| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sad truth is that unless you can get Joss Whedon to do the movie, pulling off a truly balanced ensemble script is an art that very few people can pull off, and even with the Avengers, all of the lead characters have their own movies and/or comic books to establish their basic character. As much as it would be nice to see them not have to rely on a primary "lead" character, the coop concept does not lend itself well to the movie environment without a lot of base support, something that no official D&D characters or groups have at this point. Even Lord of the Rings was stretching hard at times, and it had support from the original material. However, the right script with the right lead character could still retain large amounts of coop screen time and lay down the foundation for shifting the focus away from a single character in future scripts.
My problem with this idea is it's ultimately the same take that Werthead has above: "you can't make a D&D movie".
My point is that, actually, you can make a good D&D movie. You can make a good ensemble cast movie, too.
I mean, here's a really quick list of ensemble cast movies I just found. It's someone's personal list, sure, (and I disagree that some of them are truly "ensemble") but it's a decent list, nonetheless.
An absolutely great example from that list: Ghostbusters.
Another one I thought of: Jurassic Park.
Actually, here's a better list.
The point is, there are a lot of really good ensemble casts out there.
I'm not denying it's hard. It's also hard to make a good movie. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
My argument has always been:
1) You can make a D&D movie, and it can be good.
2) You can make a character movie, and it can be good based on D&D-related properties.
3) You can make both, and they don't have to overlap.
(Also worth noting, I generally like and agree with you and Werthead on many other things. In this case, though, I'm just not convinced it won't work.)
EDIT:
I see why you say that, but I actually disagree. I think it shows a failure of people to grasp what a D&D movie is.
The bolded part was towards those who make the movies. I'm not saying Werthead fails to grasp anything. I can see how it could read that way. Instead, I'm saying those who made the failed movies failed to grasp what the movies were supposed to be.
I can't read this thread anymore. Too many references to the 2000 movie and what it should have been.
All the frustration and anger just come back, thinking of all the wrong choices..
what always leaves me sputtering in apolexy though, is the magic rod of dragon control that looks like it was bought at a dollar store. ARGH!!
|
You cant make a successful movie based on the GAME SYSTEM. You CAN make a movie in a generic or specific fantasy setting with the standard race/class combo. It's not rocket science. As long as the idiots that hold the license continue to work off of feedback from wotc and input awkward scripting, youtube fanboy quality costumes, and remain thinking their target audience is nerds from 1985 living in their parents basement the IP will continue to fail on screen.
Every D&D comic book since the early 90's has been utter $hyte. The Fell's five series is the rare exception, specifically the first 5 issues or so. The dialogue and actions scenes would work well, maybe because a screen writer wrote them vs. someone from the wotc bullpen. It CAN work, within specific parameters.
My point is that, actually, you can make a good D&D movie. You can make a good ensemble cast movie, too.
You can, yes, but WotC hasn't exactly given the movie makers much effective material to work with lately that would accomplish both. And you can't make it too generic without losing the existing fanbase. I don't see many movie studios going for that kind of risk right off the bat, especially after the last few flops.
Making a fully balanced party is as much of a risk as using a fully established solo hero like Drizzt. It can be done but there is one big difference between a D&D movie and the others you listed; a large part of the problem isn't the material, it's the people controlling it. I don't see Hasbro or WotC loosening the reins on and/or being flexible enough with their IPs and characters sufficiently to make it work as a true ensemble cast. Following a long term strategy like Marvel, where you have at least some individual focus could work, if only to distance themselves from the disasters that were the earlier movies.
Personally, I would go back to the older 2E stories, pick a non FR world (FR could work as well, but I would start with the other settings), cull through the associated stories and characters, and assemble a group of characters that are already created and would work well together, even if they aren't well known; you have the flexibility in story, but still have some pre-existing stories you can use to help build interest. The marketing types would still likely insist on someone to serve as the "lead" to make marketing easier, though, and making someone at least somewhat well known like Elminster or Volo as the "lead" while generally following the above would be a reasonable compromise. As long as the "lead" is either a natural leader/mentor, like Elminster, or someone that takes the role of storyteller, like Volo, you could still make it work as a functional group; in both cases, the lead could serve as the main point of view while leaving room for the story to develop around the other characters as well. Also, both types of characters can easily fade in and out of the direct spotlight while remaining an integral part of the story. It's not the only way to design a party, but with the movie format and it's limitations, it's better than most any other available, and one that would soothe more nerves on the executive and business side of things.
It's also not uncommon for those kinds of characters to develop in actual games and campaigns, and DMs find ways to make it work all the time; there's no reason a good script writer couldn't. Even in successful ensembles from the past, you usually end up with one or two characters getting more of story than the rest. Tolkien, with Lord of the Rings, ended up balancing out the party by giving each individual or subgroup their own section of book. Firefly, for all that there were a lot of intertwined storylines, was still ultimately driven by only one or two primary themes, a fairly common theme from Whedon's work overall. In the end, having the focus be noticeably more on one person than the others doesn't have to be a bad thing, as long as that person doesn't end up overshadowing the other characters. The hard part is finding the right balance for any given party and story; that's where I tend to stop having faith in seeing a true ensemble work with D&D. Even the most experienced DM has to change things on the fly, and that's not really an option when making a movie; most of the details have to be set early in order to get everything in order, making them much, much harder to change. The only real way to write such a script would be to play it out, and that has just as many problems. Trying to isolate the story from the mechanics, all without losing the story, becomes a problem, as does the tendency of players to do stupid things just because they can, meaning that many sections would still have to be rewritten by an actual writer.
In the end, while I do agree that a true ensemble cast is technically possible, I don't see it being functionally possible without designating one of the characters to be the primary focus, and thus, the "lead character." Movies just don't have the time needed to develop a full party of characters equally. Even Lord of the Rings, with it's three comparatively long movies, still had to leave out a lot of details about the world, the characters, and the story that Tolkien had plenty of room to fully develop in the book. Avengers could do it simply because they first released 3 separate movies for 3 of the lead characters, while the 4th lead character had substantial development from other movies and comics that was generally well known; background character development only had to be done with the side characters that didn't have a well known story already.
Personally, I think if the 2nd movie had a better budget, a beefed up script (wait, why are they running into a lich in the middle of the forest?) and better acting, it would have been a pretty good movie. The foundations were there, both in the D&D/party-based feel and the epic save-the-world storyline. It was just very obviously made on the cheap. But as a whole I enjoyed it much more than the first one.
That's the same problem with the third movie: it could have been better, had it just been... well, better.
Similarly, even the first one, hard to believe as that is.
I think really the problem is that WotC hasn't given it what it needs. I agree with sunshadow on that. I just disagree that a single-narrator-driven movie would work better. But that's just me.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not likely that they would ignore Drizzt over the long term because of his sales, but the emo dark anti-hero market is crowded these days,
See, this alone strikes me as someone who didn't actually read the books and is just saying whatever comes to mind.
1) Drizzt is not an anti-hero as much as he is a traditional hero. Evil shouldn't win and the good shouldn't be punished. It's one of the best things about him in a world full of anti-heros.
2) He's not overly emotional, but rather thoughtful and grows with the situations he's presented with.
The problem, Misery, with your point is that Drizzt actually is somewhat "tormented" by his past, even though he works to live in the present.
The fact is, whether or not Drizzt himself is Emo (he's not), he strongly appeals to the "emo" aesthetic and sensibilities (being a/dressing as dark creature [of the night], being an outcast/misunderstood, and generally being a lone-wolf kind. Studded leather and dark clothing doesn't help the non-emo concept (though he's since replaced it, it's kind of iconic to his image). And most would-be Drizzt clones are emo, one way or the other.
That's the source of Drizzt being called "emo" - he's not, but he attracts those who are.
Personally, I think if the 2nd movie had a better budget, a beefed up script (wait, why are they running into a lich in the middle of the forest?) and better acting, it would have been a pretty good movie. The foundations were there, both in the D&D/party-based feel and the epic save-the-world storyline. It was just very obviously made on the cheap. But as a whole I enjoyed it much more than the first one.That's the same problem with the third movie: it could have been better, had it just been... well, better.
Similarly, even the first one, hard to believe as that is.
I think really the problem is that WotC hasn't given it what it needs. I agree with sunshadow on that. I just disagree that a single-narrator-driven movie would work better. But that's just me.
It wouldn't have to be single narrator, but there does need to be a clear focus of who is driving the primary storyline. In Ghostbusters, there was the team, but typically, only one of the characters was more or less the main catalyst for pushing the story forward when it started to stall. Same with LOTR; there were nine companions, but ultimately it was mostly about Aragorn and Frodo. Avengers is the only one to really break that paradigm, and that's only possible because all of the main leads were already established in their own right, so no breaks in the Avengers movie itself was needed to explain anything; Black Widow's and Hawkeye's story was even largely interwoven into the main story so as to limit the need for sidetrips for indepth character development.
If you're starting from scratch, you can't focus on everyone equally in the timeframe of a single movie, or even a single trilogy, and that is a major downfall of most of the D&D movies. They try to establish character and party rapport in two and a half hours that usually takes a good solid campaign that lasts months, if not years, at the table. That doesn't mean that you ignore all but one person, or limit the viewpoint to that one person (heck, most of Frodo's story is actually told through Sam's or Gollum's or really pretty much everyone else's perspective, not his own), but it does mean that more focus is necessary than if you started with at least one or two characters that were reasonably familiar, and this is where a character like Elminster or Volo would be a better pick than someone like Drizzt for such a focus. Elminster and Volo naturally flows into a story about those around them; the story of the others may not be told in that movie, but it can set them up to have their story told at a later time with relative ease, because both Elminster or Volo could remain the focus of the overall story without being the immediate focus of every scene. It wouldn't have to be Elminster or Volo, but the fact that they are reasonably well established already makes it easier for the director not to have to tell a lengthy backstory right off the bat. Treat the main character like Tolkien did Frodo, though, and it matters much less about how well known they already are, because the story must, in order to properly flesh out the main character, develop the other characters as well to a reasonably substantial degree.
sunshadow, I, frankly, disagree. I see what you're saying. I really, really do. I'm also not going to convince you, I get that, but I'm letting you know, that's not necessarily how film works.
First, the downfall of the other three movies had nothing to do with them attempting to establish a group rapport within a single movie. There are plenty of movies that establish a group rapport within their single movie's time-frame. The failure of all three movies centered around the weakness of the specific scripts and the overly-ambitious stories they sought to tell.
The 2,000 movie had the much worse problem of terrible acting and directing and CGI all crashing into the bad script at the same time, whereas the third had decent-to-good (but not great) acting and directing, but a very, very low budget (and also focused entirely on one character, who was a paladin pretending not to be a paladin in a party of otherwise evil adventurers) along with its weak script (but not as weak as the 2,000 movie). I couldn't speak for the second one.
The first movie, for example, should have been two, or even three. If, instead of going from two minor rogues and an apprentice mage (plus random additions) to one epic kingdom-saving hero in a single movie, they'd gone from two minor rogues (plus an ecclectic collection of fellows) to two moderate rogues (plus an ecclectic collection of fellows) while setting up potential future conflicts... it could have been a great movie. I could definitely see that.
Instead, they skipped the inner-map adventures, they made the one dungeon short and pathetic, and tried to "EPIC" the scope of the story from the start. They attempted to have an entire campaign in a single film. They had no comprehension of what the creatures they were dealing with were. The failed to present anything from the game in any way that was recognizable. There was no internal consistency. And, despite the budget, everything looked ridiculous.
The third movie could have done with a better budget and stronger directing (and a few better actors, though the ones that were there were entirely passable), but really it was an okay film (and did a decent job at exploring and explaining evil mindsets and how they, too, could be adventurers and why).
The fact that Ghostbusters (both of them) used different members of the team as the "catalyst" at different times for different reasons to push the story is exactly what I'm talking about. Were some characters more charismatic than others? Yes. But no single character was "the protagonist". This is what I mean.
The fact that Black Widow's and Hawkeye's story was woven into the narrative is what I'm talking about. Their history isn't deeply developed, but it's touched on, revealed, and bits are teased out. They are interesting, and I am intrigued by the hints there and want to learn more.
The fact that Lord of the Rings had more than one protagonist is what I'm talking about. Frodo has his journey, Aragorn has his, and even Pippin has his (and Mary as well, to an extent, along with Eowyn). (That said, this is why Lord of the Rings is listed as an "okay" D&D movie, not a "great" one.)
There can be a "leader" character. They don't all have to be leaders, they don't all have to be the face, and they don't all have to have the same amount of dialogue. But they do all need to be important, relatable, and likable. They all need to be protagonists. This can be done, and has been done.
I agree it's easier to do it with an established character. I disagree that such a thing is necessary. I also disagree that it would make a good "D&D Movie".
Again, I know what you're saying. I just disagree.
Regardless, it's not up to us. Let's hope that no matter which way WotC and Hasbro go, they choose wisely. :)
I agree it's easier to do it with an established character. I disagree that such a thing is necessary. I also disagree that it would make a good "D&D Movie".
Again, I know what you're saying. I just disagree.
Regardless, it's not up to us. Let's hope that no matter which way WotC and Hasbro go, they choose wisely. :)
The difficulty lies in your last statement. When was the last time WotC managed to put out something truly original that was also decent? Any other company, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but we're talking about WotC and Hasbro. At least with going with established characters, they have a chance, albeit a very small one, since they seem to do an equally good job screwing those up as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difficulty lies in your last statement. When was the last time WotC managed to put out something truly original that was also decent? Any other company, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but we're talking about WotC and Hasbro. At least with going with established characters, they have a chance, albeit a very small one, since they seem to do an equally good job screwing those up as well.
The misunderstanding lies in your last post. WotC and Hasbro do not make movies. They license their IP to someone else to make the movies. Regardless of your personal opinion on their track record of originality and/or the importance thereof, their involvment will be minimal at best.
The success or failure of a D&D movie unltimately lies with with whomever gets the licensing and how much money they're willing to throw behind it.
The difficulty lies in your last statement. When was the last time WotC managed to put out something truly original that was also decent? Any other company, I would agree wholeheartedly with you, but we're talking about WotC and Hasbro. At least with going with established characters, they have a chance, albeit a very small one, since they seem to do an equally good job screwing those up as well.The misunderstanding lies in your last post. WotC and Hasbro do not make movies. They license their IP to someone else to make the movies. Regardless of your personal opinion on their track record of originality and/or the importance thereof, their involvment will be minimal at best.
The success or failure of a D&D movie unltimately lies with with whomever gets the licensing and how much money they're willing to throw behind it.
This is actually what I meant with my, "Choose wisely". I really hope they choose those who make the movies wisely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they did do a Drizzt movie...
I hope they get the guy who played Prince Nuada in Hellboy 2.
He rocked the kick ass elf role.
If they are willing to shell out the necessary amount of money, and if they keep their hands out of most of the actual work, the movie would have a shot. The second is probable, the first is far more iffy.
Yeah, problem with the first DnD movie was, at the end of the day it was still a bad movie.
Wing Commander wasn't very faithful to the IP, but it was at least entertaining, and was still a decent sci-fi flick.
The original DnD movie wasn't faithful to the IP, wasn't entertaining, and sucked even as a fantasy movie. 3 strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem, Misery, with your point is that Drizzt actually is somewhat "tormented" by his past, even though he works to live in the present.
The fact is, whether or not Drizzt himself is Emo (he's not), he strongly appeals to the "emo" aesthetic and sensibilities (being a/dressing as dark creature [of the night], being an outcast/misunderstood, and generally being a lone-wolf kind. Studded leather and dark clothing doesn't help the non-emo concept (though he's since replaced it, it's kind of iconic to his image). And most would-be Drizzt clones are emo, one way or the other.
That's the source of Drizzt being called "emo" - he's not, but he attracts those who are.
OMG Tactics, for a second there I thought you were talking about Elric! (No, seriously.)
My fear, when it comes to name brand D&D movies, is that the name-brand movies have performed so badly in the past (due to mishandling, don't get me wrong) that now any production company that would even entertain the idea of producing a movie can't see D&D as anything but low budget crap.
On the other hand, maybe I'm just whining because fantasy is fricken huge right now, and D&D is still used for an easy laugh on Big Bang Theory.
If they did do a Drizzt movie...
I hope they get the guy who played Prince Nuada in Hellboy 2.
He rocked the kick ass elf role.
I can get behind this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the first is far more iffy.
Not if the Hasbro/Universal deal goes through. Then it shouldn't be a problem because Hasbro are bringing the same backing and marketing firepower that they brought to the TRANSFORMERS movie franchise. That should entail a fairly hefty budget for the film. That won't necessarily mean it's good, but certainly they'll be putting some serious resources into it.
If the Sweetpea/Warner Brothers thing goes forward instead, I'd be expecting something much more rubbish (Sweetpea, in one form or another, made all three of the previous live-action films). For a start, I doubt very much Hasbro will give them any help at all, which severely limits their marketing opportunities.
I can get behind this.If they did do a Drizzt movie...
I hope they get the guy who played Prince Nuada in Hellboy 2.
He rocked the kick ass elf role.
Him for Elric, IMO
the first is far more iffy.Not if the Hasbro/Universal deal goes through. Then it shouldn't be a problem because Hasbro are bringing the same backing and marketing firepower that they brought to the TRANSFORMERS movie franchise. That should entail a fairly hefty budget for the film. That won't necessarily mean it's good, but certainly they'll be putting some serious resources into it.
If the Sweetpea/Warner Brothers thing goes forward instead, I'd be expecting something much more rubbish (Sweetpea, in one form or another, made all three of the previous live-action films). For a start, I doubt very much Hasbro will give them any help at all, which severely limits their marketing opportunities.
It's good to see that they at least recognize the need to put resources into that. That is a good solid start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The court case begins in the next few weeks.
To recap, Warner Brothers want to make a big-budget D&D movie with the name CHAINMAIL. They have joined forces with Sweetpea Entertainment, who made the first three (terrible) live-action films, to do this.
Hasbro have claimed that Sweetpea no longer have the D&D movie rights, because they failed to 1) release a new film every five years as agreed (BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS came out seven years after WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD) and 2) failed to release films to the cinema; the second and third movies were both DVD/TV films. Both of these clauses were in the original movie deal signed between Sweetpea and TSR way back in 1991 (!). Hasbro have signed a deal with Universal Pictures to develop a D&D film, one that is speculated may also involve pre-existing D&D characters (even if Sweetpea and WB win the fight, they only have the rights to the generic D&D spells and monsters; they don't have the rights to DRAGONLANCE, FORGOTTEN REALMS or any of the characters etc).
A new factor has surfaced, however. The judge has delivered a preliminary warning that WB commissioning and writing a script before getting the film rights may itself constitute a breach of copyright, which would set an enormous legal precedent for all of Hollywood. It would mean that Marvel can't write a SPIDER-MAN script and keep it on file for rapid development should Sony lose their rights, for example. So suddenly this legal tussel has attracted a lot more attention.
|
A new factor has surfaced, however. The judge has delivered a preliminary warning that WB commissioning and writing a script before getting the film rights may itself constitute a breach of copyright, which would set an enormous legal precedent for all of Hollywood. It would mean that Marvel can't write a SPIDER-MAN script and keep it on file for rapid development should Sony lose their rights, for example. So suddenly this legal tussel has attracted a lot more attention.
Isnt that why they named the script Chainmail?
Isnt that why they named the script Chainmail?
A new factor has surfaced, however. The judge has delivered a preliminary warning that WB commissioning and writing a script before getting the film rights may itself constitute a breach of copyright, which would set an enormous legal precedent for all of Hollywood. It would mean that Marvel can't write a SPIDER-MAN script and keep it on file for rapid development should Sony lose their rights, for example. So suddenly this legal tussel has attracted a lot more attention.
Maybe the name Chainmail is part of the license.
|
|
Not necessarily true of art or even of movies in general, but it's going to be hard to make a D&D movie, which is by definition a special effects laden action-adventure movie, without spending a lot of money on it..The problem is that American audiences are determinedly fixated on the idea that animation is nothing more than cartoons for kids.
I think that fixation is slowly starting to crack but its definitely an issue with animation for the American audience.
Thanks for the update Werthead!
First off, a Drizzt movie would be a disastrous concept. Really, truly and horribly so. It is a sad fact that Drizzt is the most well-known character... That is not saying a lot, unfortunately. To make a good D&D movie, you would need characters. The first movie had exciting characters like the evil wizard, the good princess, the lvl 1 wizard, the lvl 1 rogues, the lvl 1 dwarf fighter. Second, you would need a fantasy setting that actually works and can be explained quickly. Third, you need to NOT DO THE DESPICABLE ATTEMPTS AT HUMOUR. The worst, most jarring of these incompetent moments was the ostrich race organizer in Prince of Persia, even going so far as having him complain about government taxation of small enterprise. This shattered the pretty decent work done in the entire rest of the movie for building atmosphere. Worse, they even showed they could manage to do decent in-character humour before that. This third demand, not doing imbecile humour in the movie might be the biggest hurdle. Consider the autobots hiding from the hero's mother while trampling the garden.
Ooh, ooh! I can resurrect my post from last year about what would make a good D&D movie.
"I like the idea of: Drizzt "and friends" in Myth Drannor (Forgotten Realms) against undead (which are more bankable than dragons, less controversial than demons, and very versatile - plus they weren't major villains in LOTR so that's good).
Also, make someone other than Drizzt the viewers point of view within the story. The emotional core should be more relatable to us than a non-human, evil-but-not, brooding loner. Think Rogue and Wolverine."
The only good D&D we are going to see on screen was that nifty little cartoon from the 80's. That is as good as its gonna get.
Unless Uwe Boll gets the big call from Hasbro to come make a D&D movie for all time.
The only good D&D we are going to see on screen was that nifty little cartoon from the 80's. That is as good as its gonna get.
Unless Uwe Boll gets the big call from Hasbro to come make a D&D movie for all time.
That... wasn't a good cartoon.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Took the kids to see Guardians of the Galaxy, or Sci-fi D&D...the characters came together well, their was good, campy humor and the story was interesting. It was D&D in space to me. You had fighter, cleric, barbarian, expert/rogue, and "arcane blaster/tech guru". BBEG(s) had uber-detructive "magic" and tons of "undead" minions. Heck make him a mummy-lord or lich with ghouls or wights for minions and an artifact of power......
My point is that if the D&D movie was a reskin of something like that it would work easily. The problem is that no body really sees the D&D license as a seriously profitable thing. How the heck Guardians managed to get funding and development is a mystery to me. So many other more serious and well-known franchises would be more obvious to pick but somehow the money and time went into Guardians and the movie was great. I was impressed with how many of the actors from Guardians I recognized considering how far down on the list of Comic Book franchises it was before the movie. You can almost guarantee that there are gonna be sequels that are gonna make HUGE amounts of money and has drawn in a much wider audience than Guardians had as a comic. Imagine a D&D movie that was as good and did as well in theatres.
Money, good talent behind the screen and on it, a decent script and suddenly D&D isn't the basement nerd game. It is the mainstream fantasy. People would scramble for the next movie offering, whether it was the next in a series of Crystal Shard movies or if it was a totally different cast of characters in a Harpers movie....
Marvel is D&D. Marvel has a ton of comics and genre to draw from. D&D has a ton of books and genre to draw from. The trick is getting the public to devour one and get hooked so more can follow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it was a great ensemble film!
Guardians was funded as they needed to get the infinity stones exposition story out beyond the niche comic book readers and movie bloggers who already knew. Hence The Collector's 5 minute talk about it.
But I think you're spot on with the analogy! Sci-fi D&D is an excellent description.
They just need to avoid the cliches...
Whilst making it recognizably a fantasy film.
That's a narrow line to walk...
Put my vote in for a Pathfinder Campaign Setting movie. Although I haven't actually read through an Adventure Path (although reading through this awesome PbP comes pretty close(*) -- too bad the DM seems to have disappeared near the end without a replacement showing up), Paizo seems to be able to put together decent foundations of plots and character development, and could actually provide useful artistic input into the making of a movie, even though presumably the actual making would have to be contracted to an actual movie studio.
(*) Actually, I wonder if running a contest to generate a script from a PbP/PbEM would actually come up with a good one (crowdsource it). A lot of them would be unsuitable or even outright bad, of course, but a small subset of those that I have been following (including the one linked above) have been generating something that could be adapted into a good script. Use natural selection to winnow them down to the best. Use the incentive of getting a cut from the movie proceeds as, well, incentive.
In contrast, I don't see the WotC/Hasbro of today providing useful artistic input (TSR or the WotC of D&D 3.0/early 3.5 days could have been another matter, but alas, that is all gone), and might even provide anti-useful input (although 5th Edition being not as bad as 4th Edition and the Tyranny of Dragons reportedly having a passable start suggests that maybe the worst years are past -- still, would like to see some more evidence of redemption).
Somebody mentioned a WarCraft movie earlier in this thread, but that seems to pop up every few years but not actually get anywhere, so I won't believe it until I see it (although on the other hand, I'm all for taking the time to get it right, and while I don't think Blizzard's standards are as good as they used to be, they didn't take the absolutely horrible dive that WotC/Hasbro did in the days of D&D late 3.5/4.0).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In contrast, I don't see the WotC/Hasbro of today providing useful artistic input (TSR or the WotC of D&D 3.0/early 3.5 days could have been another matter, but alas, that is all gone),
Considering that the first two Dungeons & Dragons films were released in 2000 and 2005, respectively (in other words, the first developed when TSR owned D&D, the second developed during the 3.0/early 3.5 days) and were both widely panned, I think you might have a case of rose-colored-glasses-itis.
|
The court case begins in the next few weeks.
To recap, Warner Brothers want to make a big-budget D&D movie with the name CHAINMAIL. They have joined forces with Sweetpea Entertainment, who made the first three (terrible) live-action films, to do this.
Hasbro have claimed that Sweetpea no longer have the D&D movie rights, because they failed to 1) release a new film every five years as agreed (BOOK OF VILE DARKNESS came out seven years after WRATH OF THE DRAGON GOD) and 2) failed to release films to the cinema; the second and third movies were both DVD/TV films. Both of these clauses were in the original movie deal signed between Sweetpea and TSR way back in 1991 (!). Hasbro have signed a deal with Universal Pictures to develop a D&D film, one that is speculated may also involve pre-existing D&D characters (even if Sweetpea and WB win the fight, they only have the rights to the generic D&D spells and monsters; they don't have the rights to DRAGONLANCE, FORGOTTEN REALMS or any of the characters etc).
A new factor has surfaced, however. The judge has delivered a preliminary warning that WB commissioning and writing a script before getting the film rights may itself constitute a breach of copyright, which would set an enormous legal precedent for all of Hollywood. It would mean that Marvel can't write a SPIDER-MAN script and keep it on file for rapid development should Sony lose their rights, for example. So suddenly this legal tussel has attracted a lot more attention.
There is one problem with this. WotC never did stop Sweetpea from producing that third movie which is what they should have done to protect their copyright.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the key to doing a DnD movie is just making a solid, entertaining fantasy movie. Fantasy is big right now, with the Hobbit, Game of Thrones, and multiple quasi-fantasy historical TV shows. Lots of stuff is getting optioned...we are getting for instance a Name of the Wind and a Shannara TV shows in the not too distant future.
I don't think you necessarily need Drizzt, or 1:1 adoption of mechanics, or making it a big live-action dungeon-crawl, for it to be successful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In contrast, I don't see the WotC/Hasbro of today providing useful artistic input (TSR or the WotC of D&D 3.0/early 3.5 days could have been another matter, but alas, that is all gone),Considering that the first two Dungeons & Dragons films were released in 2000 and 2005, respectively (in other words, the first developed when TSR owned D&D, the second developed during the 3.0/early 3.5 days) and were both widely panned, I think you might have a case of rose-colored-glasses-itis.
It is my understanding from this thread and what I've heard elsewhere that TSR and early WotC just didn't provide artistic input to the D&D movies, period (or at least not more than token artistic input).
You speak of rose-colored glasses? Let me show what rose-colored glasses REALLY LOOK LIKE:
If Sweet Pea/Warner Brothers actually win the lawsuit mentioned in this thread, the news is not all bad. After all, Warner Brothers actually has experience making a movie in the fantasy genre as an animated feature, for that matter. The tragic villain portrayed therein (who winds up with an almost Shakespearean Pyrrhic Victory) must obviously be a Tiefling relative of Forgotten Realms' famous mastermind Wizard that has been mentioned several times earlier in this thread (and who most ungraciously refuses to acknowledge said relative).
The upshot is, that if Sweetpea/Warner Brothers actually win in this lawsuit, they will have full legal rights (by way of existing intellectual property ownership) to present . . .
I don't think you necessarily need Drizzt, or 1:1 adoption of mechanics, or making it a big live-action dungeon-crawl, for it to be successful.I think that would be more apt to make it UNsuccessful.
I'm not sure. D&D and 'Generic Fantasy' are so easily interchangeable. The core rules are DESIGNED to be as generic as possible so that every table can create their own world.
If you do NOT have the 'magic missles' or the 'Bigby hands' and things that actually ARE D&D, then what is the point? We don't want to see a movie where the wizard blasts someone... those are everywhere. We want to see a wizard use a spell that OUR wizards have and we can see if the special effects match up with how we saw it in our heads.
In most movies people want a 'relatable' character... usually the 'normal' guy who just got thrown into it. In a movie like this... EVERYONE can be the 'relatable' guy, because we've all PLAYED the rogue or the druid and think of how OUR guys would have handled things in that situation.
My point is that if the D&D movie was a reskin of something like that it would work easily. The problem is that no body really sees the D&D license as a seriously profitable thing.
This is kind of my point.
If you make it too generic then it's just a fantasy movie. Why bother paying or even tying it to the brand name? Honestly the best D&D movie we will ever get will be Lord of the Rings. You get magic, monsters, elves, halflings, undead, epic quests... But it's not D&D.
The first movie they made was as generic a fantasy movie as they could make it... and frankly THAT didn't feel like D&D either. In order for the name to be attached to something, it NEEDS to be 'special'. It should stand out as one of the great grand-daddies of the fantasy genre.
Hence the reason I feel it needs an established setting. Put in the Realms. It's the most popular of the settings. Granted it doesn't HAVE to be a Drizzt movie. But it could be like the marvel movies. Have Elminster be sitting in a corner or have the Harpers or the Zentarim play a part. Have a bard tell a story the viewers could relate to. Maybe a favorite module or the Baldur's gate games. Have them visit Waterdeep and see the Lords...
SOMETHING like the Tolkien movies have done. Take the rich environment and USE it. If the plot is something like 'ummm... dude has a sword... probably fights a dragon... maybe a magic user or something...' Then that is NOT D&D. That is any number of a thousand B and C movies with the word 'dragon' in the title. Maybe yet another Dragonheart Sequel...
As people are saying, Fantasy is huge right now. Dragons in general are everywhere it seems. Game of Thrones, Hobbit, we've got 'maze runner' coming out next week that looks like a dungeon crawl movie...
If you are going to use the name "Dungeons and Dragons' then it has to be BETTER then the other things out there.