Why does WotC insist on making "Dungeons and Dragons" branded stuff, instead of, for example, "The Legend of Drizzt", or something?
I'm not going to fight about which particular famous D&D characters you would want to see in a movie, I picked Drizzt because he's probably still about the most famous one these days, but my point is... Why do we keep getting generic "D&D" movies with random shlubs we don't have any investment in, that invariably suck because a D&D campaign itself doesn't really make for a good movie, and end up just being giant flops for WotC?
I know there was that god-awful animated Dragonlance movie back ~15 years ago, that as far as I can tell had the animation budget for a movie about a quarter as long as what it ultimately was, so as a result was just a hot mess from a production standpoint, and yeah, I know given what's' happened in the last few years the chance of WotC ever making any media with the Dragonlance name on it is about zero, but beyond that D&D movies never seem to take advantage of the stable of IP they already have. Make a Drizzt movie. Make a movie about Strahd. Make a movie about frickin' Elminster, even.
It's like if Marvel studios just decided to make "A Superhero Movie", as opposed to an Iron Man or Thor movie. You *can* make an original IP superhero, you can even make a movie about them... But it's an uphill battle, when you've already got developed, fleshed out characters that have a built-in audience.
Is it just that they don't want to have to pay a percentage to the authors who came up with the characters, or what?
Because Dungeons And Dragons has name recognition beyond the niche of TTRPGers. Drizzit or Forgotten Realms or whatever does not.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:26:11 PM
Because Dungeons And Dragons has name recognition beyond the niche of TTRPGers. Drizzit or Forgotten Realms or whatever does not.
Sure, I'm not really saying to drop "Dungeons and Dragons" branding, I suppose my wording was a bit poor there, I'm saying to augment it. "Dungeons and Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt", or "Dungeons and Dragons: The Curse of Strahd", whatever. You still get the random person who knows about D&D but not any of the literature, but as a bonus you also get the people who have read the books but don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons - and those people do exist.
I mean, it's literally just what they already do with the movies, but adding additional draw and giving themselves a whole library of proven stories to adapt, rather than trying to come up with something new out of whole cloth.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:33:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:26:11 PM
Because Dungeons And Dragons has name recognition beyond the niche of TTRPGers. Drizzit or Forgotten Realms or whatever does not.
Sure, I'm not really saying to drop "Dungeons and Dragons" branding, I suppose my wording was a bit poor there, I'm saying to augment it. "Dungeons and Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt", or "Dungeons and Dragons: The Curse of Strahd", whatever. You still get the random person who knows about D&D but not any of the literature, but as a bonus you also get the people who have read the books but don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons - and those people do exist.
I mean, it's literally just what they already do with the movies, but adding additional draw and giving themselves a whole library of proven stories to adapt, rather than trying to come up with something new out of whole cloth.
Dunno. I imagine that somewhere along the line, the bean counters start interjecting ideas about making it appeal to a broader audience, and dumb down all the lore, until it's a bland mush of mindless tropes instead of a proper D&D adaptation.
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:57:17 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:33:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:26:11 PM
Because Dungeons And Dragons has name recognition beyond the niche of TTRPGers. Drizzit or Forgotten Realms or whatever does not.
Sure, I'm not really saying to drop "Dungeons and Dragons" branding, I suppose my wording was a bit poor there, I'm saying to augment it. "Dungeons and Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt", or "Dungeons and Dragons: The Curse of Strahd", whatever. You still get the random person who knows about D&D but not any of the literature, but as a bonus you also get the people who have read the books but don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons - and those people do exist.
I mean, it's literally just what they already do with the movies, but adding additional draw and giving themselves a whole library of proven stories to adapt, rather than trying to come up with something new out of whole cloth.
Dunno. I imagine that somewhere along the line, the bean counters start interjecting ideas about making it appeal to a broader audience, and dumb down all the lore, until it's a bland mush of mindless tropes instead of a proper D&D adaptation.
Hmmm, sounds exactly like what some idiots did with Tolkien in "Rings of Power."
Quote from: Persimmon on January 11, 2023, 08:07:01 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:57:17 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 12:33:30 PM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 11, 2023, 12:26:11 PM
Because Dungeons And Dragons has name recognition beyond the niche of TTRPGers. Drizzit or Forgotten Realms or whatever does not.
Sure, I'm not really saying to drop "Dungeons and Dragons" branding, I suppose my wording was a bit poor there, I'm saying to augment it. "Dungeons and Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt", or "Dungeons and Dragons: The Curse of Strahd", whatever. You still get the random person who knows about D&D but not any of the literature, but as a bonus you also get the people who have read the books but don't actually play Dungeons and Dragons - and those people do exist.
I mean, it's literally just what they already do with the movies, but adding additional draw and giving themselves a whole library of proven stories to adapt, rather than trying to come up with something new out of whole cloth.
Dunno. I imagine that somewhere along the line, the bean counters start interjecting ideas about making it appeal to a broader audience, and dumb down all the lore, until it's a bland mush of mindless tropes instead of a proper D&D adaptation.
Hmmm, sounds exactly like what some idiots did with Tolkien in "Rings of Power."
Exhibit A. ;) (Not D&D specifically, but an example of the process.)
I would guess because D&D has more name recognition than Drizzt. Superhero movies it's the reverse - people have heard of the X-men or Batman but possibly don't know that company made them.
Although the movie that arguably started the blockbuster superhero movie phenomenon, Blade, was based on a pretty obscure character and was just a good movie.
Could you even do a Drizzt move considering all the wokeness? I don't think you'd be allowed to portray the Drow as evil anymore which completely changes the entire character.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 12, 2023, 11:41:32 AM
Could you even do a Drizzt move considering all the wokeness? I don't think you'd be allowed to portray the Drow as evil anymore which completely changes the entire character.
True; though Salvatore started that path, essentially ruining the drow. Before Drizz't they were the suave, mysterious, super evil, super powerful, enigmatic villains that you loved to hate. He opens the door and suddenly in the '90s practically every gaming group had someone wanting to play the "rare, good drow" just like everyone was suddenly infatuated with those brooding pedophile vampires. And these drow were always dual wielders fighting injustice and racism. Then, the drow just became ubiquitous in the Forgotten Realms so they were suddenly in every other tavern and there were half-drow kids running around, etc. So next thing you know, some of them are good. WTF? I miss D1-3 when people didn't know they really existed and if you survived an encounter with them it was a big deal.
So yeah, if they somehow did a Drizz't movie they'd lean hard into the black superhero writing wrongs, no doubt with his white girlfriend from another race/species.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 12, 2023, 11:41:32 AM
Could you even do a Drizzt move considering all the wokeness? I don't think you'd be allowed to portray the Drow as evil anymore which completely changes the entire character.
True; though Salvatore started that path, essentially ruining the drow. Before Drizz't they were the suave, mysterious, super evil, super powerful, enigmatic villains that you loved to hate. He opens the door and suddenly in the '90s practically every gaming group had someone wanting to play the "rare, good drow" just like everyone was suddenly infatuated with those brooding pedophile vampires.
In my experience, rare good drow PCs started becoming common when Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985 and made drow an official PC race. Especially since new options for AD&D had been rare, there was an explosion in most of the UA options - acrobats, weapon specialists, wild elves, drow, etc.
EDITED TO ADD: Regarding the original post, longer titles like "Dungeons & Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt" are usually only added for sequels, not for reboots. So the Star Trek reboot was just "Star Trek", and it was only sequels that added more lines. Going further, using classic D&D storylines for the initial film of a series has a problem of intended audience. The D&D novels have been niche products that were mostly written for people who are already D&D fans, while the big-release D&D movies have been trying to draw in people who know almost nothing about D&D. The classic storylines are likely to rely on the audience already being D&D fans.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 12, 2023, 11:41:32 AM
Could you even do a Drizzt move considering all the wokeness? I don't think you'd be allowed to portray the Drow as evil anymore which completely changes the entire character.
True; though Salvatore started that path, essentially ruining the drow. Before Drizz't they were the suave, mysterious, super evil, super powerful, enigmatic villains that you loved to hate. He opens the door and suddenly in the '90s practically every gaming group had someone wanting to play the "rare, good drow" just like everyone was suddenly infatuated with those brooding pedophile vampires. And these drow were always dual wielders fighting injustice and racism. Then, the drow just became ubiquitous in the Forgotten Realms so they were suddenly in every other tavern and there were half-drow kids running around, etc. So next thing you know, some of them are good. WTF? I miss D1-3 when people didn't know they really existed and if you survived an encounter with them it was a big deal.
Aint' that the fate of most popular villians? They start out cool and mysterious, they get popular, they get over-used and run into the ground.
The people I played with in the 80s NEVER had a drow PC, even with the release of Unearthed Arcana. They were, and still are in my campaign world, something you killed on sight, like the Taliban. I suppose there could theoretically be a good one, but we're not taking that chance. Let Lolth sort them out.
But once those Drizz't books came out, those damn good-aligned drow who could survive happily in sunlight were everywhere.
And of course there are other problems with Drizz't. First and foremost, he's fighting a black matriarchy. No way that storyline flies in Hollywood these days. So he'd probably be race and gender swapped, and all the female drow villains from the books would become CIS white men...
You only notice because you have familiarity with the D&D source material; but this is what Hollywood has always done with every myth, fairy tale, historical event, book, video game, or comicbook adaption. Cherry pick some names and tidbits of lore, slap them on to a story that often has little to do with, or even is antithetical to, the source material; then crap it out on the screen.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 07:09:22 PMThey were, and still are in my campaign world, something you killed on sight, like the Taliban. I suppose there could theoretically be a good one, but we're not taking that chance. Let Lolth sort them out.
I've never read the books, but I read the comicbook adaptions, and I'm wondering how much they were "changed for a modern audience."
Because the repeated theme was "here's another group of bigoted humans, treating him badly just because of his skin color!" Like his species isn't 99.9999% evil, and literally monsters from children's stories to the surface people.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 08:58:33 PM
You only notice because you have familiarity with the D&D source material; but this is what Hollywood has always done with every myth, fairy tale, historical event, book, video game, or comicbook adaption. Cherry pick some names and tidbits of lore, slap them on to a story that often has little to do with, or even is antithetical to, the source material; then crap it out on the screen.
Actually, my complaint is kind of more that so far that D&D movies have gone to almost admirable lengths to
avoid even "cherry picking some names and tidbits of lore", when there's so much of it there to use.
I mean, honestly, at least the two D&D movies I've seen and can remember enough of to comment on, you couldn't prove to me they even
were D&D movies. Just... crappy B-movie generic fantasy schlock.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 09:02:27 PM
Because the repeated theme was "here's another group of bigoted humans, treating him badly just because of his skin color!" Like his species isn't 99.9999% evil, and literally monsters from children's stories to the surface people.
In the books, that happened, but, first, Drizzt was for the most part pretty understanding of it, exactly because, yes, he knows his people are evil... and second, the comic books sort of compressed time... Not in terms of the story, but just in how fast you experience it. You can get through the comics so fast that it seems like that's a point that's repeatedly being harped on, but it doesn't feel that way in the books nearly so much.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 09:02:27 PM
Because the repeated theme was "here's another group of bigoted humans, treating him badly just because of his skin color!" Like his species isn't 99.9999% evil, and literally monsters from children's stories to the surface people.
In the books, that happened, but, first, Drizzt was for the most part pretty understanding of it, exactly because, yes, he knows his people are evil... and second, the comic books sort of compressed time... Not in terms of the story, but just in how fast you experience it. You can get through the comics so fast that it seems like that's a point that's repeatedly being harped on, but it doesn't feel that way in the books nearly so much.
I don't know; I've read a few of the books, maybe 9 or 10, and it does get pretty old, pretty fast. The best ones IMO were the first Drizz't focused trilogy, the ones published after Icewind Dale, but chronologically before. Mostly because they were better written, though Salvatore never became what I'd consider a "good" writer. But the later books just get more over the top and you get the kitchen sink approach that passes for world building in the Forgotten Realms. And then Drizz't is essentially a celebrity which is mildly interesting for maybe part of a book, but then that gets overdone. The end result is passable D&D fiction, but that's a pretty low bar. Kudos to Salvatore for continuing to churn it out. I suppose he has a nice house and good gym equipment as a result.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 09:29:06 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 09:02:27 PM
Because the repeated theme was "here's another group of bigoted humans, treating him badly just because of his skin color!" Like his species isn't 99.9999% evil, and literally monsters from children's stories to the surface people.
In the books, that happened, but, first, Drizzt was for the most part pretty understanding of it, exactly because, yes, he knows his people are evil... and second, the comic books sort of compressed time... Not in terms of the story, but just in how fast you experience it. You can get through the comics so fast that it seems like that's a point that's repeatedly being harped on, but it doesn't feel that way in the books nearly so much.
I don't know; I've read a few of the books, maybe 9 or 10, and it does get pretty old, pretty fast. The best ones IMO were the first Drizz't focused trilogy, the ones published after Icewind Dale, but chronologically before. Mostly because they were better written, though Salvatore never became what I'd consider a "good" writer. But the later books just get more over the top and you get the kitchen sink approach that passes for world building in the Forgotten Realms. And then Drizz't is essentially a celebrity which is mildly interesting for maybe part of a book, but then that gets overdone. The end result is passable D&D fiction, but that's a pretty low bar. Kudos to Salvatore for continuing to churn it out. I suppose he has a nice house and good gym equipment as a result.
I wasn't defending Salvatore as a great writer, myself I gave up after the first three series (Although I did like his one of his other Forgotten Realms series, the one with Cadderly) only saying that one specific issue felt a little different in the books than in the comics.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 09:29:06 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:14:26 PM
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 09:02:27 PM
Because the repeated theme was "here's another group of bigoted humans, treating him badly just because of his skin color!" Like his species isn't 99.9999% evil, and literally monsters from children's stories to the surface people.
In the books, that happened, but, first, Drizzt was for the most part pretty understanding of it, exactly because, yes, he knows his people are evil... and second, the comic books sort of compressed time... Not in terms of the story, but just in how fast you experience it. You can get through the comics so fast that it seems like that's a point that's repeatedly being harped on, but it doesn't feel that way in the books nearly so much.
I don't know; I've read a few of the books, maybe 9 or 10, and it does get pretty old, pretty fast. The best ones IMO were the first Drizz't focused trilogy, the ones published after Icewind Dale, but chronologically before. Mostly because they were better written, though Salvatore never became what I'd consider a "good" writer. But the later books just get more over the top and you get the kitchen sink approach that passes for world building in the Forgotten Realms. And then Drizz't is essentially a celebrity which is mildly interesting for maybe part of a book, but then that gets overdone. The end result is passable D&D fiction, but that's a pretty low bar. Kudos to Salvatore for continuing to churn it out. I suppose he has a nice house and good gym equipment as a result.
I wasn't defending Salvatore as a great writer, myself I gave up after the first three series (Although I did like his one of his other Forgotten Realms series, the one with Cadderly) only saying that one specific issue felt a little different in the books than in the comics.
I get it; I can't comment on the comics having not read them and disliking comics in general. I just do think it gets old fast in the novels. And I agree that the "Cleric Quintet" is a cut above most Salvatore fare.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:10:34 PMActually, my complaint is kind of more that so far that D&D movies have gone to almost admirable lengths to avoid even "cherry picking some names and tidbits of lore", when there's so much of it there to use.
Oh but they do borrow.
The first movie had Gold and Red dragons, a Beholder, they vveeerrryyy loosely based in on a lesser D&D setting, and I'm sure various spell and item names get sprinkled around.
Much like an Anime using Catholicism, they strip the aesthetic, and drop everything else.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:10:34 PM
Actually, my complaint is kind of more that so far that D&D movies have gone to almost admirable lengths to avoid even "cherry picking some names and tidbits of lore", when there's so much of it there to use.
I mean, honestly, at least the two D&D movies I've seen and can remember enough of to comment on, you couldn't prove to me they even were D&D movies. Just... crappy B-movie generic fantasy schlock.
The first and 3rd move could not. Solomon has certain rights over D&D, but he has none over other IPs like Dragonlance or specific characters. So there were limitations and wotc was probably being wary of giving him any more stranglehold than he already had. wotc till just recent could not make any D&D movie or TV or even Cartoon media without Solomon's involvement.
A tangled mess that seems to have been sorted. Though early on the new movie still had his name connected to it.
The middle movie had the least involvement of Solomon and is the most D&D of the set.
No idea how they were able to do the CGI movie. Maybe because it was passed off as a game? Scourge of Worlds interactive movie.
Quote from: Grognard GM on January 12, 2023, 09:44:35 PMOh but they do borrow.
The first movie had Gold and Red dragons, a Beholder, they vveeerrryyy loosely based in on a lesser D&D setting, and I'm sure various spell and item names get sprinkled around.
Izmeer is its own setting. Apparently loosely based on Solomon's D&D campaign. It is used in the first and 3rd movies.
The second movie is set "somewhere" and while they call back to the first movie. Its obviously not. That and they mention a few Greayhawk locations so WTF movie and somehow has one of the villains from the first movie carry over.
Concessions to Solomon? Who knows. Its the best of the trio and the one he has the least involvement in.
A realistic D&D movie would have the actors breaking the 4th wall and rolling dice for their next action.
;-)
Quote from: DocJones on January 17, 2023, 08:30:06 PM
A realistic D&D movie would have the actors breaking the 4th wall and rolling dice for their next action.
;-)
So, 'The Gamers' movies? :)
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 12, 2023, 03:30:38 PM
Aint' that the fate of most popular villians? They start out cool and mysterious, they get popular, they get over-used and run into the ground.
Or they get turned into a hero because some hack writer wanted to play with all the toys.
I suppose, if I wanted to sum up my core complaint about the D&D movies (beyond just that they're truly awful movies), it would be this: there's very little D&D in D&D movies.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 18, 2023, 12:05:46 PM
I suppose, if I wanted to sum up my core complaint about the D&D movies (beyond just that they're truly awful movies), it would be this: there's very little D&D in D&D movies.
My favorite D&D movie was The Barbarians from 1987. It has nothing to do with D&D lore but it was obvious that whoever wrote the movie had actually played the game. It was D&D as it was not D&D as it is supposed to be.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:10:34 PM
Actually, my complaint is kind of more that so far that D&D movies have gone to almost admirable lengths to avoid even "cherry picking some names and tidbits of lore", when there's so much of it there to use.
I mean, honestly, at least the two D&D movies I've seen and can remember enough of to comment on, you couldn't prove to me they even were D&D movies. Just... crappy B-movie generic fantasy schlock.
My guess is they original script was not written by a D&D player and the WotC folks in charge don't know all that about the game let alone tidbits of Lore. They do know that Star Wars was used to sell Rogue One and Solo a Star Wars story and hope to do similar.
If they were smart they'd tap the Hollywood D&D celebs and they'd get a labor of love the way Marvel did when they hired John Favrau to do Iron Man and he brought in Robert Downey Jr who showed up with his collection of Iron Man comics.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 18, 2023, 01:01:27 PM
My favorite D&D movie was The Barbarians from 1987. It has nothing to do with D&D lore but it was obvious that whoever wrote the movie had actually played the game. It was D&D as it was not D&D as it is supposed to be.
Damn, I loved that movie. Now I need to see if it is streaming anywhere.
Quote from: Ruprecht on January 18, 2023, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 12, 2023, 09:10:34 PM
Actually, my complaint is kind of more that so far that D&D movies have gone to almost admirable lengths to avoid even "cherry picking some names and tidbits of lore", when there's so much of it there to use.
I mean, honestly, at least the two D&D movies I've seen and can remember enough of to comment on, you couldn't prove to me they even were D&D movies. Just... crappy B-movie generic fantasy schlock.
My guess is they original script was not written by a D&D player and the WotC folks in charge don't know all that about the game let alone tidbits of Lore. They do know that Star Wars was used to sell Rogue One and Solo a Star Wars story and hope to do similar.
If they were smart they'd tap the Hollywood D&D celebs and they'd get a labor of love the way Marvel did when they hired John Favrau to do Iron Man and he brought in Robert Downey Jr who showed up with his collection of Iron Man comics.
This is it. The D&D movies were based on generic fantasy scripts the studios had hanging around. They plugged in a few ideas & names and called it a day.
Quote from: Lurkndog on January 18, 2023, 09:16:03 AM
Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 12, 2023, 03:30:38 PM
Aint' that the fate of most popular villians? They start out cool and mysterious, they get popular, they get over-used and run into the ground.
Or they get turned into a hero because some hack writer wanted to play with all the toys.
You either die a villain, or live long enough to become the hero.
Because the people in charge in Hollywood and at WotC know literally nothing about D&D beyond what little they're given (or in some cases learned by being players once upon a time). They also know next to nothing about world-building and pretty much crap out whatever they think will please "audiences". There is a reason all the D&D movies have been utterly forgettable garbage: there is nothing remotely interesting about the settings they have.
Compare the 1st D&D Movie to Episode 1 of the Record of Lodoss War OAV. We know nothing about Parn, Deedlit, Slayn Starseeker, Woodchuck and Ghim when we meet them at the start. The little bit of world building in the prologue gave you just enough information to set up that the Island of Lodoss is a messed up place due to 2 ancient gods murdering each other. However, we learn the group is trying to reach a sage and must enter the ruins to get to him, ruins which were inhabited by monsters. In a single 30 minute episode, the writers crammed just enough information into the story to (probably) make you want to learn more so you'll watch the next episode. Sure, it has some cringe anime moments but we are talking about a classic anime at this point.
What does the 1st few minutes of the D&D Movie have? Jeremy Irons, the main villain, killing a Dragon. No real world setup to speak of compared to, say The Fellowship of the Ring that showed The War of the Last Alliance. No reason why anyone should give a crap. The costuming was atrocious and the accoutrements look like RenFaire level drek. Not one bit of realistic armor, weaponry or anything that screams "adventurer". Our 2 protagonists aren't memorable in any way, shape or form. They're 2 thieves with less charisma than Arnold Schwarzenegger's 'Conan' and Gerry Lopez's 'Subotai' from Conan the Barbarian (who have way less dialogue than Whalin's 'Ridley Freeborn' or Marlon Wayans 'Snails'). Wayans as the comic relief was okay until Lee Arenberg's dwarf comes along and then its a case of "okay, you can't ALL be the funny man" shlock.
The biggest problem is none of them play it seriously IMO. They're purposely hamming it up and that's not going to actually make for a good movie. It makes it cringe and forgettable in ways that are only less detestable than Tommy Wiseau's The Room. If the setting isn't serious, then why should the actors play it serious? If you want a movie that the audience will laugh at because its unintentionally cringe and stupid, you don't want to make a D&D movie.
Definitely my favourite parts of the Record of Lodoss War OAV are when Parn says "Deedlit..." and when Deedlit says "Parn..."
So about 40% of Parn's dialogue, and 80% of Deedlit's.
And yet still better dialogue than what was in the D&D Movie.....
Well RoLW was adaptation of actual campaign records written down.
On the other hand D&D films are adaptation of very incoherent 5 eidtions longs, multiple setting, multiple setting variants, and so on and so on.
Using D&D moniker because it's more recognizable.
But frankly I do not think you can do feature film that would be however spiritually D&D for D&D players. TV show - yeah. Film. No. Never. Nada. No reason to expect it.
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 10, 2023, 05:56:10 AM
But frankly I do not think you can do feature film that would be however spiritually D&D for D&D players. TV show - yeah. Film. No. Never. Nada. No reason to expect it.
Concentrate on low level adventure. Make it s comedy not epic fantasy. Make it for cheap not a CGI extravaganza. Put Dan Harmon or Colbert in charge. Think Clerks with swords. It
could be amazing.
Quote from: Grognard GM on February 09, 2023, 10:02:04 PM
Definitely my favourite parts of the Record of Lodoss War OAV are when Parn says "Deedlit..." and when Deedlit says "Parn..."
So about 40% of Parn's dialogue, and 80% of Deedlit's.
That is because the anime is cutting out alot of the characters thoughts from the manga and the novels it is based on. Par for the course. And they do talk. But shouting someones name is pretty common in animation.
But I feel the anime loses some of the nuance of what is going on. Why Deedlit likes Parn and so on.
QuoteConcentrate on low level adventure. Make it s comedy not epic fantasy. Make it for cheap not a CGI extravaganza. Put Dan Harmon or Colbert in charge. Think Clerks with swords. It could be amazing.
But then all lovers of deadly serious mudcore murderous dungeons gonna whine D&D is not a comedy!
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 11, 2023, 06:00:27 PM
QuoteConcentrate on low level adventure. Make it s comedy not epic fantasy. Make it for cheap not a CGI extravaganza. Put Dan Harmon or Colbert in charge. Think Clerks with swords. It could be amazing.
But then all lovers of deadly serious mudcore murderous dungeons gonna whine D&D is not a comedy!
Clearly they've never actually played in a campaign.
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 10, 2023, 08:49:24 AM
Quote from: Wrath of God on February 10, 2023, 05:56:10 AM
But frankly I do not think you can do feature film that would be however spiritually D&D for D&D players. TV show - yeah. Film. No. Never. Nada. No reason to expect it.
Concentrate on low level adventure. Make it s comedy not epic fantasy. Make it for cheap not a CGI extravaganza. Put Dan Harmon or Colbert in charge. Think Clerks with swords. It could be amazing.
That sounds suspiciously like
Your Highness (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1240982/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1).
Though, Your Highness wasn't nearly cheap enough. If they had made it for under $10 million, it would have been a success. Instead, they made it for $49 million. Oops.
Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 03:19:06 PM
Quote from: Persimmon on January 12, 2023, 02:24:32 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 12, 2023, 11:41:32 AM
Could you even do a Drizzt move considering all the wokeness? I don't think you'd be allowed to portray the Drow as evil anymore which completely changes the entire character.
True; though Salvatore started that path, essentially ruining the drow. Before Drizz't they were the suave, mysterious, super evil, super powerful, enigmatic villains that you loved to hate. He opens the door and suddenly in the '90s practically every gaming group had someone wanting to play the "rare, good drow" just like everyone was suddenly infatuated with those brooding pedophile vampires.
In my experience, rare good drow PCs started becoming common when Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985 and made drow an official PC race. Especially since new options for AD&D had been rare, there was an explosion in most of the UA options - acrobats, weapon specialists, wild elves, drow, etc.
EDITED TO ADD: Regarding the original post, longer titles like "Dungeons & Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt" are usually only added for sequels, not for reboots. So the Star Trek reboot was just "Star Trek", and it was only sequels that added more lines. Going further, using classic D&D storylines for the initial film of a series has a problem of intended audience. The D&D novels have been niche products that were mostly written for people who are already D&D fans, while the big-release D&D movies have been trying to draw in people who know almost nothing about D&D. The classic storylines are likely to rely on the audience already being D&D fans.
You would be right if it weren't for the fact that the movie's name is: "Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves"
The first one was a comedy too. That went over soooooo well.
This one is a comedy x5. I really do not want another fucking comedy.
The problem with making a D&D comedy movie is twofold.
One: Gamer humor is not mainstream humor. The original D&D movie had I think exactly one joke that had legs, and that was when the dwarf delivered the "...A nice dwarven woman, with some hair on her chin that ye' can hang on ta!" line, while making a vaguely hip-thrusting motion. Most of the rest - particularly the whole Snails character - just fell flat with most people.
Two: There are a few ways you can do a comedy movie. You can do something like Hot Fuzz, which is a satire of police movies, or you could do something like Tremors, where it's not exactly a pure comedy movie, but there are certainly lots of comedic elements.
Either one of those styles could work for a D&D movie, potentially - but a common feature of both those movies is that they ultimately fundamentally respected the movie itself.
Hot Fuzz worked because it was still a good buddy cop movie, and a good chunk of the humor was deliberately poking fun at those movies - but it was a good-natured sort of comedy. It was obvious the writers were actually a fan of the things they were poking fun at, they understood why it was funny, and you could laugh along with them.
Tremors was similar, but playing off monster movies.
And in both cases, the lead characters were memorable, they had clearly developed personalities, motives, and mannerisms, the dialog was rock solid, and the plots were still good plots underneath the comedy. Yet, at the same time, the comedy was integral to the movie - without the comedy, they may have "worked", but they would not have stood out.
The D&D movie wasn't that sort of comedy. The comedy was tacked on, like they were just trying to make sure they had a quota of "audience is suppose to laugh now!" moments. And the comedy didn't respect the audience, and it didn't give the feeling the authors either loved or even understood the source material. Again, with the notable exception of the bearded dwarven women joke, the jokes were just... jokes. And usually not very good ones. And too often, it felt like the underline theme of the joke was "this is all stupid".
Which, maybe it is? But I don't pay money for a movie to insult my hobby.
The character issue - which is kinda related to my whole original point that spawned this mess - is another issue. Again, to use Hot Fuzz and Tremors as examples. I remember the characters from both of the movies. I remember they had clear personalities, motivations, goals, and so on. I'm not going to say I remember all their names - I'm bad with names! But I remember them. I remember other police officers, the towns folk... the pub owners, the florist who got murdered, the reporter who got murdered, the actor, the grocery store owner. I remember how they related to each other, how they fit into the movie, and so on. Similarly, with Tremors... I remember Val and Earl, obviously, but I remember the geologist, I remember Burt and Heather, I remember Chang, I remember the punk kid, the little girl and her potter mother, I even remember characters that had very little screen time, like the doctor and his wife. Because they were all well crafted characters, and memorable in their way. And even when they didn't really have any major personality - the doctor and his wife, the two construction workers, etc - you remember them because they fit into a well-crafted web of a story. You may not remember them specifically because of anything they did, but rather because they were an element of a greater whole.
I couldn't even tell you most of the characters from the D&D movie. Thief-guy. Other thief-guy, but black. The dwarf. There was probably an elf, but I don't remember specifically. The bad guy with the dragon staff, and the bad guy with the blue lips. I don't remember a damned thing about any of them, though. Not their names - except for Snails - or their motivations or, really, their personalities. The dwarf's personality was "dwarf", Snail's personality was "obnoxious idiot", and blue-lip guy glowered. That's about it.
Which is why trying to make a D&D movie without strong established characters is going to be iffy. D&D is basically designed to be self-insertion fantasy. That's the whole point. You can't just say "The movie is about some adventurers", because adventurers without players are puppets with no strings. And the epic campaign as an hour and a half movie just won't work. You can't develop a plot or characters for a movie like that easily.
Probably why the cartoon worked so damn well. They knew when to have humor and when to have tension. They actually payed attention to how kids watching were reacting.
The second movie has some humor in it too. But it is subtle and feels more natural.
This new movie its just feeling like the D&D setting is just an excuse to do jokes, snark and all that. Its coming across allmost insulting at times. But I think that is because the trailers have been pushing the snark alot.
I'm really interested in additional Snails lore. What is the backstory of Snails? What about his earlier adventures? Does he ever return from death as an undead Lich? It's a real shame that WotC has never explored D&D's most compelling character.
Quote from: Omega on February 20, 2023, 08:19:56 AM
This new movie its just feeling like the D&D setting is just an excuse to do jokes, snark and all that. Its coming across allmost insulting at times. But I think that is because the trailers have been pushing the snark alot.
I'm going to be honest, a disturbing amount of movies these days feel that way. There's a whole lot of movies it feels where basically the movie is just a vehicle for awful comedy one-liners, and I don't understand it. It's like Joss Whedon infected Hollywood. Except whaever else I think about Whedon, he had a nack for that particular type of quippy dialog.
Quote from: Bruwulf on March 01, 2023, 10:27:15 AM
Quote from: Omega on February 20, 2023, 08:19:56 AM
This new movie its just feeling like the D&D setting is just an excuse to do jokes, snark and all that. Its coming across allmost insulting at times. But I think that is because the trailers have been pushing the snark alot.
I'm going to be honest, a disturbing amount of movies these days feel that way. There's a whole lot of movies it feels where basically the movie is just a vehicle for awful comedy one-liners, and I don't understand it. It's like Joss Whedon infected Hollywood. Except whaever else I think about Whedon, he had a nack for that particular type of quippy dialog.
As I see it, snarky comedic one-liners are a long-established part of Hollywood action movies, going back at least to the earliest James Bond movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, etc. The level of comedy in action movies goes back and forth over the decades. I think we're in a period where people are just less into grimdark serious stuff because they want more light escapism.
Quote from: jhkim on March 01, 2023, 12:49:15 PM
As I see it, snarky comedic one-liners are a long-established part of Hollywood action movies, going back at least to the earliest James Bond movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger movies, etc. The level of comedy in action movies goes back and forth over the decades. I think we're in a period where people are just less into grimdark serious stuff because they want more light escapism.
It's different now. One liners were things that stood out. Now it feels like in some movies the film is basically a vehicle for a series of strung-together quips, rather than actual dialog.
I'll admit it could just be my perception, though.
Emasculated main male characters are funny says the HAT writters
https://archive.is/pU5Se (https://archive.is/pU5Se)
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 03, 2023, 01:58:11 PM
Emasculated main male characters are funny says the HAT writters
https://archive.is/pU5Se (https://archive.is/pU5Se)
And all the party members are "losers" and "bad at what they do." Sounds like a great film...
Those amateur D&D webshows on youtube from the early 2010s are truer to D&D than this.
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves' writing team John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein revealed they intentionally "emasculated" the film's leading men, though not for "wokeness."
I'm sure everyone will be relieved to learn that the movie isn't woke.
Besides, emasculated men and ugly female barbarians is a perfect representation of modern D&D. No one can say that the movie doesn't follow the source material.
Dungeons & Dragons: Misandry Among Homosexuals
Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2023, 05:32:02 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 03, 2023, 01:58:11 PM
Emasculated main male characters are funny says the HAT writters
https://archive.is/pU5Se (https://archive.is/pU5Se)
And all the party members are "losers" and "bad at what they do." Sounds like a great film...
Dungeons & Dragons: The Last Paladin
Quote from: hedgehobbit on March 03, 2023, 08:25:21 PM
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves' writing team John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein revealed they intentionally "emasculated" the film's leading men, though not for "wokeness."
I'm sure everyone will be relieved to learn that the movie isn't woke.
Accirding to people who have seen the movie so far. They did not.
Which means this was baiting. Outrage marketing.
Quote from: Bruwulf on January 11, 2023, 11:33:07 AM
Why does WotC insist on making "Dungeons and Dragons" branded stuff, instead of, for example, "The Legend of Drizzt", or something?
I'm not going to fight about which particular famous D&D characters you would want to see in a movie, I picked Drizzt because he's probably still about the most famous one these days, but my point is... Why do we keep getting generic "D&D" movies with random shlubs we don't have any investment in, that invariably suck because a D&D campaign itself doesn't really make for a good movie, and end up just being giant flops for WotC?
I know there was that god-awful animated Dragonlance movie back ~15 years ago, that as far as I can tell had the animation budget for a movie about a quarter as long as what it ultimately was, so as a result was just a hot mess from a production standpoint, and yeah, I know given what's' happened in the last few years the chance of WotC ever making any media with the Dragonlance name on it is about zero, but beyond that D&D movies never seem to take advantage of the stable of IP they already have. Make a Drizzt movie. Make a movie about Strahd. Make a movie about frickin' Elminster, even.
It's like if Marvel studios just decided to make "A Superhero Movie", as opposed to an Iron Man or Thor movie. You *can* make an original IP superhero, you can even make a movie about them... But it's an uphill battle, when you've already got developed, fleshed out characters that have a built-in audience.
Is it just that they don't want to have to pay a percentage to the authors who came up with the characters, or what?
Marketting.
The sales weenies have determined that "Dungeons & Dragons" will push more product in the general marketplace through name recognition.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2023, 05:32:02 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 03, 2023, 01:58:11 PM
Emasculated main male characters are funny says the HAT writters
https://archive.is/pU5Se (https://archive.is/pU5Se)
And all the party members are "losers" and "bad at what they do." Sounds like a great film...
It's the "Bad News Bears" at "Tomb of Horrors".......