D&D Movie/TV (Yet another) D&D Movie Speculation thread.

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mercurius]

One more thing, as to why I think they should go all in on Dragonlance. This isn't DC, where you (presumably) get multiple chances to find the right formula. A D&D movie has to work the first time out of the gate, otherwise there likely won't be a second one. The Dragonlance Chronicles (& Legends) are your best card, in terms of story and scope, evocative characters, etc. You don't want to lose the game with your best card in hand - got to start strong.

Oh yeah, perhaps the most important thing: NO VIN DIESEL! Dwayne Johnson, yes (although he doesn't fit into Dragonlance; Verminaard?), Joe Manganielo (Sturm? Gunthar?) sure; Deborah Ann Woll, also yes (Laurana?). But Diesel is not a good actor, and he's quite annoying. I suppose you could let him play a secondary character, or someone who hides beyond a mask.

 

[robus]

This is a fun review of the 2005 movie and some discussion of D&D movies in general...

[video=youtube_share;zjCZAcneUII]https://youtu.be/zjCZAcneUII[/video]

The acting looks so incredibly wooden, and the camera work seems very static making the whole thing seem quite lifeless. The improvements to CGI should be a big help in whatever they're cooking up. But you can't fix bad directing, bad acting, a bad script and bad cinematography with CGI.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Henry]

Crazy idea, but asking in all seriousness:

What about a 'reboot' using the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon for inspiration, going all "Connecticut Yankee?" Maybe even have Eric, Diana, Sheila, hank, etc. but fleshed out as actual late-teens with problems, teen romances, all that jazz? Kind of "Runaways meets D&D"? I can see a dozen different ways it could fail, but a few ways it could succeed -- all of them having to do with making them likable characters with a strong story of learning to stand up for who they are.

Of course, Dungeon Master comes off as a right bastard, no matter how you frame it, so you don't include him. Instead they luck into the magic items, and you have a sage who explains to them that, "sorry, kids, you're all we've got, that demon dude with the horns over there is trying to devour everyone's soul" and they're on a quest to destroy the things properly. In the middle we've got teen angst, drama, Eric betrays them to Venger only to have a last minute change of heart, (or in a twist, he DOESN'T have a change of heart and gets flambéed) -- very Lord of the Rings, but in one movie instead of three.

 

[Henry]

One more thing, as to why I think they should go all in on Dragonlance. This isn't DC, where you (presumably) get multiple chances to find the right formula. A D&D movie has to work the first time out of the gate, otherwise there likely won't be a second one. The Dragonlance Chronicles (& Legends) are your best card, in terms of story and scope, evocative characters, etc.

The only problem with Dragonlance is that parts of it (first book, for sure) feel VERY derivative of Lord of the Rings. Running from Dragonarmies, escaping via the Crystalmir Lake water crossing, journeying to elven territory where they are tasked with a quest, then entering Dwarven ruins via a secret passage, etc. It's not a carbon copy to be sure, but I'm sure plenty of parallels would be drawn in movie reviews; it's like a pastiche, copying all the 'cool' parts of the LOTR. The second two books are much more their own thing, though.

 

[77IM]

...do to D&D whatever it is they do with "The Fast and the Furious". Go for unapologetically entertaining rather than 'good'.

Completely disagree: the Marvel movies are successful precisely because the have put real effort into making the movies "good" and not just entertaining. I really don't think there's any more to it than that, or any deeper secret behind Marvel's success with the MCU. It's not a function of zeitgeist or star-power or nostalgia or shared continuity. They simply decided, early on, that they weren't going to exploit their fan-base by pumping out low-budget schlock with a recognizable brand-name, and instead they tried to make all their movies genuinely good.

A D&D movie that is just "fantasy action CGI brain-dead fun" won't leave a mark. It needs to be on some level truly "good" in order to establish a franchise.

 

[Mistwell]

Here it is in all of its glory!

And here are my unsolicited opinions on any D&D movie that may be created:

In my opinion, for a D&D movie to be made successful, one must remember that such a film would be made for the masses, not super-nerds like me. Therefore, the following items would have to be considered (and maybe even removed from the film):

1. Drow are problematic for most audiences. Even if animated through the use of CGI, it would be awkward for most people to see a race of dark-skinned, predominately evil humanoids depicted on screen. One way to negate this might be to enhance the inhuman nature of the Drow, emphasizing their Elven qualities to an extreme.

2. Remove some (but not all) of the exposition that I (and some other D&D fans) would like to have.

3. Don't name the movie "Dungeons and Dragons: [insert subtitle here].

4. (This one is not my complaint, but one that critics will make) Remove any species-specific in-game jokes about how Dwarves are alcoholics, Drow are bondage Elves, et cetera.

Best regards,

Aebir-Toril.

I'm interested to discover what you think of my opinions, and whether you believe that a D&D movie would be a good investment for WoTC.

(Note: I created this thread so the discussion about the D&D movie that appeared in another thread rather randomly could have a home).

What elements do you propose to include which would actually make it a "D&D" movie if you intend to remove both the name and the setting specifics from it?

Imagine if they said about a proposed Transformers movie, 1) don't use the word Transformers in the title of the movie, and 2) don't have them transform.

I mean...on some level there is no point to the project if it doesn't cater somewhat to people who recognize the D&D brand. That's pretty much the point of doing this to begin with. Generic Fantasy Movie will fail before it starts.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a fun review of the 2005 movie and some discussion of D&D movies in general...

[video=youtube_share;zjCZAcneUII]https://youtu.be/zjCZAcneUII[/video]

The acting looks so incredibly wooden, and the camera work seems very static making the whole thing seem quite lifeless. The improvements to CGI should be a big help in whatever they're cooking up. But you can't fix bad directing, bad acting, a bad script and bad cinematography with CGI.

If we were to use Roger Corman's schlock machine Fantastic Four movie from the early 90's, and use that to argue how unlikely Paramount making a good Marvel comics movie in 2008, we would have been deeply off base.

The new D&D movie will not necessarily be good but neither must it necessarily be bad: but it is fundamentally unrelated to those old movies, and they have no bearing on what might happen.

Marvel, Disney (Pirates), the Fast & the Furious guys (who have stated they see their movies as D&D campaigns) have all shown that something like this can work. And as a wise man once said, anything worth doing is worth doing badly. The potential rewards are more than ample for Paramount to give it a good shot at being at the very least entertaining and money-making.

 

[Parmandur]

I have to say, since Amazon announced their VERY EXPENSIVE deal to make a LOTR tv series, I have been waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I would assume that, given the usual parameters of peak-TV, it would not be that campy.

Given how closely partnered WotC has become with Twitch, and that one of the Critical Role cast members won an Emmy for voice directing an Amazon original cartoon, an animated D&D series would not be shocking.