Yup. A Drizzt movie would do well. A DRAGONLANCE movie would do well. They both have substantial, specific, pre-existing fanbases. A generic 'D&D' movie does not have that appeal. The name itself has no value because there is no narrative power linked to that name.
You can certainly make a very good movie with 'D&D' on it, with a good cast, director and writers, but it'd stand and fall purely on its own merits. It doesn't really gain anything from the D&D brand.
As much as I would love to see a successful D&D movie, I don't see it happening. Even if the movies in development are successful beyond what past movies have been, I don't see them being successful to the point of being able to support a toy line. I see them having the same problem that the core game has, and that is unrealistic expectations within Hasbro, who neither understands, nor cares about, the functional limitations that the D&D IP has. It may be well known, but it's functional selling power is fairly limited.
I'd say it's all a matter of marketing. Look at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That franchise started as an independent, black and white comic book with a fairly small following and an adult--or at least PG-13--story. Then it got turned into a Saturday morning kids cartoon and the popularity exploded. Hasbro could do the same thing with D&D if marketed correctly. Granted, it might turn into something that current D&D fans find abominable, but it could be done.
As much as I would love to see a successful D&D movie, I don't see it happening. Even if the movies in development are successful beyond what past movies have been, I don't see them being successful to the point of being able to support a toy line. I see them having the same problem that the core game has, and that is unrealistic expectations within Hasbro, who neither understands, nor cares about, the functional limitations that the D&D IP has. It may be well known, but it's functional selling power is fairly limited.I'd say it's all a matter of marketing. Look at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. That franchise started as an independent, black and white comic book with a fairly small following and an adult--or at least PG-13--story. Then it got turned into a Saturday morning kids cartoon and the popularity exploded. Hasbro could do the same thing with D&D if marketed correctly. Granted, it might turn into something that current D&D fans find abominable, but it could be done.
Could is the operative word there as frankly I'm rather unimpressed by the marketing department at both WotC and Hasbro. WotC effectively has none save the ragtag effort they threw together to sell 4E; Magic is, and 3.5 was, heavily reliant on local and 3rd party efforts to get the exposure that it does. Hasbro is better, but still tends to be heavily reliant on having a product that is already largely premarketed; even their board games rely on past history and an established name to carry them through. Neither are very good at generating marketing and interest on their own for new products, meaning that even if they somehow by accident stumble upon the world's best script, they probably wouldn't know what to do with it.
It's not so much the pre-existing fanbases. D&D has a fanbase. Probably on the same scale as either Drizzt or Dragonlance and with much overlap.
I think it's way too easy to overestimate the popularity and appeal of D&D. Tabletop rolepaying is a very niche hobby, and D&D hasn't been king of that particular niche for a long time. Those much-reported 20 million sales include all of the D&D rulebooks across four editions of the game, including a lot of repeat sales (though there are also a fair few people who've played D&D without ever owning a rulebook).
The number of people who've played D&D are utterly dwarfed by the number of people who've read a D&D spin-off novel. Salvatore by himself has sold more novels than copies of the core D&D rulebooks have ever been sold. So have Weis and Hickman. There's also several million gamers who have encountered Drizzt (even if briefly) in the computer games in which he appears. The character has an impact and profile way beyond that of D&D itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's all beside the point: The point is that the D&D movies have sucked and failed because they were lousy movies, not because they didn't have the fanbase. Drizzt doesn't have the fanbase to guarantee success if it's a lousy movie. But basing the movie on Drizzt or on Dragonlance would give it some focus and keep it from just being a loose pile of fantasy cliches. At least they'd start with interesting characters and setting. They might well still butcher it.
I tried to resist but Drizzt and interesting in the same sentence just don't work together. He's not a horrible character in the original stories about him, but he needs to be put to rest. He has no depth as a character and is entirely reliant on the supporting cast to make the stories even halfway interesting. He would be fine as a support character, but as a main character, he fails completely as far as I am concerned. Obviously the market disagrees, but to make a movie out of his story wouldn't help them from avoiding that loose pile of fantasy cliches.
Haven't seen more than bits and pieces of them a long time ago, but if the characters are truly worse than Drizzt, I can see why they bombed.
Maybe a live action version of the Dungeons & Dragons Cartoon?
Warwick Davis as Dungeon Master. He was good in the Gaiman-scripted Doctor Who.
Ranger, Cavalier, Magic-User (Wizard), Thief (Rogue), Barbarian, Acrobat (Monk?), baby unicorn.
I tried to resist but Drizzt and interesting in the same sentence just don't work together. He's not a horrible character in the original stories about him, but he needs to be put to rest. He has no depth as a character and is entirely reliant on the supporting cast to make the stories even halfway interesting. He would be fine as a support character, but as a main character, he fails completely as far as I am concerned. Obviously the market disagrees, but to make a movie out of his story wouldn't help them from avoiding that loose pile of fantasy cliches.
Obviously we've been talking from a market perspective: what do you do to make the film a success? That's the #1 perspective any studio or Hasbro will be interested in. From a creative standpoint, the Drizzt novels became truly terrible from about the tenth book onwards, and they weren't exactly high literature before that. They are ridiculously popular, however.
As for Drizzt not being an interesting character, I agree with respect to the character now, or in fact at any time since about 1996. There's definite franchise fatigue there in the novel line and he hasn't developed interestingly since that time. However, a movie adaptation would by necessity start with THE CRYSTAL SHARD and I think you could get up to SIEGE OF DARKNESS without a major problem. Drizzt is exiled, finds a new life, his old life catches up with him, he has to go home and effectively destroy it etc. There's the relationship with his friends and his father and so on. None of it is tremendously original, Salvatore didn't always write it very well, but certainly there's some thematic/character depth you can add to the fight scenes and magical effects set-pieces. It'd certainly be far superior to the existing films.
In an ideal universe, they'd make PLANESCAPE TORMENT: THE MOVIE, but since that's never going to happen we have to look at something more realistic :)
I don't buy it. Not all of them may have played P&P D&D, but the computer games are still the D&D brand. Anyone who knows Drizzt from a computer also knows D&D.
Point of contention here.
Blame marketing, market segmentation or whatever but there's actually a surprising number of people who do not associate Forgotten Realms products with DnD products.The cover/boxes of many games don't really display DnD, There's FORGOTTEN REALMS splashed all over it, then there's a small blurb in the manual that says something like based on ADnD rules.
Here check out Baldur's Gate. That DnD logo is stright up tiny.
Also the last time I read a Drizzt book was in the 90's but I can't seem to recall a single link to a DnD product. The inner cover that described other novels or products only listed other FR items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thank my lucky stars there is no Torment movie. If handled as I have every reason to expect it to be handled, it would, yes, it would suck about as much as Dungeons & Dragons the movie.
And, sorry to say this, but I seriously doubt that a Drizzt movie would be any better. Now, Elfshadow, that could go down well.
What about Dark Elf trilogy?
It works better as a prequel, as in the books. HOMELAND by itself is dark, intense and claustraphobic (by most D&D book standards), most of the time is spent with the bad guys and Drizzt doesn't become a bigger figure until the end. Plus almost the entire cast is made of dark elves, which might be a hard sell for a new D&D-viewing audience.
Either do a nine-film series with the DE trilogy in the middle (a bit like how STAR WARS is structured, but not with 20-year gaps between trilogies) or, more realistically, a six-film series running from SHARD to SIEGE OF DARKNESS and then, if successful, use HOMELAND as the start of a potential spin-off TV series. That has the bonus of also being able to recast Drizzt (as he's younger in that DE trilogy) if whomever you're using in the films is too big a star to do TV.
If they got the guy who wrote the game though, imagine the awesomeness. Plus nobody would get it except for the people who played the game...
I'm not sure if Chris Avellone would do it. TORMENT is fairly short compared to the BG games, but it's still 10+ hours long. Streamlining that down to a 2-hour single coherent movie (or even a 6-hour trilogy) which would be both commercial and critically appealing would be quite hard.
Good luck trying to get any sort of movie where black-skinned matriarchs run an utterly corrupt society anywhere. Seriously.
Good luck trying to get any sort of movie where black-skinned matriarchs run an utterly corrupt society anywhere. Seriously.
Yeah I know, nothing like that since the 70's :(
Wherefore art thou Pam Grier? wherefore art thou?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hama, If I may ask, is your avatar inspired by the character in G R R Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series Hama Dog's head?
I'm just curious.
A few months ago I got to see on the sci fi channel two D&D movies, Wrath of the Dragon God, and then the Book of Vile Darkness one right after the other.
Now neither movie was particularly good. But, comparing the two, I liked the Wrath of the Dragon God much more.
The Book of vile Darkness, I did not particularly like. Perhaps this was because I am fairly un familiar with 4th edition D&D.
So now we have another movie, which is going to be produced by the same guy who did the D&D movie some 10 or 12 years ago? the one with Jeremy Irons as Prometheon...and that henchmen Damodar of the famous "give me the rod" line? wow....Well I guess I won't be surprised if the movie is a steaming pile of....field apples. On the bright side, my expectations are so low, well I would be pleased with almost anything.
I don't think it would be too hard for a D&D movie to do well. you have a 30 year established track record for the game. I think, and it has probably been mentioned up thread, what the movie would need is a decent script with some decent acting. Give me a story and some characters I can care about and root for.
I'm not too worried about a big fancy budget....however the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings Trilogy are gorgeous and really set the standard for what is possible with the Fantasy Genere.
In terms of a modest budget I have thoroughly enjoyed the Gamers, The gamers 2 Dorkness Rising, and Journey Quest seasons 1 and 2. I have also enjoyed Standard Action as well. I even enjoyed the series pilot Midnight Chronicles. so It doesn't take much.
Well I apologize for rambling. This should be interesting. The legal battle I mean.
Elyas, I've loved all the movies and shows you mentioned at the end (except Midnight Chronicles: I don't know that series at all, and thus have no idea how I feel).
Frankly, Gamers, Gamers 2, and Journey Quest (and Standard Action) are pretty solidly the "definitive" version of even potential "D&D" movies from what I've seen so far. Although laced with humor, really that's fine - it makes sense, the characters are believable and solid, and you care about them. It also feels like a game and an epic story. The D&D movie felt like neither.
I'll have to try and catch the other two, though.
EDIT: minor edit above for clarity
Good luck trying to get any sort of movie where black-skinned matriarchs run an utterly corrupt society anywhere. Seriously.
That doesn't make any sense. The main character of the movie - of potentially a whole franchise - is also a 'black-skinned character', as is his father, also shown to be a 'good' character, and as is the mercenary Jarlaxle, a character whom is shown to be morally ambiguous and thus badass-cool.
And of course that totally ignores the fact that none of the drow are 'black-skinned' in the same way that any racial minority on Earth is in the first place.
So now we have another movie, which is going to be produced by the same guy who did the D&D movie some 10 or 12 years ago? the one with Jeremy Irons as Prometheon...and that henchmen Damodar of the famous "give me the rod" line? wow....Well I guess I won't be surprised if the movie is a steaming pile of....field apples. On the bright side, my expectations are so low, well I would be pleased with almost anything.
The same guy, Courtney Solomon, actually made all three films. He only directed the first one, and produced the latter two. Apparently he never saw himself as a director and only directed the first one because time was running out and they faced losing the rights if they didn't move fast on it.
Good luck trying to get any sort of movie where black-skinned matriarchs run an utterly corrupt society anywhere. Seriously.That doesn't make any sense. The main character of the movie - of potentially a whole franchise - is also a 'black-skinned character', as is his father, also shown to be a 'good' character, and as is the mercenary Jarlaxle, a character whom is shown to be morally ambiguous and thus badass-cool.
And of course that totally ignores the fact that none of the drow are 'black-skinned' in the same way that any racial minority on Earth is in the first place.
Wert, you're fighting a very strange, yet very tightly held view that many have taken that just because something can be construed as prejudiced, it should. I don't understand it, personally - I've never seen any creature that remotely resembles drow in the real world.
Skin the color of obsidian, features closest to a more-angular-than-not variant of Caucasians (and on the short and petite side), and solid white hair (which, I've been told, is actually prejudice against albinos, nevermind the fact that blondes are generally accepted/cool and that the drow have obsidian skin unlike albinos).
The closest thing you could relate them to is Caucasian, but that, of course, isn't a valid comparison because of a ton of other reasons which should be obvious.
So now we have another movie, which is going to be produced by the same guy who did the D&D movie some 10 or 12 years ago? the one with Jeremy Irons as Prometheon...and that henchmen Damodar of the famous "give me the rod" line? wow....Well I guess I won't be surprised if the movie is a steaming pile of....field apples. On the bright side, my expectations are so low, well I would be pleased with almost anything.
The same guy, Courtney Solomon, actually made all three films. He only directed the first one, and produced the latter two. Apparently he never saw himself as a director and only directed the first one because time was running out and they faced losing the rights if they didn't move fast on it.
That... is an understandable, but over-all petty move. The guy's done nothing but crank out three terrible movies. I don't know why he wants to retain the rights so badly, honestly.
That said, if he can finally make a good movie, more power to him. I'm leery, but hopeful. I'm not optimistic, but I choose to wait to judge it until it comes out.
So, hey, I've just seen Book of Vile Darkness.
I've got to say: I hated the characters, but the movie wasn't as bad as I'd feared. Confusingly enough, I think it's better made over-all than the 2000 movie. While it's obviously lower budget, and I disagree with much of it, and, yes, there are really stupid or corny moments, it's still not as... I don't know... "hammy" as the 2000 one.
The acting isn't "good" but it is "better". The world and events are smoother and less... random? disconnected?... than the other.
And, in the end, it does feel like a group of adventurers.
Also, after watching, Elyas, I would like to say that it feels substantially more like a "4E-informed 3.5-base movie", using themes and races found in 4E, but almost all of the magical effects I saw were far more similar to those achievable with the d20 system instead of 4E (though it certainly mentioned 4E books and adventures). So that's weird. Humorously, the rules actually do function more closely to the D&D rules than the 2000 movie as well.
There were glaring plot holes, I've got to say, but there were plenty in the 2000 movie too.
So, much to my surprise, I've got to say that D&D:BoVD is a better movie than D&D (2000). Huh. I never would have believed that.
It's still not a great movie, though.
My partner dressed up as a drow for work one Halloween. There are a lot of gamers in her department, so most of them got it. (The WoW people thought she was a night elf, but whatever.) Then when the photos circulated to other offices she got called in and talked to about sensitivity. Apparently someone in their Atlanta office got offended with her "blackface" costume. *rolls eyes*
Exactly. Now show these blackfaces as utterly evil, especially the women, and you have something that would get ritually slaughtered at a critical mass. Remember how Django Unchained was received? That movie specifically set out to show the horrors of slavery in the antebellum South.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elyas, I've loved all the movies and shows you mentioned at the end (except Midnight Chronicles: I don't know that series at all, and thus have no idea how I feel).
Frankly, Gamers, Gamers 2, and Journey Quest (and Standard Action) are pretty solidly the "definitive" version of even potential "D&D" movies from what I've seen so far. Although laced with humor, really that's fine - it makes sense, the characters are believable and solid, and you care about them. It also feels like a game and an epic story. The D&D movie felt like neither.
I'll have to try and catch the other two, though.
EDIT: minor edit above for clarity
Tacticslion, Midnight chronicles was a 2 hour pilot for what might have been a series.
Midnight was a campaign setting put out by fantasy flight games, exploring the idea "what if Frodo Failed". It was a setting where the bad guys won 100 years ago, and the players and what remains of the forces of "good" are still fighting on.
Exactly. Now show these blackfaces as utterly evil, especially the women, and you have something that would get ritually slaughtered at a critical mass
You mean utterly evil apart from Drizzt (y'know, the main character and chief protagonist), Zaknafein and Jarlaxle (who isn't good either, but morally ambiguous in a Boba Fett kind of way)?
And the fact, like I said before, that if you're starting with THE CRYSTAL SHARD it's not even remotely a problem at all.
I dont see a D&D movie as ever being succesful. Movies tend to depend on a single protagonist. When you have between 2 to 2 1/2 hour to develop a character, less is more. D&D typically tells the story of a group of 4-5 working together and all being +/- equal, characters that are involved in a long story arc. When you have too many main character the story suffers, you either end up focusing too much on the cast and not enough on the storyline or you end up with characters with no substance. Few movies manage to pull this off, Princess bride comes to mind but little else.
I could see a tv serie working. A first season of 18 episodes, the first 6 being spent introducing the cast into stand alone episodes where they would go through small dungeons or whatever and at the end of the 6th you get the hook that will plunge them into an AP for the next 12. Following seasons being 12 episodes.
I also cant see a Drizzt movie ever being approved. First its about D&D wich has limited audience, then you want the main protagonist to be black and Hollywood tends to believe that this also creates limited audience. (I dont see why, last time i checked the Blade trilogy had pretty good numbers but Hollywood wont see it that way). So now in your pitch you have two things that would limit audience, do you really thing they would back this project?
Personally im sick and tired of the drows. They`ve been overused and I dont ever want to do another quest/AP or anything really that has to do with them. Cant throw a stone in a dark place without hitting one of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Goonies is still the best D&D movie ever made.
I dont see a D&D movie as ever being succesful. Movies tend to depend on a single protagonist. When you have between 2 to 2 1/2 hour to develop a character, less is more. D&D typically tells the story of a group of 4-5 working together and all being +/- equal, characters that are involved in a long story arc. When you have too many main character the story suffers, you either end up focusing too much on the cast and not enough on the storyline or you end up with characters with no substance. Few movies manage to pull this off, Princess bride comes to mind but little else.
It does take a special kind of director to pull ensembles off; they require a different kind of approach than a movie that has one or two clearly main characters, and few in the movie industry are willing and/or able to successfully handle the unique challenges ensemble casts provide. Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter movies did better than most, and still ended up having a lot of the secondary characters barely get any mention at all. The only recent director that has done it really well is Joss Whedon; Avengers managed to somehow highlight not just the main heroes, but all of the supporting cast to some degree or other as well, a rare feat. If you could get him, or possibly even Peter Jackson to try their hand at a D&D movie, it would have a decent chance, but anyone else is going to be severely handicapped from the get go, no matter how good the writing and cast selection may be. Even then, you would need a trilogy to really have a decent shot at the kind of character development that unknown characters would require.
|
The movie might not be made after all.
So that's a relief. It's a bit unclear to me if Hasbro has any chance of winning to me. I think they should have acted before the third movie was released. They didn't enforce copyright laws when they should have, so that could indicate that Sweatpea Entertainment does still hold the rights.
Ensemble films that worked really well just off the top of my head:
* Clue
* The Goonies
* Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
* Lord of the Rings
* The Incredibles
* The Avengers
So having a film that focuses on more than one character isn't a bad one.
The TMNT, Lord of the Rings, and Avengers movies all have the advantage of having a pre-established series and/or stories or other media (whether or not they're related to a given film itself), but Clue, The Goonies, The Incredibles don't have that advantage, and they function excellently. The Incredibles is a great example of how an action/adventure/etc story-based ensemble film with no pre-established back story can work (though it partially focuses on Bob/Mr. Incredible, it does focus on each of the characters), while Clue is nearly a perfect example of an ensemble piece in which a larger cast of core characters than we need (they had one for each player, and house servants for about eight "main" people, with ; while we only need four principles).
I'm not saying it's easy... but it's doable. I don't know if it will be done, but I still hold out hope, however minor. :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, if I could adapt an existing story into a movie.
GHost Tower of Inverness.
Opening credits interspaced with getting the prisoners out of their cells. Dump them in front of the mayor. Evil looking sage in the background. Exposition.
Brief trip to the ruins. Show lots of guards to show how dangerous they are. Funky effects shot of the tower coming into existance with the moonlight.
Once they get into the dungeon itself sets become a bit easier. Plus you get dinosaurs on the air level, and if you have an ensamble cast of 6 or 7, you can kill a few to add drama.
Plus when they activate the amulet, you can either fade to white/credits or have a short denouncment.
I also cant see a Drizzt movie ever being approved. First its about D&D wich has limited audience, then you want the main protagonist to be black and Hollywood tends to believe that this also creates limited audience. (I dont see why, last time i checked the Blade trilogy had pretty good numbers but Hollywood wont see it that way). So now in your pitch you have two things that would limit audience, do you really thing they would back this project?
Will Smith is considered one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood (probably THE most bankable, alongside Cruise). Jamie Foxx is also pretty highly-rated, though not at the same movie-opening level. So that's not a major problem. Also, Drizzt isn't actually the major protagonist in THE CRYSTAL SHARD. It's more of an ensemble with Bruenor, Regis and especially Wulfgar getting a lot of stuff to do. It was the positive reception to Drizzt from the first book that saw him later made the main protagonist of the series.
To be honest, a much bigger problem is the lack of a strong female role in the film. Cattie-brie's still quite young and doesn't do much. It's not until STREAMS OF SILVER that she emerges as a stronger protagonist. Of course, you can easily solve that by aging her up a couple of years and giving her a more prominent role.
|
|
I also cant see a Drizzt movie ever being approved. First its about D&D wich has limited audience, then you want the main protagonist to be black and Hollywood tends to believe that this also creates limited audience. (I dont see why, last time i checked the Blade trilogy had pretty good numbers but Hollywood wont see it that way). So now in your pitch you have two things that would limit audience, do you really thing they would back this project?Will Smith is considered one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood (probably THE most bankable, alongside Cruise). Jamie Foxx is also pretty highly-rated, though not at the same movie-opening level. So that's not a major problem. Also, Drizzt isn't actually the major protagonist in THE CRYSTAL SHARD. It's more of an ensemble with Bruenor, Regis and especially Wulfgar getting a lot of stuff to do. It was the positive reception to Drizzt from the first book that saw him later made the main protagonist of the series.
To be honest, a much bigger problem is the lack of a strong female role in the film. Cattie-brie's still quite young and doesn't do much. It's not until STREAMS OF SILVER that she emerges as a stronger protagonist. Of course, you can easily solve that by aging her up a couple of years and giving her a more prominent role.
Sorry, neither of these guys look like drow, unless you use heavy prosthetic and CGI.
Raise you hand if you'd like to see the movie adaptation of Rise of the Runelords!
Only if its a 6 part film one for each book
Over the years, the first movie has grown on me a little. But I only ever watch it to see Jeremy Irons chewing the scenery.
In fact, TV Tropes said this about Jeremy Irons in the movie:
"•A review of Jeremy Irons in the horrid Dungeons & Dragons film commented he was chewing so much scenery they had to rebuild the sets twice."
The first mistake while thinking about a D&D movie is thinking it should be a movie about D&D. It is a terrible idea to force a story about a group of RPG characters going on an adventure. It's been done in LotR and The Hobbit. Everything else will be seen as derivative.
I also think they should stay away from Salvatore's books, especially The Crystal Shard. No screenwriter will be able to salvage that mess (not that it will stop anyone to try).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Azure Bonds would work pretty well as a movie. A pretty heroine, a rather organic party assemblage, some neat opponents, and the main quest is pretty personal (How do I get these damned tattoos off????) as opposed to epic (Let's go to war!!!!).
Also, it has a dragon, some interesting NPCs (Winefiddle, that Sage guy), and a quasi-beholder!!!!
I think Azure Bonds would work pretty well as a movie. A pretty heroine, a rather organic party assemblage, some neat opponents, and the main quest is pretty personal (How do I get these damned tattoos off????) as opposed to epic (Let's go to war!!!!).
Also, it has a dragon, some interesting NPCs (Winefiddle, that Sage guy), and a quasi-beholder!!!!
That would be interesting. I always liked the saurials. I'd prefer it if she got ride of the ridiculous chainmail bikini though.
I'd prefer it if she got ride of the ridiculous chainmail bikini though.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, fella! That'd make the rating go through the roof! What, do you want another puritanical "D&D is of the Devil" panic like the 80s?!