who get roughly equal screen time. Give each POV character a unique ability to justify the spotlight. Don't limit comic relief to just one character--deliver humor through banter (table talk) and when the main characters mock their adversaries. Have them discover AND USE cool magic items. Have them fight a couple of iconic monsters (not just glimpse a beholder sliding by in the background)

Come to think of it, Guardians of the Galaxy would have been a great D&D movie if it were medieval fantasy instead of science fantasy. Big Trouble in Little China is another one that meets these criteria.

 

[Mercurius]

You mean like "Paragon? Or Heroic?"

That was a terrible movie.

It was probably the best of the three D&D movies, which says something about the other two.

I saw all three, despite how bad they were, which probably says something about me.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, I'd say it really depends on what would be considered both an "in-joke" and what would be considered "stupid".

Well remember I said jokes, not tropes. I'm not opposed to incorporating D&D tropes, just avoiding "wink wink" moments to the D&D audience.

That said, I can think of one example of in-jokes working: the X-Men movies. But the reason they worked? They were making light fun of the tropes ("What's with the dorky looking helmet?")

Actually, the X-Men movies are something to look to for how to translate one media form into another. The creators of the movies realized that some adjustments had to be made. Wolverine can't run around in yellow spandex. I'm not sure what the D&D equivalent would be, but it would probably have to do with careful use of jargon - that is, avoidance of any and all game terminology, except in a rare moment of self-deprecation ("at least we're not wearing tights," or whatever Wolverine said about the X-suits).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You can't put drow on the big screen, at least not right now. It would be too "triggering" regarding racism and sexism.

If I were WotC, I would be changing the depiction of the drow as a matter of some urgency - either make them much more diverse or go for a genuinely inhuman colouration (actually, I'd look to how "Thor 2" did dark elves, as I've mentioned before elsewhere)...

Never saw Thor 2, but Defiance seems to be doing a decent job with THEIR "Drow", the Omecs; no uproar:




(It probably doesn't hurt that they cast black actors in those roles, either.)

...and instead of declaring that Drow society is ruled by evil priestesses, I'd say Menzoberranzan is ruled by an evil queen and her daughters - a subtle distinction, but important (and evil queens are hardly unknown in fiction).

Because you're right - WotC have a problem that their most famous character, and the one most likely to star in a successful film, is also one they will have real problems using.

I think the misogyny angle gets snuffed out by a little exposition about how Lolth's demands have placed females on top...and males on the menu, like spiders.

 

[steeldragons]

I like a lot of the suggestions we've seen so far...I shudder at others.

Like it or not, I think it a foregone conclusion that they will insist the script be set in Forgotten Realms...a very small PIECE of Forgotten Realms.

Waterdeep, Baldur's Gate or the Dalelands are the most obvious choices. For what little I know about the realms, I think Cormyr would be cool too. Anyway, my things that immediately spring to mind are along these lines:

1) Defcon 1's comment bares repeating, it needs to start small. ESPECIALLY if it is going to be set in the realms. FR is a huuuuge place. You will lose EVERYone in a flood of strange place names. You need to introduce 1 or 2. When we've been there...tell us about 3 and 4. Adventure/climax in 5 and return to 1.

2) SHOW US them. One of several reasons audiences oo'd and ah'd at LotR was the SETTING! The places, the world, seemed REAL. The details of Bag End. Rivendell. Orthanc. The landscapes, in general. Doesn't have to be hugely in depth everywhere (e.g. DON'T take us somewhere and have the wizard character narrate us the place's 1,000 years history and 20 irrelevant person and place names). We just need snapshots...but it can't look like snapshots of the prop closet...it has to look like snap shots of someone's actual home, neighborhood, nation and world!

3) Diverse party. There has to be 1 mage in there (studying spellbook and all. Not some pouch of sparkly powder!). An elf would seem essential...he can have and use a bow...sparingly...but can't be Legolas. I'd say give us a BECM style "elfin chain" clad warrior-spellcaster. As would a dwarf...I'd go thief or full on "shining knight" paladin to not just be a Gimli-fighter clone. [Real] Halfling's are, no doubt, off limits. DO NOT give us halflings wearing shoes. Just leave them out. 3 or 4 humans of a few different skin tones. Two warrior types (minimum). DON'T shy away from the fantasy pantheon/religious elements of the world. We want the setting to seem real...make it a real world. FR is a pantheistic world. USE IT! Have a cleric be an actual religious-devoted cleric! The party must, at its base, contain 1 each Fighter, Mage, Cleric and Thief. Then I, personally, would go with a secondary and tertiary fighter type (if that includes a knight/paladin or ranger/barbarian/outdoorsy guy/gal or a elf ftr/mu, so be it). Introduce others for parts of the film, situationally and/or from film to film as necessary (like a powerful druid they cross paths with who helps them). But again, SIMPLE! Diverse, but easily grokked character archetypes! Just because its a D&D movie doesn't mean the party needs to be sporting someone identifiable as Tiefling Warlock, Dragon Sorcerer, "Battlemaster-base with levels in Barbarian and Assassin" Warlord, or Elemental Monk.

4) Along those lines...The characters need to be CHARACTERS first, "D&D characters" second. Let the gamers sit in the theatre, loving the secondary warrior character "Sir Alderik, Knight of Cormyr" and go home (or, hell, nowadays from their phones in the effing theatre!) to get on the internet to posit and argue if we'll see a "knight" class in UA or is he just a well-raised Fighter with good manners and a code of conduct...or a Paladin...or a Cavalier (he had that scene on his horse!) or or or... But don't introduce "To aid your quest, we send you our nephew, Sir Alderik, Devoted Paladin of Bahamut the Great Platinum Dragon."...who happens to be half-elvish. Don't do that. Yes. D&D gamers will know exactly what you're saying. Anyone else will find it cumbersome and irritating and think through the rest of the film that the guy's name is Bahamut or he's a half-dragon or something.

5) To that point, and it goes for the characters, what I said about the places, and points back to #1 in general, "starting small": don't go over the top with fantastic names. You need to have conversation seem natural and so, drop locations and people in the world, as easy/natural in conversation. But stay away from just mentioning places and people (that no one or very few will have any familiarity with) until/unless that place or person is appearing on the screen. Keep us IN the setting, don't drown us under details no one will have reference for.

6) MAPS! Yes, LotR had the best and the FR ones probably should look remarkably similar to them (as for production and materials used to make them). But also Raiders series. The Mummy, I believe. Casablanca? I'm sure there are others. If there is going to be travel, even within a limited area, that we don't necessarily need to follow on an hourly/daily basis, again, SHOW us. There should be a map so we can say "or they're not just going to the Burial Mounds of What. They're going SOUTH, what appears to be some [great or little] distance from their Village of Where...and what's that clump of trees to the east there that says "Darkwoods" or that river...where's that go?" It helps with the making the world "real" for the audience.

7) I'll echo the "in jokes/terms/characters", but not many and not in a hokey/pun-ny way. But certain things that, say, go to he detail of the world...they don't matter for the film (or won't for this first film) but anyone who is "in the know" about D&D or FR will say "Hey! I know about that!" The Marvel movie chains and DC tv series have been excelling at these of late.

8) Have the party start/meet/re-meet/get details of your adventure/whatever at a tavern. A simple trope...nearly ignored in today's games but a welcoming introduction place. Who in the audience isn't going to understand meeting/gathering with friends at a bar or restaurant? Easily done, easy to make look/feel authentic, "grounds" the characters as "normal people doing what normal people do in this world"...and a nice nod to the D&D GAME (as opposed to the FR setting, specifically) for fans.

9)...Do I have a 9? I thought I had a 9...hmm...maybe after more coffee...but chew on these 8 for now.

[and just as an aside, not even dignifying it with a number, NO DROW! NONE! NO DRIZZT! NO DROW! Not in the first movie, anyway. You're introducing places and people, nations and at least 3 races (human, elf, dwarf) probably with other fantasy looking races in background/crowd scenes in large settlements...you don't need to show or mention drow! Leave them in the Underdark. Leave them mysterious. Leave them a "more frightening unspoken evil foe" for some future film. Drizzt is a FAR too divisive figure to try to incorporate in an initial offering.]

OH! Just remembered 9...

9) STAY AWAY FROM THE MACGUFFINS! You've tried it...Orb of Dragonkind anyone?...How'd that go for ya? If you don't want everyone to say "This is a shittypoor man's LotR ripoff!" You can't have them chasing after or seeking out or using or protecting from evil hands the "Uber Powerful Thing of Stuff!" You just can't. Borrowing from the Dragonlance storyline might prove useful here. Make it about an invasion or a war between nations or a magical mishap or something else...and, as mentioined by a few, REALLY make it about the ADVENTURE in the wilderness and "DUNGEON"!...but it CAN NOT be about the all powerful item!

EDIT: NOW more coffee. /edit

 

[77IM]

The heroes all meet in a tavern, and take a job guarding a caravan...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Steeldragons makes some good points, but I differ with him on the MacGuffins, obviously.

One of the reasons I mentioned the Rod of 7 Parts in particular is that it is...well, in 7 parts. It does not have to be introduced by name as a direct objective, and does not have its full powers in its distributed form. And by being a multipart MacGuffin, not only can it be introduced in a relatively low-powered type storyline, it can be used as part of a series of sequels, becoming more central to the plot as things progress. IOW, it facilitates foreshadowing, but it doesn't also nececcitate domination of the plot. At least not in the early stages.

 

[Remathilis]

Ape Record of the Lodoss Wars. Well, at least the first book.

A young hero, son of a Cormyr knight, sets off on the Heroic Journey to fulfill his father's quest and avenger his murder. Along the way, he's joined by friends and allies (a young priest, a thief with a heart of gold, a sagely wizard, a rugged ranger) and finds out that the evil being that killed his father (dragon, lich, whatever) is threatening the Realms again, and he must find the macguffin of power located in the tomb of danger to stop him. They find the macguffin just in time to stop the evil being's plans and save the day. In the end, a certain old wizard shows up and congratulates them, saying they will have more trials on the road ahead of them.

You can never go wrong, IMHO, with the heroic journey motif. Sure, it makes one character more important to the narrative (not necessarily popularly; Jack Sparrow and Han Solo both upstage their Heroes) but its easy to follow and has mythic resonance.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I hope we don't get another dudes in goofy suits running through the woods.

I want to see Avengers: Lords of Waterdeep.

Captain Cormyr, Hawk the Ranger, Black Rogue, Iron Mage, the green-skinned barbarian, and the Cleric of Light(ning) facing classic D&D-specific foes (avoid LotRisms like orcs, goblins, and troll/ogres). Plus a small cadre of redshirts (Clash of the Titans).

Mid-tier adventurers with items, spells, and fantastic class abilities - flying, leaping, vaulting in battle against umber hulks, mind flayers, a purple worm or landshark, fish-people, and ultimately a dragon in fantastic caverns. Make the dragon impressive but not incredulously large - it needs to be a spell caster and a brute (more Dragonheart than Smaug).

Super-powered adventurers doing super-powered spectacle.

The Avengers ARE the typical mid-level D&D party so it will be hard to avoid comparisons - time to make it so awesome that being an 'Avengers rip-off' is a good thing.

I'm really not interested in another levels 1 through 3 movie.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Cool thoughts. Here's what I was thinking.

Unless we are looking for a good cult classic (which I doubt would be what Warner Brothers is aiming for) it also has to be financially successful, which means we are looking for a major mainstream hit. That is going to take many options straight off the table, so I'm going to focus on this angle and ignore those options.

I think Lord of the Rings is a great example of a successful fantasy movie that is enjoyed equally by those with and without knowledge of the source material. They did it right. They kept it an authentic adaptation rather than a loose "inspired by." This made fans of the books happy. The changes they made were small and well-advised (moving the battle to the more dramatic top of Weathertop instead of a random spot near the base of the hill, for instance). This made it a more suitable big screen presentation. That adaptation should be foremost on their mind.

Now, since we aren't dealing with a specific story, that will be harder to do. It's going to be Forgotten Realms (no other options here, transmedia demands it), so that rules out the War of the Lance storyline. Whether they use an existing storyline or make their own doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Other things are much more important.

Properly skilled film makers will know how to make a good movie. So the big question is whether or not they can make it an authentic presentation of D&D and still do that. I think the answer is yes, but I think it is going to take concentrated effort.

As an example, let's take D&D spellcasting. Part of being authentic D&D is using the quasi-vancian style of casting. They'd go with the 5e version most likely. But how do you bring that in to the film in such a way that works for the non-D&D audience and doesn't seem forced? There are few ways it could be attempted, some good, some horrible.

1) Under the Radar. One of the best options is to present spellcasting in such a way that without knowledge of D&D, you'd have no idea of the quasi-vancian nature of it. You have them cast spells, but there is no mention of a limited number of castings, or potentially running out of spells, there is no preparing different spells the next day or pouring over a spellbook in the morning. If this is done right the manner of portrayal leaves it open to interpretation whether the characters actually followed D&D spellcasting rules, or whether they didn't. You should have some people online arguing that they completely abandoned D&D spellcasting for the movie, and others (like me) being irritated with that response and pointing out how nothing in the movie was contrary to D&D spellcasting. The wizard didn't study his spellbook because he never changed his prepared spells. He seemed to have an endless supply of what looked like magic missiles, and only one bigger spell--but that is fine because it just meant he was using most all of his higher level spell slots on magic missile. Heck, I can create the argument and get frustrated with the other side right here before we have a clue what is going to be in the movie! That is the good way of not mentioning the unique elements of D&D spellcasting, without violating the rules.
2) Rules are Lame. This is the worst thing you can do for authenticity to D&D itself. Rather than keeping the rules invisible to the uninitiated like in 1), you just straight up ignore them and change everything. The spellcasting bears no resemblence to anything known in D&D. You get physically fatigued; you risk insanity if you cast too many spells; etc. This would be bad.
3) Geek 101. They explain how D&D magic works in a reasonable degree of detail, but it has no bearing on the actual story and doesn't fit a mainstream movie. It's just there to show us "see, D&D!" This is bad.
4) Geek in Passing. They don't explain a thing about spellcasting, but show us the peculiarities of D&D spellcasting so that no one except D&D players has any idea what is going on. They mention using up castings of your spells, say things like, "my mind is not attuned to that spell today," and other things that cause your mainstream audience to wonder what is going on, but never actually explain it. This technique is a really, really bad thing to do and a great way to make the movie inaccessible. (Contrast this to Lord of the Rings, which goes about as far as you can go in this direction without crossing the line.)
5) "The Weave" 101. They explain how D&D magic works in a reasonable degree of detail, but they tie it clearly into a storyline. It's more like the intro narrations in the Lord of Rings or Thor movies (complete with pictures) than Geek 101. They use terms that are accessible instead of jargon, and the make any small well-advised changes necessary to make it accessible to a mainstream audience. "The goddess Mystra fills all of creation with the essence of her magic. Arcane scholars, the wizards, pass down ancient traditions of magic [visuals accompanying this!], harnessing the essence of the goddess through the power of their teachings. Only those individuals gifted with extraordinary potential can master the Art, capturing the essence of cosmic forces, drawing it into themselves, [visuals of wizards concentrating as they study a spellbook, speaking and making gestures] and releasing these volatile forces on the world [visual of a few powerful spells being cast.] But Mystra's beneficence only stretches so far..." At that point you transition into explaining the great sin against magic that is a major plot point (or is the plot of the movie). This is a great way of handling it without making it feel forced. However, this does require that it be a major point of the movie.

So there are 2 good ways of doing it, and 3 poor ways of doing it. We can expect 1) as the most likely good expression of it, although 5 would be great if they went that way.

As far as the setting specific material: they need to only bring up what they are going to use. In a metropolis you can show a variety of races in the background, but do not include an elf in the party and have them talk about elfy things that have no bearing on the plot and are just there because that's authentic background. Use the same technique as with spell slots for all D&D specific elements. Don't drop in something unless it is worth explaining. Basically, just use the same methods as you would use in making any good movie.

It is absolutely fine to have in-jokes and such (take the super-hero movies as examples) as long as it is subtle enough to not leave people who have no idea about it wondering what they missed. That's a big no-no. It should be something that either you get, or you don't even know there is anything there to be getting.

The trick is making sure you avoid addressing plot-irrelevant lore without contradicting it. This is absolutely doable, but they have to plan it. They can't just ignore any lore they don't need, and end up contradicting it because they never bothered to learn it. This will bug D&D fans. Sadly, this is most likely exactly what they are going to do, because the previous movies went too far into geek-land, and they will probably want to avoid that. So they are likely just going to ask, "what are the most relevant points?" and end up making a movie that is "inspired by D&D" rather than an authentic adaptation of D&D. I don't think that's a good idea. I'm not doomsaying here, I'm making an educated forecast.

So what we are most likely going to get is a medium to medium-high budget, decent to pretty good movie (in contrast to those other D&D movies) with minimal geek-speak, but which is also minimally authentic to D&D. Which will be sad, because what would could get would be the D&D equivalent of Lord of the Rings (though, at its best, it wouldn't be as wildly successful).