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

[Jester David]

I *really* don't want an uber-serious, bleak, grimdark D&D movie. Especially not with the failure of Fantastic Four so recent a memory.
The last thing we need is segueing D&D from "Lord of the Rings clone" to "Game of Thrones clone".

Game of Thrones works because they have fantastic actors and are working with a solid, well-written story. D&D will be lucky to get a talented actor and a decent writer, let alone an award winning master of the genre who knows how to eff with expectations. But it's not *fun* to watch. Remove the sex and great lines and "what happens next?" wonder and the show would be a chore. Making a serious movie and making it successful is super hard, unless you have the quality to attempt an Oscar worthy film. Bad comedies might make you squirm, but a bad drama is a whole different level (unless it drifts into comedy).

It also seems odd since D&D isn't serious. Completely straight games, even mature ones played with adults, inevitably get goofy with silly jokes, Python quotations, and the like. It seems disingenuous to try and present D&D as this serious, realistic thing. And kinda pretentious. In that we're presuming that this game of ours is so important and serious it needs to be treated with as much gravitas and respect as some of best selling books of all time.

 

[Jester David]

I'm surprised by the number of people who want to see Crystal Shard the movie. That book was terrible. Leaving aside all the Drizzt hate, that book really was nothing special. Its bursting with story beats that were cliche 30 years ago, but have been seen again and again since. It was Salvatore's first novel, and it shows.
I'd really recommend people re-read it carefully and picture how it would look. Maybe say some lines aloud.

 

[Greg K]

I'm surprised by the number of people who want to see Crystal Shard the movie. That book was terrible. Leaving aside all the Drizzt hate, that book really was nothing special. Its bursting with story beats that were cliche 30 years ago, but have been seen again and again since. It was Salvatore's first novel, and it shows.
I'd really recommend people re-read it carefully and picture how it would look. Maybe say some lines aloud.

It has numerous fans outside of the RPG community which is one reason I suggested it. Elements can be reworked and as I am watching a movie, I don't have to read the prose. Furthermore, despite my strong preference for something set in Al Qadim, Darksun, or Ravenloft, I would take it over anything Planescape, Spacejammer, Eberron, Dungeons and Dragons: Book of Vile Darkness, Astral Plane ships, or something with a Star Wars catina like vibe. Others milage may vary

 

[Lalato]

Wait. I changed my mind. The D&D movie should be a musical.

 

[RHGreen]

I'd do an anthology of 5 stories. I'd switch around Pulp Fiction style, but not ham it up cartoon style like an over-rated music video.



1 Rogue Story.


A robbery story.



2 Cleric Story.


An exorcism horror story.



3 Fighter Story.


Tactical Battle Soldier Story



4 Wizard Story.


Investigation Story.



5 Party Story.


All story elements come together as the individuals work together and use their discovered information, personal investment and skills to accomplish a common goal.

 

[bogmad]

It has numerous fans outside of the RPG community which is one reason I suggested it. Elements can be reworked and as I am watching a movie, I don't have to read the prose. Furthermore, despite my strong preference for something set in Al Qadim, Darksun, or Ravenloft, I would take it over anything Planescape, Spacejammer, Eberron, Dungeons and Dragons: Book of Vile Darkness, Astral Plane ships, or something with a Star Wars catina like vibe. Others milage may vary

Given that it'll probably be set in the realms, I say bring on the Star Wars cantina vibe. Or rather, make Waterdeep a medieval Xandar from Guardians of the Galaxy. I.e. Maybe you don't have many Max Rebos hanging about (please don't, in fact), but you have a few humanoids with blue skin (or red, or scales) or whatever mingling with the humans. Can throw in a few more exotic races, and even comment on them, but nobody is shocked or aghast at their existence.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I think all the main characters should be humans. And then load on the fantastic in where they live and what they do.
Elves, dwarves, etc. can be background but I don't think the added layer of abstraction will help the movie, but only reinforce comparisons to other movies.

An all human cast will allow more of the 'diversity' WotC is aiming for. Character race is such a veneer anyway most of the time, and often just an opportunity for gross demi-human stereotypes the movie shouldn't take time to acknowledge.


I'd also like to see it appeal to overseas markets. Know your worldwide culturals taboos. For example, avoid skeletons which is apparently taboo in China, and then have elements that the Chinese market can appreciate. Make the fantasy building have Indian, asian, and european/western flavor. Mix the colors a bit.

More and more, movies are not just made for western audiences but for the whole world. Film all over the world, not just in a Hungarian medieval village.

 

[Greg K]

ones played with adults, inevitably get goofy with silly jokes, Python quotations, and the like. It seems disingenuous to try and present D&D as this serious, realistic thing. And kinda pretentious. In that we're presuming that this game of ours is so important and serious it needs to be treated with as much gravitas and respect as some of best selling books of all time.

How goofy the game is depends upon the group. Yeah, the groups that I have been in over the years may have a silly moment or two, but it is the result of something born out of the situation. Examples include 1) the sorcerer that moments before was screaming for the Paladin's warhorse to carry away from the attacking trolls, now shouting "Go, Horsey! Go!" when it turned around and struck the two "trolls" (large ogres in my campaign) scoring critical hits on its attacks); 2 the Druid smakcing the much taller and brawnier barbarian on the head for doing something "stupid" or "unheroic" according to their people; and 3) the party trying to get the "uptight" Druid "laid" in hope of getting the "stick out of his butt".

Thankfully, it is has been almost non-existant for any game I have been in with adults to be goofy or for players quote either Monty Python or The Gamers in a game. Monty Python and The Gamer quotes do happen, but never during gaming time. As for goofy campaigns, the only time it has happened is 1) a DM in the 80's running a Xanth inspired campaign (which lasted about a session or two before the players balked); and 2) a tournament session at a local con in which the adventure took place at a carnival and the barker was shouting for the characters to pay for a chance to throw a knife at a beholder and "Try to hit it in the eye to win a prize!" The result of the latter and similar carnival games were met groans from the players and we agreed that silliness was not why we signed up! Many of us never returned for another D&D tournament hosted by that organization.

 

[Ristamar]

That said, you can have a strong team WITH a heroic lead; Guardians of the Galaxy is a great example. We follow Star Lord through as our "main hero" but all the guardians are important. He's even got that special "destiny" card (non-human father) thing going. As I think about it, I really can't think of a better example of a D&D movie than GotG; you really only need to shift the tech to magic and the setting to a single fantastical planet to make most of it work.

Guardians was mentioned a few times in this thread, and it's not a bad framework. Granted, it was able to lean heavily on the trust Marvel Studios had built up through its many other movies along with some ongoing hooks and teasers (Infinity Stones, Thanos, etc) that the fans wanted to see.

Pushing aside the hobby's stigmas or the baggage of its previous cinematic failures, I guess the real question is "what stuff does D&D bring to the table?" If we're assuming a studio has lined up a good fantasy script and a good cast (which is a BIG assumption) that you can retool to fit into a branded skin, why choose something tied to D&D? There's a lot of fantasy fiction out there that could fit the bill.

I'm hoping that whatever D&D movie is made won't feel like it's the on screen representation of a random homebrew Story Hour* because even if it turns out to be an okay movie, I'm not sure it would be financially successful.


*No disrespect to the Story Hour forum; there's a lot of great threads in there that I've enjoyed.

 

[Ristamar]

I'm surprised by the number of people who want to see Crystal Shard the movie. That book was terrible. Leaving aside all the Drizzt hate, that book really was nothing special. Its bursting with story beats that were cliche 30 years ago, but have been seen again and again since. It was Salvatore's first novel, and it shows.
I'd really recommend people re-read it carefully and picture how it would look. Maybe say some lines aloud.

I agree; it's pretty bad.

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.

 

[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".