The next D&D movie...


Movies

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,141 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

JoelF847 wrote:
I hope they realize that you need to start planning that from the first movie though and not just throw a bunch of stuff at the wall, see what sticks, and jam things together later on.

I think with D&D all you need to do is create a good first movie and worry about other things later on. With the MCU they started with Iron Man and Hulk and the crossover between them was absolutely minimal, and it took four years before they really got this idea going of doing a big crossover film. Certainly in 2008 they weren't thinking of Thanos and the Infinity Stones.

So you need to do some planning (more than, say, the new Star Wars trilogy) but you don't need to go overboard in planning things and lose track of the individual movie you're working on in the moment (one of several reasons the DCU movies didn't work well, to start with at least)


Next time I'll just suggest we do a movie on Kender, tinker gnomes and redeemed drow rangers...

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Next time I'll just suggest we do a movie on Kender, tinker gnomes and redeemed drow rangers...

And they'll all be played by Wayans brothers!

Or perhaps muppets.


I agree that the Basic formula to make it a D&D movie instead of any other Fantasy is the day to day magic and a band of heroes. On top of that, use some iconic monsters in their actual role (not the travesty of the beholder Thing in the D&D movie). Trouble is, a lot of D&D Iconic Monster are hella generic. But taking cues from Marvel again, that does not Need to be a Problem - you can just namedrop some stuff, like famous Locations, gods or Monsters (Waterdeep, Vecna, whatever) and the Geeks will rejoice, while you are not trapped in doing any super specific storyline.

Oh, and it would be awesome if it didn't START with some apocalyptic threat. Have them fight a Gnoll Warlord or something, and when he is defeated you can Point to "Lord Soth will get you for this".


DerNils wrote:
Oh, and it would be awesome if it didn't START with some apocalyptic threat. Have them fight a Gnoll Warlord or something, and when he is defeated you can Point to "Lord Soth will get you for this".

I agree with this. The worst way to begin is with a universe hangs in the balance story. You should walk up to that and not begin with it.

With 5E, Wizbro has gone all in on Forgettable Realms, so I'd assume that is where the first film(s) will take place. Maybe they will try and make Drizzzit their wolverine of the franchise?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
DerNils wrote:
Oh, and it would be awesome if it didn't START with some apocalyptic threat. Have them fight a Gnoll Warlord or something, and when he is defeated you can Point to "Lord Soth will get you for this".
I agree with this. The worst way to begin is with a universe hangs in the balance story. You should walk up to that and not begin with it.

This approach also lets you play with the ridiculous power curve that's a key part of D&D.

Start with the Gnoll Warlord (or even weaker, since that's the climax of the first movie) and a couple movies later they're taking on death knights.


Having to introduce an ensemble cast, do iconics justice (if major characters), AND handle an epic world-shattering/ending plot all in a risky first movie would definitely be too much to handle.

Keeping it small would allow them to minimize needed exposition while not confusing newbies.


So no one thinks there should be an evil cabal of of notable D&D villains from across the Multiverse doing stuff to be evil?

Also I still think there should be kender involved with puppets..


Thomas Seitz wrote:

So no one thinks there should be an evil cabal of of notable D&D villains from across the Multiverse doing stuff to be evil?

Also I still think there should be kender involved with puppets..

Well, there's the Dead Gods series, which ends with a kender loose in the Realms...


Yeah but when I think of Dead Gods...I tend to think more about Scarred Lands...but that's just me.

Also kender as puppers makes sense to me.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If Van Diesel plays Minsc, I'm there first showing, first day.


Set wrote:

I just want an actual *party,* not a single hero and his tagalong sidekicks. Preferably with folk to cover the four classic roles of magic-user, fighting-man, cleric and thief. Everything else can wait for sequels, including the fancy later additions like warlocks and dragonborn.

I'm rewatching Leverage on Vudu right now and loving it all over again. Great show with a fantastic 'party'. Fighter, Thief, Hacker, mastermind, and con artist running missions. I tend to describe it as a cross between the Oceans 11 and the A-team. Everyone has a job, everyone gets the spotlight. Hard to pick your favorite character.

That's a great blueprint for a movie about an adventuring party.


It might do well with a classic five-man band, too - a power trio and then two additional figures. Maybe a Paladin added to the standard party? Partnered with the Cleric for the duo, and then the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard are a trio that know each other and are a little newer to the whole adventuring thing, but get wrapped up in the quest?


Yeah a caper flick would work pretty well. Make some legend up about an item of immense power, but after centuries of searching most folks believe its a myth. Enter the party of diverse characters all searching for their own reasons (fame, fortune, esoteric knowledge). Catch wind of the items location but its in the bottom of a treacherous dungeon. The party must use their diverse set of skills to survive the traps and crypt guardians to reach the item. Flick ends with the party taking the item back to civilization.

Cut scene reveals that taking the item from its cradle has unleashed a threat that will need to be faced with in a future installment. Something like that would be fun.


To detail my idea a little further...

Paladin and Cleric are from friendly but different churches and follow different deities. However, they do respect each other's roles. Cleric is the one with the Quest, and Paladin was sent along as support, and they consult each other in different situations. For example, Cleric occasionally goes "What does Deity of Bravery say about attacking this enemy camp?", and Paladin goes "What does Deity of General Goodness suggest doing about these goblin babies?" They clearly value their own rules, but they're basically split between command of military and social matters.

Fighter is an older, experienced warrior. No magic or special powers, but lots of experience and fights in an extremely practical way, and more than once he helps get rid of nasty, largely non-magical threats. He's going along mainly to supervise Rogue (a female tiefling) and Wizard (a half-elf of indeterminate gender), who he's somewhat fatherly towards. Rogue and Wizard probably stumble across the Quest by accident while running away from trouble and Cleric ropes them into it (getting local law enforcement to stop chasing them), then Fighter steps in and insists on helping, and so the group goes forward and has some adventures.

Personally, I'd enjoy a story like that. XD


I enjoy the story where the paladin is the leader but everyone else pretends he's not.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
I enjoy the story where the paladin is the leader but everyone else pretends he's not.

That's a pretty common trope (Superman/Batman, Cap/Stark, Cyclops/Wolverine all kinda have this going on)

Sovereign Court

In what universe is Cyclops a paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In what universe are any of them Paladins?

:p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on who the writer was. Kind of like it depends on who the player is.
Paladins they are but not always well understood by those who would characterize them.

Sovereign Court

Cap definitely would be a paladin, one that would use his powers to inspire, give hope and he'd be an awesome leader.
Supes, is simply lawful good. A truly good man. Which is an amazing thing and something that people of the DC universe should be eternally grateful for.
Cyclops is lawful neutral, leaning to good. He wants to be a hero and do good, but he is too boorish and practical to be a paladin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
Cyclops is lawful neutral, leaning to good. He wants to be a hero and do good, but he is too boorish and practical to be a paladin.

The dude likes to blow #### up that's for sure.

I never saw him as boorish just immature. For all that Professor X groomed him for leadership he should've behaved better. Small irony with Logan's transformation towards paladinhood... in at least one timeline.


Oh wait! We're talking about the next D&D movie.
:D


QB,

It can be both...

And yeah Cyclops isn't LG. X-men stories of late proven that.

All I know is when I play paladins, NO ONE pretends I'm the leader.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
So no one thinks there should be an evil cabal of of notable D&D villains from across the Multiverse doing stuff to be evil?

The Sothicide Squad?


Wert,

Not QUITE that but more like the Cabal from Marvel Comics.


I quite want a universe where the dungeon master is the protagonist and whatever is going on in his or her head becomes parallel plot lines


Elliseal,

Yeah if I want that I'll watch more Critical role...


ellisael wrote:
I quite want a universe where the dungeon master is the protagonist and whatever is going on in his or her head becomes parallel plot lines

Perhaps the Dungeon Master can be one of the Elders of the next universe, replacing the Grandmaster.

You might be in for a long wait. Then again, Marvel...


Damon,

I'd rather they do that with Q and have John Delanice do that with ST:G, Voyager and maybe a dash of DS9.


So, are we doing a D&D/Marvel/Star Trek crossover here? Not opposed necessarily, just curious.


Well, Star Trek/X-Men was done as a novel a while back (and Star Trek/Legion of Superheroes and Star Trek/Green Lantern as comic miniseries, FWIW), so...maybe adding D&D to the mix is the next illogical step?


Who knows what all they will do? I mean right now it's clear that we'll not get Into the Spiderverse meeting up with Star Wars...


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Who knows what all they will do? I mean right now it's clear that we'll not get Into the Spiderverse meeting up with Star Wars...

Spider-Ham knocking out some Gamorreans with a giant mallet?

"Use the Force, Miles"?

Peter fanboying over all of it?

Yes, please!


I'm just saying if Disney owns stuff, we should TOTALLY get Multiversal cross overs with their products.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You folks want to ruin everything.


I do? I just thought this was an improvement...


Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm just saying if Disney owns stuff, we should TOTALLY get Multiversal cross overs with their products.

You're joking right? consider me trolled if not...


I'm a paladin PDK. I barely joke. And honestly I'd like to see these kinds of cross overs. I mean that's how we got Batman fighting the TMN and the Foot Clan...

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm a paladin PDK. I barely ...

Completely off topic, but is there a reason you never use the reply feature? It’s the preferred forum way of replying and it avoids confusion when you reply to a post that’s a few posts back or even worse, on a previous page/screen.

Doing so also might also keep you from shortening or abbreviating people’s screen names, which some people find to be bad etiquette.

Just wanted to put it out there


Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm a paladin PDK. I barely joke. And honestly I'd like to see these kinds of cross overs. I mean that's how we got Batman fighting the TMN and the Foot Clan...

I will have to disagree on this one. My personal preference is not for companies like Disney, upon acquiring a franchise or brand, to begin to throw everything they own into some kind of big stew. The ownership of the brand should not justify messing around existing canon. It's like buying a brand new Honda and upon arriving at home, immediately pull out the head lights and somehow jury-rig replacing them with Ford parts. Owning something should not mean removing what made it good, or what made it 'itself' to begin with, just because you can. Such things should be left for the writers and artists to decide. Executives dictating marching orders for artists is poor taste. I know it has happened lots with this whole MCU thing, and while I know many folks thought the idea neat (myself included) at the beginning, I think many folks also see that any idea, when abused, can lead to the degradation of what made something special to begin with.

I grew up with Marvel comics, eagerly awaiting my weekly visit to the comic book store, but since the Marvel MCU movie experiment started, I have:

1. stopped buying Marvel comics; (now only reading Doom Patrol and a few other obscure titles)
2. stopped buying marvel toys;
3. stopped watching marvel cartoons; (batman or joker or JLA animated one off movies much better)
4. stopped watching marvel TV shows (agents of SHIELD, agent Carter, inhumans: blech!) -- (Doom Patrol, Pennyworth? YAY!)
5. basically not doing anything marvel outside watching the occasional new MCU movie release at the theatre... and even that is starting to take a backseat to other movies...

Thing is, while having MCU movies is neat, people have a finite amount of time or money in their lives to spend, and I personally got lazy and told myself, 'alright, I guess I'll just keep up with the movies now... no time for the rest of this if I want to keep having a life'.


Marc,

I rarely use it since often I have to reply to more than one person. But I'll keep it in mind IF people do get more annoyed. As for shortening names, I figure people generally will call me Thomas so if they call me Tom, or Tommy, I'll forgive them.

PDK,

Wow. I must say I have the OPPOSITE view in terms of I watch a goodly amount of MCU shows (Agents of SHIELD was great but didn't like seasons 6 and probably won't care much for season 7) (Season five was luke-warm until they brought in freaking GRAVITION!)

I haven't had time to watch cartoons but then again I've kind of stopped since I'm still waiting for other things to do that. I will agree some of the DC shows are great, but I wasn't that impressed (so far) with Season 2 of Titans compared to one...and the CW shows are getting interesting now that we have a Bat PERSON involved.

You and I can disagree of course, but I feel throwing things together makes things interesting. But that's just me.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Seitz wrote:


I rarely use it since often I have to reply to more than one person. But I'll keep it in mind IF people do get more annoyed.

Yep, that's why folks either reply to each person individually so it doesn't get confusing, OR, if you feel you absolutely must have multiple replies in one post for some reason, you simply do multiple quotes (like I've done here.)

Thomas Seitz wrote:

As for shortening names, I figure people generally will call me Thomas so if they call me Tom, or Tommy, I'll forgive them.

People may shorten your name, especially in actual, real life conversation, but that's not a reason to do it to others. It's simple to just copy the person's entire screen name and then paste it if you have to refer to them by name.

Of course, if you start following standard forum convention and use the reply function, there's actually less need to always start your posts out by addressing people like you're responding to an e-mail ...


Marc,

I don't like doing the whole multi-quote thing unless it's a feature offered by a message board.

Also in real life I go by Blaine. There's no good way to shorten that. Also, I had for quite some time gone by the handle Nightfall, so NF was an option too.

As for responding to people as if by email, I figure it works out well since my original style was to type one to three letter postings like every 30 seconds. So...this works better I feel.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marc Radle wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm a paladin PDK. I barely ...

Completely off topic, but is there a reason you never use the reply feature? It’s the preferred forum way of replying and it avoids confusion when you reply to a post that’s a few posts back or even worse, on a previous page/screen.

Doing so also might also keep you from shortening or abbreviating people’s screen names, which some people find to be bad etiquette.

Just wanted to put it out there

Thomas Seitz wrote:

Marc,

I don't like doing the whole multi-quote thing unless it's a feature offered by a message board.

As a friendly FYI, you can create your own multiquotes and thus help make readers' lives easier to figure out what you are replying to with copying and pasting (using separate tabs and/or Notepad for assistance, which I find useful because it also helps save a copy of your post if the forum eats it).

On a different note, assuming what doesn't bother you doesn't bother other people generally can lead to at best gaffes and at worst seriously upsetting people.

However, *coughs* it's ALSO good message board etiquette to bring personal advice and critique into private messages, especially when it drives the original thread off topic. (And I seriously apologize for both not following my own advice and for popping up like a volunteer thread police, but the time seemed right for a PSA.) :)

(And of course if a hypothetical individual was deeply concerned about another's general behavior on the board, another option is to email the mods and share the concern, and leave handling it to their discretion.)

Of course given the subject here is "The Next D&D Movie" and everyone is having the same Marvel and/or Marvel versus DC conversation that feels like is happening in every other active entertainment thread, I'm not too worried about thread derail at this point. Still.

As I'm just throwing a bunch of stuff out there to take or leave, replying to me is unnecessary, but if you feel a burning need to do so, since almost everything I said is off-topic, please send me a PM. Thank you.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

All excellent points DeathQuaker!
I’m officially moving on :)

On topic - I’m still holding out hope that this will be the long awaited and much wished for big-budget live-action DragonLance movie!


Yes moving on to D&D the movie; I still stand by my cross multiverse adventure that might be set in Sigil.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still hoping for a D&D movie about a *party* of adventurers, working together, not one 'hero' and his plucky sidekicks. Even more equal balance between the 'core four' than an Expendables or Magnificent Seven, in which anyone who isn't Stallone or Statham/Pratt or Denzel is kind of forced into the background and gets maybe one cool establishing moment when introduced, and one later during the big fighty mcfight.

Plus a cleric of some sort. There's usually a rogue, warrior and / or wizard in these types of fantasy stories, but almost never a healer / priest, perhaps because of some hesitation over presenting some fake god or religion and inviting that tempest in a teapot controversy. More focus on the support role that keeps the action hero at the front of the party alive to keep fighting would be nice.

Traditional D&D monsters like mind flayers, owlbears, rust monsters or displacer beasts seem like a must. Go with that IP that nobody else uses. I like me some cryptids and critters from mythology like manticores and medusa, goblins and orcs and trolls (which I can see in a Tolkien movie or a Clash of the Titans remake), but, at the same time, for a D&D movie, I hope to see some uniquely D&D monsters. (Not a fan of beholders, but they are a perfect example.) Hopefully few of the oddballs like tojanida, though... Yikes. :)

While on the subject of Tolkien, we've had some great movies this generation with dwarves, elves and halflings/hobbits, so it might break some new ground and serve to differentiate a D&D movie by using some more D&D-ish fantasy races, like the tiefling, in the main group's makeup. I'd be fine with dwarves, elves and halflings in the background, or, a very-much-not-Tolkien-y one (such as one of the shorter-than-human more fey Greyhawk elves), but prefer that the 'core four' be mostly humans, with a single oddball like a tiefling. (A tiefling in the rogue role would be obvious, but putting one in the cleric or wizard or even fighter role could be more fun and break assumptions.) I'm less fond of the dragonborn, but that's another option, although I don't think I'd want too much 'cantina' in a first offering. Mostly humans will save for effects to be used elsewhere, and tiefling seems cheaper than dragonborn, as they can have a more human appearance and require less work on the facial prosthesis.

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:

I'm still hoping for a D&D movie about a *party* of adventurers, working together, not one 'hero' and his plucky sidekicks. Even more equal balance between the 'core four' than an Expendables or Magnificent Seven, in which anyone who isn't Stallone or Statham/Pratt or Denzel is kind of forced into the background and gets maybe one cool establishing moment when introduced, and one later during the big fighty mcfight.

Plus a cleric of some sort. There's usually a rogue, warrior and / or wizard in these types of fantasy stories, but almost never a healer / priest, perhaps because of some hesitation over presenting some fake god or religion and inviting that tempest in a teapot controversy. More focus on the support role that keeps the action hero at the front of the party alive to keep fighting would be nice.

Traditional D&D monsters like mind flayers, owlbears, rust monsters or displacer beasts seem like a must. Go with that IP that nobody else uses. I like me some cryptids and critters from mythology like manticores and medusa, goblins and orcs and trolls (which I can see in a Tolkien movie or a Clash of the Titans remake), but, at the same time, for a D&D movie, I hope to see some uniquely D&D monsters. (Not a fan of beholders, but they are a perfect example.) Hopefully few of the oddballs like tojanida, though... Yikes. :)

While on the subject of Tolkien, we've had some great movies this generation with dwarves, elves and halflings/hobbits, so it might break some new ground and serve to differentiate a D&D movie by using some more D&D-ish fantasy races, like the tiefling, in the main group's makeup. I'd be fine with dwarves, elves and halflings in the background, or, a very-much-not-Tolkien-y one (such as one of the shorter-than-human more fey Greyhawk elves), but prefer that the 'core four' be mostly humans, with a single oddball like a tiefling. (A tiefling in the rogue role would be obvious, but putting one in the cleric or wizard or even fighter role could be more fun and break...

I agree! In fact, you're describing DragonLance pretty perfectly!


^ DragonLance would need AT LEAST a three-part movie series planned from the start (& if you include all the things that happened in the background that were only mentioned in passing in the books, e.g. Kita toted as a 'Hero of the Lance' when she was only ever presented as one of the Dragon Highlords, or Gilthanas & Silvara's mission to reveal Takhisis' treachery to the rest of the good dragons, etc. - if at all...), maybe four.

So, unlikely for the upcoming D&D movie...
However, if it does well enough, maybe then! :D

Carry on,

--C.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,141 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / The next D&D movie... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.