I have a question for you.
A new d&d series or movie is planned and YOU get to decide what characters and races are involved, however it only uses the first phb and the forgotten realms players guide for choices... what characters would you choose for either the movie or the series and how would you explain them being together in the first place?
Sorry its just that after reading the latest who would play who in an OOTS movie and the Shine on Me video it got me wondering what you would think of this and by that I mean who would you choose and why?
Well I thought it was an interesting question to ask..
|
I'd choose classes and races not found in other movies over classes found in other movies. But I would also use bridge Races/classes. I wouldn't use halflings because LoTR similarities.
Humans (by necessity not desire)
A Dragon Born
Two Dwarves
The Dwarves would both be Paladins or Fighters, one is the leader the other his squire. A dwarves connection to home is very important in most fantasy. In a movie this is a good way to explore the notion of hero as defender. A Paladin is IMO a better defender by story than a fighter
The dragon Born would be a wizard or warlock. Two very alien ideas presented together would make this creature more fearsome then his counterparts.
The humans would fill the quota of the other roles. Either a rogue or ranger for striker, and a cleric or Warlord. Niether of those roles I find interesting (as a personal decision) in the current 4.0 standards. But I still find the defender, and the controller to really represent High Fantasy
I'd toss out all the PHBs and DMGs from every edition, lock them in a bin, and write a good story first.
I'd toss out all the PHBs and DMGs from every edition, lock them in a bin, and write a good story first.
Okay care to suggest a storyline then?
|
I wouldn't want to 'throw all the wierdness on one character.'
So if there was a Warlock, it would be a feypact elf. If there was a tiefling or dragonborn, I'd want it to be a 'normal' class like a fighter or rogue or something. Making the tiefling a warlock, for example, would make the party seem kind of 'normal dude, normal dude, total freakshow, normal dude...'
On the one hand, playing to stereotype would lead to something like a tiefling rogue and dragonborn paladin or fighter, but playing against type and having the tiefling be a monk and the dragonborn be a sorcerer or wizard could be interesting.
On the other, other hand, I wouldn't want a dragonborn in the movie anyway, unless it is animated. The money wouldn't have the budget necessary to make them look anything other than craptacular, IMO, and I'm pretty dubious of CGI characters interacting with non-CGI characters by anyone not named Peter Jackson. Tieflings are more 'do-able' (in every sense of the word). If Bjork can get away with looking like a tiefling, then I suspect that the FX people can make a credible one for a full-length feature film.
Since a D&D3 movie would be all about showing off the new stuff, the party would pretty much need to have at least one of the new races (Tiefling) and one of the new classes (Warlock). Perhaps some 'old-school' stuff like a Druid and / or Gnome or 1/2 Orc could be squeaked in there as well, just to show the range of the game, how it can encompass both the 'new stuff' and yet isn't incapable of also expanding to incorporate all of the cool stuff from editions past.
Movie 1 had a pair of Rogues, a Fighter, a Ranger and a Wizard.
Movie 2 had a Paladin, a Cleric, a Barbarian, a Rogue and a Wizard (that I recall).
So far, they've been kinda Rogue heavy. Using another straight Fighter (perhaps with a funky weapon, like a spiked chain), or a Monk. or Druid, or even a Bard (using some not-horrible means of inspiration, like oratory in a thunderous voice, sounding less like pansy singing and more like Saruman calling up the storm in Lord of the Rings or with the prescence of Merlin chanting the Charm of Making in Excalibur) could show some versatility.
I'm not sure how well a Warlord would carry over to the screen, and some of the fidgety little abilities like 'shift ally one square' would look pretty bizarre, I think. (It *could* look neat, with the Warlord having a chessmaster motif and pushing his little minions around a floor of black and white marble squares, but as a bad-guy, more than a good-guy, IMO.) Generally, 'though, I think the more artificial feeling combat mechanics like shifting and people granting each other healing surges might be best to hand-wave in the interest of a purely dramatic story.
And yeah, Lilith has it right that there should be a good story written first, and then some experts come along and find ways to flavor it with ideas from the D&D brand, rather than try to create a D&D story from the ground up, since D&D doesn't feel terribly cinematic. (And that's not edition specific. There have been D&D stories that have felt cinematic, such as the first Dragonlance trilogy, but, as the modules demonstrated, those stories really didn't translate well into actual *gameplay.* I think that goes both ways. Don't try to make a movie that simulates gameplay.)
I have a question for you.
A new d&d series or movie is planned and YOU get to decide what characters and races are involved, however it only uses the first phb and the forgotten realms players guide for choices... what characters would you choose for either the movie or the series and how would you explain them being together in the first place?Sorry its just that after reading the latest who would play who in an OOTS movie and the Shine on Me video it got me wondering what you would think of this and by that I mean who would you choose and why?
Well I thought it was an interesting question to ask..
I'd be in the movie but its not in Greyhawk, so I can't. Darn actor's guild rules anyway. I'd play a Prophet.
Okay care to suggest a storyline then?
Not at the moment. :P
I got one: find the thread that's "Return to revenge of the Temple of Elemental Evil"...I'd pay to see that...erm, well except the "Lareth the Beautiful" in his underwear part, that ones for the ladies...
The best way to adapt a game to the screen, whether RPG or computer game, is not to bother too much about following the rules or technical aspects of the game itself. Anyway, the more you try to follow the rules, the more you will find afficionados yelling at the smallest deviation. It goes the same way about adapting a book.
As Lilith said, what make a good movie is a good story. And good actors. Not special effects.
So the movie shouldn't even consider any version of the rules, AD&D, D&D2, D&D3.5 or D&D4.
That's about D&D, period. And D&D is about the characters and the adventures.
It's about the spirit of the game. The atmosphere.
|
|
An old school plotline, perhaps based on the Slavelords series, could be funky.
Rival fascinating *group* of villains, rather than one scene-munching BBEG and his scabby minions, scantily-clad heroes busting out of captivity and fighting their way to freedom, exploding volcano in the background, it's got potential!
Monk, upon dropping the third 'false Markessa,' "Do you think that one was the real Markessa?"
Barbarian, "Who cares? I'm just killing anything that looks like a blonde elf on general principle."