Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6678857" data-attributes="member: 6677017">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).</blockquote>

Verification