The New Dungeons and Dragons Movie Might Actually be Good?

Yeah, the “D&D is generic fantasy” is sort of a one-way street. You could easily run a D&D game based on Lord of the Rings or The Witcher or Game of Thrones. But, if you added a gelatinous cube, owlbear or displacer beast (or a rust monster, beholder, grell, flumph, froghemoth, etc) to a LotR/Witcher/GoT show, it would be very out of place and just make people ask “Why are they adding D&D monsters to this show?” Because those things are distinctly D&D, not “generic fantasy” like dragons, skeletons, goblins and unicorns.

In a way, D&D is generic in the same way that Lego is generic - not because it has too little content variety, but because it has too much. There is such a huge choice of pieces that you can build whatever you want with it, but that doesn’t make the individual pieces less distinctive in and of themselves.

That sounds just about right for D&D- the party’s supposed to be composed of heroic types anyway.

I mean, in my book a D&D movie probably ought to be a super VFX-laden, scenery chewing spectacle, not some sort of grimdark fantasy thing where it’s all dimly lit and everyone’s struggling, etc…

That’s why we need a Call of Cthulhu the rpg-based movie! All the heroes end up dead or insane! It would be a fun little romp of a movie :smiley:.

When they announced a Dungeons & Dragons film, was anyone ready for this degree of drama and intrigue?

There’s plenty of Dungeons & Dragons references in the trailer to satisfy even the most ardent D&D fan, but those fans might have noticed something a little strange about one of the movie’s posters.
[…]
When Pathfinder broke off from Dungeons & Dragons after 3.5 edition, it took several of D&D’s monsters with it. One of them was the Intellect Devourer, but Pathfinder used a different image to differentiate between the monster between the two games. The one you see in the poster is actually from Pathfinder, not D&D.

That’s right. When the people in charge of poster art Google Image Searched “Intellect Devourer”, they used off-brand Pathfinder art instead of Dungeons & Dragons art for the brain-on-legs! I, for one, am shook to my core. Also, I guess there’s an Intellect Devourer in the movie, maybe?

(I get that this would be a legitimate issue for the owners of that art, I just found it amusing as far as movie scandals go)

Lego is a good comparison. The Lego movies were successful because they worked on a number of levels. The stories themselves were pretty good. The cute, cartoonish nature of Lego bricks and minifigures along with the sheer volume of connected IP (Star Wars, Marvel, DC, LOTR, Jurassic Park, Chris Pratt’s various characters, etc) lends itself to a lot of comedic satire of other popular works. And if you are a deep Lego fan (or have small kids who are) the interplay between the human characters and how it ties into the Lego world is almost genius,

To be a good movie, the new D&D film needs a good story, but that story should be recognizable as a D&D story to D&D fans. I don’t know what that means really. I haven’t played D&D since maybe fourth grade. But I think it’s more than just having a few recognizable monsters.

People are talking about monsters because it’s a two minute early trailer and the monsters are what’s most immediately recognizable. But the story is set in what is essentially “default” D&D these days (Forgotten Realms, along the Sword Coast region) with nods to Waterdeep and Neverwinter. They include D&D races such as the tiefling beyond just “elf and dwarf”. Characters on IMDB are literally named The Bard, The Rogue, The Barbarian, The Druid, etc. Use of recognizable D&D spells, class abilities, etc. I would be surprised if they didn’t add items like the Bag of Holding into the film.

Out of people I know who are familiar with the game and have seen the trailer, no one has complained that it’s “not D&D enough”. Plenty of skepticism about their ability to pull the film off or Chris Pine, etc but no one’s had trouble seeing it as a legitimate D&D movie. That’s probably as good as it gets without constant cuts to people sitting around a card table or animating little 32mm plastic people running around polyhedral dice on a battle mat.

I say it’s not a real D&D movie unless all the fight scenes are choreographed with each combatant in their own five-foot square.

That scene in the trailer where Michelle Rodriguez body slams a guard better be preceded by thirty minutes of everyone trying to remember how grapples work.

And the wizard has a ruler and compass to figure out the radius for their Fireball. :smiley:

Better yet, Traveller rpg - half the characters die during casting!

And each person acting in their six second round.

Monster: (jumps directly in front of hero)

Hero (fails spot check): “Nope, I don’t see anything!”

“Chris Pratt’s various characters” wasn’t really a thing, for the Lego movie. That movie and Guardians of the Galaxy, released the same year, were what propelled him to the A-list, and there couldn’t really be any references to Guardians of the Galaxy, because all of the superhero content in the Lego Movie was DC, not Marvel.

Chris Pratt’s various characters was plot point of the Lego Movie sequel. Pratt also voiced the character of Rex Dangervest, a self-proclaimed “galaxy-defender, archaeologist, cowboy, and raptor trainer.” His character is also Emmet from the future.

You are correct that Marvel does not appear in the Lego movies. There is actually a throwaway line in the second film regarding how Marvel did not return their calls (even though Lego does manufacture and sell Marvel Lego sets and games and whatnot.)

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/295108874_477267834405670_8547472067396399337_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=lkb-ODExygYAX9oxYUx&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AT8RzTNzFJucsUmV9sTiDZcqdytB6hkRzkecKJhJIF05_Q&oe=62E9699E

Similarly -
“You know the new D&D movie will flop opening weekend – everyone says they will be there but cancel at the last minute”

Brian

Ah, true, Pratt’s other roles were a thing in the sequel. I was thinking “Lego movies”, plural, as in things that were a factor in both. And let’s face it, the first was successful enough that they could have done whatever they wanted in the second and still raked in the box office.

A new trailer is up

This looks like exactly the sort of stupid fun I am down for.