Dungeons and Dragons (2022)

[Peelee]

The thing about Cinemasins is it isn't objective. It isn't criticism. It isn't serious. It's humor. And sometimes it's funnier to be objectively wrong.

Yes, I am aware it's not objective. That's why I wrote in "relatively, emphasis on relatively". It is criticism. It's entertaining, light-hearted, amusing criticism, but it is criticism, and does follow somewhat consistent guidelines. My complaint there was about a time when they, IMO, were inconsistent with their usual criticisms (though, again, I can't remember the specific one).

[dancrilis]

Your wizard isn't going to know that their new spell is a different level, just that it's trickier to cast and thus harder to do. Which would apply to any spells from their non-favored schools.

It takes up more space in their spellbook and costs more ink - they have to buy those things, if your wizard can't figure out that spells that take 3 pages are different then spells that take 2 pages they might not need to know because such spells might be beyond them.

Now they might not think of them as levels - they might think of them as Orders i.e a first order spell might be Wish and a tenth order spell might be detect magic or whatever, but there are verifiable in universe metrics that they need to work with which highlight the differences in spell level.
That is not to say that a Paladin or Cleric or Sorcerer considers things that way - but Wizards would absolutely know about spell levels (in one form or another) 'how much ink do I need' and 'how much room is in my spellbook' are in universe questions they need to be able to answer.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Only if they use that inane 'one page per level' rule, which most tables I know of don't, just like nobody uses a regulation two-foot high spellbook (technically, 21 inches by 14 inches and 3.5 inches thick, weighing 16 pounds).

[Tvtyrant]

It takes up more space in their spellbook and costs more ink - they have to buy those things, if your wizard can't figure out that spells that take 3 pages are different then spells that take 2 pages they might not need to know because such spells might be beyond them.

Now they might not think of them as levels - they might think of them as Orders i.e a first order spell might be Wish and a tenth order spell might be detect magic or whatever, but there are verifiable in universe metrics that they need to work with which highlight the differences in spell level.
That is not to say that a Paladin or Cleric or Sorcerer considers things that way - but Wizards would absolutely know about spell levels (in one form or another) 'how much ink do I need' and 'how much room is in my spellbook' are in universe questions they need to be able to answer.

In AD&D they knew what spell levels were in FR. I don't know what other editions and campaigns the RAW is on meta-knowledge.

[EggKookoo]

Now they might not think of them as levels - they might think of them as Orders i.e a first order spell might be Wish and a tenth order spell might be detect magic or whatever, but there are verifiable in universe metrics that they need to work with which highlight the differences in spell level.
That is not to say that a Paladin or Cleric or Sorcerer considers things that way - but Wizards would absolutely know about spell levels (in one form or another) 'how much ink do I need' and 'how much room is in my spellbook' are in universe questions they need to be able to answer.

My PHB says:

"For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp. The cost represents material components you expend as you experiment with the spell to master it, as well as the fine inks you need to record it. Once you have spent this time and money, you can prepare the spell just like your other spells."

Am I missing more info that's elsewhere? Otherwise, there's nothing that days higher-level spells use more pages or more ink, just cost more to record. This higher cost could be in the form of more ink, or just in more and/or costlier components consumed while teaching yourself how to encode the spell using your own notation. It could be different for two different wizards. I burned through more "educational" components than you because my method works that way, but uses less of those fine inks. Your method uses more ink, like you do the math longhand or something, but it saves you on those components. In the end we both spend 2 hours and 50 gp per spell level, but what's in our books is gibberish to each other, at least at first glance.

Only if they use that inane 'one page per level' rule, which most tables I know of don't, just like nobody uses a regulation two-foot high spellbook (technically, 21 inches by 14 inches and 3.5 inches thick, weighing 16 pounds).

Ah, the 1-page-per-level is pre-5e.

[dancrilis]

Ah, the 1-page-per-level is pre-5e.

It is - I was most familiar with 3.5 so I didn't consider that they may have changed it.

What I was thinking about:

Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, she can record it into her spellbook.
Time: The process takes 24 hours, regardless of the spell’s level.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spell-book per spell level, so a 2nd-level spell takes two pages, a 5th-level spell takes five pages, and so forth. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has one hundred pages.
Materials and Costs: Materials for writing the spell (special quills, inks, and other supplies) cost 100 gp per page.

But if that has been done away with fine - we don't know the edition of the movie so pages might not be relevant.
Still in 5th Edition:

For each level of the spell, the process takes 2 hours and costs 50 gp

Wish is on a objectively different level then Magic Missile or Mind Blank, but is on the same level of complexity as Time Stop there is no reason that your wizard (or the Wizard Academy) wouldn't have this catalogued.

[Rakaydos]

Do you know any dwarves, elves, halfling, gnomes, or orcs we can cast for roles in this movie? Obviously we need to cast real actors to play the parts in this movie, unless of course if it's all cgi, then all we'll need are voice actors, but if we are doing live action then we need to start with actors that look somewhat like the characters they portray, we can use makeup and special effects to make them look more like dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes and orcs. Orcs obviously aren't going to be much of a problem because they look the least human, but elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes would have minimal makeup covering their faces, it would be easy to tell which actor is portraying an elf, but not so much which actor is portraying an orc, as the orc costume would have to cover his face, or they will do cgi motion capture to make him look like an orc.

If a D&D movie is just being an off-brand LotR, I'll take a pass. Show me some EXOTIC races, as main characters!

[Peelee]

I would argue that spell levels, pages per book, mundane spell components, etc. shouldn't really be kept to; most media is, by necessity, gamified to fit into a multiplayer experience. Un-gamifying D&D to a certain extent would be necessary to make it more mass-marketable to a general audience. Like if someone tells the mage to keep casting fireball, the mage could simply respond with something like "if I could just spam it, don't you think I would already?" No need to spell out the specific limits, just imply that there are limits and let the narrative take care of the rest.

Conversely, having a Sorcerer instead of a Wizard would probably be easier for the story, since that would avoid the "why don't they pull out X spell, they have a bunch of options here!" issues with people who are more familiar with the material, and being more vague than a specific edition would help, since many of the major differences between editions are mechanical to alter gameplay without affecting the lore or narrative structures nearly as much. A movie doesn't need to concern itself with how many attacks the fighter can take in a single round, or the skill point structure of any particular character; it just needs to establish the fighter is a capable warrior, or that a character is a better swimmer or climber or pickpocket or whatever.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You'd probably need to completely dump the Vancian casting for the movie to really work, as the details won't be a focus. I know they published a couple different Mana Point systems, maybe use one of those. Bonus point that the mage can recharge a little with a mana potion instead of sitting around waiting for several hours.

[Psyren]

I would argue that spell levels, pages per book, mundane spell components, etc. shouldn't really be kept to; most media is, by necessity, gamified to fit into a multiplayer experience. Un-gamifying D&D to a certain extent would be necessary to make it more mass-marketable to a general audience. Like if someone tells the mage to keep casting fireball, the mage could simply respond with something like "if I could just spam it, don't you think I would already?" No need to spell out the specific limits, just imply that there are limits and let the narrative take care of the rest.

You can also deliver the limits a different way - the caster can say "I can only do that two more times." As they're the authority on what they can do, that's enough for the audience without going into slots, or prepared vs. spontaneous etc.

Alternatively, take a page from Doctor Strange, which has even vaguer magic system - he has a couple of spells he uses repeatedly (like the sling rings) but most of his spells are only used once apiece, like his big mirror image move vs. Thanos.

If a D&D movie is just being an off-brand LotR, I'll take a pass. Show me some EXOTIC races, as main characters!

Some but you also need a human (possibly as the lead.) A Dragonborn would be great. A badass female half-orc would be cool too.

[Peelee]

You'd probably need to completely dump the Vancian casting for the movie to really work, as the details won't be a focus. I know they published a couple different Mana Point systems, maybe use one of those. Bonus point that the mage can recharge a little with a mana potion instead of sitting around waiting for several hours.

Agreed. It's a good mechanic for gameplay and emblematic of the D&D gaming brand, but I don't see much reason to necessitate it in a film version.

You can also deliver the limits a different way - the caster can say "I can only do that two more times." As they're the authority on what they can do, that's enough for the audience without going into slots, or prepared vs. spontaneous etc.

Amusingly enough, my initial thought was to toss out

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Right Eye: what did you do?
Redcloak: Something I can't do again until tomorrow.

[dancrilis]

I kindof think that people are expecting / wanting a standard Sword and Sorcery movie - or alternatively they want a movie where it is an actual game (people pulled in etc).

Both of those could be fine but I think if you want to make it an actual Dungeons and Dragons Movie intended to launch a potential series of movies - then a more detailed piece might work better.

Have a wizard in a class room explain to a set of relatively young people who have joined an adventurer guild that Devils are composed of a joining of literal Evil and literal Law, have the nature of Spell Levels explained in a easy to understand manner, not merely for the movie audience but for the adventuring audience who needs to know these things etc.
Have how raise dead damages the life force of a creature covered - and explain some of its other limitations etc.

You don't actually need the adventurers to go on an adventure - or if they do you don't need it to be some epic quest, 'go kill the dire rats in the sewers' is a fine quest.
Are they there to advance the Demon Lord of Vermins attempt to enter the world?
No - they are there because they are rats and it is a sewer and they need to die because they are the size of large dogs and have been terrifing people.

Making a generic wizards and warriors story will I imagine be regarded as merely a rehash of virtually any fantasy movie you care to name, making it a 'you are trapped in a game' movie will do likewise.

Making it a character piece where many elements of Dungeons and Dragons are explained allows for then future movies where the audience might a) alright like the characters from seeing there early minor quests b) not need you to explain things again.
All while making sure that people who know DnD will go 'yep that is a DnD world'.

[EggKookoo]

Keep in mind, movies are largely "show, don't tell" (which to some degree, all good storytelling is). You can certainly show a wizard's casting capabilities in line with the game mechanics, 100%. Upcasting, some short-rest recovery, all that. If I were writing a D&D movie (straight-up fantasy or "Jumanji") I'd make sure to abide by the game mechanics as much as possible. But it doesn't mean you need to explain that to the audience.

Ideally, the gamers in the audience can recognize the "game" in the action, but the non-gamers are not required to care. Having the characters verbally describe anything to do with game mechanics forces the non-gamers to try to care, which they won't, and they'll disconnect from the story. But the gamers shouldn't need it to be verbally reinforced as long as what they're seeing happen is consistent.

[Peelee]

Keep in mind, movies are largely "show, don't tell" (which to some degree, all good storytelling is). You can certainly show a wizard's casting capabilities in line with the game mechanics, 100%. Upcasting, some short-rest recovery, all that. If I were writing a D&D movie (straight-up fantasy or "Jumanji") I'd make sure to abide by the game mechanics as much as possible. But it doesn't mean you need to explain that to the audience.

A big reason to eschew specific game mechanics (such as short rest, since you brought it up), is as soon as another edition is released, that may no longer be the case and the movie made with 5e rules would be necessarily dated and no longer in-line with a movie made under 6e rules, which would cause needless confusion for a general audience not specifically familiar with D&D and different rulesets. Doubly so if they wish to create a cinematic universe, where suddenly the very foundation of the laws of how the world works suddenly change. There is very little gain for extremely high cost, and if I was in charge, I would absolutely not beholden myself to a specific ruleset.

In fact, we have a fine example of a person who did just that for their story, and even in his self-contained webcomic, he has expressed regret over shackling himself to the 3.5 edition and has worked to try to obfuscate and move away from specific mechanics as much as possible to allow greater creative freedom to tell the story the way he wants to.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Agreed. It's a good mechanic for gameplay and emblematic of the D&D gaming brand, but I don't see much reason to necessitate it in a film version.

If they used true Vancian casting, sure. But then you'd have a story where Xykon, the most powerful arcanist in the world, only has a half dozen spells available and casting one takes the better part of a day. IOW, "Vancian casting" really isn't very Vancian.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'm not sure why we're sweating over purely human racial distinctions. Part of what makes D&D unique is how many entirely non-human races are active participants in the economy. The odd dark-skinned human shouldnt stand out more than the different colored Dragonborn and tieflings.

If a D&D movie is just being an off-brand LotR, I'll take a pass. Show me some EXOTIC races, as main characters!

I think the various races will tend to stick to their communities, adventurers being and important exception. All I'm saying is they should not get too crazy with diversity. If adventurers go into a dwarven kingdom, they will see mostly dwarves, if every place is equally diverse then every place will look the same, and you will lose a sense of wonder if you visit it. I'd go with the 80% rule, 80% of the populace of most places will be of one race, and the other 20% will be of everything else. A human might live in a dwarven mountain, but he will be part of the 20% that isn't dwarves. Certain "evil races" might not be tolerated so well in human settlements, that is the problem Drizzt faces because he is a drow. I think a movie about Drizzt and his companions would be a great subject for a movie, it hits all the particulars that a D&D movie should in my opinion. I think the Crystal Shard would make a great first movie, what do you think?

[Tvtyrant]

If I could get what I really want it would be a Star Trek style show about the Netherese space station Yeoman's Loft after Netheril falls, surrounded by Space Elves and Space Orks who hate them and cut off from their own civilization and all magic. They have to learn not to be slave-knapping imperialists and make agreements to save themselves from starvation and death.

[Tom Kalbfus]

If I could get what I really want it would be a Star Trek style show about the Netherese space station Yeoman's Loft after Netheril falls, surrounded by Space Elves and Space Orks who hate them and cut off from their own civilization and all magic. They have to learn not to be slave-knapping imperialists and make agreements to save themselves from starvation and death.

A Spelljammer setting will be a bit much for an introductory Dungeons & Dragons movie. Certain movies were made that are a bit like Spelljammer. Zathura, Treasure Planet, a certain Peter Pan movie called Pan spring to mind.

[Tvtyrant]

A Spelljammer setting will be a bit much for an introductory Dungeons & Dragons movie. Certain movies were made that are a bit like Spelljammer. Zathura, Treasure Planet, a certain Peter Pan movie called Pan spring to mind.

I didn't say an introductory movie, I said what I wanted :P

I honestly think they would be better off making animated TV shows based in a setting instead of just "D&D", it has too much content to really be a single movie or even a series of movies. Drizzt and dragonlance would be the most iconic of course, but Dark Sun, Eberron, and several other settings could easily manage shows.

[Bartmanhomer]

I have a feeling that the new D&D movie will be a comedy because do you want to know why because Pun-Pun the overdeity Kobold will be in it.

[Tyrant]

Again, going with the "serious" fantasy film approach (as opposed to the Jumanji approach), inserting game terms into the dialogue is just going to be distracting and confusing. My sorcerer PC doesn't know he's a "Level 7 Sorcerer, PHB p.99" with a proficiency bonus of +3 and other game stats. He's just a guy who has always been able to create these magical effects. He doesn't know what level he is. He doesn't know levels exist, or that they cap out at 20. It's not like he walks down the street and random people who have never met him know he belongs to some classification in a game system. Certainly not based on how he dresses.

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for announcing spell levels or character levels or anything like that. I would expect the audience to be able to figure out what the Rogue does because they see him do it, not because someone says something like "we need to hire a Rogue". The Barbarian would be a potential exception because there are Barbarian tribes in the Realms (where I assume they would set the movie) and they are referred to as such in the setting. They don't need to call the guy with armor and and a sword a Fighter. The audience will see the difference between him and the Barbarian due to their visual presentation and how they fight.

For it to be something other than generic they do actually need to explain a few things though. Otherwise this is Conan 3 (for instance) with a bigger budget and (presumably) no Arnold. The key is to make explanations part of a scene where it makes sense for the conversation to take place. It's why so many stories include a "new guy" (I'm not advocating for that here, though it might work). It gives them an excuse for lots of exposition. The main decision is what is important and what isn't. In a first movie is Wizard vs Sorcerer important? Probably not. Arcane vs Divine? I would put that higher on the importance scale since it's a big deal in Dungeons and Dragons. Character levels? No point. Spell levels? Not as such, but the idea that some magic requires more training or ki or something is a fairly standard idea in fantasy so I don't see an issue at least acknowledging the idea. It doesn't have to be plot critical, just background world building.

Having a movie character refer to himself in game terms demolishes suspension of disbelief. It forces the movie into Jumanji mode. Which is a fine mode to be in, but the movie needs to make a decision. Is D&D (in the movie) a game that people play, or not?

I agree, in general, that having a character refer to themselves as their class isn't the ideal choice. But, it is almost guaranteed to happen. As for the last sentence, if the plan is more than one movie then I would say that they should focus on stories set in a
particular setting and not go the LEGO movie route. I don't think that method leads to longevity for the movies.

Even with something like Star Wars, which is arguably a little less focused than LotR, the main story is about Vader and the rise and fall of the Empire. The stuff that happens in the "Episode" movies. What goes on in Solo or in the Mandalorian or the Christmas Special are part of that, sure, but that's not what SW is about.

I think the MCU is the more apt comparison. SW started as one core thing and spiraled from there. The MCU is an attempt to pick certain aspects of decades of lore and make them into movies. The D&D settings (and I can't see how they don't go with one of them, likely FR) are just that, lots of lore spread out over decades. A movie from that will pick a storyline and run with it. If it works, pick a few more and add them to the mix. Rinse and repeat.

What is D&D about? It's about what happens at each of our tables. What my players go through in my campaign is far more significant than any published lore. At least to us. And what you do at your table is more significant to you. D&D's "story" is highly distributed. I mean, my players aren't just not in the same story as yours, they're not even in the same fictional reality. Drizzt doesn't exist for my players. Nor does Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Elminster... You name it.

If I were to tell my players that there's a new D&D movie coming out and it's about some element from the game lore that doesn't interface with our campaign world, they're not going to be terribly interested. They might be more interested in an ongoing streaming series if for no other reason that it's going to be more episodic and long-form, which feels more like an actual game campaign. And the spread-out nature of a series might allow for a more nuanced presentation of setting and character, which might make it easier to fit in with their own gaming experiences (maybe not, but a better chance of it).

I think you're demonstrating why they would pick a setting and go with it. They know they aren't going to win people over by exactly matching their home game. That's impossible. So the smarter move (in my opinion) is to go with the setting that has loads of bestselling books to its name that they can fall back on.

As I see it, there are two primary possible goals for a D&D movie. Make money directly from the movie(s) or try to use the movie to drive people to the game and make money that way. The former will look for longevity at the box office with one movie after another. I don't see that idea taking the Jumanji route because the gimmick will wear thin. The latter will be more likely to try to emulate the gaming experience. I don't see that working after two, maybe three movies. More importantly, that way has far less potential for money making. As an example, despite Marvel movies making billions of dollars comic book stores aren't exactly booming right now. That's why I'm assuming they are pursuing the former idea. As a side note, it's also why I really don't see the comedy route being given the time of day.

I'm just saying that if you want to go the Jumanji route, a feature film format should work fine. If you want to tell a serious fantasy story in a D&D setting, long-form would work better.

A series could work, depending on the goal. On a personal level, I would be fine with a series and I think it would be a better way to explore a setting. On what I feel is a realist level, I believe the goal is to create a cinema cash cow and that requires the cinema.

Totally agree. But there is one shared D&D setting or experience among all players. Playing the game. We all know what it's like to sit down at the table with our friends, roll dice, argue rules, root for our PCs, and all that. Which is why I tend to advocate for a more Jumanji approach. Not that there isn't a better way, but it's a good way.

I'm not saying that way can't work, I think it can. I'm saying I don't think that fits with what I am assuming the overall goal is.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I didn't say an introductory movie, I said what I wanted :P

I honestly think they would be better off making animated TV shows based in a setting instead of just "D&D", it has too much content to really be a single movie or even a series of movies. Drizzt and dragonlance would be the most iconic of course, but Dark Sun, Eberron, and several other settings could easily manage shows.

And a six-foot tall rabbit with a Brooklyn accent will show up chewing on a carrot and say, "Aaap what's up Doc?"

We had the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, we've had Dragonlance: Dragons of Autumn Twilight. I figure if we can get Disney to do the Animation, it will be a quality product, and make it a musical with singing. Would you want the Disney company to make a D&D cartoon? How about something like Frozen? Could you imagine Drizzt singing a song? I don't want Anime, there is a show called Fairy Tale, if it's going to be animation it needs to by quality animation, not some choppy low budget one like Dragonlance.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I have a feeling that the new D&D movie will be a comedy because do you want to know why because Pun-Pun the overdeity Kobold will be in it.

That will be Battlestar Galactica, haven't you heard of the Lords of Kobold?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I think the MCU is the more apt comparison.

...

I don't see that working after two, maybe three movies.

I see more people making this argument, and I think it's a mistake. Movie studios have been obsessed with sequels for longer, but especially since the success of the MCU everyone wants to have a cinematic universe. DC, the Universal monsters, even Spiderman had to get his private non-MCU Sony owned movie empire. Most of these attempts pretty much sucked.

There are two things to keep in mind here.
1: the MCU is an exceptional cultural phenomenon the exact likes of which the world has never seen. You can't count on being that successful. But more importantly:
2: Ironman was not written as sequel bait. It was written as a good movie, and only the tiny bonus scene was trying to set up anything more. Captain America was probably the only phase one film that made any significant sacrifices for the overarching plot.

Movies should not be made because they could be part of something good one day, they should be good on their own upon release, or they will fail. Don't let a potential movie 4 tell you what movie 1 should be. Those are my two cents anyway.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I'm not sure why you think I'm advocating for announcing spell levels or character levels or anything like that.

...

I would see it, there are two primary possible goals for a D&D movie. Make money directly from the movie(s) or try to use the movie to drive people to the game and make money that way. The former will look for longevity at the box office with one movie after another. I don't see that idea taking the Jumanji route because the gimmick will wear thin. The latter will be more likely to try to emulate the gaming experience. I don't see that working after two, maybe three movies. More importantly, that way has far less potential for money making. As an example, despite Marvel movies making billions of dollars comic book stores aren't exactly booming right now. That's why I'm assuming they are pursuing the former idea. As a side note, it's also why I really don't see the comedy route being given the time of day.

A series could work, depending on the goal. On a personal level, I would be fine with a series and I think it would be a better way to explore a setting. On what I feel is a realist level, I believe the goal is to create a cinema cash cow and that requires the cinema.

I'm not saying that way can't work, I think it can. I'm saying I don't think that fits with what I am assuming the overall goal is.

You ever read the Sleeping Dragon? I think that is the Jumanji route, sort of. I do kind of like the idea of a modern character visiting the Forgotten Realms, but it has to be specifically not a game world set up specifically to challenge the players as the purpose of its existance. More like Narnia without the Christian elements, getting there could be as simple as a wardrobe, it is called the Forgotten Realms after all, somebody forgot it. Some archeologist could discover a gate leading there while digging around in Egypt. What would an archeologist need to survive in the Realms? I'm thinking if the gate is in Egypt, it will lead to Mulhorand.

[Tom Kalbfus]

I see more people making this argument, and I think it's a mistake. Movie studios have been obsessed with sequels for longer, but especially since the success of the MCU everyone wants to have a cinematic universe. DC, the Universal monsters, even Spiderman had to get his private non-MCU Sony owned movie empire. Most of these attempts pretty much sucked.

There are two things to keep in mind here.
1: the MCU is an exceptional cultural phenomenon the exact likes of which the world has never seen. You can't count on being that successful. But more importantly:
2: Ironman was not written as sequel bait. It was written as a good movie, and only the tiny bonus scene was trying to set up anything more. Captain America was probably the only phase one film that made any significant sacrifices for the overarching plot.

Movies should not be made because they could be part of something good one day, they should be good on their own upon release, or they will fail. Don't let a potential movie 4 tell you what movie 1 should be. Those are my two cents anyway.

Lord of the Rings was a nine hour movie broken up into three parts, otherwise known as Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King.

[Peelee]

Lord of the Rings was a nine hour movie broken up into three parts, otherwise known as Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King.

Conveniently those are also the names of the books they're each based on.

[Bartmanhomer]

That will be Battlestar Galactica, haven't you heard of the Lords of Kobold?

I see what you did here. You're joking about the Lord of Kobold.

[Kitten Champion]

The difference between D&D and the various attempts at cinematic universes is that there's no stated interest in adapting a set of specific characters' with high name recognition into a shared setting. Rather in this case they're using a setting that itself has name recognition (probably, at least) and their own original screenplay with its own plot and characters.

They aren't doing the Drizzt movies with an eye towards an Elminster and a Liriel Baenre sub-franchise or whatever. They could, I suppose. Though very few of their characters have much name recognition to have that make sense outside of the very tip-top best sellers.

Also, calling that movie Dungeons & Dragons (as it is now) is not really suggestive of a studio eyeing an ambitious film franchise anyways. If they called it, say, Dungeons & Dragons: Baldur's Gate or something similar you'd have some idea that they're aiming for bigger things later.

[Anonymouswizard]

Conveniently those are also the names of the books they're each based on.

To fair, Return of the King includes like a quarter of The Two Towers and leaves out half of Return of the King.