|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The movie will be produced by the same guy who directed D&D from 2000. I can see how the movie will be as horrible, as filmmakers do not learn from their mistakes. Jesus, do we have to go through this horror every 10 years or so?
Plus, these quotes don't promise much at all:
Wrath Of The Titans and Red Riding Hood scribe and Frank Darabont protege David Leslie Johnson.
Yeah because those films were "massive successes"
The film will be produced by The Lego Movie producer Roy Lee and Courtney Solomon. The latter actually directed a 2000 Dungeons & Dragons feature, a film that starred Jeremy Irons and did not do well.
Nuff said. Seriously.
I’ve never played the game, but it is a fantasy universe on the order of The Lord Of The Rings, The studio’s intention is to reboot the franchise for a new generation.
Great, aside from never playing the game and not knowing what the hell D&D means, they are going to make it for the new generation? So dumb mindless action with no character development. Got it.
which was most popular back when players had to use their collective imaginations — before video games became so visually sophisticated that it eliminated the need to do much more than sit back and blast away.
Aha, right, because that's what a film should be all about. Blasting away. Who lets these people talk in public?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The movie will be produced by the same guy who directed D&D from 2000. I can see how the movie will be as horrible, as filmmakers do not learn from their mistakes. Jesus, do we have to go through this horror every 10 years or so?
I can see how crap this MIGHT be since Courtney Solomon does SEEM to be a filmmaker who does not learn from his mistakes.
But generalizing that no filmmaker learns from his mistakes is outrageously counterintuitive, as it would nullify the career of every filmmaker ever who made a better movie after a not-so-great movie. Which is most of them.
Mistakes are how people learn. Even filmmakers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They should follow the storyline from Icewind Dale or one of those terrific earlier games.
Yeah because those films were "massive successes"
While they didn't set any records, both films made more than double their budget back at the box office. They were both commercial successes (but critical failures). Given that the 2000 D&D film lost money, they'll probably be pleased if they can make a profit on it.
|
|
Yeah because those films were "massive successes"While they didn't set any records, both films made more than double their budget back at the box office. They were both commercial successes (but critical failures). Given that the 2000 D&D film lost money, they'll probably be pleased if they can make a profit on it.
That's a pretty low goal to set if you ask me...
Hama, I agree with your second and third points (and Bruunwald covered the first), but...
I’ve never played the game, but it is a fantasy universe on the order of The Lord Of The Rings, The studio’s intention is to reboot the franchise for a new generation.Great, aside from never playing the game and not knowing what the hell D&D means, they are going to make it for the new generation? So dumb mindless action with no character development. Got it.
First, the man who is writing is not in any way in charge of the movie. He's just a reporter noting what he's heard. Second, I've no idea about the people making it - some of them may very well have played it. Vin Diesel was effectively a mindless action star with no character development in his early movies, yet he's a D&D nerd and loves to play.
THAT SAID: Given Wrath of the Titans and Red Riding Hood, it could very well be that there is no hope for these films. I don't know. I didn't see either.
which was most popular back when players had to use their collective imaginations — before video games became so visually sophisticated that it eliminated the need to do much more than sit back and blast away.Aha, right, because that's what a film should be all about. Blasting away. Who lets these people talk in public?
Again, you're conflating the article writer's opinion with the movie makers', and I'm pretty sure you're getting the article writer incorrect anyway. The author is noting the difference between pencil and paper and video games and the timing of popularity and gaming styles between the 70's (ish) and today. And, from the words he used, I believe he's comparing using your imagination favorably to "sit back and blast away".
The article writer, I feel, did not come down on the side of appreciating or depreciating the movie, but was carefully neutral in the way they noted what they did.
I do get the feeling that he's not filled with great expectations for this movie, however, based on little bits of wording that have slipped in there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone please make the dragonlance chronicles and not make them sucktastic? Loooong over due!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Been reading on various message boards today, and there's been a lot of pissing and moaning that any movie will suck, that the game is too generic to hang anything engaging off of.
In the light of yesterday's loss of Ray Harryhausen, I suggest this: the monsters need to be the stars. The human characters matter, sure, and a solid, straightforward script can deliver that, but it's the monsters that matter. Everyone remembers the skeletal children of the Hydra from JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, everyone loved the Hulk in the AVENGERS and Darth Vader was the draw for STAR WARS. People liked Batman, but they leave the cinema talking about The Joker.
Wrath of the Titans and Red Riding Hood failed for precisely the same reasons- a lackluster, generic, overly fiddly script and rushed, ugly VFX. They both felt like half made movies that left 20 minutes on the floor- 20 minutes of unnecessary, fiddly exposition, but 20 minutes that were integral to prop up a poor script. Both also failed as monster movies because they were afraid to show off their monsters- they rushed about like blurry, shadowy messes of fur and teeth. Say what you like about Peter Jackson, but he's not afraid to show off his monsters and let the audience drink in the visuals, rather then rushing about in a CGI tornado.
Give us a Beholder or a Mindflayer villain to hang on to, or some terrifying Drow and we'll be set. No Orcs- don't try and compete with LotR- look at other Goblinoids or the Gith maybe. Give us stuff no audience has seen before, but is familiar to players- it's not like there's a shortage of ideas. Protagonists can be as broad as you like- Star Wars succeeded because of the archetypes they used- we don't need a whole lot of inner conflict and angst, but some sharp writing ala. The Princess Bride.
But like I said; nail the monsters in D&D: The Movie and it'll be a franchise that can run and run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who actually liked the recent Conan remake, I think I'm reasonably qualified to judge the merit of bad movies.
There were a few elements of the previous D&D movie that were good. Casting a Wayans was not one of them.
I hope they endeavor to make it a little dark - push that PG-13 rating as far as you can, and don't assume that D&D is kiddie stuff. And for the love of all that is holy, no talking dragons that sound like Sean Connery.
Am I hoping it will be good? Good enough? Yeah. Am I expecting it will be terrible? Yes, yes I am.
*sigh*
Will this be the 4th D&d movie or the 3rd? I've seen the first 2 and they are just awful. Dr who from the 60-70's did more with less. They had a beholder in the first one and it was treated like a dobberman. These studios should look at the success of Walking Dead, GOT, LOTR etc Get a director/producer that knows what hes doing, get a script approved by someone like RA Salvatore, George RR Martin or other good writer and get quality actors (they dont have to be big names) and you have a home run on your hands like iron man.
|
|
3rd
They had a undead black dragon breathing fire in the second so...
The only redeamable parts of the both movies are Profion and Damodar for sheer comedic value, and the rogue from the second when he "uses special secret thief's guild skills". Everything else is pure garbage. I wonder how they even got Thora Birch to act in no.1 Jeremy Irons' choice i won't comment since the man is known for his bad movie choices since 1995-6...
LOL the Book of Vile Darkness movie...yeah.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Get a director/producer that knows what hes doing, get a script approved by someone like RA Salvatore, George RR Martin or other good writer and get quality actors (they dont have to be big names) and you have a home run on your hands like iron man.
I have to disagree about George RR Martin. His books are not worth the paper they were printed on.
3rdThey had a undead black dragon breathing fire in the second so...
The only redeamable parts of the both movies are Profion and Damodar for sheer comedic value, and the rogue from the second when he "uses special secret thief's guild skills". Everything else is pure garbage.
Wouldn't Book of Vile Darkness be considered the 3rd movie, even if it was a made for TV movie.
Speaking of which, has anyone heard when it is coming out on DVD. I was on vacation last November and didn't see it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually liked the 2nd movie, in a "This is recognizably D&D, though as DMed by a psychotic 12 year-old." way.
My argument about how to do a "D&D movie" has always been, "make it a decent story that could happen in a D&D campaign setting". I suspect that Greyhawk would be the best, though Forgotten Realms would be good if the ever-generic "they" don't choose to pursue that as a film series (probably unrelated to each other). It's not going to happen, but that's how I'd see it working out the best.
@ tactislion, i wasn't quoting the article writer, he was quoting someone from the production team. Maybe i misread.
Fair enough. The things I quoted you responding to were the article writer, however, who is not working on the project.
And for the love of all that is holy, no talking dragons that sound like Sean Connery.
Oh, come on! Dragon Heart was great!
Pray tell please.
There were a few elements of the previous D&D movie that were good.
While I'd be very interested in his list, I'll bite, too. This isn't a complete or comprehensive list.
First: the basic premise is pretty neat, the concepts were interesting, and the world could have been intriguing.
The failures come from everything else: the acting, costumes, and final execution of the nifty elements above. Mostly it boils down to extremely overshooting what they needed to.
Some Basic Premise Examples:
- Basic Premise: they did everything wrong with this. The concept of a combined monarchy/magocracit democracy country is great. Focusing on queen and the highest ranking politician in the land, while "epic", is way too high a grasp for a first movie which, like early level play, needs to introduce the world from the ground up. Instead of having a high ranking politician immediately succeed and fail at the beginning of the film, and setting this up as the reason for the central conflict is... not a good idea. It makes him look incompetent and his arrogance a point of stupidity instead of from intelligence, and makes it look like his quest in pointless.
- Basic Premise 2: they started with a poor, uneducated, street-rat kid (a rogue) and tried to make the Aladdin/Disney "in three days" story arc work with live actors - this is a fine story, but not usually one that can told well with live actors (Star Wars being a notable exception). Part of the problem is that he never truly suffers consequences for his actions. Part of the problem is the fact that they try and shove the whole story of his rise to prominence and power into one arc (like trying to tell the story of a level 1 all the way to level 15 in one sitting). Part of the problem is, when they couldn't do this believably, they forced it by a temporal jump cut which removed the actually interesting bits (the burgeoning romance, him building up his skills, most of the action and adventure) and then told us, "Oh, hey, we went through something great, but you didn't see that, so, anyway, we're in love and super-skilled now, kthnxbai." The movie's focus should have been what happened in the map. Which brings me too...
- Basic Premise 3: it should never have been about Justin Whalin's rogue character (whoever he was, I can't recall his name). It should have been an ensemble piece. It was not. If there is ever a time for an ensemble fantasy story, it's Dungeons & Dragons - you know the game built around a team. Whalin's rogue could have had character development and a plot. Birch's wizard could have had the same. And the development didn't need to be huge... again, look at Star Wars (a New Hope, specifically): the biggest piece of character development was Han Solo who was effectively an ancillary character. Wayans was bad, but that's just poor casting choice - as an actor, he delivered the character that everyone expected of him. "The Dwarf" was given so little character that I don't think he has a name, and I'm pretty sure we know nothing about his people. The elf lady... didn't make any sense whatsoever. These people should have gotten just as much development as Whalin or more, because they're very interesting in theory, but boring when we don't know anything about them. While Luke is pretty decidedly "the hero" of A New Hope, Han, Leia, and Chewie all had character development, arcs, and interactions with each other and important stories that didn't revolve exclusively around him. In that way it was a more ensemble piece, and the interesting characters were, in fact, interesting, because we got to know them a bit.
As a brief example of how the interesting-looking elements could have been put together far more effectively: Birch's Apprentice-Wizard could have found something dangerous or something that she stole and was fleeing her superior (Blue Lips guy or not) and ran into two thieves that were burglering (how does one spell that?) a house (possibly as Robin Hood rob the rich/feed the poor, or possible just as thieves) who all are forced to work together to escape mages. These three take said map (or other MacGuffin, I use the map because that's what it was) to a sage or guide or some such, and, while examining, are sucked in. The story then follows them through the fantasy world and their trials and tribulations as they try to escape; during this time a rogue and the mage apprentice develop a romance, we get the story of how and why she was running away as they do (turns out she was working for a rival mage, perhaps) and about the thieves and social class problems, and possibly one of them named Wayans gets killed so we take the whole situation seriously. In the end, they get the Ultimate MacGuffin (for this story) which allows them to complete an adventure, return it to Birch's master, and be rewarded. They may or may not stay together in the future (we don't know) but, much like Star Wars, that doesn't matter right now because they're successful, rewarded, and so on (probably with the possibility of being "hired" for more missions later, for sequels). Drop in some hints around the edges that there's something bigger going on, and remind the audience (not necessarily after the reward) that there's still a foe unconquered (Blue Lips who was chasing Birch), and we're done.
A good story? Not necessarily. A better plot and set up than the meandering over-reaching one we got? Yes. Could it have been flubbed? Certainly, and possibly even (maybe) worse than the current movie we got (which itself could probably have been done worse, though it's hard to imagine how).
But it cuts out the huge and unwieldy bits of meteoric rise to powers and stupidly-arrogant wizards while hewing to the same basic plot points that were in the movie itself, and changes how we are introduced to everyone so that we learn about them more-or-less at the same time and get to know and care about them as they get to know and care about each other. The quest for the dragon-scepter is unnecessary - we only care about the fate of the people we're following.*
My plot-change above is not the only way of changing the plot, in the slightest - there are an infinite variation, and probably all of them better. I was just trying to stick to the plot they had in the movie.
I've long said that things like Sons of Gruumsh, Twilight Tomb, or Whispers of the Vampire's Blade would make substantially better movies than what we've got. Of course those were released long after the movie itself was made (in 2005, 2006, and 2004, respectively), but that doesn't negate the point. Simply take an iteration of D&D (3rd or not) and then take a published adventure for it, and make the movie out of that. Like LotR, cut the stuff that doesn't make a good movie, focus on the adventurers as people, and go for it.
* Heck being stuck in map-land (whatever that is) is enough of a reason enough to diverge from known game rules elements.
EXAMPLE: Why don't they have any clerics to bring back Wayans (or whoever)? Because, you know, they're in map-land. And finding a 10th lvl cleric isn't so hard (raise dead), but good luck finding a 17th, considering Wayans' body is stuck in map-land and thus in need of True Res. Of course, it could be interestingly gruesome to have Whalin keep a body piece - like, say, a finger or tooth or hair or something, perhaps to "bury him back home" - and Birch to cast gentle repose on it repeatedly throughout the adventure (or just once, depending on the length of the adventure), and thus allow a druid to reincarnate him later (introducing the elves and their "life magic" in game terms).
** The books were much better, though the last two were pretty good.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The animation is a little dated now, but Scourge of Worlds is probably still the best D&D movie I've seen. The Choose Your Own Adventure-style storytelling is fun, but it only really works with a DVD or other home viewing format. Something they did right with Scourge of Worlds, however, is they used characters players of the 3.0/3.5 game recognized instead of the random assortment of generic archetypes in the live action films. I don't know if Hasbro can still do anything with Dragonlance, but they've still got Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and a dozen other campaign settings from which to choose. The could basically make a D&D: Eberron movie featuring some iconic characters and, if it did well, spin the series off into a sequel and then maybe movies set in Greyhawk, the Realms, whatever.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've covered this here, but there is a major problem they have which bears repeating.
The D&D move rights, as far as I've ever been able to tell, only cover the D&D core rulebooks from 3rd Edition (and possibly the first two). That means they have the rights to:
Spell names.
Creatures from the Monstrous Manual and other core products (not generic fantasy races like elves, dwarves etc).
Erm, that's about it.
So they can make a D&D movie in which wizards blast people with magic missiles and Melf's acid arrows, but they certainly CANNOT, under any circumstances, make a movie about Drizzt Do'Urden or Raistlin or set in Faerun or on Krynn. The rights to those worlds, characters and novels remains firmly locked at Hasbro and Wizards, and they are not parting with them without a dump truck of money.
Unfortunately, the reverse also applies. Hasbro cannot make a FORGOTTEN REALMS movie featuring drow (as I believe drow are not generic but do exist in the core rulebooks, so the rights will be held by Warner Brothers), Melf's acid arrows or magic missiles. They did make a DRAGONLANCE movie by not focusing on D&D-specific, movie copyrighted spells or creatures, but then DRAGONLANCE is a bit further removed from the D&D 'core' rules and setting (and something like PLANESCAPE, RAVENLOFT or DARK SUN even moreso; unfortunately, they're not the settings which will make the money).
If Warner Brothers want to do the Drizzt movie, they need to reach a deal with Wizards. That'll put up the cost of the film a lot, so they probably won't. The problem, and something that WB seems baffled by, is that a 'D&D movie' is simply a generic fantasy movie featuring elves and wizards. There's no characters, locations or plots that there is a pre-existing audience for. On the other hand, Weis & Hickman and Salvatore have massive international fanbases that are bigger than D&D itself (D&D's core rulebooks have sold 20 million copies; R.A. Salvatore has sold north of 30 million novels worldwide). Make a Drizzt or DRAGONLANCE movie, and you'd be much likelier to have a hit than just making a generic fantasy movie with D&D on the poster.
Of course, maybe they'll get an amazing script and make a massive monster success without having to do that, but I consider this a fairly unlikely prospect.
Will this be the 4th D&d movie or the 3rd?
The 5th overall, but only the 2nd to get a theatrical release.
1: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS (2000): the Jeremy Irons sucktastic one.
2: WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD (2005): its direct-to-DVD sequel, focusing on Damodar.
3: DRAGONLANCE: DRAGONS OF AUTUMN TWILIGHT (2008): the animated, direct-to-DVD adaptation of the novel. Fairly obscure, though it has a good voice cast (Kiefer Sutherland, Lucy Lawless). Actually the best D&D film, but that's not saying much.
4: BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS (2012): the latest, direct-to-DVD movie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can someone please make the dragonlance chronicles and not make them sucktastic? Loooong over due!
Sadly, Dragons of Autumn Twilight is probably the best movie we've had so far--sure, the animation and storyboarding was crap, but it's hard to totally ruin a good book series.
Come on, Hasbro. Can't someone make a D&D movie that doesn't suck?
Here're my thoughts: Make a decent villain, don't cheap out on effects, design an interesting ensemble cast and develop it, and, in short, put some effort into it. Maybe base the movie off an existing module, even--or at least some existing characters, like Mordenkainen or Dragotha.
I'm not very hopeful. Copyrights being what they are, I expect the movie will be around the quality of the recent brony fan-made episodes. :P
The animation is a little dated now, but Scourge of Worlds is probably still the best D&D movie I've seen.
+1. Definitely the best animated D&D movie I've seen. Worthwhile to watch.
The First one was horrible....biggest problem was it was a little kids flick.
The second one was fun...with all the D&D reference.
The third one was also fun...with some actualy mature concepts...
But the all suffered from meh to bad acting(and script etc) and bad special effects/
The problem why the first failed so horrible while the last two was fun was that They were trying to Make a D&D movie.
You can not do that. What they should be doing is making a FR story...or a Greyhawk story...etc.
The animation is a little dated now, but Scourge of Worlds is probably still the best D&D movie I've seen.+1. Definitely the best animated D&D movie I've seen. Worthwhile to watch.
Might have to look into that...
So they can make a D&D movie in which wizards blast people with magic missiles and Melf's acid arrows, but they certainly CANNOT, under any circumstances, make a movie about Drizzt Do'Urden or Raistlin or set in Faerun or on Krynn. The rights to those worlds, characters and novels remains firmly locked at Hasbro and Wizards, and they are not parting with them without a dump truck of money.
Welp. So much for ever having a good D&D movie if the rights are actually split like that. Hasbro is one of the worst bad guys when it comes to intellectual property claims, so I'd never in a million years trust them to come to any kind of agreement over rights.
I agree that the only successful films are going to come from the side of whoever has the rights to the various settings as once again copyright ensures that people are able to make creative works. Oops.
On another note, I'll have to try to get hold of a copy of this third movie. Sounds like a great movie for a drinking game if nothing else.
|
|
Hehe, first movie dringking game, dring every time:
1. Profion is overly dramatic
2. A s***y CGI dragon appears
3. Damodar tries to appear badass
4. Marlon Wayans is not funny
5. The main actor does something stupid
6. Anyone else does something stupid
7. Thora birch realises what kind of s***pile she will be in and just gives up on acting
8. They miss-represent a D&D monster...
Come to think of it, if you survive the movie, your guts are made of vibranium...
EDIT, come to think of it, most people would simply die from alcohol poisoning at the scene of the final battle.
Maybe i over exaggerated but still...two words, Michael Bay.
Err..Bay's movies make shit loads of cash - how is he 'making mistakes'? Granted you may not like his movies but a heckuva lot of people do and they spend the money.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like i said before, a fact that a film makes a lot of money doesn't mean that it's good. Just means that there are a lot of people willing to see it. Most of them hoping that it will be good.
Plus if a person does not see a movie, they have no right to speak anything bad or good about it as far as i am concerned...
As someone who actually liked the recent Conan remake, I think I'm reasonably qualified to judge the merit of bad movies.
It is rare that I actually LOL when reading a post on an internet forum. This was one of those rare occasions.
Like i said before, a fact that a film makes a lot of money doesn't mean that it's good. Just means that there are a lot of people willing to see it. Most of them hoping that it will be good.
Plus if a person does not see a movie, they have no right to speak anything bad or good about it as far as i am concerned...
Oh. I was more interested in the supposed 'mistakes' Bay was doing in making his movies. He is a director out to make money for himself and his studio/backers. He does that. Whether the movie he makes is 'good' or not isn't really relevant - he is wildly successful and just can't be said to be making mistakes.
By your second statement I take it you have seen a lot of Bay's movies then? I'm not really sure if that was directed at me or not.
|
Wasn't the 2000 D&D film the one where the fighter orders his wizard companion to keep a horde of barbarians at bay so that he could use the time to solve a riddle? If I remember correctly, that one didn't exactly capture the essance of D&D.
Getting a Golarion movie might be cool, I think. Most other campaigns not so much.
|
|
Like i said before, a fact that a film makes a lot of money doesn't mean that it's good. Just means that there are a lot of people willing to see it. Most of them hoping that it will be good.
Plus if a person does not see a movie, they have no right to speak anything bad or good about it as far as i am concerned...
Oh. I was more interested in the supposed 'mistakes' Bay was doing in making his movies. He is a director out to make money for himself and his studio/backers. He does that. Whether the movie he makes is 'good' or not isn't really relevant - he is wildly successful and just can't be said to be making mistakes.
By your second statement I take it you have seen a lot of Bay's movies then? I'm not really sure if that was directed at me or not.
I have. And to me a worse mistake one can make is to make a bad product that earns a lot of money. I don't particularly care about money.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't particularly care about money.
That's probably why he's in the business and you're not, tbh. Among other reasons.
Not being insulting, just stating the facts. If that's your mindset - and I sympathize, it's mine as well - then going into the movie business, or really any business, is not a good path for you to take.
The people who spend the time and effort making movies are typically in it for a profit, and will tend to do whatever attracts the biggest crowds. Unfortunately for those of us who want something more, the majority of moviegoers - at least, if latest trends are any indication - seem to prefer something to go see and veg out for a while on rather than a deep or thought-provoking storyline behind a movie. Hence why summer blockbuster action movies still make a ton of money despite being as shallow as a fishbowl pothole.
People who go in with the mindset of "I don't care about the money" tend to make stuff that doesn't get a lot of the same attention, regardless of its quality, because it doesn't attract the eye of the paying customer. And unfortunately, you need money to keep going, so unless they hit the lucky jackpot and become the surprise success, most of them tend to fade into obscurity unnoticed.
There are of course fields where the opposite is true - such as our beloved tabletop RPG industry - but those are the exception rather than the rule these days.
|
Why would that be true of D&D and not of other fantasy movies?I'm a strong believer that DnD can only be addapted well through animation, a live action version of DnD will always look silly and thus will never be good
Then again, lets wait for the trailer, this may be a bad but enjoyable movie
Mainly because most D&D monsters are much more unnatural than the standard orc
Hasbro has asserted that it owns the D&D IP and will not allow the Warner Brothers movie to go ahead. They are also developing their own project at Universal.
I think they're out of luck on this one. They sold the movie rights to Courtney Solomon in a pretty watertight agreement, and they don't have any room to maneuver. Apparently there was even a previous legal challenge and Solomon's rights to the film rights were upheld. So Hasbro are really out of the loop on this one. They can make a FORGOTTEN REALMS or a Drizzt movie, sure, but they have to avoid treading on the rights that Solomon has, which is going to be difficult.
Does Solomon actually have the rights from now until he rises as a Lich or was there a fixed time limit where the rights revert back to WotC/Hasbro? Was there a buy back option?
I think the keep to a successful D&D movie is capturing the perspective of the world that an adventuring party has. While D&D games (and RPGs in general) sometimes are played as one-on-one scenarios mostly it is a party of 4-8 adventurers with skills that complement one another and their fulfilling a quest, or at a minimum being a bunch of old-school treasure hunters/monster slayers. While people do play it that way, D&D (as a game) is rarely about deep character drama. It's about gp, XP and leveling up.
As I noted in my post above, it needs to be an ensemble piece. Clue was a pretty amazing D&D Movie.
Does Solomon actually have the rights from now until he rises as a Lich or was there a fixed time limit where the rights revert back to WotC/Hasbro? Was there a buy back option?
There's a time limit, I belive. That's why the zero-budget D&D2 and 3 were made, to keep the film rights. I think they have to produce a movie once every 7-8 years or lose the rights back to WotC/Hasbro.
There's no buy-back option either. WotC's lawyers were really clueless when they signed the deal.