The new D&D Movie plot synopsis

[jaappleton]

https://twitter.com/thepipas0/status/1395178201039650820?s=20

"An ex-Harper turned thief escapes from prison with his partner, a female barbarian, and reunites with a no-talent wizard and a druid new to their team in an effort to rob the cheating conman who stole all their loot from the heist that landed them behind bars, and used it to install himself as the Lord of Neverwinter. Only the traitor is allied with a powerful Red Wizard who has something far more sinister in store."

I believe this is the first time we've heard anything at all about the plot.

[Unoriginal]

https://twitter.com/thepipas0/status/1395178201039650820?s=20

"An ex-Harper turned thief escapes from prison with his partner, a female barbarian, and reunites with a no-talent wizard and a druid new to their team in an effort to rob the cheating conman who stole all their loot from the heist that landed them behind bars, and used it to install himself as the Lord of Neverwinter. Only the traitor is allied with a powerful Red Wizard who has something far more sinister in store."

I believe this is the first time we've heard anything at all about the plot.

Hold on a minute. A cheating conman establishing himself as the Lord of Neverwinter using stolen money? That's what Lord Neverember did in the backstory for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.

That can't be a coincidence, can it?

[jaappleton]

Hold on a minute. A cheating conman establishing himself as the Lord of Neverwinter using stolen money? That's what Lord Neverember did in the backstory for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.

That can't be a coincidence, can it?

I do not at all believe that is a coincidence.

So I think you can safely say what the inspiration for the film is.

Personally, I'm glad its something like this and not some world-saving event. Its not "They have to rally together to kill Tiamat!", its more of an adventure / revenge tale.

I'm only guessing but I thing Hugh Grant is playing the Lord. Whether they still call him Neverember, I don't know.

[ZRN]

https://twitter.com/thepipas0/status/1395178201039650820?s=20

"An ex-Harper turned thief escapes from prison with his partner, a female barbarian, and reunites with a no-talent wizard and a druid new to their team in an effort to rob the cheating conman who stole all their loot from the heist that landed them behind bars, and used it to install himself as the Lord of Neverwinter. Only the traitor is allied with a powerful Red Wizard who has something far more sinister in store."

I believe this is the first time we've heard anything at all about the plot.

I feel like a heist movie with Chris Pine as the charismatic rogue ringleader and Michelle Rodriguez as his barbarian muscle is a pretty decent start on a D&D movie! How was the plot for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I'm cautiously excited upon hearing this. I'm still like 70% sure this movie is going to suck, but they might've sold me on going to see it.

I just hope it's either surprisingly good or laughably terrible. Please don't be boring, that would be the worst.

[Amnestic]

How was the plot for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist?

There was very little actual heist involved.

In fact most of the time there was no heist involved.

I felt lied to by the module.

[Unoriginal]

How was the plot for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist?

Pretty good IMO, but it wouldn't ave many ties with the movie's plot if they're really linked.

Basically W:DH is about finding and securing the vault containing the part of the embezzled gold Lord Neverember couldn't take with him when he left for Neverwinter, before the villains can.

[MoiMagnus]

Personally, I'm glad its something like this and not some world-saving event. Its not "They have to rally together to kill Tiamat!", its more of an adventure / revenge tale.

Fully agree.
And with a character-focussed scenario, chances are that the film will remain interesting even if you don't fully grasp the universe, which mean it might not totally bomb at the box office.

I also note that the protagonists seems to be the thief and the barbarian, with the wizard and druids as support cast. I guess that's significantly less expensive to produce if spells are only used for "big moments".

[Unoriginal]

I feel like a heist movie with Chris Pine as the charismatic rogue ringleader and Michelle Rodriguez as his barbarian muscle is a pretty decent start on a D&D movie!

I would have had Michelle Rodriguez as the charismatic barbarian ringleader and Chris Pine as her rogue muscle, personally.

I wonder if they're going to make that the "no-talent wizard" of the party actually was a Red Wizard back in the days.



I also note that the protagonists seems to be the thief and the barbarian, with the wizard and druids as support cast. I guess that's significantly less expensive to produce if spells are only used for "big moments".

Having the spellcasters not be the main protags means you don't have to explain the magic system as much as if they're front-and-center.

The special effects you'll need for typical DnD spellcasting are pretty cheap these days compared to what they once were.



I'm only guessing but I thing Hugh Grant is playing the Lord. Whether they still call him Neverember, I don't know.

According to wikipedia, Grant plays a character named Forge Fletcher.

[noob]

I wonder if they're going to make that the "no-talent wizard" of the party actually was a Red Wizard back in the days.

Red wizard like the ones in Thay that likes slavery, copying their own minds and other things that makes their civilisation a fantasy cyberpunk dystopia?

[jaappleton]

Its co-directed and written by John Francis Daley.
He played Sweets from Bones, if you remember that show.

He directed the Vacation reboot, where a grown-up Rusty Griswold takes his family on a vacation.
He also made the surprisingly pretty solid film Game Night, with Jason Bateman.

He's written a few more things as well. I'm fairly optimistic about this film with him at the helm.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm still like 70% sure this movie is going to suck, but they might've sold me on going to see it.
Whereas I'm still 70% sure that the film will be too forgettable to truly suck. :smallbiggrin:

[ZRN]

Its co-directed and written by John Francis Daley.
He played Sweets from Bones, if you remember that show.

He directed the Vacation reboot, where a grown-up Rusty Griswold takes his family on a vacation.
He also made the surprisingly pretty solid film Game Night, with Jason Bateman.

He's written a few more things as well. I'm fairly optimistic about this film with him at the helm.

Oh hey, the Vacation reboot was pretty solid too! Both films had enough self-awareness to be clever without being all... Joss Whedon about it, which is a pretty good tone for a D&D heist movie. The guy can competently put a mid-budget movie together, which is honestly a fairly high bar for Hollywood.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm only guessing but I thing Hugh Grant is playing the Lord. Whether they still call him Neverember, I don't know.
Not sure he's the kind of asset the film needs. (Recalls Jeremy Irons, a fine actor in a not good D&D movie)

I felt lied to by the module. Yeah.

And with a character-focussed scenario, chances are that the film will remain interesting even if you don't fully grasp the universe, which mean it might not totally bomb at the box office.

I also note that the protagonists seems to be the thief and the barbarian, with the wizard and druids as support cast. I guess that's significantly less expensive to produce if spells are only used for "big moments". Good choice.

[Morty]

A heist movie in D&D decorations is honestly probably one of the better choices they could have made. I do have to wonder if the "no-talent" part of the wizard is there to avoid a) the bulldozer effect D&D wizards have on obstacles and/or b) to avoid the bulldozer effect they have on a movie's budget.

[Willie the Duck]

A heist movie in D&D decorations is honestly probably one of the better choices they could have made. I do have to wonder if the "no-talent" part of the wizard is there to avoid a) the bulldozer effect D&D wizards have on obstacles and/or b) to avoid the bulldozer effect they have on a movie's budget.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it is to cull the damage to the runtime having to stand around in the exposition zone explaining how magic works, what its limits are, etc.

[noob]

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say it is to cull the damage to the runtime having to stand around in the exposition zone explaining how magic works, what its limits are, etc.

Yes because a scene trying to explain dnd casting would be convoluted at best.
Unless they went and made them spell point sorcerers.

[KorvinStarmast]

b) to avoid the bulldozer effect they have on a movie's budget. I think you are on to something here. :smallcool:

[ZRN]

Yes because a scene trying to explain dnd casting would be convoluted at best.
Unless they went and made them spell point sorcerers.

Honestly, Harry Potter has one of the most detail-oriented fanbases out there, and they wrote the movies with an according level of devotion to the original text, and yet they STILL let everyone use their wands like a laser gun throughout all 8 movies. There's a zero percent chance they'd ever write dialogue about spell slots and whatnot in the D&D movie.

I'd say it's less to do with the precise mechanics of spellcasting - that actually lends itself pretty well to a show-don't-tell cinematic treatment - than with the character arcs and motivations that come along with it. If the main character is a wizard, then you probably have to get into the source of their power, who taught them, what drives them to keep practicing, etc. If the wizard is a side character in a heist movie, you can just treat them like the zany hacker who can get disable the casino's cameras with his AlienWare laptop with two keyboards.

[ew_of_chiswick]

Its co-directed and written by John Francis Daley.
He played Sweets from Bones, if you remember that show.

He directed the Vacation reboot, where a grown-up Rusty Griswold takes his family on a vacation.
He also made the surprisingly pretty solid film Game Night, with Jason Bateman.

He's written a few more things as well. I'm fairly optimistic about this film with him at the helm.
And even more relevant, he played Sam Weir, one of the titular geeks on Freaks and Geeks. The final episode of the show included a game of D&D and was called "Discos and Dragons".

[Kane0]

*party fleeing guards down an alleyway*
Barb: “Why are we running? Cant you just magic them to sleep?”
Mage: *huffing and puffing* “how many times can you get angry in one day before you’re just tired?”

[Unoriginal]

Honestly, Harry Potter has one of the most detail-oriented fanbases out there, and they wrote the movies with an according level of devotion to the original text, and yet they STILL let everyone use their wands like a laser gun throughout all 8 movies.

Because that's how wands were used starting book 4.

[Morty]

Harry Potter is fairly solid proof that your magic system can have no rules to speak of and be made up as you go and people will go along with it anyway.

[Kane0]

Also at the risk of raising ire: “Thats not how the force works!”

[JadedDM]

A heist movie, but D&D?

https://media.tenor.com/images/a3a766e78c5a04533518ed89a890829b/tenor.gif

[EggKookoo]

Apparently Screen Rant has debunked the heist plot (https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-movie-synopsis-2023/).

[OracleofWuffing]

:smallconfused: I was gonna say, it sounded weird that there wasn't going to be a "Man in real world wakes up and is in Dungeons and Dragons" sideplot.

[Ertwin]

Not sure he's the kind of asset the film needs. (Recalls Jeremy Irons, a fine actor in a not good D&D movie)


Jeremy Irons was the best part of that movie and you know it.

[Unoriginal]

Apparently Screen Rant has debunked the heist plot (https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-movie-synopsis-2023/).

What do you mean, debunked? The page you linked confirms the synopsis.


No one said it would be a heist, it's a revenge-after-heist-went-wrong movie.

[OracleofWuffing]

What do you mean, debunked? The page you linked confirms the synopsis.
The article also states, "UPDATE: Screen Rant has confirmed the below Dungeons & Dragons movie synopsis is not accurate. The original article remains below."

[MaxWilson]

A heist movie in D&D decorations is honestly probably one of the better choices they could have made. I do have to wonder if the "no-talent" part of the wizard is there to avoid a) the bulldozer effect D&D wizards have on obstacles and/or b) to avoid the bulldozer effect they have on a movie's budget.

There's a bunch of stuff wizards can do that don't require special effects, from invisible walls to mind control.

But avoiding a powerful wizard as main character is a good choice so you can avoiding having to explain the magic system.

[Unoriginal]

The article also states, "UPDATE: Screen Rant has confirmed the below Dungeons & Dragons movie synopsis is not accurate. The original article remains below."

I apologize. I wonder what is inaccurate about it.

[jaappleton]

The info taken from the copyright page.

I figured it was a fairly strong source. XD

[EggKookoo]

It's possible that it's still partly accurate. As Unoriginal says, depends on what Screen Rant means by "inaccurate."

I guess there's also a live-action D&D show being planned.

[Unoriginal]

It's possible that it's still partly accurate. As Unoriginal says, depends on what Screen Rant means by "inaccurate."

I guess there's also a live-action D&D show being planned.

I'm still waiting for the D&D cartoon reboot.

[Joe the Rat]

Hold on a minute. A cheating conman establishing himself as the Lord of Neverwinter using stolen money? That's what Lord Neverember did in the backstory for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist.

That can't be a coincidence, can it?

probably the best way to tie into any sort of module content - it's potentially a prequel to the module. Unless of course this is a different criminal buying their way into power situation - I'm sure that isn't a unique approach to power in Waterdeep.

But if you want to tie material to the film (Lesson 1 of movie merchandising: always tie things in), then running a plot, ending with "the cast moves on to some other, higher-tier issue, but what about these dangling threads?" is a good way to marry the media and the game. The backstory is fixed in film, now you bring in your own cast of characters and deal with this side issue. Basically we replace the 'bad OC fanfic' portion of various properties with 'Official playable content' so people's weird flexes and ear fixations aren't broadcast to the universe. Unless you stream it.

[EggKookoo]

I'm still waiting for the D&D cartoon reboot.

There's never been a better time for it.

[sethdmichaels]

:smallconfused: I was gonna say, it sounded weird that there wasn't going to be a "Man in real world wakes up and is in Dungeons and Dragons" sideplot.

that sounds like the way they'd have attempted it in 1987 (and it'd have been excruciating).

one nice thing for this movie about it coming out now, well after Game of Thrones/Harry Potter/the LOTR movies were big successes, is the barrier to entry for normal moviegoers who won't be familiar with the game is a lot lower.

and those normal moviegoers are the people for whom "how does the magic system work" wouldn't even come up...i think RPG players are a little bit of an outlier in expecting that! if anything, a character should hand-wave away an attempt to explain magic the way Bruce Willis' character does for time travel in Looper.

nobody asked me, but to my mind the ideal setup for a D&D live-action property is as an anthology show - more like "Black Mirror" or maybe the "American Horror Story" iterations than like GoT or Star Trek.

[jaappleton]

I'm still waiting for the D&D cartoon reboot.

Funny story:

Chris Perkins once included a quest in his home game which included the players finding the decapitated head of Uni the Unicorn.

[EggKookoo]

Funny story:

Chris Perkins once included a quest in his home game which included the players finding the decapitated head of Uni the Unicorn.

There's also the cute joke about the show in Baldur's Gate II.

[KorvinStarmast]

nobody asked me, but to my mind the ideal setup for a D&D live-action property is as an anthology show - more like "Black Mirror" or maybe the "American Horror Story" iterations than like GoT or Star Trek. Yeah, do it like Black Mirror. Good idea. :smallsmile:

[Thunderous Mojo]

Funny story:

Chris Perkins once included a quest in his home game which included the players finding the decapitated head of Uni the Unicorn.

Chris Perkins, made the adventuring group an offer they couldn't refuse.🃏

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Moved to Media Discussions forum.

[Kitten Champion]

I find this bit on the Screen Rant article sort of funny.


D&D is one of the trickier properties out there to adapt for film, given that aside from some story packs, the game is generally built around a player having free reign on a narrative and the rest of the group playing through with characters and items from the world. Though the first film attempt included some elements from the tabletop games, it took a far looser and more generic approach to adapting the game, which failed to resonate with general viewers or longtime fans of the series.

It's kind of like saying the David Hasselhoff Nick Fury: Agent of SHIELD TV movie was panned because it insufficiently adhered to Marvel canon.

Anyways, even if the plot synopsis turns out to be inaccurate, doing a heist movie with it would be a solid direction to go in.

While there are heist fantasy books it's not something put to film all that often. Something like The Lies of Locke Lamora was supposed to get a movie adaptation, but WB failed to materialize one and nothing came of it since. The only one that comes to my mind is the brief section of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows which takes a heist format, breaking into Gringotts to get the Horcrux. It's not as well-worn a story as something as archetypal as D&D can be at any rate.

It's also cheaper to do. You can limit the world to one fantasy city and little else, no world-spanning quest or armies of baddies to conceive of on film.

Lastly, as a premise it's a very self-contained format. I don't know how seriously they're considering making sequels to this movie if at all, but they don't have to approach this as if they're adapting a whole novel series with an extensive meta-plot. I mean, how many potential movie franchises have been snuffed out at the first movie due to poor box-office numbers while leaving anyone who just wanted a straight movie with a real conclusion and not an unfinished first-third to a trilogy out to dry? So a simple heist movie with D&D elements, that's easy enough to do without ballooning the narrative up.

[Starbuck_II]

There's a bunch of stuff wizards can do that don't require special effects, from invisible walls to mind control.

But avoiding a powerful wizard as main character is a good choice so you can avoiding having to explain the magic system.

Although, why not a Beguiler or something instead of a Wizard. Even if it was a Wizard why not a Enchanter.

[Kantaki]

Although, why not a Beguiler or something instead of a Wizard. Even if it was a Wizard why not a Enchanter.

Probably because with the generic "wizard" they don't need much exposition.

And "no-talent" both explains why they're involved in the heist and other stuff- all those nice court-mage jobs and academic positions went to people who didn't nearly fail mage school -and saves on the flashy special effects/gives a source of comedy and/or dramatic moment where the wizard breaks out a big spell for the grand finale.

[EggKookoo]

Probably because with the generic "wizard" they don't need much exposition.

If told right, the story shouldn't really need any exposition with regard to the mechanics of magic or whatever. Sure, tell us how the guy became a wizard, and what the events where that steered him toward magic. Maybe a high-level "you tap into the weave" kind of explanation. But I wouldn't want a D&D movie that tried to genuinely explain the difference between, say, a wizard and a sorcerer. Aside from their choice in headwear.

[Kantaki]

If told right, the story shouldn't really need any exposition with regard to the mechanics of magic or whatever. Sure, tell us how the guy became a wizard, and what the events where that steered him toward magic. Maybe a high-level "you tap into the weave" kind of explanation. But I wouldn't want a D&D movie that tried to genuinely explain the difference between, say, a wizard and a sorcerer. Aside from their choice in headwear.

What I mean is, introduce a character as a wizard and it's clear that's the magic guy. The term itself is exposition enough. Sorcerer works too, sure. Cleric and druid? Probably clear enough.

A Beguiler? Sure, I have a rough idea what that means*, but without knowing about the D&D class- and even then -I wouldn't associate it with magic.

*After using a dictionary.:smallbiggrin:

[Tvtyrant]

What I mean is, introduce a character as a wizard and it's clear that's the magic guy. The term itself is exposition enough. Sorcerer works too, sure. Cleric and druid? Probably clear enough.

A Beguiler? Sure, I have a rough idea what that means*, but without knowing about the D&D class- and even then -I wouldn't associate it with magic.

*After using a dictionary.:smallbiggrin:

Also Beguiler is in two editions of D&D instead of all of them as Wizard is.

[EggKookoo]

In all honesty I'd rather they never use class-like terms. I mean, in SW, with the exception of Jedi (which is at least a specific in-universe thing), they don't try to explain that Han Solo is some kind of smuggler class, while Luke is whatever-he-is and Leia is whatever-she-is and all that. They just have them act like people doing what they're naturally good at without any explanation. Even with the Jedi, they don't call out specific powers, although the prequels veer close. In the original SW (ep4) it's not even clear the Jedi have powers aside from some kind of enhanced perception and, at the extreme, the ability to cloud or affect the thoughts of others.

[Velaryon]

Not sure he's the kind of asset the film needs. (Recalls Jeremy Irons, a fine actor in a not good D&D movie)
Yeah.
Good choice.

It certainly wasn't a good movie, but it was entertainingly bad. If you're drinking enough.



Jeremy Irons was the best part of that movie and you know it.

Oh, absolutely. He's probably still picking bits of scenery out of his teeth from that performance. :smallbiggrin:

[Hopeless]

Apparently another actress has been cast in this movie Screenrant claims is still wrong.

New Cast Notice (https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-movie-cast-daisy-head-shadow-bone/)

[t209]

I also note that the protagonists seems to be the thief and the barbarian
Like Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, the barbarian and rogue duo.

[Hopeless]

What are the odds they've got the cast mixed up with their classes?

I know very unlikely, but until they provide more details what can we be sure about?

No Jeremy Irons cameo?

A prison breakout?

What did they steal?

Does this relate to Dragon Heist?

[Tyrant]

In all honesty I'd rather they never use class-like terms. I mean, in SW, with the exception of Jedi (which is at least a specific in-universe thing), they don't try to explain that Han Solo is some kind of smuggler class, while Luke is whatever-he-is and Leia is whatever-she-is and all that.
I'm not really following you here. Han is a smuggler. They don't act like they are in a game, if that's what you mean, but it's clear that Han (and by extension Chewbacca) is a smuggler. Leia is a princess/senator, Obi-Wan is a Jedi, and Luke is the maybe-Jedi in training. I don't think anyone expects them to say characters are specific levels or anything like that, but calling a magic user a wizard or sorcerer isn't some out there idea that shouldn't even be contemplated. I mean, even in the Star Wars example Admiral Motti calls Vader's "sorcererous ways" into question. Those are common enough terms compared to "magic user" that I would expect them to use them.

In the original SW (ep4) it's not even clear the Jedi have powers aside from some kind of enhanced perception and, at the extreme, the ability to cloud or affect the thoughts of others.
Obi-Wan is clearly doing more than just waving his hand at the Stormtrooper on Tatooine to get him to let them go, he feels the deaths caused by the Death Star, Vader feels Obi-Wan's presence before ever seeing him or even having reason to believe him to still be alive, Vader can tell Luke is strong in the Force while both are within separate fighters in the vacuum of space, Luke does make the "impossible" shot without the computer (after hearing Obi-Wan's voice from beyond), and of course Vader Force choking Admiral Motti after he found him wanting in the faith department. I think it's quite a stretch to say the Jedi have no powers even with just ANH.

As for the magic system topic, I don't see the problem in a very brief explanation of the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. Something like (warning, I am obviously not a screenwriter, a professional would make this sound better) one of the characters questioning why the not-so-great wizard can't just make something magic related happen at which point said wizard snaps back something about not being a sorcerer (to set up the explanation in such a way that it comes across as more than just a "hey, in the game this is a thing, so we need it in the movie too. So here's this conversation that feels out of place but is necessary for an info dump"). Cue dumb founded look and then very short explanation about one learns their skills (hence why this particular wizard isn't that great, presumably) while the other is just blessed with powers (probably said in such a way as to make it clear the wizard hates the people who "have it easy") and then the plot carries on. Don't go into spell slots or levels or anything like that. Maybe mention The Weave and Mystra but don't linger on it. This way A) You have mentioned it for those who play the game or are potentially interested, B) You increase the amount of information in a way that is easy to do and maybe is used as some bit of character for the wizard, and C) Just in case, if somehow, in a potential sequel, the difference would matter you have already planted the seed for it.

Also, even though I haven't played Dragon Heist, if this is a prequel that is a fairly solid idea.

[Rodin]

I'm not really following you here. Han is a smuggler. They don't act like they are in a game, if that's what you mean, but it's clear that Han (and by extension Chewbacca) is a smuggler. Leia is a princess/senator, Obi-Wan is a Jedi, and Luke is the maybe-Jedi in training. I don't think anyone expects them to say characters are specific levels or anything like that, but calling a magic user a wizard or sorcerer isn't some out there idea that shouldn't even be contemplated. I mean, even in the Star Wars example Admiral Motti calls Vader's "sorcererous ways" into question. Those are common enough terms compared to "magic user" that I would expect them to use them.

Obi-Wan is clearly doing more than just waving his hand at the Stormtrooper on Tatooine to get him to let them go, he feels the deaths caused by the Death Star, Vader feels Obi-Wan's presence before ever seeing him or even having reason to believe him to still be alive, Vader can tell Luke is strong in the Force while both are within separate fighters in the vacuum of space, Luke does make the "impossible" shot without the computer (after hearing Obi-Wan's voice from beyond), and of course Vader Force choking Admiral Motti after he found him wanting in the faith department. I think it's quite a stretch to say the Jedi have no powers even with just ANH.

As for the magic system topic, I don't see the problem in a very brief explanation of the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. Something like (warning, I am obviously not a screenwriter, a professional would make this sound better) one of the characters questioning why the not-so-great wizard can't just make something magic related happen at which point said wizard snaps back something about not being a sorcerer (to set up the explanation in such a way that it comes across as more than just a "hey, in the game this is a thing, so we need it in the movie too. So here's this conversation that feels out of place but is necessary for an info dump"). Cue dumb founded look and then very short explanation about one learns their skills (hence why this particular wizard isn't that great, presumably) while the other is just blessed with powers (probably said in such a way as to make it clear the wizard hates the people who "have it easy") and then the plot carries on. Don't go into spell slots or levels or anything like that. Maybe mention The Weave and Mystra but don't linger on it. This way A) You have mentioned it for those who play the game or are potentially interested, B) You increase the amount of information in a way that is easy to do and maybe is used as some bit of character for the wizard, and C) Just in case, if somehow, in a potential sequel, the difference would matter you have already planted the seed for it.

Also, even though I haven't played Dragon Heist, if this is a prequel that is a fairly solid idea.

That's still way more information than is required in a 2 hour movie. We should never know if the msgic user is a Wizard or Sorceror because that level of detail should never come up. The magic user casts spells as required by plot and if he can't there are far better ways to demonstrate that then stopping the movie to explain game mechanics.

Heck,the caster running out of magic shouldn't even come up. If you need the Wizard not to open two locked doors, put only one locked door in the script. Or make the second locked door magically unpickable. No fireball to save the day can be explained by the Sorceror getting tackled to the ground by one of the bad guy's mooks.

On the first part of your post - there is a difference between Wizard and Beguiler. The former is instantly recognizable as "dude that does magic." Beguiler could be anything. My first thought was some sort of demon rather than a sub-class of magic user.

[EggKookoo]

I'm not really following you here. Han is a smuggler. They don't act like they are in a game, if that's what you mean, but it's clear that Han (and by extension Chewbacca) is a smuggler.

I mean using game terms in the story as though they had specific, unambiguous meanings. Sure, Solo is a smuggler, but it's not like that's his official occupation or something. I mean, that would be like listing "cat burglar" on your resume. Solo is also called a "pirate" by Lando and a "mercenary" by Leah (not to mention "nerf herder," which actually sounds like a job someone might have in the SW universe). "Smuggler" is a loose description, like calling someone a thug or a flunkie or a jock.


I don't think anyone expects them to say characters are specific levels or anything like that, but calling a magic user a wizard or sorcerer isn't some out there idea that shouldn't even be contemplated. I mean, even in the Star Wars example Admiral Motti calls Vader's "sorcererous ways" into question. Those are common enough terms compared to "magic user" that I would expect them to use them.

Right, they're used in ambiguous, non-specific ways. Owen also calls Ben a "wizard" at one point. Han refers to belief in the Force as "hokey religion." It's clear that Force abilities are perceived at best as magic by those without them.

I'm reminded of the original Conan movie, where Mako's spellcaster character is called a "wizard" multiple times but performs magic that's much more in line with what a cleric would be doing in D&D. That makes sense, because there aren't specific game-like terms used for specific kinds of magic-users in the movie (not sure if there ever were in the novels). You do something magical, you're a wizard, sorcerer, mage, or whatever other term seems right to an onlooker.


Obi-Wan is clearly doing more than just waving his hand at the Stormtrooper on Tatooine to get him to let them go, he feels the deaths caused by the Death Star, Vader feels Obi-Wan's presence before ever seeing him or even having reason to believe him to still be alive, Vader can tell Luke is strong in the Force while both are within separate fighters in the vacuum of space, Luke does make the "impossible" shot without the computer (after hearing Obi-Wan's voice from beyond), and of course Vader Force choking Admiral Motti after he found him wanting in the faith department. I think it's quite a stretch to say the Jedi have no powers even with just ANH.

Most of what you're describing falls under the category of "enhanced perception," which Force users clearly have in ANH. And yes, Ben is doing something to the stormtrooper, but it's really a kind of super-hypnosis (complete with a distracting hand gesture). As a kid I thought he was using subtle intonations of his voice and incredibly accurate perception to say it just so to tip the trooper's opinion a certain way, which could have easily failed and probably only succeeded because the target was weak-willed. That was to show the "light" side of how it worked, in contrast with Vader doing essentially the same thing but more aggressively and relying more on fear -- actual fear, prompted by him looming over Motti physically and making a crushing gesture with his hands. It showed that mastery over the dark side could allow you to violently influence someone's mind to the point where, however briefly, they think they're choking.

I was disappointed a few years later to see Luke use 3 APs of Force Telekinesis to move the lightsaber to his hand in the Wampa cave. As much as I love ESB, it changed the Force from being something intriguing and mysterious to being bitten by a radioactive space-spider (or perhaps being a member of the Space X-Men). It only got worse when they doubled down on it being bloodline-related.

[Tyrant]

That's still way more information than is required in a 2 hour movie. We should never know if the msgic user is a Wizard or Sorceror because that level of detail should never come up. The magic user casts spells as required by plot and if he can't there are far better ways to demonstrate that then stopping the movie to explain game mechanics.

Heck,the caster running out of magic shouldn't even come up. If you need the Wizard not to open two locked doors, put only one locked door in the script. Or make the second locked door magically unpickable. No fireball to save the day can be explained by the Sorceror getting tackled to the ground by one of the bad guy's mooks.
Did you read the synopsis floating around, like in the first part of the thread? We already know the wizard supposedly has some issues. It is a fairly safe bet that at some point in the movie, conversation on wizard vs sorcerer or no, said wizard will have an issue casting spells. So, how about work something relevant into the game and potentially add to the character at the same time? It is based on a game, even though a few people seem to think the best way forward is to make it as generic as humanly possible. I'm saying this is the equivalent of someone calling the Rogue (because it's a virtual guarantee there will be one) a thief and them saying they prefer something like rogue or scoundrel. It's a wink and a nod to the people in the audience who know the game and to anyone else it's a bit of character. No one is saying to pause the movie for a half hour to explain Vancian spellcasting.

I mean using game terms in the story as though they had specific, unambiguous meanings. Sure, Solo is a smuggler, but it's not like that's his official occupation or something. I mean, that would be like listing "cat burglar" on your resume. Solo is also called a "pirate" by Lando and a "mercenary" by Leah (not to mention "nerf herder," which actually sounds like a job someone might have in the SW universe). "Smuggler" is a loose description, like calling someone a thug or a flunkie or a jock.
What kind of metric is that? It's not what he puts on a resume? Who cares what he puts on the resumes he doesn't fill out, because he's a criminal and they tend to not fill those out when doing criminal things. A smuggler. That is his job description. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

I'm reminded of the original Conan movie, where Mako's spellcaster character is called a "wizard" multiple times but performs magic that's much more in line with what a cleric would be doing in D&D. That makes sense, because there aren't specific game-like terms used for specific kinds of magic-users in the movie (not sure if there ever were in the novels). You do something magical, you're a wizard, sorcerer, mage, or whatever other term seems right to an onlooker.
Not sure what D&D classes have to do with Conan. It wasn't a D&D movie so they aren't really relevant. Had it been a D&D movie, I would have an issue with it. As is, he called himself a wizard first and there's no indication that in the world of Conan that isn't true.

I think the issue here is that in D&D it actually does have a specific meaning. The write up so far uses that word, along with other class names. So, I think it's fair to assume that is what they actually mean. I am saying that there are ways to convey some information from the game (it is an adaptation, not a generic fantasy movie) without going into overload.

Most of what you're describing falls under the category of "enhanced perception," which Force users clearly have in ANH. And yes, Ben is doing something to the stormtrooper, but it's really a kind of super-hypnosis (complete with a distracting hand gesture). As a kid I thought he was using subtle intonations of his voice and incredibly accurate perception to say it just so to tip the trooper's opinion a certain way, which could have easily failed and probably only succeeded because the target was weak-willed. That was to show the "light" side of how it worked, in contrast with Vader doing essentially the same thing but more aggressively and relying more on fear -- actual fear, prompted by him looming over Motti physically and making a crushing gesture with his hands. It showed that mastery over the dark side could allow you to violently influence someone's mind to the point where, however briefly, they think they're choking.
And the Empire was benevolent with their only real mistake being that they gave the wrong guy keys to the Death Star. I can appreciate that you have a radically different take, but I just don't see it. Especially the last part. Motti, the guy who 5 seconds before getting Force choked was telling Vader to his face that he is a fraud, is suddenly deathly afraid of him because he takes a step or two closer? To the point that Vader could make him think he is being choked? I'm not buying it.

I was disappointed a few years later to see Luke use 3 APs of Force Telekinesis to move the lightsaber to his hand in the Wampa cave. As much as I love ESB, it changed the Force from being something intriguing and mysterious to being bitten by a radioactive space-spider (or perhaps being a member of the Space X-Men). It only got worse when they doubled down on it being bloodline-related.
It was still built on belief on attuning one's self to the Force. And it was bloodline related from the start. Luke's dad was always a Jedi, even in ANH. Him being Vader was the retcon (unless George isn't lying about having at least the broad strokes worked out). Think it through. If anyone could learn these powers, why is it just Obi Wan and Vader? We see what the two of them, along with a barely trained novice, can do. There had to be a limiting element somewhere or there would be more of these people.

[EggKookoo]

What kind of metric is that? It's not what he puts on a resume? Who cares what he puts on the resumes he doesn't fill out, because he's a criminal and they tend to not fill those out when doing criminal things. A smuggler. That is his job description. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here.

I think you're taking the example a little too literally.

My point is Solo doesn't view "smuggler" as a specific set of skills and abilities the way a class is defined by game rules. Anyone who smuggles contraband is a smuggler, regardless of how many attacks per round they get or if they can use uncanny dodge or have proficiency in persuasion. When someone refers to Solo as a "smuggler" they're not referring to any of that stuff but simply that he makes a living smuggling stuff.

I mean, when a wizard attacks someone with spells, he's fighting them, right? Doesn't make him a "fighter."


I think the issue here is that in D&D it actually does have a specific meaning. The write up so far uses that word, along with other class names. So, I think it's fair to assume that is what they actually mean. I am saying that there are ways to convey some information from the game (it is an adaptation, not a generic fantasy movie) without going into overload.

At the table with players, class names have specific meanings, as do terms like "hit points" and "armor class." In the fictional world, calling someone who casts spells a wizard, or a sorcerer, or a mage are all equally valid. A magic person doesn't know the rulebooks used by the people playing him in the game use a particular term. He doesn't know he's in a game at all.


I can appreciate that you have a radically different take, but I just don't see it. Especially the last part. Motti, the guy who 5 seconds before getting Force choked was telling Vader to his face that he is a fraud, is suddenly deathly afraid of him because he takes a step or two closer? To the point that Vader could make him think he is being choked? I'm not buying it.

Classic false-front "tough guy" behavior. Seen it a million times.


It was still built on belief on attuning one's self to the Force. And it was bloodline related from the start. Luke's dad was always a Jedi, even in ANH.

It's about emphasis. It's one thing to say your dad was strong in the Force so you might be too. It's another thing to show it how it became in later films, where there's a clear has/has-not lineage thing going on. Even by RotJ, Luke refers to some people "having" the Force, and he pretty clearly means it being something you're born with or not, since he's telling Leia that she "has " too, despite her not displaying any particular affinity for it up to then.

Edit: Actually, I was misremembering. Ben refers to Vader as his pupil, not Luke's (unnamed) father. The only thing Ben says about Luke's father is that Vader betrayed and murdered him. There's no reference to Luke's dad being a Jedi or even knowing anything about the Force.


Him being Vader was the retcon (unless George isn't lying about having at least the broad strokes worked out).

We don't have to trust Lucas' word. Just read the Leigh Brackett version of the script. It's online somewhere. In that, Luke's father was a Jedi but was not Vader, and Vader is unambiguously the one who killed him. Luke's dad wasn't anything special Force-wise, Vader just killed him as hunting down all the Jedi (I think, been a while since I read it). However, [I]Luke was the Force prodigy, much the way Anakin was presented in the prequels. Vader wanted him because of his unusual affinity for the Force, which is also why Yoda could get him trained up so quickly.

Edit 2: So to clarify, I don't think Brackett's version (which, like Kasdan's, was based off Lucas' notes) suggested Luke's father had any Force connections at all.


Think it through. If anyone could learn these powers, why is it just Obi Wan and Vader? We see what the two of them, along with a barely trained novice, can do. There had to be a limiting element somewhere or there would be more of these people.

Except the prequels show dozens if not hundreds of Jedi. And how can just a handful of Jedi be the "guardians of peace" for an entire galaxy? And there were only two because Vader hunted down and killed all the rest.

[Hopeless]

So Vader had a lot of help to assist in guiding him to his targets the only ones who escaped did so because they chose locations where they could pass unrecognised or not noticed.

A better question is why no one notice Leia was force sensitive as she grew up to replace her adopted father Bail Organa?

Back to the thread.

Exactly how much detail will they get into with this?

Red Wizards only?

What Cleric's will be present or will it be restricted to the druid for some reason?

The Harper's have a former member involved and apparently the Harper's did nothing to stop a con artist with links to Thay seizing power in Neverwinter?

Need more information I guess!

[Tyrant]

I think you're taking the example a little too literally.

My point is Solo doesn't view "smuggler" as a specific set of skills and abilities the way a class is defined by game rules. Anyone who smuggles contraband is a smuggler, regardless of how many attacks per round they get or if they can use uncanny dodge or have proficiency in persuasion. When someone refers to Solo as a "smuggler" they're not referring to any of that stuff but simply that he makes a living smuggling stuff.

I mean, when a wizard attacks someone with spells, he's fighting them, right? Doesn't make him a "fighter."
We know from Han being a smuggler that he smuggles things. We can reasonably assume that he is familiar with other criminal behaviors. No one, despite constant attempts to paint it that way, is arguing that the movie should perfectly replicate game mechanics. No one, absolutely no one, is saying character X should be able to make Y attacks per round, cast Z number of spells, etc. No one is saying that so comparisons to that are pointless.

At the table with players, class names have specific meanings, as do terms like "hit points" and "armor class." In the fictional world, calling someone who casts spells a wizard, or a sorcerer, or a mage are all equally valid. A magic person doesn't know the rulebooks used by the people playing him in the game use a particular term. He doesn't know he's in a game at all.
In universe there is a difference between a Sorcerer and a Wizard. It's not just a game term. One is born with the power and the other has to learn it. There is a difference. A fighter could be argued to be generic, but something like a Bladesinger is something more specific, both in game terms and in universe. This is what I am trying to convey. In the world of the Forgotten Realms people know these differences exist and have terms to describe them. Lay people might not know the difference, but magic users do. The Thayans, for instance, openly discriminate between Wizards and every other Arcane caster. Most people know that there is a difference between Arcane and Divine magic. A few know that Psionics are a thing too. It's not just real world game terminology.

Classic false-front "tough guy" behavior. Seen it a million times.
I suppose it always ends with the over inflated ego being convinced the target of his bravado is Force choking him from across the room to the convincing degree that he starts actually choking? Come on. The intent in the film is very obvious and it's not subtle hypnotism.

It's about emphasis. It's one thing to say your dad was strong in the Force so you might be too. It's another thing to show it how it became in later films, where there's a clear has/has-not lineage thing going on. Even by RotJ, Luke refers to some people "having" the Force, and he pretty clearly means it being something you're born with or not, since he's telling Leia that she "has " too, despite her not displaying any particular affinity for it up to then.

Edit: Actually, I was misremembering. Ben refers to Vader as his pupil, not Luke's (unnamed) father. The only thing Ben says about Luke's father is that Vader betrayed and murdered him. There's no reference to Luke's dad being a Jedi or even knowing anything about the Force.
The point isn't that Luke's dad was strong in the Force. The point is he had it at all. From ANH we know of a grand total of 3 Jedi: Obi-Wan, Vader, Luke's-not-yet-revealed-to-be-Vader-Dad. We only know of one of them having a kid, and that kid has the Force. It's a fairly logic inference that the Force has a genetic component.

Except the prequels show dozens if not hundreds of Jedi. And how can just a handful of Jedi be the "guardians of peace" for an entire galaxy? And there were only two because [I]Vader hunted down and killed all the rest.
Yes, Vader hunted down the existing Jedi. In all that time Vader never thought: I could accomplish a lot more if I had some other guy with these powers helping me. Like wise with Obi-Wan? Or, looking at the prequels where we get the answer, if genetics aren't involved why not just train more Jedi? Again, just because it wasn't spelled out in the opening crawl doesn't mean there wasn't a limiting factor from the start. Based on what little we know, assuming it's genetic is a fair assumption. The rest of the series reinforces this idea.

I know I like a good side track on the forums as much as the next person, perhaps it would be better to move this side track of the Jedi not actually having powers to a separate thread.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, so let's ditch SW. It kind of wandered off into left field.

The core of my point is that creatures within the fictional world (of D&D) don't necessarily use the same terms, or even the same conceptual breakdowns that those terms represent, as we do at the table. Setting aside pure game mechanics, which the in-fiction people wouldn't be aware of, the thematic difference between a D&D wizard and D&D sorcerer is that the former gains power through learning about the nature (and perhaps history) of magic and spellcasting, while the latter unlocks an inherent biological/bloodline potential. The wizard actively pursues and studies magic, while the sorcerer lets magic kind of "come to him."

But I don't think this is an absolute, definite line. There's nothing to say a sorcerer can't or wouldn't study magic the way we tend to think of a wizard doing it. Remember that the sorcerer doesn't know he's a character in a game, with a class assigned to him via some ruleset somewhere. He discovered at age 12 he could make fire leap from his fingertips. Wow, what's that all about? Maybe he should go to a magic school and see if he can learn more. And as he studies, he makes progress via his bloodline-based powers, which in turn prompt him to learn more about the kinds of effects he's been producing. How clear would it be in his mind that his magic isn't coming from his studies, at least partly? Especially if those studies result in him being quite educated about arcane stuff (proficient in Arcana)? He would live among (class) wizards and probably want to fit in with them, and whatever term they call themselves he might also use simply out of social bonding.

Meanwhile, imagine someone intrigued by magic after seeing some magical creature or even another spellcaster. She learns or hears or deduces that one's magical power can be unlocked by "learning secrets about the world." When she comes of age, she sets out from home, trying to unlock what she believes to be her inherent magical power. She learns everything she can, taking notes and keeping magic journals. She's set on her own idea of where magic comes from and resists suggestions to get herself formally educated. While it may take longer than some other people, she works out her own kind of magical lingo and eventually begins creating magical effects of her own. She's a wizard per the rules, complete with her spellbook, but she wholeheartedly believes her magic is coming from "within" in the way we players might think of how a sorcerer works. You say she has no magical bloodline? She doesn't care what you think -- she's too busy lobbing fireballs.

I think it diminishes the fun and wonder to insist that a (class) wizard somehow inherently knows it's like other (class) wizards and unlike (class) sorcerers, simply because those are the distinctions set up by the game rules. It's more fun, at least to me, that the creatures inhabiting the fictional world have only a loose understanding of this kind of thing, and are often in conflict with each other about it, like most real-world ideologies.

[Rodin]

My argument continues to be that the writers will know they are writing for the lowest common denominator. They're writing for under the assumption that a majority of their audience has never played D&D and will not care about the distinction between a Wizard, a Sorceror, a Beguiler, or a Unusually Intelligent Hamster with Delusions of Grandeur. The audience is there for a fantasy movie, and the writers only have a couple of hours to tell a complete and compelling story in that time.

If they can do that within the confines of existing D&D lore? Great! Just don't expect them to include anything that requires explanation, because every minute explaining is time they aren't telling their story. It's why the MCU runs on massively simplified versions of the comic book characters in an original universe that doesn't take into account 50 years of comic history and we don't start out with an Iron Man that's died 5 times and been shunted through a dozen parallel universes and timelines.

If we get a setting that resembles D&D we'll be lucky. References to game rules will likely be winks to the audience and rather than the Wizard sitting the Rogue down to explain why he has to prepare spells every day.

And you know what? I'm okay with that. Because at the end of the day I want a good fantasy movie. I want a band of adventurers overcoming obstacles to complete an objective. Whether the franchise is D&D or Pathfinder or [insert franchise here] is irrelevant as long as the movie is good.

[Imbalance]

Personally, I think they should film the entire thing from a bird's eye isometric view complete with inset thumbnail closeups and HUDs that indicate the current character's HP and dice rolls.

[Starbuck_II]

So Vader had a lot of help to assist in guiding him to his targets the only ones who escaped did so because they chose locations where they could pass unrecognised or not noticed.

A better question is why no one notice Leia was force sensitive as she grew up to replace her adopted father Bail Organa?

Because her powers only manifested as influencing people in diplomacy.
She and everyone just thought she was a good diplomat while she was wasting time on the shooting range instead of studying. Who know that was going to come in handy? (that is my head canon at why she shot so good when rescued but rarely says anything wise and diplomatic)

[EggKookoo]

It's why the MCU runs on massively simplified versions of the comic book characters in an original universe that doesn't take into account 50 years of comic history and we don't start out with an Iron Man that's died 5 times and been shunted through a dozen parallel universes and timelines.

And more to the point, the MCU doesn't spell out powers and strength levels and whatnot, but it's clear the writers have a firm handle on all that under the hood. I mean has MCU Spider-Man ever even mentioned his spider-sense? Maybe in Far From Home (I can't recall off the top of my head) but the films have definitely shown it in more than one occasion before that.

Likewise, the comics minutia tells us Thor is stronger than Hulk when Hulk first transforms, but Hulk's strength increases the longer he's fighting (and staying angry) and it just keeps going with no observed top limit. The movies never come out and tell us this, but watch the fight between Hulk and Thor on the helicarrier in the first Avengers, or Tony and Hulk in Age of Ultron (the fight in Ragnarok might be distorted due to Hulk being stuck as Hulk for so long, not sure). It's clear to me that the writers understand how Hulk's strength works and why it's crucial to actively stop him rather than try to, say, tire him out.


Because her powers only manifested as influencing people in diplomacy.

To be fair (to be faaaaair), Yoda knew about her all along.

[Solamnicknight]

I do have some hope for this adaptation being at least somewhat fun and interesting. Especially if they are going with that “ex Harper getting into a payback heist” idea. I like that they are using some FR lore that doesn’t get a ton of attention. Notably the Red Wizards of Thay being involved. Also curious to see if they explore some of the faction lore of the Harpers or the other 5e realms factions like the Zhentarim or Lord’s Alliance?

[Mordar]

Well, it doesn't seem particularly "D&D"y to me, the plot seems fine. Just can't get behind Steve Trevorkirk and Letty Rain as leads. I suspect they'll be passable-to-good for the action, but not much else.

I also thought Gal Godot wasn't going to be good for Wonder Woman, though, so now I always feel some strange optimism when I hear a casting I don't immediately like.

- M

[Bohandas]

I think the next time they do a D&D movie they should just hire the production team from Big Trouble In Little China, since that movie was basically "D&D, except urban fantasy" . The characters all meet at a restaurant, they make multiple forays into the villain's lair, the villain kind of resembles Iuz due to the whole the whole little old man or eight foot tall roadblock dichotomy, and there's even a beholder in it.

[EggKookoo]

I think the next time they do a D&D movie they should just hire the production team from Big Trouble In Little China, since that movie was basically "D&D, except urban fantasy" . The characters all meet at a restaurant, they make multiple forays into the villain's lair, the villain kind of resembles Iuz dur to the whole the whole little old man or eight foot tall roadblock dichotomy, and there's even a beholder in it.

And at no point do they stop to tell us what class Egg Chen is or how many spell slots he has.

[DavidSh]

And at no point do they stop to tell us what class Egg Chen is or how many spell slots he has.

I don't spell slots work for a movie unless you do something like convert The Dying Earth into an anthology show. Which could work, if you took four of the stories and gave them to different directors to create individual segments, but it wouldn't be D&D as such.

[Dragonus45]

I'm calling it that the "No talent wizard" is actually a really talented necromancer or something who comes across as a total incompetent because he never wants to do necromancy any more.

[Tyrant]

The core of my point is that creatures within the fictional world (of D&D) don't necessarily use the same terms, or even the same conceptual breakdowns that those terms represent, as we do at the table. Setting aside pure game mechanics, which the in-fiction people wouldn't be aware of, the thematic difference between a D&D wizard and D&D sorcerer is that the former gains power through learning about the nature (and perhaps history) of magic and spellcasting, while the latter unlocks an inherent biological/bloodline potential. The wizard actively pursues and studies magic, while the sorcerer lets magic kind of "come to him."
Except they do know. In the Forgotten Realms (the default setting for a while now, and where this movie takes place), in Thay, Wizards, not Sorcerers, are the supreme rulers. They know the difference. Thay is an openly racist country in the way we mean it, they believe themselves to be superior to other humans of different decent. Non magic users are just above the slaves in Thay. Then come the non Wizard magic users. Then Wizards. If you have a natural magical ability and want to actually have power in Thay, you train to be a Wizard. They view other magic users who "just have" their powers as lesser because they didn't earn them. Likewise with Clerics and basically any other Divine Magic user. The people in the setting know that there is a difference. Do they use the words Wizard and Sorcerer? Likely not given they don't speak English. However, given that the movie will be in English, I assume they would use the English versions of those words.

Do country bumpkins know the difference? Probably not. Most people don't even know psionics are a thing given how rare they are in the FR. But most people do know things like there being a difference between Arcane and Divine magic. Sure, they likely don't know the more involved parts of the differences. But they do understand that a Wizard can't really do much to heal you while a Cleric likely can. They don't have to understand the metaphysics behind why that is to understand that that is the way of their world.

Most people in the real world have no clue how a cell phone works, but they know how to use them and that they are different from a land line.

But I don't think this is an absolute, definite line. There's nothing to say a sorcerer can't or wouldn't study magic the way we tend to think of a wizard doing it. Remember that the sorcerer doesn't know he's a character in a game, with a class assigned to him via some ruleset somewhere. He discovered at age 12 he could make fire leap from his fingertips. Wow, what's that all about? Maybe he should go to a magic school and see if he can learn more. And as he studies, he makes progress via his bloodline-based powers, which in turn prompt him to learn more about the kinds of effects he's been producing. How clear would it be in his mind that his magic isn't coming from his studies, at least partly? Especially if those studies result in him being quite educated about arcane stuff (proficient in Arcana)? He would live among (class) wizards and probably want to fit in with them, and whatever term they call themselves he might also use simply out of social bonding.
Part of this could happen. I imagine it would happen with some frequency. And then the wizard school would explain that he is a Sorcerer once they see he doesn't need a spell book. At that point they will either continue to try to train him, likely as a Sorcerer, or send him to someone who can, or I suppose kick him out.

Meanwhile, imagine someone intrigued by magic after seeing some magical creature or even another spellcaster. She learns or hears or deduces that one's magical power can be unlocked by "learning secrets about the world." When she comes of age, she sets out from home, trying to unlock what she believes to be her inherent magical power. She learns everything she can, taking notes and keeping magic journals. She's set on her own idea of where magic comes from and resists suggestions to get herself formally educated. While it may take longer than some other people, she works out her own kind of magical lingo and eventually begins creating magical effects of her own. She's a wizard per the rules, complete with her spellbook, but she wholeheartedly believes her magic is coming from "within" in the way we players might think of how a sorcerer works. You say she has no magical bloodline? She doesn't care what you think -- she's too busy lobbing fireballs.
And she would likely be wrong. Just because a Psion thinks they are a Sorcerer doesn't mean that they are, even though both of their powers come from within. You can create an infinite number of hypothetical characters that are wrong and it won't help your position. The guy trained in martial combat since the age of 10 who occasionally uses brute force to steal things but can't disarm a trap or sneak in anywhere to save his life can call himself a rogue all he wants, but he's wrong. Someone who has a Wild Talent to heal people once a day, but who otherwise trains to fight and seek enlightenment at a monastery is a Monk, not a Cleric. Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right.

I think it diminishes the fun and wonder to insist that a (class) wizard somehow inherently knows it's like other (class) wizards and unlike (class) sorcerers, simply because those are the distinctions set up by the game rules. It's more fun, at least to me, that the creatures inhabiting the fictional world have only a loose understanding of this kind of thing, and are often in conflict with each other about it, like most real-world ideologies.
Then I suggest avoiding the Forgotten Realms. The "rules" for magic are fairly understood (unless Mystra died again this week).

I feel like there is a potential disconnect here. I think you're ideas have merit for character backgrounds in a campaign (in not the Forgotten Realms) and could potentially be part of an interesting movie plot. If this were a generic fantasy movie, or a generic D&D movie that weren't tied to a specific setting, those ideas could be made to work (and could be interesting). I would watch a movie they were a part of. However, this appears to be a Forgotten Realms movie. More than that, it is set along the Sword Coast, featuring Neverwinter and Waterdeep. This is not an uncharted backwater. These are two of the more heavily detailed cities in the fiction/lore. I am operating under the assumption that they didn't go to the trouble of using them just to toss everything about them in the trash. As such, I am approaching from the standpoint of assuming they are going to actually use at least some of the copious information that is available on this part of the Realms.

More lengthy, general reply to some of the thread:
I stand by my comments from the last thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623967-New-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-movie) that part of the intent with this movie is to launch a franchise. If that is the case, then the smart move is to throw tidbits of the lore in everywhere they can so they have multiple options for follow ups. Just because I have a hard time envisioning how you incorporate the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer (for instance) into a future plot doesn't mean someone else can't. To be clear, do I view this as some absolute necessity? No, not at all. I'm not saying it's necessary. I'm saying there's some pretty serious naysaying for specious reasons and that this is something that would be not only possible, but quite easy, to work into the script if they so chose. It is a part of the lore of the setting every bit as much as the famous locations and personalities. I assume people accept that they will at least tell us the name of the cities and not just have them be generic fantasy cities 1 and 2, championed by Protagonists 1-4 (It worked for Tenet, so maybe...)?

I think anyone expecting a movie devoid of Realms lore is in for a severe disappointment. What are two of the most successful Fantasy entries in live action entertainment over the last couple decades? Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones. Anyone who calls either one lore lite is lying to you that they watched them. I do expect them to know when to use the lore and when not to, but I believe they will use it, a lot. Contrary to what I perceive to be the prevailing opinion in this thread, the average audience member isn't a moron who just wants explosions. I'm not saying they want 2001: A Space Odyssey meets Schindler's List set in the Forgotten Realms, but they seem to appreciate something with at least some substance to it if it is presented correctly. A single line commenting on a particular difference inherent to the setting won't randomly derail the entire endeavor straight into a sweep of the Razzie Awards.

To use the MCU example, just think of all of the things that occur in the later movies that I believe a lot of you would have said simply couldn't work because audiences won't buy into it. A crazed AI brought to life by an alien scepter uses the same scepter to create another AI and then tries to wipe out all life on Earth by turning a city into an asteroid. Or how about an alien despot is out to collect magic space rocks to fulfill some Malthusian fueled desire to create balance by causing half of all life to blink out of existence. And then the heroes time travel to fix it. Or a country has managed to hide the fact they have a mountain of magic space metal and super advanced technology. And so on. We got there because they took a few risks and built towards them by throwing out concepts and ideas along the way to help get the audience ready for the crazy. Even the first Avengers largely works because of the Captain America 1 and Thor 1. They set the stage for aliens and magic being a thing in that universe. By the time the Helicarrier becomes a thing the audience is way past thinking that is silly or out of place. Then you have the breadcrumbs getting the audience ready for Wakanda. Cap's shield and the vibranium sub plot in Age of Ultron. Cap wielding Mjolnir in Endgame is set up in Age of Ultron with a drinking scene at a party. Even if these things had gone nowhere, the option to pursue them was there because they had the foresight to set up potential plot lines. It's called world building.

It is highly unlikely a D&D series will anywhere near as many movies. But the same idea holds. You have to lead your audience to a place where the crazy ideas don't seem to crazy, and that requires explanations, lore, and little tidbits along the way to build to the payoff. I would rather they try to actually build something and fail than produce more safe, bland crap.

And for the love of god I am not saying anything in favor of spell levels, character levels, HP, etc. Aside from one post that I assume is in jest, literally no one is calling for that. So you can stop fighting that strawman any time.

Wizard vs Sorcerer plot idea. Warning again, not a screen writer:
We know one of the characters is a Wizard with issues. So at some point they have a line about Wizards vs Sorcerers. It will likely seem like a throw away line at the time. An interesting tidbit. Then comes the sequel or spin off or whatever. We find out that the character comes from a family heavily populated by Sorcerers. Fated bloodline, draconic blood, whatever. Except this character just didn't have it. So they have been out to prove themselves as capable as their kin. They have had to do things the hard way and prior to the first movie hit some roadblocks. After the first movie they have seemingly found their confidence. Until they meet back with their family for whatever reason. They are still brushed off as a chump with no special destiny or whatever. And then either they learn they don't need the approval of a bunch of elitist jerks, family or not. Or somehow their studies give them an insight that their kin simply don't have because they didn't have to work for their power and due to this they save the family/day/whatever. That's me working with the barebones description we have and working out a potential plot line for a potential sequel that only takes one throwaway line to set up.

Alternatively and less seriously, it leads to a magical pissing contest with a sorcerer in the sequel.

I think the next time they do a D&D movie they should just hire the production team from Big Trouble In Little China, since that movie was basically "D&D, except urban fantasy" . The characters all meet at a restaurant, they make multiple forays into the villain's lair, the villain kind of resembles Iuz dur to the whole the whole little old man or eight foot tall roadblock dichotomy, and there's even a beholder in it.
If nothing else it would get John Carpenter to make another movie. He would have to figure out who Kurt Russel would play though.

[EggKookoo]

I just want to point out that the D&D movie won't take place in Forgotten Realms. It'll be in the "D&D Cinematic Universe" version of FR.

Like the MCU bears only a passing resemblance to the comics universe. The movie universe is simplified and made more internally-consistent. It's streamlined toward telling the "Marvel" story in ~2 hour chunks to people who have no real familiarity with the source material, with easter eggs peppered throughout for the (much smaller) set of viewers that do. It also presents things completely out of sequence from the comics (e.g. Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne were founding members of the Avengers -- Cap and Nat and Clint joined later).

The D&D movie will likely do the same thing and reimagine the mythology and setting in a way that makes it easy to digest for the uninitiated. I would expect it to modify things based on story need.

[Hopeless]

Good point.
Unless successful like the previous set of movies they change the setting going from a metropolis to a small city and then ignore the previous two movies entirely!
So this might be their version of Neverwinter for example!
So just hope it's actually good for now I guess.

[Tyrant]

I just want to point out that the D&D movie won't take place in Forgotten Realms. It'll be in the "D&D Cinematic Universe" version of FR.

Like the MCU bears only a passing resemblance to the comics universe. The movie universe is simplified and made more internally-consistent. It's streamlined toward telling the "Marvel" story in ~2 hour chunks to people who have no real familiarity with the source material, with easter eggs peppered throughout for the (much smaller) set of viewers that do. It also presents things completely out of sequence from the comics (e.g. Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne were founding members of the Avengers -- Cap and Nat and Clint joined later).

The D&D movie will likely do the same thing and reimagine the mythology and setting in a way that makes it easy to digest for the uninitiated. I would expect it to modify things based on story need.
Sure, it's an adaptation and things will be changed. These things happen. But, we don't know what their intentions are when it comes to sticking to the canon. As a for instance, are they just going to not mention most of the various pantheons? Or will they mention them and not tinker with them? Or will they randomly say humans only have 3 gods, none of whom are the gods people with the Realms would be familiar with? That last one is an outright stupid idea, but not impossible. I'm in the group that believes if you bother to get an IP to use that you intend to use it and not just slap a name on something barely related. Forgotten Realms and Marvel are also entirely different things when it comes to their canon and trying to adapt it.

Take just Spider-Man. He has nearly 70 years of comic history. What exactly are you adapting? A particular run? A particular issue? And then does it have to fit into a larger MCU shaped puzzle? There's going to be a lot of give and take before you even start thinking about what the audience will buy into in terms of story. That's ignoring that alternate realities are a long standing tradition in comics.

Now take the FR. There's a lot of material, but it's spread out across an entire continent and tens of thousands of years of history. It's actually not too hard to pick a spot, pick a time period, and then be able to say with reasonable clarity how it should be. Large chunks of the setting have a few paragraphs spread across a few books written about them. They are open to story potential. It sounds like this might be something spun out of an existing adventure though. If they are wanting to make it reasonably sync up with the lore, the main concerns would be being faithful to the locations (or at least not going out of their way to change things) and making sure it has at least a fridge logic level connection to the adventure. After that, I believe they should seed details to help connect to the larger setting. What they seed is up to them. This is sounding like a heist with unknown characters. They will have to go out of their way to fumble setting details. I think it is a good idea to use unknown characters and not (from the sound of things) directly adapt an adventure/novel/video game. That gives them lots of wiggle room and they mainly have to not screw up the setting details. Something like that is a far less likely option for Marvel due to it being character driven and not setting driven.

I believe if you are adapting something and there is any real possibility of a sequel that the better path is to try to not tinker with other things to make your story because you might mess with something that makes adapting other parts more difficult. I would rather they not have to pull a Baron Zemo. If it's a one and done then as long as it doesn't impact the story you are telling you don't have to deal with the domino effect.

Don't take me the wrong way, I believe they could make a decent to good movie that has absolutely no resemblance to the FR. That is well within the realm of possibility. But it won't be a good adaptation. And as one other point of clarity, I am saying I believe they should do these things. My expectations for them actually doing these things is quite low. The track record of adapting D&D is not exactly great.

The ideas you put in one of your replies are, in my opinion, solid ideas for a D&D movie if it weren't going to be in the "current" Realms. They are considerably better than the ideas in the last thread advocating for what amounts to slapstick comedy and D&D insider jokes. If they were using a generic setting, or using the Realms at a period like just after the fall of Netheril then they would be a better fit.

[EggKookoo]

Sure, it's an adaptation and things will be changed. These things happen. But, we don't know what their intentions are when it comes to sticking to the canon. As a for instance, are they just going to not mention most of the various pantheons? Or will they mention them and not tinker with them? Or will they randomly say humans only have 3 gods, none of whom are the gods people with the Realms would be familiar with? That last one is an outright stupid idea, but not impossible.

If you're asking what I think a good approach is, I'd say they should come up with a set of interesting, compelling characters and a fun story to use them in. That part comes first -- what do you want to say with a D&D movie? What parts of the human condition seem like good things to use D&D to explore? IMO, D&D is about teamwork, trust, perseverance, growth, overcoming challenges (physical and otherwise), and morality. YMMV. But still, that's what gets decided first. Create some characters that embody those concepts and build a story that explores them. Make sure that stuff remains front and center throughout the narrative.

When it comes to what mythological elements to include, well, you include the ones you need to tell that story. No more, no less. Is it part of your story to explore why humans have 3 gods? Does it help tell that story and/or reveal something about your characters? Include it. Is it irrelevant to your story? Well, maybe you can have a background reference to it somewhere but don't bring it into focus.

IMO what they should not do is look at all the details that exist in the game and setting and mythology and try to cram it all in just for completion's sake. If the story doesn't warrant a barbarian, don't go showcasing a rando barbarian just so people know they exist in the setting. In Moana, we're really only told Maui's story, perhaps with a bit of Te Fiti's. We don't get a seminar on ancient Polynesian deities. And we're only told the parts of Maui's history that matter to what's going on in the story or to him specifically in the moment. Even his own "You're Welcome!" song, which functions as a bit of a review on his history, serves a specific story purpose (dazzling Moana so she can be tricked) and wasn't done just for the sake of showing off.

[Hopeless]

http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=3Axb7W1I&id=008EFC9F6447282AF3E93E84A01F91C2B19783AF&thid=OIF.eO3IqrXJ5qdIASP4DdmSMw&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fimages-geeknative-com.exactdn.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2021%2f06%2f08092601%2fDungeon s-Dragons-Alnwick-Castle-photo-4.jpg%3fstrip%3dall%26lossy%3d1%26w%3d697%26ssl%3d 1%26is-pending-load%3d1&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fRdc0c 5bed6d48f5e16595391594205b65%3frik%3d%26pid%3dImgR aw&exph=531&expw=697&q=d%26d+movie+2023+started+filming&simid=301668568253&ck=78EDC8AAB5C9E6A7480123F80DD99233&selectedIndex=0&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0

Hope this works!

[russdm]

I feel like this is going to fall under a "Critical Role vs Acquisitions Incorporated" kind of deal. Like which of the ones will it fall towards being in overall feeling.

To explain:

I have watched about one of the Critical Role episodes and that one was the first for the first campaign. I watched some bit of the second campaign first episode. I have watched all of the videos of the plays/playthroughs of Acquisitions Incorporated.

With that being said... I have been trying to watch all of the episodes and watch them all the way through for Critical Role and I have already grabbed the YouTube library for the new Critical Role campaign. I have bought all sorts of books for critical role. The campaign setting books, the comics, the book with info from one of the characters. I have an interest in the animation that there is supposed to happen for Critical Role on Amazon.

For Acquisitions Incorporated... I don't think about it any. There are not times in a day that I wonder when I will get to watching some. I don't have anything about it beyond the 5th edition book. Which I got from being curious more. I have done the neverwinter game stuff for Acquisitions incorporated. With all that though, I don't find myself interested or really caring anything about it. Or the Acquisitions spinoff games that they have. I looked in Force Gray and the Terry Crews warcraft game and the Vin diesel game. All that were done by Matt Mercer.

Critical Role feels: a group of friends playing a game that they love and with characters they love and they create a family in game. They, the players, feel more like family members than actual friends and people that are not related to each other. There is that sense to it. A sense of family and friendship and love.

For Acquisitions, I would have to say that while they have funny material and big moments and whatever, they miss a feeling of something that means that I just don't have real interest in pursuing it again. I don't know how long since I have watched any but my desire to do so also doesn't exist.

I don't want this movie to end up being one that you wouldn't want to return to to watch. That it has the feeling of family and friendship and love that Critical Role has. I would want that D&D kind of movie made

[Devonix]

Am I the only one who thinks a Dungeons and Dragons movie should be about... Dungeons and dragons, not the setting, not the minutia. It should be about what playing Dungeons and Dragons with your friends is like.

[Tyrant]

Am I the only one who thinks a Dungeons and Dragons movie should be about... Dungeons and dragons, not the setting, not the minutia. It should be about what playing Dungeons and Dragons with your friends is like.
How do you do that without seeming like a Jumanji knockoff? Alternatively, why pay to watch that when they can watch Critical Role for free? I know D&D is a little different than other properties, but consider the following: Do they make adaptations of books and have them be about people reading the books? Was Clue about people playing the game sitting around a board? Are the D&D novels about the game, or the settings? The D&D video games? Has any adaptation of Transformers, G.I.Joe, TMNT, etc. been about kids playing with the action figures*? To be clear, I think it's a worthwhile question and I'm not trying to sound condescending. It's just that I think it also has a fairly straightforward answer when you look at it from the studio and WotC's perspective. An adaptation of one of the settings has less chance of going wrong, thus more chance of making money. Likewise, selling more copies of D&D will never be worth the expense of making a movie. It's a nice potential side effect, but it can't be a serious reason to make the movie.

I know my opinion isn't the popular one here based on the pushback, but the value for a movie or TV show is in the various IPs that make up the settings, not the game. Even if it were the other way, the game is too "loose" to really base a movie around. Do they go with complex political machinations with hardly any combat? Or kick in the door, kill monsters, and take their stuff? Or one of the infinite degrees in between? Once you decide that, is it just people playing the game? Are certain parts filled with scenes of what is happening in the game? Real or animated? Is the whole thing set in the game world with 4th wall breaking because the characters are in our world? Is there any other plot going (players with differences or issues, relationship drama, is the group going to break up due to real life commitments after this, is this the first time they have been together in years, and so on)? Is it players getting sucked into a game world? In my opinion, that path has far too much potential to totally derail at any moment. It has to be done just right for the audience to buy in. An adaptation mostly just needs decent writing so you care about the characters and a setting that doesn't appear too hokey for people to buy into it while they watch it.

Likewise, trying to churn out a generic fantasy movie and slapping the D&D name on it doesn't serve anyone's interests. It's a waste of money on the part of the studio to use the IP for what will be a mild success at best, a disappointment that further tarnishes the brand name at worst. I think a movie about playing D&D would be better served by just making up a generic RPG.

*In fairness, the LEGO movie and it's sequel did involve kids playing with LEGO blocks.

[EggKookoo]

Now, I'm not saying the movie should go like this, exactly...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0xKXOQJaT4

But this video captures the humor unique to playing a TTRPG. They could do worse than to channel that.

[Rodin]

Sadly, that trailer is better than anything in the video game from what I hear. I pretty much expect the movie to be the same.

That is the sort of vibe I could get behind though. A sort of "Guardians of the Galaxy" ridiculousness.

[Chronos]

You need very little explanation of the magic system, mostly just that there's a limit to how much magic a spellcaster can use in a day. Maybe something like the wizard uses some big flashy spell, and someone asks them "Can you do that again?" "Not until I've had a good night's sleep.". Two lines of dialog, and you've said all you need to.

As for "following canon", D&D has canon mechanics (that have changed a half-dozen times), and maybe canon settings, but as far as canon story goes, to the extent that it exists at all, it exists in ten thousand different forms. Read through an adventure log some time, from someone who's running a module you've already played through: It's surreal how different the story is. And that's even just from published modules: Plenty of D&D games have a story that comes entirely from the players' imaginations. Anyone who knows "the canon" well enough to see if they're following it, is going to know and expect going in that they won't: It won't be the same stories they know because it fundamentally can't be.

[EggKookoo]

You need very little explanation of the magic system, mostly just that there's a limit to how much magic a spellcaster can use in a day. Maybe something like the wizard uses some big flashy spell, and someone asks them "Can you do that again?" "Not until I've had a good night's sleep.". Two lines of dialog, and you've said all you need to.

Even that's too gamey for my tastes. If the wizard can't cast any more spells, it should come from the story or character in some way, not "because the game mechanics say so."

Look at how Banner has trouble changing into the Hulk in that NYC confrontation in Infinity War. Story-wise, it's because he's having personal issues with the Other Guy, which is fallout from stuff happening earlier in that film and arguably left over from Ragnarok. Mechanically, you could say he's just used up his transformations. Or more accurately, somehow got docked a daily transformation but wasn't aware it happened, which is why he's confused and frustrated about it. But I don't think it would add anything to the scene to spell that out, or even really hint it ("I must be tapped out of changes today"). I mean it wouldn't completely ruin the moment but I think it's stronger when the emphasis is on specific, personal character.

[Rodin]

Even that's too gamey for my tastes. If the wizard can't cast any more spells, it should come from the story or character in some way, not "because the game mechanics say so."

Look at how Banner has trouble changing into the Hulk in that NYC confrontation in Infinity War. Story-wise, it's because he's having personal issues with the Other Guy, which is fallout from stuff happening earlier in that film and arguably left over from Ragnarok. Mechanically, you could say he's just used up his transformations. Or more accurately, somehow got docked a daily transformation but wasn't aware it happened, which is why he's confused and frustrated about it. But I don't think it would add anything to the scene to spell that out, or even really hint it ("I must be tapped out of changes today"). I mean it wouldn't completely ruin the moment but I think it's stronger when the emphasis is on specific, personal character.

The weird thing here is that exchange isn't gamey. D&D runs off Vancian magic which predates it by a couple decades. We think it's gamey because D&D is the most popular franchise to use Vancian magic, and fantasy fiction has moved away from the idea. It makes a D&D movie more challenging to write than a standard fantasy movie that can simply give the wizard powers on demand. Gandalf is a lot easier to write than Raistlin, because Gandalf's actual abilities are kept pretty vague while Raistlin can be pegged to a level/class combination where his abilities are known. If you say Gandalf can't cast any spells it's hard to argue against - how do we know how many spells Gandalf can cast? If Raistlin says he can't, you can bet there are people out there counting the number of spells he cast and saying "He cast 3 level 3 spells, that means he MUST have X level 1 and 2 spells remaining. Don't the writers care about D&D!?"

It's a difficult line to walk. If you write to the story, you're probably going to wind up veering away from D&D because D&D isn't conducive to a movie plot. If you stay too close to D&D it seems gamey - even when it's not gamey at all and pulling from the same sources D&D pulls from.

[EggKookoo]

The weird thing here is that exchange isn't gamey. D&D runs off Vancian magic which predates it by a couple decades. We think it's gamey because D&D is the most popular franchise to use Vancian magic, and fantasy fiction has moved away from the idea.

I think the audience would consider it gamey, though. Again, there's a reason why we never see Force powers delineated and specified in any of the movies, but it's okay to have Force Push and Force Lightning IV or whatever in a SW-based game. Games and movies/literature have different needs. As game players, we need to know what the different abilities are and how the mechanics work, otherwise we simply can't play the game. But for a story, we just need to know that it makes sense to the characters so we can believe their motivations and goals.

What they could do is have a specific "spell nut" character talk about all kinds of magic-mechanics mumbo-jumbo like you might see in, say, an urban cop action movie, where there's that one guy talking about the capabilities and specifications of his guns. Almost like a fetish, and even the other characters think this guy is a little too into it. That encapsulates it in a way that allows the audience to see that there are rules behind all of these things, but also lets them know they don't need to worry about remembering any of it and even gives them permission to laugh it off if their geek friend wants to explain it all.

Shades of Cap and Thor talking about the "worthy elevator."

[Jan Mattys]

I stand by my comments from the last thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623967-New-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-movie) that part of the intent with this movie is to launch a franchise.

Except you don't launch a successful popular franchise by narrowing down the potential audience to hardcore fans.
I get you you say but I think you either focus on appeasing d&d fans (OLD and NEW, and by old I mean me, 41 years old, who only played till edition 2.5) or you go for the "popular franchise" option. And I strongly believe these two to be mutually exclusive paths.

[Tyrant]

You need very little explanation of the magic system, mostly just that there's a limit to how much magic a spellcaster can use in a day. Maybe something like the wizard uses some big flashy spell, and someone asks them "Can you do that again?" "Not until I've had a good night's sleep.". Two lines of dialog, and you've said all you need to.
I have said repeatedly that things like this can be achieved with very limited dialogue that help explain the ins and outs of the setting. Apparently explaining anything at all is a bad idea.

As for "following canon", D&D has canon mechanics (that have changed a half-dozen times), and maybe canon settings, but as far as canon story goes, to the extent that it exists at all, it exists in ten thousand different forms. Read through an adventure log some time, from someone who's running a module you've already played through: It's surreal how different the story is. And that's even just from published modules: Plenty of D&D games have a story that comes entirely from the players' imaginations. Anyone who knows "the canon" well enough to see if they're following it, is going to know and expect going in that they won't: It won't be the same stories they know because it fundamentally can't be.
As far as Canon, the settings have Canon. The Realms in particular has over 200 novels and some spectacular number of sourcebooks that lay out the Canon. Adventures sometimes have Canon endings that get incorporated into later material.

Except you don't launch a successful popular franchise by narrowing down the potential audience to hardcore fans.
I get you you say but I think you either focus on appeasing d&d fans (OLD and NEW, and by old I mean me, 41 years old, who only played till edition 2.5) or you go for the "popular franchise" option. And I strongly believe these two to be mutually exclusive paths.
I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. Focus on the setting, make likeable/relatable characters, have the occasional shout out to the game, leave set ups for sequels. Despite attempts to make it sound like I want it to happen, I think slavish devotion to game mechanics is a huge mistake. Take them into account where it matters (first level wizard shouldn't be casting Wish, etc.), but all you have to do is keep it kinda close and you'll be fine. No one should be saying what level any person, ability, etc. are at any point within the movie. They know they get stronger with experience, they don't know what levels are.

Edition is mostly irrelevant. Just like in War Games, the best move is not to play that game. We know it's in the Forgotten Realms. It sounds like it's somewhat related to an existing module in 5E. Edition only (maybe) matters if they set movies during the other editions because the Realms does change in the various editions. Otherwise, they would obviously use the current edition, if it matters. This is one more reason I say the focus should be the setting and not the game.