Fantasy Dungeons & dragons movie discussion

[tecnowraith]

I still say forget the first story, location and characters and do a completely new and different story, set of character and a different new world for the reboot.

 

[marcvader]

I agree. Use a totally new set of characters and settings. That D&D movie sucked the big one.

 

[Thundarr]

Liv Tyler as The Empress' Royal Tracker, Norda

​

REASON: Liv Tyler is a fine actress, who did a wonderful job as Arwen in The Lord Of The Rings. Also, there was a scene in that movie which she trained really hard for but never got shot. She was supposed to lead the Elven reinforcements to Helms Deep and fight side by side with Aragorn, but they decided to stick more closely to the book. This will give her a chance to use those swordsmanship skills she had worked so damn hard on. Besides, her role in LOTR gives her a very strong geek following.

 

[Thundarr]

Peter Dinklage as The Dwarven Fighter, Elwood Guttworthy

​

REASON: Aside from the obvious benefit of Peter Dinklage being a dwarf, he's also a highly skilled, Emmy winning actor. He can do both comedy and drama. And judging by the way he kicked Will Farell's butt in the movie Elf, he can probably do action movies too.

 

[Thundarr]

I agree. Use a totally new set of characters and settings. That D&D movie sucked the big one.

I agree that the 2000 D&D movie sucked the big one. However, that doesn't mean that there wasn't anything salvagable from the original. There's nothing wrong with the original setting or characters. The basic story of the Empress wanting to make mages and commoners equal can stay. The whole thing about scepters which control entire flocks of dragons should be eliminated though.

Doing a Psycho style, shot for shot, word for word remake would be stupid, and I would not recommend it. But doing a Rob Zombie's Halloween style remake could certainly work. Only difference is instead of taking a beautiful piece of art and turning it into a worthless piece of crap, we'd be taking a worthless piece of crap and turning it into something that's actually watchable.

 

[marcvader]

If they were to make another D&D movie I'd like it to have that LotR type of grit and attention to detail. I also would want them to use lots of recognizable classic D&D creatures and monsters such as golems, kobolds, umberhulks, beholders, and bugbears to name a few.

 

[Thundarr]

If they were to make another D&D movie I'd like it to have that LotR type of grit and attention to detail. I also would want them to use lots of recognizable classic D&D creatures and monsters such as golems, kobolds, umberhulks, beholders, and bugbears to name a few.

Agreed on all counts, 100%! I would also like to add that while using classic D&D creatures and monsters, to use them PROPERLY! For example, beholders should not be used as guard dogs that are subserviant to humans. Likewise, dragons should not be used as fire breathing horses. These are both highly intelligent, immensely powerful, and very magical sentient creatures. Using them as pets and beasts of burden is an insult to everyone who has ever played the game of D&D.

 

[marcvader]

The other thing I'd like to see is the use of more varied classes. 1 thief, 1 magic user, a ranger/ fighter, druid, and paladin/cleric.

 

[tecnowraith]

If they were to make another D&D movie I'd like it to have that LotR type of grit and attention to detail. I also would want them to use lots of recognizable classic D&D creatures and monsters such as golems, kobolds, umberhulks, beholders, and bugbears to name a few.

And used them properly and not like "watchdogs" which was stupid in the first film for the Beholders, ugh!!!

 

[tecnowraith]

The question is which "core" races & classes would like you see used in the movie 2nd Ed, 3.5 or 4e? Remember each edition has it's own core set of classes and races. Like 4e has Dragonorn (humaoind dragons), the Eladin (actual fey blooded Elves), Warlord class, and Warlock class are now core.

 

[Thundarr]

The other thing I'd like to see is the use of more varied classes. 1 thief, 1 magic user, a ranger/ fighter, druid, and paladin/cleric.

This is also true. The first movie was a little too fighter/thief heavy. While Snails was pretty much a straight up thief, I think Ridley was likely multiclassed as a fighter/thief. Then there was Elwood who was a straight up fighter, and Norda who was a straight up ranger. The only spellcaster in the group was Marina, who was casting spells way above her paygrade (Teleport and Dimension Door spells are actually very high level, and she was described as being "a low level mage and completely expendable").

In the reboot, Ridley, Snails, Elwood and Marina should ask for sanctuary in the temple of Palor. Their request is granted, but Damodar ignores the law of Sanctuary and forces his way in to arrest them. A young, idealistic cleric sneaks them out a secret escape tunnel and joins them on their quest. This helps to add divine magic to the storyline without overwhelming it.

This is one part that Dungeons & Dragons II: Wrath Of The Dragon God did very well. There was a fighter, a barbarian, a cleric, a wizard, and a rogue. A perfectly balanced adventuring party. Even Gary Gygax liked that movie (I don't know what his opinion was on the first one, likely not good since it was never publicized).

 

[Thundarr]

The question is which "core" races & classes would like you see used in the movie 2nd Ed, 3.5 or 4e? Remember each edition has it's own core set of classes and races. Like 4e has Dragonborn (humanoid dragons), the Eladin (actual fey blooded Elves), Warlord class, and Warlock class are now core.

The bolded words are typos that I fixed.

You raise a very good point. In my own personal opinion, I would stick to the classics from 1st through 3rd edition for both races and classes. Try and have a human, an elf, a dwarf, and either a halfling or a gnome (both fill pretty much the same niche in an adventuring party). Maybe even a half-orc, which were a core race in 1st and 3rd edition, but not 2nd. You could even substitute a half-elf for the elf, as full blooded elves tend to be kinda stuck up.

As for classes, again they should stick with the classics. A fighter, a barbarian, either a paladin or possibly a ranger, a cleric, and a rogue. Plus maybe a bard and/or a druid.

The new "core" races and classes of 4th edition D&D were created to attract the World Of Warcraft crowd. While I understand the logic behind their decision, 4th edition D&D has also become the least successful version of the game in history. Most players either continue playing version 3.5, or they switch to Pathfinder, which is essentially D&D 3.5 with much of the clutter trimmed away. I for one, am of the latter.

I think that if they were to make a fantasy movie using the races and vocations of 4th edition D&D, then they might as well cut the pretense and call it what it truly is. World Of Warcraft: The Movie.

 

[mr. peasant]

The new "core" races and classes of 4th edition D&D were created to attract the World Of Warcraft crowd. While I understand the logic behind their decision, 4th edition D&D has also become the least successful version of the game in history. Most players either continue playing version 3.5, or they switch to Pathfinder, which is essentially D&D 3.5 with much of the clutter trimmed away. I for one, am of the latter.

I think that if they were to make a fantasy movie using the races and vocations of 4th edition D&D, then they might as well cut the pretense and call it what it truly is. World Of Warcraft: The Movie.

I think that's an unfair accusation. Gnomes and orcs are major (and popular!) races in the Warcraft universe. If Wizard was indeed trying to ape Warcraft, they would have left gnomes and half-orcs as core characters, as well as add trolls and minotaurs (Warcraft's Tauren). In fact, the only core races the two settings have in common are humans, dwarves and elves - which are hardly rare in fantasy settings.

 

[tecnowraith]

I think that's an unfair accusation. Gnomes and orcs are major (and popular!) races in the Warcraft universe. If Wizard was indeed trying to ape Warcraft, they would have left gnomes and half-orcs as core characters, as well as add trolls and minotaurs (Warcraft's Tauren). In fact, the only core races the two settings have in common are humans, dwarves and elves - which are hardly rare in fantasy settings.

Well it was not just the races and classes that close to WoW but also 4e's new magic or "powers" system which is now close to WoW's and standard MMO's mechanics for the magic/powers system. In 4e all powers now have cool-down mechanics just like MMOs, to me at fist was weird and interesting at the same time and which I liked then the old Vancian system used for previous editions.

 

[tecnowraith]

Well Thundarr, World of Warcraft: The Movie is being worked on now, just waiting on Sam Raimi to start work on the story and script.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

What 4e borrowed from WoW pales in comparison to what WoW and every other fantasy vg out there borrowed from earlier editions. The circle is complete, at least until 5e.

It is my opinion that the best way of kickstarting a new D&D movie franchise is to base it heavily on the cartoon. I think that's the best way to try and overcome the reputation of the brand after the two terrible offerings we've had so far. Other than that, I dunno. Maybe Justin Bieber could star in an angsty teen-Drizzt movie.

 

[Thundarr]

It is my opinion that the best way of kickstarting a new D&D movie franchise is to base it heavily on the cartoon. I think that's the best way to try and overcome the reputation of the brand after the two terrible offerings we've had so far.

(I've deleted the comment on D&D 4E so we can get back on topic and stop talking about that abomination)

There's already a thread on that subject. And while I would LOVE to see a live action adaptation of the Saturday morning cartoon, I think we should get back on topic. And to be fair, D&D2 was a much better film than the first movie (although that's not hard to do), and a pretty good high fantasy film over all considering the small budget they had to work with.

Other than that, I dunno. Maybe Justin Bieber could star in an angsty teen-Drizzt movie.

OH! HELL! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[marcvader]

I'd prefer a Baldur's Gate movie to be honest.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

(I've deleted the comment on D&D 4E so we can get back on topic and stop talking about that abomination)

lol 'abomination' get a grip

 

[Thundarr]

lol 'abomination' get a grip

I have a grip. A very firm grip on my copies of the far superior AD&D 2nd Edition books. Not to mention my copies of the Pathfinder game.

 

[Thundarr]

I still say forget the first story, location and characters and do a completely new and different story, set of character and a different new world for the reboot.

Well you got your wish with the latest D&D movie, Dungeons & Fragons: The Book Of Vile Darkness. It completely ignores everything from the previous two films. However it's my understanding that the movie sucks even worse than the first one does. In fact, I understand that Tom Hanks' made for TV movie Mazes & Monsters is a f**king masterpiece in comparison (and that movie REALLY sucks).

 

[Hypestyle]

Do a co-venture with Marvel, and base a new movie on the old cartoon TV series- Hank, Sheila, Diana, Eric, Presto and Bobby. Enhance the things they can do with their weapons (and yes, give them other tools to work with), make sure to include Venger as the "Darth Vader" of the film; cast Jonathan Rhys-Davies as dungeon master (make him his regular stature). Don't forget about Tiamat.

 

[Thundarr]

Do a co-venture with Marvel, and base a new movie on the old cartoon TV series- Hank, Sheila, Diana, Eric, Presto and Bobby. Enhance the things they can do with their weapons (and yes, give them other tools to work with), make sure to include Venger as the "Darth Vader" of the film; cast Jonathan Rhys-Davies as dungeon master (make him his regular stature). Don't forget about Tiamat.

Good idea, except for Jonathan Rhys-Davies as Dungeon Master. I like him as an actor, but he's just all wrong for that role. Warwick Davis is the better choice. He's the right size, has a love for the genre, and I can certainly imagine him giving cryptic advice to The Young Ones.

 

[JabarR]

I don't know who could play Dungeon Master or Venger, but I know who can play the rest of the cast if they can be available:

Jason Dolley as Hank

Debby Ryan as Sheila

KeKe Palmer as Diana

Nathan Kress as Eric

Not sure who could play Bobby and Presto, maybe ya'll have some ideas.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I have no way to cast this as I don't watch kiddie channels. I have no idea who these people are.