D&D Movie/TV (Yet another) D&D Movie Speculation thread.
Wulfric Noth
First Post
You do realize your talking about fantasy. Pre-apologizing for a imagined slight against no-one. It would be problematic to not depict drew as dark as they have been conceptualized that way since the beginning. If you give the outrage culture the power to destroy then you will end up with nothing of interest. Lets not castrate ourselves out of fear.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I vote no driw. Driw are boring. Dark skinned underground living elves that are generally evil is boring and opens d&d up to tons of unwarranted criticism. Besides their are much better stories to tell.
A D&d movie will work best as a mcguffin hunt IMO, think like national treasure where clues lead to clues lead to clues. It gives the PC’s a reason to explore and a chance to encounter fascinating creatures and diverse places.
A D&d movie will work best as a mcguffin hunt IMO, think like national treasure where clues lead to clues lead to clues. It gives the PC’s a reason to explore and a chance to encounter fascinating creatures and diverse places.
The Slave Lord trilogy has only one drow and she's less evil than the grey elf.
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Well, if we want to keep drow, there's always ye olde Eberron—where drow are not necessarily evil, aren't necessarily matriarchal, and Lolth isn't a thing.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I'm not aware of the books but I don't think a major motion picture will be able to be named "The Slave Lord" or even be based on anything named "The Slave Lord".
Lol. Ok so no evil races with dark skin. No references to slavery. No clerical spells that appeared in the Bible? No short races? No patriarchal society/misogyny? Not too much blood or violence? No references to the occult unless by obviously evil characters who come to a bad end? Anything else we need to steer clear of (preferably excluding sarcasm) because I'm beginning to see why the previous movies have been so terrible! Even Conan started out as a slave ;-pThis is sort of why I favour Greyhawk. It's Middle Earth lite with a quasi medieval society that is instantly recognisable and easy to update to a more adult setting and to layer magical references on top of your basic medieval chassis. But more generally, D&D had its roots in mythology and that's the approach they should take. Don't try to write a story about Dungeons and Dragons, write a mythological story where the protagonists display skills attributable to the various classes from D&D.
This thread has gotten way off track, I suggest that we try to steer it away from Drow, and towards something else.
There will be no consensus reached on "the Drow problem".
Therefore, we should switch to a discussion of something that isn't about racism, current culture, or political identity: How to create a good story.
There will be no consensus reached on "the Drow problem".
Therefore, we should switch to a discussion of something that isn't about racism, current culture, or political identity: How to create a good story.
Nebulous
Legend
No, basing a movie on a mere game gets you Mortal Combat, Mario Brothers, Clue (a good movie actually) and Jumanji (2 good movies actually). The countless number of fantasy movies based on anything OTHER than D&D are 90% terrible, including the D&D movie! I agree that it needs humor, but it needs to be set in the world of D&D without glaring winks and nods to metaculture.
My favorite fantasy movies include the first LotR, original Conan the Barbarian and Dragonslayer, all of which ooze the feel of a D&D campaign. And all which also include almost no humor and treat themselves quite seriously.
Jester David
Hero
It gets you a lot more than that.
Funny thing, one of the best reviewed video game adaptations was the recent Rampage movie, which has a >50% on Rotten Tomatoes. Almost every other adaptation has fared worse.
And when you add in board games... things don't get any better. Again, you have Clue and... Clue.
There's pretty much a zero percent chance of a good D&D movie by those standards.
So it can't just do the same thing as before and expect different results. You need to do something different.
Conan and Lord of the Rings are book adaptations, which buys them a degree of seriousness and latitude. And "Conan" is by no means a guarantee of success, as the sequel and remake both bombed.
Dragonslayer was... well, an anomaly. Serious, but it also divided audiences. And, again, bombed. It actually lost money at the box office.
Almost every other high fantasy film has failed. And failed HARD.
D&D can't play the "literary adaptation" card to get away with being pretentiously dramatic and serious. Unless a film is low budget Oscar bait, it can't get away with being too serious.
And it can't bank on moviegoers flocking to see it based on it being a popular franchise with known name recognition. Because that doesn't work. Bigger names have done that and failed.
Nor can it bank on the many successes of past fantasy films. Again, as most have failed.
Hell, even the weakest link of all the Marvel movies has been the fantasy ones, with Thor's being the least popular.
To be a success the D&D movie has to look good, have decent trailers, and be entertaining enough that people tell their friends to see it and it builds decent buzz.
How do you do this? You do what Thor: Ragnarok did. You make it look entertaining and fun.
Similar Threads
