New Dungeons & Dragons movie...?

[Keltest]

I mean, we have a reasonable group of intelligent, well-meaning and devastatingly attractive posters here. Can we agree as to what the spirit of D&D is?

A bunch of people sitting in a room together eating food thats bad for you and yelling at inanimate objects and imaginary creatures.

[Kitten Champion]

I've always assumed the "spirit" of D&D is American pulp fantasy/weird fiction from the early-to-mid 20th century. Predominantly Howard, Vance, and Anderson.

Though - more functionally speaking - it owes quite a lot to the Western.

[Anonymouswizard]

A bunch of people sitting in a room together eating food thats bad for you and yelling at inanimate objects and imaginary creatures.

When you state it like that, how does it differ from my free time when not roleplaying?

[Keltest]

When you state it like that, how does it differ from my free time when not roleplaying?

Presumably there are fewer people in the room with you.

[Spiderswims]

I mean, we have a reasonable group of intelligent, well-meaning and devastatingly attractive posters here. Can we agree as to what the spirit of D&D is?

I'd say that spirit is creativity and imagination and role playing in a very unique way that can often help improve a person. Just like arts, sports and many other social activities. On the basic level an RPG can help with learning piratical things like reading and math; to other more advanced things like teamwork, leadership and problem solving. Sure, some people just have "fun fun" rolling a d20, but some people get so much more from the game.

And I think this would be the perfect spot for a D&D movie. The bunch of 20 somethings that are a bit "stuck" in life(that is they have stuck themselves).

Chris Pine makes for the perfect young dad, who has a bland job like ID Associate and just lives live 'wasting' for something to happen.

Character two is a young doctor, stuck doing 'simple' operations. Character three is a lawyer doing boring law work. Character four is a stay at home parent. Character five works at valu mart. They each play D&D for the fun escape from their boring normal lives.

Until the day they bump into Elminster and he takes them to the Realms. The meta story is simple enough each character 'grows' while in the fantasy world to become a better person. That is they "play D&D" for real in the fantasy world to become better people.

So the movie has the ending wrap up where they take there "D&D skills" and use them in real life. Chris becomes the great dad and goes for a better job. The doctor picks the right specialty. The lawyer picks cases that help people. The stay at home parent 'rules' the kid kingdom. The last one gets a better job/life.

Picture the lawyer...say Jennifer Lawarence....they had out cases and hand her the stack of boring stuff. She says something like "No, Ellanandra of the elven realms will not do this work!" Everyone looks at her like she is crazy. Then she picks some case to help real people "it's what Ella would do..." she'd say with a smile.

[Anonymouswizard]

Presumably there are fewer people in the room with you.

Not under the current circumstances.

[Hopeless]

The Spirit of d&d?

I like the idea listed above for the remake of the cartoon series into alive action movie especially the Jennifer Lawrence bit!

Strikes a chord here actually.

We all look for something we don't have in life whether its just for a short time imagine we're doing something else, something unexpected and interesting unlike most people's lives especially right now...

Some just want to kick down a door, fight the monster, loot their bodies then go back for a bar room rumble after getting drunk at the inn.

Others are invested in the story hoping for something tangible they don't have right now and of course not every DM is into that kind of stuff preferring one off adventures with nothing to link despite players trying to do just that.

How much details do you go into for your characters?

So for this movie how much detail do you think they will go into?

Not much I suspect the idea above sounds much better in that respect.

So we need a story then explain why the characters are involved, why are they bothering to go on this adventure and where they hope it will lead.
Obviously it won't fit the bill for most of them perhaps the loot whore or the power gamer might go overboard I doubt they'll handle that as well as the Gamers Dorkness Rising mind you!

[DavidSh]

I think I was once assured that the spirit of D&D was Tullamore Dew. Assuming that cheap beer doesn't count as "spirits".

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I think that the cartoon captured the spirit of the game pretty well. The group not quite getting along, plans but always working, the Dungeon Matter being frustratingly unhelpful, the animal companion being incredibly annoying*...

If the film takes the basic tropes of the cartoon and replaces the character archetypes with ones that feel a bit more natural to modern audiences I think it could turn out rather well. Heck, if what they're being subversive of are the basic tropes of that cartoon rather than a generic fantasy film or the D&D game it might come out better

* Okay that one is more 5e specific.

[Hopeless]

Given the heavy emphasis on Faerun in 5e so far it seems more likely thats where this movie might be based within.

A shame really there are plenty of others including Nentir Vale, Mystara, Oerth, Eberron, Exandria and others that could fit too.

Ultimately its what they're allowed to mess with and how much they can mess with.

So no Drizz't movie then!

[Rogar Demonblud]

You do know Drizzt is a Forgotten Realms character, right?

[Hopeless]

You do know Drizzt is a Forgotten Realms character, right?

And you know no matter what they try any attempt to make a live action Drizz't movie will fail despite the effort to make them?

An animated movie however might work though.

[Spiderswims]

And you know no matter what they try any attempt to make a live action Drizz't movie will fail despite the effort to make them?

They could do it....all they need to do is:

Do the whatever normal way to make a script for the movie. And then DON'T make that movie.

Do this, maybe up to five times. Destroy all the crappy scripts.

Then hire a true Hollywood outsider that IS a TRUE FAN of the content. Then hire five or so other true fans to keep watch on that one and have over ride power. And you want a Hollywood script maker, but one that is clueless about the content, but understands things like pacing and visuals.

And to make sure the movie will be good, make it Rated R. Specifically make the movie NOT for kids.

And...ta da....a good Drizzit movie!

And sure, take good Rated R movie...and water it down to PG 13 and make a second movie just for the kids. If you want to be really fancy, go ahead and make TWO movies: Real rated R and the Kids movie. You can shoot both at the same time, and use 2/3 of the shot scenes for both movies. So have the R version Drizzt kills foes in fights.....and the kid version just 'taps' the bag guys and they fall down and take naps. The R version has nudity, the kid version just has a bare shoulder for a second and fades out.

[warty goblin]

If you're gonna do Drizzt, it'd work way, way better as a tv show. The books are all structured around action set pieces anyway, so they're already plenty episodic. And the ambient gore level is pretty much right there with the Witcher. A show that also demonstrates pretty well that you can do well with a protagonist who doesn't really talk all that much.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Frigging NCIS showed that with Gibbs.

[No brains]

I think the 'spirit' of D&D is people trying to have fun and the complications that arise from that.

The DM wants to have fun with a creative vision for the players, and that goes wrong when the story's rails are bent.

Fighters want fights, but struggle with reasons.

Thieves want to steal, but forget that consequences are tedious.

You can probably think of stuff like that for every arche/stereotype of player for the game.

I feel like a D&D story would have a feel somewhere between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and The LEGO Movie* where the characters feel like they're on the verge of the best way to play the game and then the fact that other people want to enjoy it gets in the way. The times that work out the best is when everyone can be at least the same kind of selfish for a while. There's probably ways to make allegories of this so that the fact these are characters people are playing is only alluded to, but whether or not the characters in the story would be played by other characters or just be themselves could work either way.

*I guess this D&D needs Charlie Kelly as a consultant.

[Mordar]

They could do it....all they need to do is:

And to make sure the movie will be good, make it Rated R. Specifically make the movie NOT for kids.

And...ta da....a good Drizzit movie!

And sure, take good Rated R movie...and water it down to PG 13 and make a second movie just for the kids. If you want to be really fancy, go ahead and make TWO movies: Real rated R and the Kids movie. You can shoot both at the same time, and use 2/3 of the shot scenes for both movies. So have the R version Drizzt kills foes in fights.....and the kid version just 'taps' the bag guys and they fall down and take naps. The R version has nudity, the kid version just has a bare shoulder for a second and fades out.

I admit I am co-mingling "successful" and "good" here, but I can't help but think it needs to be both.

I really have to disagree with this. Yup, it worked for Deadpool, but that was because the existing MCU was so overwhelmingly successful there was room for a superhero movie that was R-rated but still in the MCU feel (mixing melodrama and humor), and was specifically meant to be Hot-Topic-Edgy, if you get my meaning. Yup, it worked for GoT because that was HBO reprising the Sopranos as a swords and (itty bitty bit of) sorcery epic. But this is neither coat-tailing on a hyper successful franchise nor a premium cable channel series. It is likely going to be a tentpole movie that is hoped to launch the franchise.

Drizz't became (the most?) popular (A)D&D inspired character (ever) because of books that were advanced young adult. The "rating" of the books was solidly in the PG range throughout, and leaning on boobs and blood doesn't make the story better. Any mass-market appealing version of Drizzt that isn't in Menzoberranzan wouldn't need an R rating. The level of violence and visible gore required is already available on TV. I believe, for instance, were Braveheart to be released now it would be PG-13. Just 6 or so years later we had beheadings and hero pincushionings in LotR, and that came in at PG-13. That is the level necessary here, I think.

In my opinion it needs, most of all, to be thought of/written/directed as either a solid drama with physical conflict where the cast happen to wear medieval wardrobe, or a semi-serious adventure film without slapstick comic relief.

I think the 'spirit' of D&D is people trying to have fun and the complications that arise from that.

The DM wants to have fun with a creative vision for the players, and that goes wrong when the story's rails are bent.

Fighters want fights, but struggle with reasons.

Thieves want to steal, but forget that consequences are tedious.

You can probably think of stuff like that for every arche/stereotype of player for the game.

I feel like a D&D story would have a feel somewhere between It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and The LEGO Movie* where the characters feel like they're on the verge of the best way to play the game and then the fact that other people want to enjoy it gets in the way. The times that work out the best is when everyone can be at least the same kind of selfish for a while. There's probably ways to make allegories of this so that the fact these are characters people are playing is only alluded to, but whether or not the characters in the story would be played by other characters or just be themselves could work either way.

I'm not sure I follow because you use archetypes for characters but refer to players.

I think you advocating for a film that goes meta (clear or subtle acknowledgment that the story is a game being played by regular people), and tries to represent the mix of things that bring the players to the table even if we never see the players. I just can't picture how that would work well, but I am open to the idea. I fear slippery slope though, for any but the most subtle of meta. Additionally, wouldn't it rely really heavily on the simplest reduction of motivations?

Bah, it is all immaterial anyway. They got Chris Pine as their flagbearer for casting. Almost certainly overpaying for talent that will not pay off. Would have rooted for a cast full of "Hey, isn't she that girl from that one show?" and "Don't I know that guy from something?" and a couple of non-primary Names that fill important but tertiary roles. Like how Harry Potter started off, perhaps.

- M

[Spiderswims]

I really have to disagree with this.

The point is not to really make a rated R movie....but more make a movie that is not bland modern super safe politically correct Hollywood and general movie making. It's like the modern view that they MUST take the word 'police' off the Doctor's TARDIS because the people making the show don't like 'the police', so the "new" TARDIS will say something like 'Social Worker Call Box".

Or maybe the best geek example is Han shot first. Way back when, Han was 'ok and cool' for shooting evil criminal thug Greedo FIRST. A couple years later and that HAD to be changed because "good guys never fire first".

So to make a good Drizzt movie you need to show bad and evil stuff. The whole point of Drizzt is that he rejects the evil ways of the drow. But in modern Hollywood you would not see much evil directly in a PG 13 movie. You'd just get that soft implied evil.

The movie works much better with Drizzt cutting up foes and killing them....not the "taps them with the blade and they fall down and take a nap". Guewayvar works better as a great cat killing and mauling foes...not "chasing them around or knocing them down with a paw like a cute kitty cat does".

The same way the elven village attack, works best as a big evil event....not a vague off screen "oh the Drow did bad things over there".

But, like I said, you'd still make the rated G version for all the kids anyway.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Spiderswims
Or maybe the best geek example is Han shot first. Way back when, Han was 'ok and cool' for shooting evil criminal thug Greedo FIRST. A couple years later and that HAD to be changed because "good guys never fire first".

In the original version, Han wasn't glorified for shooting first; it was meant to show that he lived in a tough world and survival meant doing unheroic things. This establishes Han as decidedly unheroic, and provides the baseline for his character at the start of the movie, contrasting with his selfless decision at the end.

And the change to Greedo shooting first wasn't "a couple years later," it was twenty years later. I don't know the details of Lucas' thinking on that point, but it was highly controversial then, because it clashed with how everyone knew the character and undermined his arc.

[Peelee]

In the original version, Han wasn't glorified for shooting first; it was meant to show that he lived in a tough world and survival meant doing unheroic things. This establishes Han as decidedly unheroic, and provides the baseline for his character at the start of the movie, contrasting with his selfless decision at the end.

And the change to Greedo shooting first wasn't "a couple years later," it was twenty years later. I don't know the details of Lucas' thinking on that point, but it was highly controversial then, because it clashed with how everyone knew the character and undermined his arc.

Lucas gave an interview about a decade back on this:

The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.

In this interview he shows that he himself doesn't quite understand what people connected with; Han was being openly confronted at gunpoint and his livelihood and life both threatened. While not "good", Han shooting Greedo was certainly justifiable and in no way made him a "cold-blooded killer," as Lucas puts it. But that's what he saw it as.

[Hopeless]

I assumed that quip about removing the police part off the TARDIS was a joke intended to reveal she had repaired the chameleon circuit turning the TARDIS into a refuse bin on fire?

Well as I have no plans to watch that until they figure out how badly they messed up so naturally I'm not holding my breath on that!

Heard about that change in the special edition regarding who shot first never bothered looking further into that.

So you don't expect them to go with an original party of adventurers?

I was assuming Pine was playing the damsel in distress a prince who keeps getting into trouble and the party who rescue him are completely unaware of his actual identity just wondering why the bad guys are chasing after them!

[Mordar]

So you don't expect them to go with an original party of adventurers?

I was assuming Pine was playing the damsel in distress a prince who keeps getting into trouble and the party who rescue him are completely unaware of his actual identity just wondering why the bad guys are chasing after them!

I do expect a party of adventurers that are either unknown to (most) of us or are, perhaps, the current version of the default characters (do they have those in 5e? Like Tordek, Lidda and Mialee back in 3rd edition).

Nah, Pine is (IMO) b-list action cutie, so he'll be our party face and likely martial-type.

- M

[JadedDM]

Honestly, if they did make a Drizzt movie, whether it's super violent and gory or not is probably the last thing I'd be concerned about. I'd be far more worried about whether they would intend to keep the extremely clumsy racism metaphors, and the rather squicky relationship with Catti-brie (she was 8 when they first met; he basically helped raise her).

Also, I wonder who they would cast to play Drizzt? I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who would fit the role well.

[Mordar]

and the rather squicky relationship with Catti-brie (she was 8 when they first met; he basically helped raise her).

An interesting point...from an elvish ecology perspective.

I suspect the Drow would be properly pasty white, Catti would start in her full adulthood because the story would need a female action lead.

- M

[Peelee]

Honestly, if they did make a Drizzt movie, whether it's super violent and gory or not is probably the last thing I'd be concerned about. I'd be far more worried about whether they would intend to keep the extremely clumsy racism metaphors, and the rather squicky relationship with Catti-brie (she was 8 when they first met; he basically helped raise her).

Also, I wonder who they would cast to play Drizzt? I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who would fit the role well.

Maybe Chang?

[Dargaron]

And sure, take good Rated R movie...and water it down to PG 13 and make a second movie just for the kids. If you want to be really fancy, go ahead and make TWO movies: Real rated R and the Kids movie. You can shoot both at the same time, and use 2/3 of the shot scenes for both movies. So have the R version Drizzt kills foes in fights.....and the kid version just 'taps' the bag guys and they fall down and take naps. The R version has nudity, the kid version just has a bare shoulder for a second and fades out.

That's an extremely dismissive caricature of a PG 13 movie. The Fellowship of the Rings is PG-13, and ends with a showdown between Aragorn and Lurtz that results in Lurtz' arm being sliced off above the elbow and pulling himself onto a sword before getting decapitated. This is after Boromir gets repeatedly impaled with arrows and is nearly killed in what is the medieval equivalent of a pistol-to-the head execution. The Two Towers was perfectly capable of conveying the Burning of the Westfold without showing every rape and execution, GOT-style (and in fact ended up presenting the Dunlandings as more monstrous than they were in the books, where they are essentially treated as wayward men bamboozled by the wiles of Saruman, while they receive no such redemption in the movie). For a more recent example: Hunger Games features a 12-year-old girl getting speared and the graphic neck-snap of another child.

If there's one thing that the "spirit of Dungeons and Dragons" is not, then it's "for adults only." My introduction to Dungeons and Dragons was a beginners' group at a gaming store renting space over a police station, and they specifically got a discount on rent because they were a fully-legal place for local teens and young adults to socialize instead of getting into drugs or gangs. The adults-only stuff is there, but it's niche-market or homebrew material, not front-and-centre.

[Dire_Flumph]

Also, I wonder who they would cast to play Drizzt? I'm having trouble thinking of anyone who would fit the role well.

Mahershala Ali would work for me (though I think there are several good choices), has a good body type for the role and is someone who could handle the stunt work an action film requires, and has some good acting chops. I think it's important the character of Driz'zt be played by an actor with naturally darker skin, but remove a lot of the problematic aspects by making all elf races diverse in skin tone, Drow and Surface elf alike.

[Anonymouswizard]

That's an extremely dismissive caricature of a PG 13 movie. The Fellowship of the Rings is PG-13, and ends with a showdown between Aragorn and Lurtz that results in Lurtz' arm being sliced off above the elbow and pulling himself onto a sword before getting decapitated. This is after Boromir gets repeatedly impaled with arrows and is nearly killed in what is the medieval equivalent of a pistol-to-the head execution. The Two Towers was perfectly capable of conveying the Burning of the Westfold without showing every rape and execution, GOT-style (and in fact ended up presenting the Dunlandings as more monstrous than they were in the books, where they are essentially treated as wayward men bamboozled by the wiles of Saruman, while they receive no such redemption in the movie). For a more recent example: Hunger Games features a 12-year-old girl getting speared and the graphic neck-snap of another child.

If there's one thing that the "spirit of Dungeons and Dragons" is not, then it's "for adults only." My introduction to Dungeons and Dragons was a beginners' group at a gaming store renting space over a police station, and they specifically got a discount on rent because they were a fully-legal place for local teens and young adults to socialize instead of getting into drugs or gangs. The adults-only stuff is there, but it's niche-market or homebrew material, not front-and-centre.

A very good explanation of why an 18-rated D&D film might not be a good idea. Heck Fellowship was rated PG here, only The Two Towers and Return of the King got the 12 stamp.

I've also seen PG rated films with nudity, so that's not even a reason to want an 18 rating. Sure it would have to restrict itself to an appropriate context, not be sexual, and limit itself to nothing below the waist on the front. Oh, and be brief, 'recieving a letter while in the bath' brief.

But the classification system I'm used to is both more and less lenient than in the US.

So the ideal audience to aim for is teens, which for all it's glasses the first D&D film did understand. You want something between a 12 and a 15, with a good amount of action but little blood (characters should bored, especially if it makes it dramatic, bit nowhere near gore levels), while including a very pretty young man with an aversion to shirts (I vote a Warlock who made a pact with a fairy queen), and a woman with a low cut blouse (say the Paladin when she takes her armour* off). Or something less stereotypical but still with a bit of eye candy for the hormone-addled ones and plenty of action.

Or maybe go the Jackie Chan film route: plenty of action, minimal on the actual violence. But you'd need a very good choreographer to make it work, so it's probably the most risky option.

* Unisex full plate, of course.

[Hopeless]

So have Gibbs play the veteran with Pine the up and coming soldier who requires his help as the situation will clearly put him out of his depth without some experienced advice?

Now I'm wondering what the story is going to be about?!

[Scarlet Knight]

Honestly, if they did make a Drizzt movie, whether it's super violent and gory or not is probably the last thing I'd be concerned about. I'd be far more worried about whether they would intend to keep the extremely clumsy racism metaphors, and the rather squicky relationship with Catti-brie (she was 8 when they first met; he basically helped raise her).

An interesting point...from an elvish ecology perspective...
- M

I thought about this for a different conversation; the change of a human from a child to a woman, in the eyes of an elf, is no more than the length of a ballplayer rehabbing from Tommy John surgery.

I don't know if this was covered in the books, but the elf knows he will bury his lover, and all their children, and probably their grandchildren as well. There lies a decent tragic plot line.

Plus you can have all the racism you want as long as the moral at the end is "Racism is bad".