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

[FormerlyHemlock]

YUK, just yuk.
This sounds like a movie that doesn't take itself seriously......
Not a fan of this type of way to go, too much humor.....

Conversely, I can't imagine watching a D&D movie that did take itself seriously. Different strokes.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

As far as the actual story, I think mind flayers would be excellent villains. The scene in my head is a group of them gathered in a dark cavern domain discussing their plans. The light is so low that you never get a full clear look at what's going on because of the darkness, but you can tell the general shape of the creatures and the presence of their mouth tentacles. You hear only a language of strange hissing sounds (no subtitles provided), and you see it punctuated with short flashes of images in such a way that you understand these are telepathic projections that they are using in their communication. You might see these creatures communicating at more than one point in the story.

I wish I could telepathically project what I'm seeing in my head, because it is rather awesome, and definitely accessible to a mainstream audience. (Quite frankly, I now want to figure out how to express this image to my players in some future adventure.)

*D&D fans could assume the language was Deep Speech or something, and it's probably inaccurate to allow visual flashes with the telepathy, but that's one of those little liberties that makes the movie more accessible and appealing without violating anything too big in D&D.

 

[weldon]

I'm fascinated with this whole movie thing. My feeling is that the movie should not be about the game itself, but should have a story that echoes the kind of stories that can be told in the game.

 

[Uchawi]

I believe a planescape story would be the best choice to define a D&D movie while also offering something unique and different.

 

[Raith5]

Re: magic

Don't explain, just do. Exposition of any rules-based peculiarities would just slow things down. Instead, let the casters go through their repertoire of spells, changing as they need to, and let the audience supply their own reasons for "why". Showing a caster with his nose buried in a tome need only be noted as "studying arcane mysteries" or the like- the rationale again being supplied in the minds of viewers.

Agree. But I in a similar vein, I wonder if material components for spells will figure prominently. I think they are kind of lame but they are certainly part of D&D lore.

 

[Jester David]

YUK, just yuk.
This sounds like a movie that doesn't take itself seriously......
Not a fan of this type of way to go, too much humor.....

D&D is a game and games are meant to be fun.

Plus, serious movies can be tricky. Lord of the Rings can take itself seriously. It's based on literature after all. And with the amount of lore and sales it has, Warcraft can be played straight. D&D isn't art or a massive worldwide phenom, and hasn't earned the right to be dark or gritty or serious. Playing it completely straight just seems pretentious.
Serious movies *need* to be good. Because people want to be entertained and they can be entertained by a goofy good movie, or a serious good movie, or a goofy bad movie. But a serious bad movie is just depressing and long and awkward. And D&D doesn't have the reputation for people to risk seeing it if it doesn't look entertaining.

That said, this doesn't mean the movie can't take itself serious at times. The D&D cartoon did. The stakes can be real (lives at risk, a real villain, with an evil plot) and the general story can be played straight, with real drama and character conflict. It's just the protagonists that are funny.
Like Ghostbusters or Get Smart. The heroes crack wise and are irreverent, but Gozerh is still planning on destroying the world and things are scary. Heck, "the Ghostbusters meet the Hobbit" might be the best well of selling such a movie.

 

[Celtavian]

D&D is a game and games are meant to be fun.

Plus, serious movies can be tricky. Lord of the Rings can take itself seriously. It's based on literature after all. And with the amount of lore and sales it has, Warcraft can be played straight. D&D isn't art or a massive worldwide phenom, and hasn't earned the right to be dark or gritty or serious. Playing it completely straight just seems pretentious.
Serious movies *need* to be good. Because people want to be entertained and they can be entertained by a goofy good movie, or a serious good movie, or a goofy bad movie. But a serious bad movie is just depressing and long and awkward. And D&D doesn't have the reputation for people to risk seeing it if it doesn't look entertaining.

That said, this doesn't mean the movie can't take itself serious at times. The D&D cartoon did. The stakes can be real (lives at risk, a real villain, with an evil plot) and the general story can be played straight, with real drama and character conflict. It's just the protagonists that are funny.
Like Ghostbusters or Get Smart. The heroes crack wise and are irreverent, but Gozerh is still planning on destroying the world and things are scary. Heck, "the Ghostbusters meet the Hobbit" might be the best well of selling such a movie.

A film that isn't a good story will fail. If they try to make a D&D movie into a Ghostbuster or Get Smart movie, it will fail.

If D&D wants a real shot at succeeding, it has to be a real movie. Not some jokey, action-comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. Fantasy fans don't enjoy seeing fantasy done like some jokey action-comedy.

It should take itself as seriously as movies like Conan and use an established D&D novel property if the movie is to succeed. If they don't, I see another failure like all the other D&D movies.

 

[Jester David]

A film that isn't a good story will fail. If they try to make a D&D movie into a Ghostbuster or Get Smart movie, it will fail.

If D&D wants a real shot at succeeding, it has to be a real movie. Not some jokey, action-comedy that doesn't take itself seriously. Fantasy fans don't enjoy seeing fantasy done like some jokey action-comedy.

It should take itself as seriously as movies like Conan and use an established D&D novel property if the movie is to succeed. If they don't, I see another failure like all the other D&D movies.

Funny characters has nothing to do with the quality of story. They're not mutually exclusive. You can very easily do a Golden Child film with serious subject matter and completely played straight save with horrible things happening, but with a wise cracking protagonist.

As for "fantasy fans", they don't really matter. A fantasy film needs to have widespread appeal, because of the high production cost. You can count the number of successful fantasy films on one hand. "Fantasy fans" aren't really a thing as it's not a widespread genre or recognized audience.
The film needs to be fun. It needs to be watchable. It needs to convince people they will gave an enjoyable time watching the movie.

The catch being, making D&D into a great story is tricky. You're making a brand new plot that has to compete with every fantasy film or novel from scratch. D&D has the setting, but few characters and stories, and most if its novels are frankly terrible. Making a film straight is very, very likely it to fail, being cheesy at best and a higher budget version of the 2000 movie at worst.
The setting of D&D is also super generic. It rips off every fantasy trope out there, making stories told there seem innately unoriginal. Unofficial Lord of the Rings sequels or Game of Thrones copycats. The generic world is a plus for the game, allowing people to play characters simmilar to beloved favourites. But it's detrimental to making a movie.

D&D doesn't have the familiar story of an adaptation and doesn't have the advantage of a unique world. So there's no "hook", nothing to advertise the movie and sell it to audiences as unique. It just becomes "that movie based on the game". Like Battleship.

After all, we already have three Conans, Game of Thrones, a metric effort-tonne of Tolkien. We don't need more of the same.

 

[Celtavian]

Funny characters has nothing to do with the quality of story. They're not mutually exclusive. You can very easily do a Golden Child film with serious subject matter and completely played straight save with horrible things happening, but with a wise cracking protagonist.

As for "fantasy fans", they don't really matter. A fantasy film needs to have widespread appeal, because of the high production cost. You can count the number of successful fantasy films on one hand. "Fantasy fans" aren't really a thing as it's not a widespread genre or recognized audience.
The film needs to be fun. It needs to be watchable. It needs to convince people they will gave an enjoyable time watching the movie.

The catch being, making D&D into a great story is tricky. You're making a brand new plot that has to compete with every fantasy film or novel from scratch. D&D has the setting, but few characters and stories, and most if its novels are frankly terrible. Making a film straight is very, very likely it to fail, being cheesy at best and a higher budget version of the 2000 movie at worst.
The setting of D&D is also super generic. It rips off every fantasy trope out there, making stories told there seem innately unoriginal. Unofficial Lord of the Rings sequels or Game of Thrones copycats. The generic world is a plus for the game, allowing people to play characters simmilar to beloved favourites. But it's detrimental to making a movie.

D&D doesn't have the familiar story of an adaptation and doesn't have the advantage of a unique world. So there's no "hook", nothing to advertise the movie and sell it to audiences as unique. It just becomes "that movie based on the game". Like Battleship.

After all, we already have three Conans, Game of Thrones, a metric effort-tonne of Tolkien. We don't need more of the same.

They don't have to start from scratch. They have established novels with great stories that have a fan base outside of D&D with Dragonlance and the Drizz'zt stories. Why not take advantage of this?

I knew people that never touched D&D that loved both the Drizz'zt and Dragonlance novels. That fan base is still out there. Why wouldn't you jump on it?

If you do and the movie succeeds, you don't only get exposure for the D&D brand, but you also boost book sales. A successful Drizz'zt or Dragonlance movie would have people looking to read the books. You would reinvigorate established book brands possibly making them more mainstream. Instead of establishing the D&D brand as an offshoot of the game, you establish the D&D brand as a legitimate publishing brand with great stories in novel form. You can leverage all those novels mixing in game material into movies.

At least that is how I would do it. D&D isn't only a TTRPG. It's also a brand with a lot of published novels. Movie goers are more likely to buy novels set in D&D worlds if the movie does well than to choose to play the D&D game. A certain percentage of novel readers may choose to pick up the game and play. I would definitely focus the movies on exposing the novel brands associated with D&D over the TTRPG. That means using a few of the more popular novel brands and telling the story within the books, which are more serious than comedic.

If D&D wants to be taken serious as a media property, they need to take the movie seriously. Not view this as yet another chance to make some light-hearted action-comedy like they did the first time around. Fantasy movies that succeed have characters that people can take seriously even if they are fantastical.

 

[Jester David]

They don't have to start from scratch. They have established novels with great stories that have a fan base outside of D&D with Dragonlance and the Drizz'zt stories. Why not take advantage of this?

I knew people that never touched D&D that loved both the Drizz'zt and Dragonlance novels. That fan base is still out there. Why wouldn't you jump on it?

If you do and the movie succeeds, you don't only get exposure for the D&D brand, but you also boost book sales. A successful Drizz'zt or Dragonlance movie would have people looking to read the books. You would reinvigorate established book brands possibly making them more mainstream. Instead of establishing the D&D brand as an offshoot of the game, you establish the D&D brand as a legitimate publishing brand with great stories in novel form. You can leverage all those novels mixing in game material into story movies.

At least that is how I would do it. D&D isn't only a TTRPG. It's also a brand with a lot of published novels. Movie goers are more likely to buy novels set in D&D worlds if the movie does well than to choose to play the D&D game. A certain percentage of novel readers may choose to pick up the game and play. I would definitely focus the movies on exposing the novel brands associated with D&D over the TTRPG. That means using a few of the more popular novel brands and telling the story within the books, which are more serious than comedic.

I imagine the Dragonlance rights are tied up in whatever company made the animated abomination a few years back.

The Drizzt as well as the Weis & Hickman books are passable for shared fiction, good compared to other D&D books, but when you put them up against Tolkien and CS Lewis and GRR Martin and all their peers the books don't hold up. Again, they're as generic as fantasy gets.
There's hundreds of more well known fantasy writers they coukd adapt: Robert Jordan, Terry Brooks, David Eddings, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, Lovecraft, Clive Barker, Jim Butcher, Stephen R. Donaldson, Ursula K Le Guin, Madeline L'Engle, Garth Nix, Pratchet, Gaiman, Stephen King, Cornelia Funke, Algernon Blackwood, Lloyd Alexander, Guy Gaveriel Kay, and so many more.

A D&D story that is trying to be a straight fantasy story means that some Hollywood screenwriter - who has likely never written a fantasy script before - is suddenly in charge with making a screenplay that is *better* than an adaptation of any of the above.