Could also be a scroll, working the way spell scrolls are god damn suppoed to work. Little tweaks me off in this game more than "you can only use spell scrolls if you know the spell that's on the scroll already!" THE **** IS THE GOD DAMNED POINT OF THAT, WIZARDS?!
...Blegh. Mini-rant over. But yeah. Could be a proper spell scroll, and it's a plot point that Miss Tiffle only gets one shot to do what she's gotta do.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Could also be a scroll, working the way spell scrolls are god damn suppoed to work. Little tweaks me off in this game more than "you can only use spell scrolls if you know the spell that's on the scroll already!" THE **** IS THE GOD DAMNED POINT OF THAT, WIZARDS?!
Spell scrolls have only worked for the class the spell is for since forever, though in AD&D you actually had different scroll types so a wizard couldn't use a clerical scroll even if the spell was one the wizard could also cast. The point has always been "extra use" and "doesn't have to be a spell you actually have prepared".
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
Trailer was fine. I'm not looking for rules perfect things because at the end of the day when the edition changes I don't want to have to look through it in the lens of "THATS NOT IN THE RULES". I just want a fun movie in a D&D type setting.
Spell scrolls have only worked for the class the spell is for since forever, though in AD&D you actually had different scroll types so a wizard couldn't use a clerical scroll even if the spell was one the wizard could also cast. The point has always been "extra use" and "doesn't have to be a spell you actually have prepared".
Okay, sure. That's still f@#$ing stupid. Especially in 5e where scrolls take forever and three weeks to craft, require gadzooking hory sheet cash outlay, and has a generally 80% or better chance to fail. At no point is that ever worth it unless you're creating a spell that casts itself when the scroll's invoker needs it to, as something you can hand off to a minion or the like for a specific job.
Anyways. Not really relevant to the movie, but god damn does the way D&D handle spell scrolls bother the absolute ass off of me.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of proto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
It's a movie with a gelatinous cube, a mimic, and an owlbear. Serious is really not in the cards.
Also worth noting that the trailer is likely trying to fish for the widest possible audience and had about ninety seconds to do it in. Funny ha-hahs get butts in seats without spoiling the plot; Big Serious moments spoil the plot and push butts out of seats. Take the trailer for what it is.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
It's a movie with a gelatinous cube, a mimic, and an owlbear. Serious is really not in the cards.
True, I'll need to find another hobby after 40 years. Seems I was doing it wrong.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of Porto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
I do think there was a time where the intent of D&D was supposed to be semi serious roleplay. The detriments to alignment changes, Paladins/Clerics losing powers if they didn't stay faithful to their Gods, losing LEVELS of experience on resurrection to punish wacky antics that might result in death etc. Shit, on this forum you see it all the time where people come in and go at a certain decible "KIDS, HAVING FUN IN MY D&D? BAH HUMBUG I ENJOY THREE YEARS IN UNDERMOUNTAIN WITH NO RP(side note I do too but its definitely a specific niche)".
I don't think this movie is aimed at the 50+ year old who wants a grimdark fantasy movie. Yurei put it out there that its casting a wide net and hoping to reel some in. That's spot on considering how BAD some of the other D&D movies have been. I just want some decent acting, good effects, a somewhat cohesive plot(not even GOOD per say, just one that makes sense) and a score of music that brings it all together.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of Porto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
I do think there was a time where the intent of D&D was supposed to be semi serious roleplay. The detriments to alignment changes, Paladins/Clerics losing powers if they didn't stay faithful to their Gods, losing LEVELS of experience on resurrection to punish wacky antics that might result in death etc. Shit, on this forum you see it all the time where people come in and go at a certain decible "KIDS, HAVING FUN IN MY D&D? BAH HUMBUG I ENJOY THREE YEARS IN UNDERMOUNTAIN WITH NO RP(side note I do too but its definitely a specific niche)".
I don't think this movie is aimed at the 50+ year old who wants a grimdark fantasy movie. Yurei put it out there that its casting a wide net and hoping to reel some in. That's spot on considering how BAD some of the other D&D movies have been. I just want some decent acting, good effects, a somewhat cohesive plot(not even GOOD per say, just one that makes sense) and a score of music that brings it all together.
To any of those “ba, humbug” folks who think the game is “ruined because it is not serious like in the old days” the only response I have is a picture of a Flail Snail, a first edition monster where everything about it, from the name to its silly little heads, is the opposite of serious.
Edit: Just realised how much I want to see some of the super duper goofy, but less well-known D&D monsters that exist. Sure, Cubes and Mimics are silly and classic and mainstream, but a Thought Eater or something equally absurd would be a delightful cameo for those who love all the dorky 1e monsters out there.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of Porto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
I do think there was a time where the intent of D&D was supposed to be semi serious roleplay. The detriments to alignment changes, Paladins/Clerics losing powers if they didn't stay faithful to their Gods, losing LEVELS of experience on resurrection to punish wacky antics that might result in death etc. Shit, on this forum you see it all the time where people come in and go at a certain decible "KIDS, HAVING FUN IN MY D&D? BAH HUMBUG I ENJOY THREE YEARS IN UNDERMOUNTAIN WITH NO RP(side note I do too but its definitely a specific niche)".
I don't think this movie is aimed at the 50+ year old who wants a grimdark fantasy movie. Yurei put it out there that its casting a wide net and hoping to reel some in. That's spot on considering how BAD some of the other D&D movies have been. I just want some decent acting, good effects, a somewhat cohesive plot(not even GOOD per say, just one that makes sense) and a score of music that brings it all together.
To any of those “ba, humbug” folks who think the game is “ruined because it is not serious like in the old days” the only response I have is a picture of a Flail Snail, a first edition monster where everything about it, from the name to its silly little heads, is the opposite of serious.
Edit: Just realised how much I want to see some of the super duper goofy, but less well-known D&D monsters that exist. Sure, Cubes and Mimics are silly and classic and mainstream, but a Thought Eater or something equally absurd would be a delightful cameo for those who love all the dorky 1e monsters out there.
This actually harkens back because in a lot of medieval art, Knights fought Snails.
Yep! One of history’s early, delightful example of pre-internet memes, proving that humans have always liked their silly, seemingly inexplicable-to-outside-observer jokes. Just another reason the Flail Snail shoots up to the top of my list of “extremely silly D&D monsters” and, after the “Comeback Inn” of the game’s first session, is my go-to example of why 1e was never as serious as people seem to think it was.
I do think there was a time where the intent of D&D was supposed to be semi serious roleplay. The detriments to alignment changes, Paladins/Clerics losing powers if they didn't stay faithful to their Gods, losing LEVELS of experience on resurrection to punish wacky antics that might result in death etc.
D&D has always supported a wide variety of play styles, though I would say that most of the examples you give have less to do with roleplaying than with the 'DM vs Players' attitude of early D&D, as they're really just "excuses for the DM to hose the PCs".
However, many of the most iconic things in D&D are memorable specifically because they're stupid, so if you're doing a greatest hits, you're going to wind up with some pretty dumb stuff.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of Porto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
The only type of D&D movie that I could see working with a "serious" theme would be a movie set on Dark Sun or Ravenloft. And, even then, they'd probably need to have a joke every now and then to relieve the tension and emulate how the average D&D party would react in those scenarios. Think of the most recent batman movie. It's darker and grittier than any batman movie before it, but it still has the occasional joke, because humor helps relieve the tension during tense scenes (even/especially dark humor, like the "thumb drive" joke from The Batman).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
The literal first ever session of Porto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
The only type of D&D movie that I could see working with a "serious" theme would be a movie set on Dark Sun or Ravenloft. And, even then, they'd probably need to have a joke every now and then to relieve the tension and emulate how the average D&D party would react in those scenarios. Think of the most recent batman movie. It's darker and grittier than any batman movie before it, but it still has the occasional joke, because humor helps relieve the tension during tense scenes (even/especially dark humor, like the "thumb drive" joke from The Batman).
Eh, a serious D&D movie would just be something like Lord of the Rings. Serious does not mean it has to be grimdark.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Eh, a serious D&D movie would just be something like Lord of the Rings. Serious does not mean it has to be grimdark.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the source material for the Lord of the Rings movies and that of a D&D movie. Lord of the Rings takes itself seriously. D&D doesn't. D&D has monsters like the rust monster, gelatinous cube, and beholder as some of its most iconic. Gnomes are one of the default races. The most iconic monsters of Lord of the Rings are Orcs, the Balrog, and the Nazgul (and the fellbeast). All of which are serious.
D&D doesn't take itself seriously, so making a D&D movie that does is misinterpreting the source material.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Eh, a serious D&D movie would just be something like Lord of the Rings. Serious does not mean it has to be grimdark.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the source material for the Lord of the Rings movies and that of a D&D movie. Lord of the Rings takes itself seriously. D&D doesn't. D&D has monsters like the rust monster, gelatinous cube, and beholder as some of its most iconic. Gnomes are one of the default races. The most iconic monsters of Lord of the Rings are Orcs, the Balrog, and the Nazgul (and the fellbeast). All of which are serious.
D&D doesn't take itself seriously, so making a D&D movie that does is misinterpreting the source material.
Batman has a batdog, a batcow, and a member of his rogue's gallery who calls himself Condiment King and commits robberies using hot sauce and mustard. Would you claim that that making a serious Batman movie is misinterpreting the source material? I'm guessing no.
Yes, there are silly things in D&D. That doesn't mean that D&D is some sort of wacky joke game. It can be played with any ratio of serious to silly that you want, there is no correct way to play D&D. Even the Lord of the Rings films had their silly stuff, largely at the hands of Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. A serious D&D movie would absolutely be real D&D. Unless you'd like to say that the War of the Lance or the Time of Troubles weren't real D&D?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Eh, a serious D&D movie would just be something like Lord of the Rings. Serious does not mean it has to be grimdark.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the source material for the Lord of the Rings movies and that of a D&D movie. Lord of the Rings takes itself seriously. D&D doesn't. D&D has monsters like the rust monster, gelatinous cube, and beholder as some of its most iconic. Gnomes are one of the default races. The most iconic monsters of Lord of the Rings are Orcs, the Balrog, and the Nazgul (and the fellbeast). All of which are serious.
D&D doesn't take itself seriously, so making a D&D movie that does is misinterpreting the source material.
Batman has a batdog, a batcow, and a member of his rogue's gallery who calls himself Condiment King and commits robberies using hot sauce and mustard. Would you claim that that making a serious Batman movie is misinterpreting the source material? I'm guessing no.
Yes, there are silly things in D&D. That doesn't mean that D&D is some sort of wacky joke game. It can be played with any ratio of serious to silly that you want, there is no correct way to play D&D. Even the Lord of the Rings films had their silly stuff, largely at the hands of Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. A serious D&D movie would absolutely be real D&D. Unless you'd like to say that the War of the Lance or the Time of Troubles weren't real D&D?
The problem is not that it would not be D&D - the problem is that it almost certainly would be a commercial flop. It is much easier to write enjoyable sword and sorcery with its element of campiness than it is to write high fantasy for film. Fantasy, as a genera, works better in literature or in the imagination - all the made up words, magic, etc. can easily come off poorly if not expertly maintained. Even the two current titans of film High Fantasy - LotR and GoT are batting about 50%, with the Hobbit films and entire second half of GoT both being poorly-written and directed rubbish.
So, you have a franchise rooted in the campiness of sword and sorcery, primarily played by people who play it on the silly side (even if there is a shrinking minority who takes it more seriously), being produced by a company known for making more campy movies, and being in a game that, though more popular than ever, is still seen as a little bit goofy and dorky.
So, while a “serious” movie might be “real D&D” every single indication points to a “serious” movie being a “real bad” D&D film.
While I would not say that D&D cannot be serious, I would say that
Many of the things that make D&D distinctive are silly. Including traditional monsters like dragons or werewolves or vampires or whatever doesn't clearly mark something as a D&D movie, as opposed to Generic Fantasy #101. If you want distinctive D&D, a lot of the choices are fairly dumb -- the gelatinous cube, mimic, and owlbear from the trailer are all both distinctive and dumb.
The fundamental structure of a heist movie, which involves a small team of people who generally each have specialized skills, working together to retrieve something from a protected location, is a very good match for D&D, and the modern heist movie does characteristically include a fair amount of comedy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Could also be a scroll, working the way spell scrolls are god damn suppoed to work. Little tweaks me off in this game more than "you can only use spell scrolls if you know the spell that's on the scroll already!" THE **** IS THE GOD DAMNED POINT OF THAT, WIZARDS?!
...Blegh. Mini-rant over. But yeah. Could be a proper spell scroll, and it's a plot point that Miss Tiffle only gets one shot to do what she's gotta do.
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't mind the Owlbear or any other rule deviations. You can't get a ttrpg adaptation that is 100% rules following. Can't be done. Effects looked good. Hated the one-liners and humour. I'll wait until release and read some reviews. I hoped for a serious film. Not another MCU like one. At least it's not like Snails level bad, but I'll see.
Spell scrolls have only worked for the class the spell is for since forever, though in AD&D you actually had different scroll types so a wizard couldn't use a clerical scroll even if the spell was one the wizard could also cast. The point has always been "extra use" and "doesn't have to be a spell you actually have prepared".
Honestly? This probably represents what D&D is to most fans these days.
Trailer was fine. I'm not looking for rules perfect things because at the end of the day when the edition changes I don't want to have to look through it in the lens of "THATS NOT IN THE RULES". I just want a fun movie in a D&D type setting.
Okay, sure. That's still f@#$ing stupid. Especially in 5e where scrolls take forever and three weeks to craft, require gadzooking hory sheet cash outlay, and has a generally 80% or better chance to fail. At no point is that ever worth it unless you're creating a spell that casts itself when the scroll's invoker needs it to, as something you can hand off to a minion or the like for a specific job.
Anyways. Not really relevant to the movie, but god damn does the way D&D handle spell scrolls bother the absolute ass off of me.
Please do not contact or message me.
The literal first ever session of proto-D&D was centred around Dave Arneson setting up a puzzle based around a bad pun. D&D being goofy and silly is not just a “these days” kind of thing - it has been a feature of the game since its birth.
I do not even know what a “serious” D&D movie would look like - and imagine the overwhelming majority of players, veteran and new alike, would be thinking “this doesn’t look like anything I have ever played” if the movie took a more serious tone.
It's a movie with a gelatinous cube, a mimic, and an owlbear. Serious is really not in the cards.
Also worth noting that the trailer is likely trying to fish for the widest possible audience and had about ninety seconds to do it in. Funny ha-hahs get butts in seats without spoiling the plot; Big Serious moments spoil the plot and push butts out of seats. Take the trailer for what it is.
Please do not contact or message me.
True, I'll need to find another hobby after 40 years. Seems I was doing it wrong.
I do think there was a time where the intent of D&D was supposed to be semi serious roleplay. The detriments to alignment changes, Paladins/Clerics losing powers if they didn't stay faithful to their Gods, losing LEVELS of experience on resurrection to punish wacky antics that might result in death etc. Shit, on this forum you see it all the time where people come in and go at a certain decible "KIDS, HAVING FUN IN MY D&D? BAH HUMBUG I ENJOY THREE YEARS IN UNDERMOUNTAIN WITH NO RP(side note I do too but its definitely a specific niche)".
I don't think this movie is aimed at the 50+ year old who wants a grimdark fantasy movie. Yurei put it out there that its casting a wide net and hoping to reel some in. That's spot on considering how BAD some of the other D&D movies have been. I just want some decent acting, good effects, a somewhat cohesive plot(not even GOOD per say, just one that makes sense) and a score of music that brings it all together.
To any of those “ba, humbug” folks who think the game is “ruined because it is not serious like in the old days” the only response I have is a picture of a Flail Snail, a first edition monster where everything about it, from the name to its silly little heads, is the opposite of serious.
Edit: Just realised how much I want to see some of the super duper goofy, but less well-known D&D monsters that exist. Sure, Cubes and Mimics are silly and classic and mainstream, but a Thought Eater or something equally absurd would be a delightful cameo for those who love all the dorky 1e monsters out there.
This actually harkens back because in a lot of medieval art, Knights fought Snails.
Yep! One of history’s early, delightful example of pre-internet memes, proving that humans have always liked their silly, seemingly inexplicable-to-outside-observer jokes. Just another reason the Flail Snail shoots up to the top of my list of “extremely silly D&D monsters” and, after the “Comeback Inn” of the game’s first session, is my go-to example of why 1e was never as serious as people seem to think it was.
D&D has always supported a wide variety of play styles, though I would say that most of the examples you give have less to do with roleplaying than with the 'DM vs Players' attitude of early D&D, as they're really just "excuses for the DM to hose the PCs".
However, many of the most iconic things in D&D are memorable specifically because they're stupid, so if you're doing a greatest hits, you're going to wind up with some pretty dumb stuff.
The only type of D&D movie that I could see working with a "serious" theme would be a movie set on Dark Sun or Ravenloft. And, even then, they'd probably need to have a joke every now and then to relieve the tension and emulate how the average D&D party would react in those scenarios. Think of the most recent batman movie. It's darker and grittier than any batman movie before it, but it still has the occasional joke, because humor helps relieve the tension during tense scenes (even/especially dark humor, like the "thumb drive" joke from The Batman).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Eh, a serious D&D movie would just be something like Lord of the Rings. Serious does not mean it has to be grimdark.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I disagree. There is a fundamental difference between the source material for the Lord of the Rings movies and that of a D&D movie. Lord of the Rings takes itself seriously. D&D doesn't. D&D has monsters like the rust monster, gelatinous cube, and beholder as some of its most iconic. Gnomes are one of the default races. The most iconic monsters of Lord of the Rings are Orcs, the Balrog, and the Nazgul (and the fellbeast). All of which are serious.
D&D doesn't take itself seriously, so making a D&D movie that does is misinterpreting the source material.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Batman has a batdog, a batcow, and a member of his rogue's gallery who calls himself Condiment King and commits robberies using hot sauce and mustard. Would you claim that that making a serious Batman movie is misinterpreting the source material? I'm guessing no.
Yes, there are silly things in D&D. That doesn't mean that D&D is some sort of wacky joke game. It can be played with any ratio of serious to silly that you want, there is no correct way to play D&D. Even the Lord of the Rings films had their silly stuff, largely at the hands of Gimli, Pippin, and Merry. A serious D&D movie would absolutely be real D&D. Unless you'd like to say that the War of the Lance or the Time of Troubles weren't real D&D?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The problem is not that it would not be D&D - the problem is that it almost certainly would be a commercial flop. It is much easier to write enjoyable sword and sorcery with its element of campiness than it is to write high fantasy for film. Fantasy, as a genera, works better in literature or in the imagination - all the made up words, magic, etc. can easily come off poorly if not expertly maintained. Even the two current titans of film High Fantasy - LotR and GoT are batting about 50%, with the Hobbit films and entire second half of GoT both being poorly-written and directed rubbish.
So, you have a franchise rooted in the campiness of sword and sorcery, primarily played by people who play it on the silly side (even if there is a shrinking minority who takes it more seriously), being produced by a company known for making more campy movies, and being in a game that, though more popular than ever, is still seen as a little bit goofy and dorky.
So, while a “serious” movie might be “real D&D” every single indication points to a “serious” movie being a “real bad” D&D film.
While I would not say that D&D cannot be serious, I would say that