Dungeons and Dragons (2022)

[EggKookoo]

That's why people are so sold on the dual-world idea, with the film being about a group of people playing D&D. Then again, it'll just end up as being an inferior version of Dorkness Rising, so they should probably do something different.

Well, but the vast, vast majority of the world has no idea what DR is.

[Bartmanhomer]

Or maybe the new Dungeons & Dragons movie will be based on children fairy-tale with a PG-13 twist to it.

[Tyrant]

At this point, I kind of just hope they pick a somewhat less popular novel (and definitely not a Drizzt novel) and loosely adapt it. That's likely their best bet for a decent film, go Marvel Movie on silver existing characters (also, animated would probably be much better than live action, the Dragonlance film wasn't even that terrible*).

* I, as somebody who's never read the books, enjoyed it at least.

My vote would be for the Haunted Lands Trilogy that covers the Thayan Civil War. It's high magic, involves numerous types of undead beyond the standard skeletons/zombies/vampires, and unlike most FR novels it's essentially evil vs not quite as evil. Thay is an evil nation and if I remember the story correctly there are few, if any, non-Thayan characters. There's the completely evil side and the not quite as evil (but in virtually any other conflict would be clearly evil) side. It involves a culture that isn't just medieval Europe with magic. It's overall not your standard fantasy story. On the downside, 2/3 of the way through the trilogy the Spellplague hits.

If it could be handled well and reworked somewhat, the Return of the Archwizards trilogy could work. It involves lots of setting lore that would give an excuse to feature it in a movie along with high magic and setting up enemies that can be a recurring threat. I don't foresee anyone claiming the Phaerimm are a standard fantasy trope or knockoff. And it has a flying city.

The House of Serpents trilogy might work too. It heavily features the Yuan-Ti. It also has a lot more psionics than arcane magic. The locales are little more exotic and less medieval Europe. Finally, it doesn't give in to the idea that your family past determines your future as the main character eventually realizes he has one or more Yuan-Ti ancestors and another character decides to put aside who his grandchild's father is (a Yuan-Ti pureblood) and lovingly raise the child. The potential downside is possible comparisons to Conan the Barbarian by virtue of the snake-like Yuan-Ti.

Those are a few that I would consider if I were wanting to go with a less "stock fantasy" route.

If you want the look to be fairly consistent, you'd need either animated or CGI (which I'm honestly starting to consider the same thing). Which would also help with the drow issue, since you can make sure they aren't close to looking like people descended from a certain continent in this world.

Drow are the color of obsidian. Actual black. I've seen more than a few cosplayers pull it off just fine.

The Realms doesn't have an actual connection to here. Every so often cheezasaurus rex Master Archmage Elminster uses an epic planar travel spell to come bug one writer.

I'm pretty sure the Imaskari enslaved people from ancient Egypt and brought them to the Realms.

[Anonymouswizard]

... I can almost hear the compaints from people who think that an evil underground race of magical elves worshipping a spider goddess in some way demonizes real people.

Perhaps the movie should be made just for that - heaps of free marketing.

I mean there are several angles people can use to just and justify the 'demonising' idea, with the main one being 'oh, it makes people of a certain ethnicity look like evil monster worshipping jerkarses'.

On the front, besides what Tyrant pointed out (drow range from mid grey to obsidian depending on the artwork, never touching on any actual skintones), their facial features are completely and utterly different. Maybe I'm misremembering since the last time I went over the physical description of elves was 3.5, but the person I know who best fits is Russian, as white as white can be, but with some facial features from east Asian ancestry.

I'm also hoping for more of a 2e grey over the current near blacks, for being very clearly not a human skintone.

Then we just have to hope there's nothing else that can be used to link them to a minority group (which means very careful handling of the visuals of Lloth worship).

Well, but the vast, vast majority of the world has no idea what DR is.

True, but that doesn't mean that a worse version of DR will be a hit. If Hasbro can pull off a rom-com centred around a D&D game then it'll be amazing, but I don't trust them enough to let the marketing slide for 95% of the film. I mean, you see a D&D rulebook once (Lodge's PhB) plus a couple of clear adventure modules and that's it.

Plus DR is helped by setting the game in a homebrew setting, allowing it to have lore that fits the relatively short in-game story and informing us of Cass's jerkish nature by having him bring an elven monk to a humans only game. (Plus the 3.5 in DR is clearly an alternate universe version, the corebook contains a feat allowing for effective INT-base Fighters, the Sorcerer class acts like Wizards, and Monks are less terrible.)

Or maybe the new Dungeons & Dragons movie will be based on children fairy-tale with a PG-13 twist to it.

Eh, fairy tales and D&D are very different things. Far fewer wizards in a fairy tale for starters.

[EggKookoo]

True, but that doesn't mean that a worse version of DR will be a hit. If Hasbro can pull off a rom-com centred around a D&D game then it'll be amazing, but I don't trust them enough to let the marketing slide for 95% of the film. I mean, you see a D&D rulebook once (Lodge's PhB) plus a couple of clear adventure modules and that's it.

I think its success would hinge on them getting some great comedy talent. Thinking something along the lines of Ryan Reynolds, who would put the effort into making sure the movie was both funny and relevant to the source material. Quite a few celebrities to pick from who like D&D. Colbert, Manganiello, Felicia Day, Favreau, etc. Word of a big-budget D&D movie would catch their attention. There could be some really solid creativity involved.

Plus DR is helped by setting the game in a homebrew setting, allowing it to have lore that fits the relatively short in-game story and informing us of Cass's jerkish nature by having him bring an elven monk to a humans only game. (Plus the 3.5 in DR is clearly an alternate universe version, the corebook contains a feat allowing for effective INT-base Fighters, the Sorcerer class acts like Wizards, and Monks are less terrible.)

Eh, I dunno how much that helps in the context of a big Hollywood movie. Most of the audience knows some basic stuff about D&D. Concepts like "hit points" and "level" and maybe "armor class" will check some boxes. Virtually no one is going to understand if the setting is homebrew, and/or how much. Although given the right actor and writing, I could imagine a very funny scene where the DM tries to explain the difference to the "new player," who only understands fantasy from watching one of the LotR films and thinks the Hobbits are just lost children ("Someone should really get those kids some shoes!").

[No brains]

A major concern I have over a D&D movie being a rom-com is that trivializes the people wanting to get into the hobby without any romance. There's already an unfortunate history of women in the hobby getting too much 'rom' and finding it not at all com. A 'D&D' movie should probably pay heed to the fact that people want to play D&D as solidly platonic as the platonic solids they roll.

[Vahnavoi]

... I can almost hear the compaints from people who think that an evil underground race of magical elves worshipping a spider goddess in some way demonizes real people.

Perhaps the movie should be made just for that - heaps of free marketing.

Ooh, I know! Make it so that all the Drow are played by white actors in dark makeup, and all the humans and good races are played by actual black people. That would maximize the controv... I mean, the free marketing.

[EggKookoo]

A major concern I have over a D&D movie being a rom-com is that trivializes the people wanting to get into the hobby without any romance. There's already an unfortunate history of women in the hobby getting too much 'rom' and finding it not at all com. A 'D&D' movie should probably pay heed to the fact that people want to play D&D as solidly platonic as the platonic solids they roll.

Every choice "trivializes" the choices you didn't make, so I'm not sure that's a significant objection. But it doesn't have to be romcom. I endorsed the idea of it focusing on being a game a la Jumanji, which is more of a buddy movie or at least a finding-common-ground theme (there's some romance but it's not really the main focus). Dorkness Rising is closer to a romcom than Jumanji but even that's only part of the story.

I think picking something in the D&D mythology and making a "serious" sword & sorcery movie along the presentation lines of LotR would be a mistake. Making a movie that is at least tangentially aware of D&D's position in pop culture, and one that treats the subject as fun entertainment but also with respect, and has a fundamentally good human story underpinning it, would go a lot further. But I'm never going to be the person that makes this movie, so who knows?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Personally, if they wanted me to actually consider seeing this movie in the theaters (assuming we still have theaters whenever this gets released) they'd drive a dump truck of money up to John Rogers' door so we'd get a Fell's Five series.

This is still all I will accept.

[Psyren]

PORTAL. FANTASY.

I'm a {scrubbed}, sue me

Isekai? You'll be accused of copying Narnia or one of a few dozen anime/manga series.

You can combine this with Forgotten Realms though. And again, the DM is the primary differentiator between this and those, albeit not being easy to use in a movie context.

Hmm.... I wonder if they could release something interactive a la Bandersnatch?

[Bartmanhomer]

I mean there are several angles people can use to just and justify the 'demonising' idea, with the main one being 'oh, it makes people of a certain ethnicity look like evil monster worshipping jerkarses'.

On the front, besides what Tyrant pointed out (drow range from mid grey to obsidian depending on the artwork, never touching on any actual skintones), their facial features are completely and utterly different. Maybe I'm misremembering since the last time I went over the physical description of elves was 3.5, but the person I know who best fits is Russian, as white as white can be, but with some facial features from east Asian ancestry.

I'm also hoping for more of a 2e grey over the current near blacks, for being very clearly not a human skintone.

Then we just have to hope there's nothing else that can be used to link them to a minority group (which means very careful handling of the visuals of Lloth worship).



True, but that doesn't mean that a worse version of DR will be a hit. If Hasbro can pull off a rom-com centred around a D&D game then it'll be amazing, but I don't trust them enough to let the marketing slide for 95% of the film. I mean, you see a D&D rulebook once (Lodge's PhB) plus a couple of clear adventure modules and that's it.

Plus DR is helped by setting the game in a homebrew setting, allowing it to have lore that fits the relatively short in-game story and informing us of Cass's jerkish nature by having him bring an elven monk to a humans only game. (Plus the 3.5 in DR is clearly an alternate universe version, the corebook contains a feat allowing for effective INT-base Fighters, the Sorcerer class acts like Wizards, and Monks are less terrible.)



Eh, fairy tales and D&D are very different things. Far fewer wizards in a fairy tale for starters.

Awww man.

[Dilvish]

I like the LEGO Movie style for a D&D movie. A Portal type would work too. Maybe a mysterious stranger approaches a random group of people at a coffee shop, asking for help? Or, the stranger seeking help appears unkempt, to be asking for money, that sort of thing.

I'm also imaging the opening scenes of a D&D movie. The adventurers moving from room to room, cavern to cavern, wiping out monsters. Cut to scene of same adventurers backing a wagon up to the dungeon entrance, then loading wagon up with chests, art work, furniture, etc.

Another suggestion, a musical. Springtime for Vecna!

[Dienekes]

Honestly, i just hope the fighter/barbarian isn't an idiot. And that the armor and weapons are designed in such a way that I don't hate the costume designer.

[Bartmanhomer]

I hope this will be animated. Imagine the Simpsons be in a D&D movie.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, i just hope the fighter/barbarian isn't an idiot. And that the armor and weapons are designed in such a way that I don't hate the costume designer.

I believe they're following that old '10 IQ points per INT point' rule from back in the day, better hope the Fighter rolls well

In all seriousness, the first D&D movie seemed to have a Fighter/Rogue main character who wasn't an idiot (although also not the smartest), so while I can't speak for the current project I'm not worried about foolish fighters being the only kind to appear.

Like, I don't think we'll get but it's unlikely the only warrior type will be like , most likely they'll be in the 8-12 INT range.

I hope this Iwill be animated. Imagine the Simpsons be in a D&D movie.

I don't get what you're saying? I mean, another go at a 2D animated D&D movie would be amazing, but I don't get the second half of your post. Plus if it's what I think you mean it would be terrible, The Simpsons hasn't had decent writing for like twenty years.

[EggKookoo]

If they don't go with a Narnia/Jumanji/DR-like "real people mixed with D&D fiction" approach and do it as a straight fantasy, I hope hope hope they never refer to any characters by their class. I never did see the Jeremy Irons D&D movie. Did they do that?

[Anonymouswizard]

If they don't go with a Narnia/Jumanji/DR-like "real people mixed with D&D fiction" approach and do it as a straight fantasy, I hope hope hope they never refer to any characters by their class. I never did see the Jeremy Irons D&D movie. Did they do that?

Some of the characters are referred to as 'mages', including Jeremy Irons's Profion(?), but that's clearly an in-setting term for a student of magic and/or member of a political faction. Oh, and Snails and boring protagonist rogue (Ridley, now I look it up) are referred to as 'thieves' in the way that they make their living by nicking stuff. I don't think the fighter or ranger are ever referred to as such, and no other characters get developed enough to give specific classes. At least as far as I remember, it's been a while since I've seen it.

On that note, I actually think the alternative ending where Ridley is alone at Snail's grave, says his thing, and then leaves to continue his adventure was better than the actual ending.

EDIT: I think it's a legitimately enjoyable bad film. Certainly not the most enjoyable, but there's enough ham and enough silly elements.

[dancrilis]

I hope hope hope they never refer to any characters by their class.

I don't know some references could be reasonable enough.

Primary Main Character: We need to hire a Wizard.
Secondary Main Character: Will a sorcerer do? I think I might know one who can help.

PMC: We can trust them they are a Paladin for Torm's sake.
SMC: We can trust them to be try to be morally correct - but they are no Bard, I don't think they actually know about many things you defer to them on - and that could get us all killed.

PMC: You said they were a sorcerer! Not a Warlock!!
SMC: Technically they are both ... and a Cleric of Mystra if you want to be technical.

[Bartmanhomer]

I believe they're following that old '10 IQ points per INT point' rule from back in the day, better hope the Fighter rolls well

In all seriousness, the first D&D movie seemed to have a Fighter/Rogue main character who wasn't an idiot (although also not the smartest), so while I can't speak for the current project I'm not worried about foolish fighters being the only kind to appear.

Like, I don't think we'll get but it's unlikely the only warrior type will be like , most likely they'll be in the 8-12 INT range.



I don't get what you're saying? I mean, another go at a 2D animated D&D movie would be amazing, but I don't get the second half of your post. Plus if it's what I think you mean it would be terrible, The Simpsons hasn't had decent writing for like twenty years.

It just a silly and imaginary though.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't know some references could be reasonable enough.

Primary Main Character: We need to hire a Wizard.
Secondary Main Character: Will a sorcerer do? I think I might know one who can help.

PMC: We can trust them they are a Paladin for Torm's sake.
SMC: We can trust them to be try to be morally correct - but they are no Bard, I don't think they actually know about many things you defer to them on - and that could get us all killed.

PMC: You said they were a sorcerer! Not a Warlock!!
SMC: Technically they are both ... and a Cleric of Mystra if you want to be technical.

I actually find two of those references to be cringey (the Paladin/Bard one works, just). Especially the entire Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock divide, it still doesn't make sense to me for those to be in-setting terms. At least not in the way D&D uses them (something like The Dark Eye's Mage/Witch distinction makes sense to me, which you are depends on your training).

Then again that's one of the reasons I've done off modern D&D, I'd much rather run something like Basic Fantasy with it's more generic classes these days.

Or to put it simply, references to classes should be references to actual logical in-world terms. Like the Mages in the first film, an order of Paladins, Warlock as in a 'deals with demons' term, necromancer because they use death magic, and so on. The Sorcerer/Wizard disctinction, while great in the tabletop game where they let us separate two sets of mechanics, makes less sense in a film where making such a distinction can slow the pace down if the film isn't specifically about magic users.

Unless the big bad is an evil Sorcerer and the party Wizard insists on making the distinction to the mild confusion of her party members they should probably be used relatively interchangeably. Because as far as the non-D&D playing section of the audience is concerned one throws fireballs and the other throws fireballs.

[Psyren]

I hope this will be animated. Imagine the Simpsons be in a D&D movie.

Didn't Futurama do this?

I don't know some references could be reasonable enough.

Primary Main Character: We need to hire a Wizard.
Secondary Main Character: Will a sorcerer do? I think I might know one who can help.

PMC: We can trust them they are a Paladin for Torm's sake.
SMC: We can trust them to be try to be morally correct - but they are no Bard, I don't think they actually know about many things you defer to them on - and that could get us all killed.

PMC: You said they were a sorcerer! Not a Warlock!!
SMC: Technically they are both ... and a Cleric of Mystra if you want to be technical.

This is going to be a bit much for a mainstream audience I think.

[Dargaron]

I actually find two of those references to be cringey (the Paladin/Bard one works, just). Especially the entire Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock divide, it still doesn't make sense to me for those to be in-setting terms. At least not in the way D&D uses them (something like The Dark Eye's Mage/Witch distinction makes sense to me, which you are depends on your training).

I disagree. There's very good reason Sorcerers and Wizards would have different names in-universe, given their different skillsets and limitations. The fact that both are arcane spellcasters (and even that they use the same spell list) is immaterial: calling a Ford F150 a "car" would get you weird looks, even though it's a motorized, mostly-roadbound vehicle that you could probably buy from a car dealership. The differences in usage and appearance are enough to warrant a distinction.

In dancrill's example, it's fairly clear that a Sorcerer is like a wizard, but that it's not ideal. The main difference is that the Sorcerer doesn't necessarily know all that much about magic stuff, and that he was born with magic rather than learning it. Both could be fairly easily explained to the audience through dialogue in throwaway lines, especially if the sorcerer character is the stereotypical lovable braggart. Something to the effect of "I've never studied a day in my life" or "It just comes naturally" would probably be enough, albeit cliched.

[Bartmanhomer]

Didn't Futurama do this?



This is going to be a bit much for a mainstream audience I think.

No I don't think so.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I disagree. There's very good reason Sorcerers and Wizards would have different names in-universe, given their different skillsets and limitations. The fact that both are arcane spellcasters (and even that they use the same spell list) is immaterial: calling a Ford F150 a "car" would get you weird looks, even though it's a motorized, mostly-roadbound vehicle that you could probably buy from a car dealership. The differences in usage and appearance are enough to warrant a distinction.

In dancrill's example, it's fairly clear that a Sorcerer is like a wizard, but that it's not ideal. The main difference is that the Sorcerer doesn't necessarily know all that much about magic stuff, and that he was born with magic rather than learning it. Both could be fairly easily explained to the audience through dialogue in throwaway lines, especially if the sorcerer character is the stereotypical lovable braggart. Something to the effect of "I've never studied a day in my life" or "It just comes naturally" would probably be enough, albeit cliched.

Not going to mean anything to the audience, except the one person has a big ego about how good they are. As Anonymous Wizard pointed out, the audience will just see that they both cast fireball.

[Dargaron]

Not going to mean anything to the audience, except the one person has a big ego about how good they are. As Anonymous Wizard pointed out, the audience will just see that they both cast fireball.

You have an exceedingly low opinion of "the audience." Star Wars was able to explain "The exhaust port is shielded, so we'll have to use Photon Torpedoes," and without explaining exactly what ray-shields or photon torpedoes are, those primitive 20th-century audiences were somehow able to grasp what was going on. Similarly, Harry Potter never explains the difference between Charms, Transfiguration and Hexes, yet the characters use all three over the course of the movies without totally losing the audience, many of whom are small children.

[JadedDM]

No I don't think so.

I think he's referring to Bender's Game.

[Peelee]

I've come for Titanius Anglesmith, Fancyman of Cornwood, and I shall settle for nothing less!

[Dienekes]

Not going to mean anything to the audience, except the one person has a big ego about how good they are. As Anonymous Wizard pointed out, the audience will just see that they both cast fireball.

I think this depends immeasurably on how this finicky detail is presented. Two people sitting down and talking to each other about the pros and cons of sorcerers and wizards for the benefit of the audience? Terrible and boring.

A wizard character arguing about why they shouldn't pick up the sorcerer they found fighting off some goblins with dialogue like "But they're using wild magic! It'll backfire on them and us!" Followed by decent dialogue of the two bickering about which method is better in certain times of crisis. That could work. Couple that with decent effects and choreography, where we see the wizard going through their book to make the perfect spell while the sorcerer just waves their hands around and something big happens that may include a downside or unintended consequence.

That said I wouldn't go overboard. Any more than 3 types of magic might be pushing it for the audience to comprehend and care about in any meaningful way.

[Tvtyrant]

I think this depends immeasurably on how this finicky detail is presented. Two people sitting down and talking to each other about the pros and cons of sorcerers and wizards for the benefit of the audience? Terrible and boring.

A wizard character arguing about why they shouldn't pick up the sorcerer they found fighting off some goblins with dialogue like "But they're using wild magic! It'll backfire on them and us!" Followed by decent dialogue of the two bickering about which method is better in certain times of crisis. That could work. Couple that with decent effects and choreography, where we see the wizard going through their book to make the perfect spell while the sorcerer just waves their hands around and something big happens that may include a downside or unintended consequence.

That said I wouldn't go overboard. Any more than 3 types of magic might be pushing it for the audience to comprehend and care about in any meaningful way.

The Sorcerer and the Wizard being the romantic tension while they nerd fight over whose academic discipline is better seems perfectly suited to modern audiences.

[EggKookoo]

You have an exceedingly low opinion of "the audience." Star Wars was able to explain "The exhaust port is shielded, so we'll have to use Photon Torpedoes," and without explaining exactly what ray-shields or photon torpedoes are, those primitive 20th-century audiences were somehow able to grasp what was going on. Similarly, Harry Potter never explains the difference between Charms, Transfiguration and Hexes, yet the characters use all three over the course of the movies without totally losing the audience, many of whom are small children.

Using "That's no wizard, that's a sorcerer!" as a joke or flavor reference is fine. The audience either gets it and chuckles, or doesn't get it and moves on.

Also, nitpick, they're proton torpedoes in SW. Photon torps are a Trek thing. But 99% of the audience doesn't care. Also note that while the expanded SW stuff and fanbase breaks down Force abilities into game-like powers or features (Force Leap, Force Choke, Force Lightning, Force Omelettes, etc.), the movies never do that kind of thing. Even veering near it with midichlorians got Lucas all kinds of flack. I'd prefer to see a "serious" D&D movie follow this same mindset. Wizards don't have spell slots and levels -- they just... do magic.

What I'd be wary of is using game terms in a way that matters to story comprehension. E.g. the plot or even the current scene really only makes sense if you know the difference between a wizard and a sorcerer. It's also a hobby horse of mine that the PCs in the (actual, non-movie) game don't think of themselves as fictional characters in someone else's game. Game-rule terminology leaking into the domain of the characters weakens this. The more the characters are aware they're basically game pieces, the less stake they provide toward drama. At the table, that can be okay, since after all they are game pieces. Many people don't mind that sort of thing (I do, but many don't). But it's poison to an actual narrative exercise like a film. It turns it into a farce.

Which may be cool if they're making a farcical D&D movie, or at least one that's presenting it as a game (again, the Jumanji model).