It's been in the works for awhile. Pretty hush hush. Then I learned recently from two sources that it's going to be Dragonlance... Really?
Quote from: Robyo;1006121It's been in the works for awhile. Pretty hush hush. Then I learned recently from two sources that it's going to be Dragonlance... Really?
What were the two sources, and how reliable are they?
And if it is true, that makes sense. Regardless of any residual negative feelings many still have for the original adventure modules some 30-35 years later, and how the novels petered out into irrelevance years ago, the original trilogy is undoubtedly the most well know narrative arc in the D&D IP. And D&D is an IP which suffers from the significant problem for anyone to turn it into a movie-- it is a collection of familiar set pieces, broad concepts, and genre conventions, not a story.
I'm not sure, but here are some links from my brief searching. There seems to be conflicting information coming from Joe Manganiello and other sources that put director Rob Letterman at the helm and Baby Driver star Ansel Elgort as the star.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2906216/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3
http://www.slashfilm.com/dungeons-and-dragons-director/
http://www.slashfilm.com/joe-manganiello-has-written-a-dungeons-dragons-movie/
And this one implies Dragonlance plot:
https://geekandsundry.com/delving-into-a-possible-dragonlance-movie/
Well, it's either Dragonlance or Drizzt stuff. And the latter has the inevitable "drow elves are racist" problem.
I would pay money to see a Dragonlance movie. Drizzle not so much.
A GOOD Dragonlance movie? Sure. We have one as is, though and it... Isn't fun. At all.
There's a chance this movie might not be awful. If the creatives in charge have a sense of humour and the self-awareness to make fun of the geeky brand that D&D carries, it could be a medieval Guardians of the Galaxy with mind-blowing effects, snappy one-liners, and a kick-ass 70s and 80s soundtrack featuring Black Sabbath and Rush.
QuoteOpening scene:
Dark-cloaked guy strides through a squalid village in the rain. He comes to the door of a raucous inn and pulls back his hood (Tom Hiddleston). Opening harmonica chords of Sabbath's The Wizard.
He steps inside and we see something out of the cantina scene of Star Wars. Drunk halflings, a green-clad girl throwing darts, exotic robed monks, a barbarian eating half a sheep. A group of orcs loudly place bets on the combatants in a fighting pit - blindfolded dwarf against a kobold.
The wizard takes a seat and watches the monks, who are surreptitiously handing over gold coins to a leprous figure in exchange for an amulet. The dart-thrower turns and we see it's an elf (Kristin Bell). She exchanges a look with the wizard. The barbarian's head is still buried in the sheep carcass. The blindfolded dwarf swings his club wildly at the kobold. We see the orcs laugh. Sabbath continues.
Slow motion. The elf strides past the monks, snatches the amulet and tosses it into the air to... the barbarian who catches it mid-air and looks up (Vin Diesel).
The monks jump to their feet ready to rumble. The wizard starts casting a spell but he's jostled by a barmaid and fires an array of arcane bolts into the orcs. All hell breaks lose. In the mayhem, the dwarf pulls off his blindfold (Chris O'Dowd) and tries to climb out of the pit while the kobold lunges and snaps at him. Hilarity ensues.
Of course, we'll get nothing of the sort. It sounds like it's being made by a true fan, which means we'll end up with earnest schlock.
We already had a great D&D movie. It was called The Hobbit.
Perhaps you mean the old Hobbit cartoon? Because the newer Hobbit movies were dreck. LOTR was good tho.
The recent Hobbit films were terrible. LOTR was good (or at least for the first two films) but not really D&Dish imo.
The first Dragonlance trilogy is rather weak narratively, the second trilogy about the twins seems stronger stuff for a film if a bit too melodramatic.
A Guardians of the Galaxy approach is a good idea but requires a top flight director and screenwriter to pull off.
I would be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, but I think it's got about as much chance as an ice elemental in Baator. If they double the quality of the previously films, they might have something good enough to me riffed on the next MST3K season.
Does the name D&D attached to a film lend it box office cachet or does it instead act as a warning of a low-quality cash-grab?
Quote from: Dumarest;1006299Does the name D&D attached to a film lend it box office cachet or does it instead act as a warning of a low-quality cash-grab?
I do not believe that the average potential moviegoer has any recollection of the 2001 flop, nor ever was aware of any of the made-for-tv drek that followed.
D&D could be like comic books, in that it used to be that nerd thing. 20 years of good comic book movies have shown that it can make the leap to the larger audience (even if they haven't all gotten into comic books because of it). Or D&D could be like
Firefly/Serenity, in that the niche audience all went and saw the movie, but the wider movie-going audience did not, and you need more than just everyone in your niche to make something a success.
I think a D&D movie's success will be entirely dependent upon how well they do both the movie and the marketing. It could be the next LotR, Spiderman (Toby McGuire version), or Game of Thrones (not a movie, but successful nerd-thing leaped to the screan), or it could be the next
Serenity, Warcraft, or
Avatar: the Last Airbender. It really could go either way.
I don't think it is important if anyone remembers the first D&D movies because the internet will likely remind/teach them.
I thought In the Name of the King was a pretty good D&D movie...
... poor Jeremy Irons. :( Oh, don't mind me, just going through memory lane, is all.
The IMDB listing is just a fan/gossip post.
I like the D&D movie idea laid out in this blog post (http://initiativeone.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-different-d-movie.html), especially the part about making Castle Greyhawk the real "star." Too bad it (or something like it) would never happen.
Quote from: Dumarest;1006299Does the name D&D attached to a film lend it box office cachet or does it instead act as a warning of a low-quality cash-grab?
For me the latter. D&D is not something that translates well to screen. If it's Dragonlance, I'll pass. I can wait for an actual Elric movie, not some knock off with a golden spray tan.
Quote from: Beldar;1006254I would be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, but I think it's got about as much chance as an ice elemental in Baator. If they double the quality of the previously films, they might have something good enough to me riffed on the next MST3K season.
Who would have thought that a film adaptation of some largely forgotten stoned 70s sf comic by the director of Slither and Super would end up being bigger than Jesus?
Quote from: Krimson;1006420For me the latter. D&D is not something that translates well to screen. If it's Dragonlance, I'll pass. I can wait for an actual Elric movie, not some knock off with a golden spray tan.
Are you suggesting DL is a rip off of Elric? I'm not seeing that even remotely.
Quote from: Voros;1006438Are you suggesting DL is a rip off of Elric? I'm not seeing that even remotely.
My first experience with Dragonlance some 30ish years ago was yes, Raistlin came across as an Elric knock off - without a decent sword. :D
Ah yeah, I see that.
I'd love to see a well done D&D movie. They need to spend the money on hiring top notch writers and director or it will be a flop.
I don't think hiring good directors and writers is that expensive, most modern blockbusters like the Marvel and SW films scoop up talented arthouse directors and writers. I can't imagine James Gun or even Peter Jackson and Nolan demanded huge salaries for a shot at getting their breakthrough blockbusters made.
Quote from: Voros;1006438Are you suggesting DL is a rip off of Elric? I'm not seeing that even remotely.
Dragonlance is an LotR knockoff with Mormon underpinnings replacing the Catholic ones and starring expies of Elric and Spock. ;)
I read the first 6 books in grade school, middle school, so I thought DL was pretty cool back then. But even at the time, everyone I knew who'd read them thought it was poor man's Tolkien. I tried reading the Chronicles again (a decade or so) later, and the writing didn't hold my interest. Maybe the Twins books would be better, since it is a better story overall.
But the setting does have merits:
Draconians! They are the proto-dragonborn, but awesome in their own right.
Dragon-riding knights! Lots of them! With Dragonlances! 'nuff said...
Tinker gnomes were kind of amusing. Minotaurs, meh.
Kender and gully dwarves are of course, terrible. And all the other bland Tolkein-wanna-be stuff was just par for the course in the 80's fantasy.
But the setting hasn't been supported by Wizards of the Coast in any meaningful way since 3rd edition. Which makes me wonder, why they would drop the movie on us, when every thing else they put out screams Forgotten Realms?
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1006458Dragonlance is an LotR knockoff with Mormon underpinnings replacing the Catholic ones and starring expies of Elric and Spock. ;)
For sure, with a helping of 80s hippie crossed with big hair hotties.
Quote from: Haffrung;1006175Opening scene (...)
Nice.
But I don't remember
Dragons of Autumn Twilight being that "Guardians-y".
"I am ... Caramon!"
Rocket Burrfoot?
Quote from: Voros;1006485For sure, with a helping of 80s hippie crossed with big hair hotties.
you say that as if it were a bad thing...
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1006395The IMDB listing is just a fan/gossip post.
This is a recurring problem with IMDb. People keep posting what ammounts to a "wishlist" as if it were a real movie and for some reason IMDb posts these up and then keeps them up for years and years. Micronauts movie? Check. Monsterpocalypse movie? Check. and god knows how many more.
As for another D&D movie, #4 unless I missed one. Please god tell me Solomon didnt make another!
I thought the first one was... kinda just there. It had its ups and downs. Ohhh the downs.
The second one is so far the best and has the most D&D feel to it. I think its also the one with Solomon the least involved in it.
The third is just horrible. Worse than the first.
Whats the 4th going to be? Again, depends on how much Solomon is involved. Its probably going to have very little to do with D&D though and come across as another generic fantasy movie. Dragonlance would probably be changed past recognition.
Quote from: Voros;1006444Ah yeah, I see that.
In all fairness, Dragonlance probably would make for a good movie adaptation. I've read a few of the novels including the Twins trilogy, and the core characters would probably make a good movie ensemble. Yes I think Raistlin is a more than a little Elric inspired but that's just a personal nitpick which has no reflection on the quality of the work. I've read at least 5 Dragonlance books, so the quality of writing was certainly not an issue for me.
"You keep trying to make Dragonlance happen. It's not going to happen."
Quote from: remial;1006503you say that as if it were a bad thing...
Not at all. I think I'm one of the few DL defenders on here.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1920[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1921[/ATTACH]
The person running this website is a racist who publicly advocates genocidal practices.
I am deleting my content.
I recommend you do the same.
Quote from: remial;1006503you say that as if it were a bad thing...
The art and graphic design are among the few things that I still love about DL after long years of embitteredness. :)
The reason they keep trying to do Dragonlance is because it's the one that's actually got a 'story'. Greyhawk doesn't have a story. The Realms doesn't have a story. They're settings.
Dragonlance was created as a story first, with a setting that existed for that story. It's part of why it makes for a relatively shitty gaming world.
But the problem is that the story is so generic and bland as fantasy that it ALSO makes for a shitty story.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;1006951While Monsterpocalypse seems to have never gotten further than a bidding war for its adaptation rights, Micronauts has legitimately been in development hell since 2009. Multiple scripts and directors have been attached. Since it's part of a package of licensed Hasbro IP that Paramount seems fairly desperate to figure out how to make money off of, it's relatively likely to happen.
You missed the part where Hasbro bought back the IPs to prevent Paramont from making any more game movies. All of these "wishlist" movies read off exactly the same. "Some big name director is going to direct this!" and it never happens because it usually was never real to begin with. Hasbro canned a large chunk of their Unit-E line aside from the really fucked up iteration IDW has been doing in the comics.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007296The reason they keep trying to do Dragonlance is because it's the one that's actually got a 'story'. Greyhawk doesn't have a story. The Realms doesn't have a story. They're settings.
Dragonlance was created as a story first, with a setting that existed for that story. It's part of why it makes for a relatively shitty gaming world.
But the problem is that the story is so generic and bland as fantasy that it ALSO makes for a shitty story.
Actually WOTC/Hasbro keeps trying to use Dragonlance because its not part of Solomon's stranglehold on any D&D movies.
I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?
It did. Probably a setting first in that the setting was most likely designed for play.
I read Dragonlance when I was in high-school and I really liked it. I then bought and ran the modules with my friends and the whole experience was pretty rad. Some set-pieces were among the best sessions I DMed/enjoyed in any RPG ever.
Having said that, I never mistook DL for The Lord of the Rings, not even then. DL, however, had a lot of everything - exp. those things that a teen-ager can find exciting. We didn't care for melodrama, for example, but a lot for role-playing. So, melodrama was left on the cutting room floor but my players put a lot of effort in portraying their PCs.
Talking about set-pieces, the fact that Top Gun came out right when the air battles between dragons went into high gear in our games gave them a... uhm... special spin. Just sayin'...
TSR/Wizards never recaptured the spirit of the original DL, no matter how hard they attempted. In a way it was like Star Wars: by no means it was Asimov, Heinlein or 2001: A Space Odissey - but it was Star Wars.
Quote from: Reckall;1007338Talking about set-pieces, the fact that Top Gun came out right when the air battles between dragons went into high gear in our games gave them a... uhm... special spin. Just sayin'... .
Ironically, the original concept that Tracy Hickman came up with when travelling cross-country to take his job with TSR was 'knights dogfighting on dragonback.'
Quote from: Omega;1007314I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?
No, it went concept -> pitch to TSR -> development -> module -> 1 or 2 playtest sessions -> novels.
Quote from: Omega;1007314Actually WOTC/Hasbro keeps trying to use Dragonlance because its not part of Solomon's stranglehold on any D&D movies.
I thought the Dragonlance setting started out as a campaign and then became a book and RPG setting?
Regardless of whether it was a campaign or not first (and I'd have some serious doubts about just how similar any 'initial DL campaign' was to what we actually saw in print), in terms of what people actually experienced what we saw was a trilogy of novels and a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007658In terms of what people actually experienced what we saw was a trilogy of novels and a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.
Dragonlance started as a campaign - the idea of turning it in a trilogy (at first) of novels came during play-testing. MW and TH said this in a number of interviews.
Then waters became muddy, because both the novels and the modules were works in progress at the same time, and it is unclear which events came first (if those in the novels then being repeated in the modules or vice-versa). For example, Keith Parkinson painted the cover of the module where Sturm dies ("Dragons of War")
before the scene in the book was written - and MW said how he looked at the painting for inspiration while she wrote it.
Regarding the need to "imitate the exact details of the novels", maybe some players felt the need to do that. However, in all fairness, while many modules were built with a final aim in mind (which, of course, turned out to be the start of the next module) they contained enough info to allow players to
choose how to get there. I ran the whole DL campaign twice and, except for the key "end of chapter" episodes, the two runs were fairly different. I'm not saying that there wasn't railroading; however, just re-read the original DL1 module ("Dragons of Despair"): even if the final confrontation vs. the Black Dragon is unavoidable, the whole starting regional area is described in details for the players to pull their own stunts while forging their own paths. The events in both my two runs diverged from those in the books - and from each other. I could, literally, have written an original story out of them.
There is easily enough material in the first DL trilogy to make some good movies. It really depends on what material they go with. Two and a half hours is roughly enough time to gather your party, get into trouble and get chased out of the tree town, meet up with Barbarian Babe and Barbarian Dude, get into a sword fight or two, discover the Mystical Undergound city, get the fuck blasted out of you by a big ol' black dragon, use DA POWAH OF DA ORB to get him back, then go riding back to Not Helm's Deep to stab a dragon in the face and kill the evil cleric.
Depending on the writer, director, and actors, you've got anything from a summer blockbuster to total dog crap on your hands.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007658...a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.
Much repeated but not actually true. What 'exact details' are the characters forced to imitate? Characters and NPCs can die, lose major battles, etc. Seems to me most who say this have only read or played the first one or two modules. The modules are flawed but at least criticize them with some accuracy not broad innaccurate generalizations.
But broad, inaccurate generalizations are so much easier to make.
Quote from: Voros;1007861Much repeated but not actually true. What 'exact details' are the characters forced to imitate? Characters and NPCs can die, lose major battles, etc. Seems to me most who say this have only read or played the first one or two modules. The modules are flawed but at least criticize them with some accuracy not broad innaccurate generalizations.
You do have the 'obscure death' rule for the first half of the series, as well as the 'hordes of draconians on every other path' in DL1, IIRC. I can see those annoying devotees of the sandbox/clockwork "No DM intervention once the scenario is in motion" school(s) of gaming. But the flaws have grown in the telling, given that only 2 of the modules map tightly to the novels.
The killer Draconians and obscure death rule are certainly terrible but note that even the obscure death rule is presented as optional, it states you can simply replace NPCs with alternates and that the obscure death rule can be skipped. Plus the 3e revision removes both of those elements. And as you say there is a clear effort to increase player agency in the original modules as they advance.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1007658Regardless of whether it was a campaign or not first (and I'd have some serious doubts about just how similar any 'initial DL campaign' was to what we actually saw in print), in terms of what people actually experienced what we saw was a trilogy of novels and a set of adventures meant to force players to closely imitate the exact details of those novels.
And they were a blast to play, no denying that. Compared to most of the modules of the day they were a whole other league.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1007820Depending on the writer, director, and actors, you've got anything from a summer blockbuster to total dog crap on your hands.
Here's the thing: fantasy as a genre has been done a lot, lately. In movies and TV. And dragonlance is super-formulaic generic fantasy. It offers nothing new. If it was spectacularly written and directed with a great cast and (especially) great special effects, it would at most be a mediocre hit. That's the best it can aim for. Because people have already watched Lord of the Rings.
Despite the success of GoT and LoTR there have actually been very few big budget ambitious fantasy films in recent years. Warcraft is the only one that comes to mind and of course that was a flop from all indications. I think fantasy is still a genre producers are leery of, most of the films tend to be B-films even today. Even in TV it is really superheroes and sf that are dominant, not fantasy.
Let's be positive! (LOLOLOL)
So... who is gonna start with their casting wishlist?
MAKE IT HAPPEN!
The Rock for Carmen
Idrus Elba for Tanis
Quote from: Headless;1008259The Rock for Carmen
Idrus Elba for Tanis
Dragonlance needs this kind of diversity.
Tom Cruise for Flint. He's old enough and short enough.
Hafþór Júlíus Björnsson as Caramon.
Jared Leto as Raistlin.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1008219Here's the thing: fantasy as a genre has been done a lot, lately. In movies and TV. And dragonlance is super-formulaic generic fantasy. It offers nothing new.
But then - the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe is made from super-formulaic generic superhero stories.
It's the actors, the writing (dialog and characters, not plot) that make it work.
(Look at DC for an example that doesn't.)
A D&D movie (DL or not) with the
spirit and chemistry of Iron Man, The Avengers, The Guardians of the Galaxy? Incredibly hard to pull off, but possible. And DL has the
characters for that type of movie.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;1008284But then - the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe is made from super-formulaic generic superhero stories.
It's the actors, the writing (dialog and characters, not plot) that make it work.
(Look at DC for an example that doesn't.)
A D&D movie (DL or not) with the spirit and chemistry of Iron Man, The Avengers, The Guardians of the Galaxy? Incredibly hard to pull off, but possible. And DL has the characters for that type of movie.
Actully I'm not sure if it does. I mean they were lots of fun when I was 14, but thats cause I was 14 and there were dragons.
Honestly Dragon Lance is more grim dark (tm). Certianly middle school melodramatic. The only fun charcter is Taselhoff, and people over 14 feel the same about him as they do about Jar Jar Binks.
In tone DL is much more DC than Marvel. Its about angist and suffering.
I don't think DL was grimdark, more hippie/Mormon/Tolkien.
Loving the casting suggestions. Serious or not.
Goldmoon = Charlize Theron
Riverwind = Ricky Whittle
Tika - Michelle Williams
Kitiara - Noomi Rapace
It might not be grim dark but its not happy. Its really teenage anginsty, junior high melodrama. Tanis is a man between two worlds, Strum is a noble palidin who see's his order is a fraud and his code meaningless, Carmon is has to protect his vicious younger brother and Rastlin is watching the world die, the only happy people are Flint and he's grumpy and too old to adventure any more but he's going to look after these youngsters even if it kills him (spoilers!) and Tas who's annoying. The Plains barbarians are on the run far from home, that elf chick is part of a love triangle and he brother doesn't want her to get hurt.
Even the draconians are made from the stolen eggs of good dragons spoilers again sorry.
I'm not saying you can't make a good movie out of it, but if you make a fun one like guardians of the galaxy, the latest thor or even conan its not true to the source material.
Its more of a Lady Hawk.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1948[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1949[/ATTACH]
Tessa Thompson
Kitiara
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1950[/ATTACH]
Taika Waititi
Rastilin. If he goes from funny good natured sarcasm, to vicious bitter sarcasm. Rastilin is funny, he's just mean.
And the Rock for Carmen. I don't think you need a picture.
Haha..I don't think you have to worry about spoilers for a series that is over 30 years old! I agree it would be hard to do the earnest DL as light comedy.
Casting for DL, that would be kind of tough, for one thing, these guys were pretty young. Also if you want accurate casting, and not white-washed or color-washed, that's going to limit you even more. Every time I think of an actor, they're probably too old.
Goldmoon - Should have a strong charisma/character presence without necessarily a strong physical presence.
Riverwind and Sturm are going to have to be actors who can emote and act with their eyes and face without being pouty bitches.
Tanis has to be a pouty bitch, but make us like him anyway. :D
Kitiara has to be strong and badass without being a ball-breaker or overtly dykish.
Laurana has to be able to sell both the Princess and General.
Andy Serkis, of course, will be Lord Toad.
They'll need the second greatest voice in the universe to be Lord Soth, since James Earl Jones as Soth would be too Vader-ish.
Hmm, coming up with actors, this will be fun.
Quote from: Doom;1008281Jared Leto as Raistlin.
That would work. For a split second, I read it as Jay Leno as Raistlin and laughed.
Quote from: Voros;1008306I don't think DL was grimdark, more hippie/Mormon/Tolkien.
More true for the modules, IMO. The novels also had those elements, but played up the hippie "society and institutions are short-sighted and largely corrupt" and added strong doses of "Evil is cool, Good is boring." The two elements intersected to give us "Good is hypocritical and oppressive."
But no setting that holds that "kender are the truly wise" can be characterized as grimdark.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;1008284But then - the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe is made from super-formulaic generic superhero stories.
It's the actors, the writing (dialog and characters, not plot) that make it work.
(Look at DC for an example that doesn't.)
A D&D movie (DL or not) with the spirit and chemistry of Iron Man, The Avengers, The Guardians of the Galaxy? Incredibly hard to pull off, but possible. And DL has the characters for that type of movie.
I really don't think it does. Most of the characters are just not that interesting. Even Raistlin is pretty shallow and predictable, and the kender is unbearable. I still say it will come out looking like a B-grade Lord of the Rings.
Any DL movie needs to treat Tasselhof the way Peter Jackson treated Tom Bombadil.
Quote from: fearsomepirate;1008585Any DL movie needs to treat Tasselhof the way Peter Jackson treated Tom Bombadil.
I'd be perfectly fine with Tasselhof being re-imaged into any kind of funny character except two: the one he was in the books (however you want to describe that), or a Jar Jar Binks. They want to make him a deadpan snarker, go ahead. The color commentator, sure. Chris Tucker's perennial character? Okay, that's really just a toned down Jar Jar/color commentator combo, but it'd be okay. Funny side character isn't a horrible thing in a movie (see R2D2 and C2PO in Star Wars IV-VI), it's just that they are so often poorly done (see them in SW I-III).
Considering the ongoing "realism!" fad in movies I'd half expect any D&D movie to have no monsters at all. Possibly the characters in modern street clothes. Hollywoods going to fuck it up. Theres no way around this. They are going to fuck it up. Either from trying to make it like TOT or LOTR, or trying to make it like whatever marketing thinks is trendy, or because someone in power hates D&D or someone working on the movie and sets out to sabotage it, Or because they had a script for a sci fi movie and just slapped D&D on it and CGIed in a dragon for 30 seconds..
I think a good D&D movie shouldn't be rocket science. A mismatched band of heroes unite to enter a dungeon where there is a dragon. You've got one or two who are looking to do a good thing, three or four who are just after the treasure, and one who's there for nefarious reasons. They enter a dungeon which is dangerous and full of monsters and traps that reveal their motives and personalities as they overcome the challenges. At least three die horribly. They confront the villain and the dragon in turn, both are too powerful to defeat but the dragon is sympathetic to removing the villain but remains a problem in its own right. They have to fight the nefarious party member who sides with the villain. Hearts are broken, heads roll, the nicest guy or gal in the world dies to bring off the win. They stagger out of the dungeon loaded down with loot and hit the bar.
Quote from: David Johansen;1008606I think a good D&D movie shouldn't be rocket science. A mismatched band of heroes unite to enter a dungeon where there is a ...
... Dagoth?
Like in
Conan the Destroyer?
That felt like a perfect D&D movie.
No, a dungeon and a dragon. Really, these things should be the stars of the movie. The dungeon and the dragon should be awesome. I could see trying to fit in two dungeons and two dragons but the basic structure remains the same.
Yeah, I really don't see it.