Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
That's because prior to Bumblebee (which wasn't really a Michael Bay movie as he wasn't the director), the Transformers films weren't aimed at fans of the franchise. They were aimed at general audiences.
Yes. And what makes you think another high name recognition Hasbro property is getting parsed through Hollywood any differently?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
That's because prior to Bumblebee (which wasn't really a Michael Bay movie as he wasn't the director), the Transformers films weren't aimed at fans of the franchise. They were aimed at general audiences.
Yes. And what makes you think another high name recognition Hasbro property is getting parsed through Hollywood any differently?
Don't believe that I said otherwise.
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.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
That's because prior to Bumblebee (which wasn't really a Michael Bay movie as he wasn't the director), the Transformers films weren't aimed at fans of the franchise. They were aimed at general audiences.
Yes. And what makes you think another high name recognition Hasbro property is getting parsed through Hollywood any differently?
Don't believe that I said otherwise.
No worries, I thought I was pretty clear that Hasbro/Bay possibly intentionally disregarded fan service/love in favor of what they figured would blockbuster. So was just head scratching what you were expanding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No worries, I thought I was pretty clear that Hasbro/Bay possibly intentionally disregarded fan service/love in favor of what they figured would blockbuster. So was just head scratching what you were expanding.
And my point was that the original D&D movie tried to do both, pandering to the hardcore fans while also making a big epic blockbuster, and it fell flat on it's face. Granted, it could have been done better but they tried way two hard at both and in the process ignored the part about actually making a good movie. Seriously, the writers were idiots.
I feel somewhat alone in thinking we need more generic fantasy movies. We get so many generic action movies and generic sci-fi movies, but very few people actually do sword and sorcery, and when they do, nobody actually tries to make it good because they've already written it off because for some reason Hollywood doesn't take fantasy seriously as a genre.
It's because the genre was overdone in the 80s. There was a brief surge in popularity for fantasy films after Lord of the Rings, but I think that The Hobbit wound up killing it off again.
The real problem is that Lord of the rings showed you can do a large expansive fantasy epic, but you really need to spread it over several movies and need a recognised IP to get people into the cinema and even then it is not a guarantee. Warcraft was the most recent attempt to make a Fantasy Movie, and while it did well in China it tanked in the rest of the world and was critically panned.
Game of Thrones showed you can do fantasy in a TV series and that is a better medium for really turning a generic story into something with depth. The wheel of time is coming out as a fantasy series, and the Shannara books where turned into a TV series. As most fantasy books span multiple sequels it feels like most producers when handed an IP that has depth they are deciding that being able to spread one book over 8 hours of TV is better then trying to cram it into a 2 hour movie, and more and more Directors are looking at converting books to movies and asking to do it over multiple films.
DnD works because it is a setting and a genre, not a story that has to be converted. Although it would be amazing to see a campaign book turned into a movie (personally out of the abyss would be amazing, seeing Demagorgan erupt from a subterranean lake to attack a village of fish people would look amazing on the big screen)
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
That's because prior to Bumblebee (which wasn't really a Michael Bay movie as he wasn't the director), the Transformers films weren't aimed at fans of the franchise. They were aimed at general audiences.
Yes. And what makes you think another high name recognition Hasbro property is getting parsed through Hollywood any differently?
Don't believe that I said otherwise.
No worries, I thought I was pretty clear that Hasbro/Bay possibly intentionally disregarded fan service/love in favor of what they figured would blockbuster. So was just head scratching what you were expanding.
I mean personally I loved the first transformers movie, it gave me everything I was looking for, and many people forget that while the original movie had some heart wrenching moments the actual cartoon was largely just an advert for the toys, so it kind of makes sense to have the king of product placement making those films. The sequels, where meh but I don't find them as offensive as some do.
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies. I imagine there will be subtle hints to the lore of DnD, the strong cast indicates the script may well be strong. I am disappointed Joe Manganiello does not seem to be appearing in it (the DnD aficionado of hollywood, more so than Vin Diesel, who Joe has openly questioned on his DnD credentials). But TTRPG in general is prevalent throughout the entertainment now days, a friend of mine who has been in the industry for many years told me that while 10 or so years ago cast would do things like Shakespear readings for between shoot/day off entertainment he has seen far more roleplay table set ups for players to grab when they have a few hours spare between shoots. So I have to hope that the writers, cast, and crew have enough representation of the hobby scattered through that they do a good job.
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies.
Now you've made me worried that the movie is going to be an adaptation of the Dungeons And Dragons cartoon.
What do you mean, "worried"? That could be awesome.
But to alleviate your worries, I don't think they'd bring in Chris Pine to either play a teenager or an antagonist so you don't have anything to fear on that front.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies.
Now you've made me worried that the movie is going to be an adaptation of the Dungeons And Dragons cartoon.
What do you mean, "worried"? That could be awesome.
But to alleviate your worries, I don't think they'd bring in Chris Pine to either play a teenager or an antagonist so you don't have anything to fear on that front.
No but he could be playing a character in his age bracket that got on a D&D roller coaster and ended up in the Forgotten Realms which is where the cartoon series took place, if you read the comics as Presto stay in the Realms to learn actual magic, as an adult Presto was in 1 or more of them.
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies.
Now you've made me worried that the movie is going to be an adaptation of the Dungeons And Dragons cartoon.
What do you mean, "worried"? That could be awesome.
But to alleviate your worries, I don't think they'd bring in Chris Pine to either play a teenager or an antagonist so you don't have anything to fear on that front.
No but he could be playing a character in his age bracket that got on a D&D roller coaster and ended up in the Forgotten Realms which is where the cartoon series took place, if you read the comics as Presto stay in the Realms to learn actual magic, as an adult Presto was in 1 or more of them.
That'd be an adaptation of the comics then though, not of the cartoon. The comics are much less recognizeable than the cartoon for a broader audience, if either were to be used as a stepping off point for a movie I'd expect it to be the latter - but it won't be either, I'm sure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies.
Now you've made me worried that the movie is going to be an adaptation of the Dungeons And Dragons cartoon.
What do you mean, "worried"? That could be awesome.
But to alleviate your worries, I don't think they'd bring in Chris Pine to either play a teenager or an antagonist so you don't have anything to fear on that front.
"You want to check out that Dungeons and Dragons movie?" "Yeah, sure, I never played, but curious what they made of the movie."
"You want to check out this Greyhawk movie?" "What? I heard there isn't even a pigeon in it, let alone a grey hawk."
"You want to check this Forgotten Realms movie?" "...."
Dungeons and Dragons means something, it has cultural cachet beyond the player base. Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure there are D&D players who think they know quite a bit about the game that haven't heard of the former and may not even realized the published adventures for the most part are set in the latter.
No one's going to make any association between this Dungeon and Dragons and Jeremy Irons walks onto the set of Dungeons and Dragons years ago to any more of a degree than folks wanting to see the new Dune are going to associate it with David Lynch Alan Smithee's work.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
Or heck look at what Disney did with either Marvel (oversimplification of dense lore) or Star Wars (there were how many decades of lore attached to ... nah, we'll get around to calling them Legends maybe and maybe port them back in on the flip side, but we're going back to the movies as if none of that were there.
Movie won't change anyone's game. Might make a few more people curious about it.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
"You want to check out that Dungeons and Dragons movie?" "Yeah, sure, I never played, but curious what they made of the movie."
"You want to check out this Greyhawk movie?" "What? I heard there isn't even a pigeon in it, let alone a grey hawk."
"You want to check this Forgotten Realms movie?" "...."
Dungeons and Dragons means something, it has cultural cachet beyond the player base. Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure there are D&D players who think they know quite a bit about the game that haven't heard of the former and may not even realized the published adventures for the most part are set in the latter.
No one's going to make any association between this Dungeon and Dragons and Jeremy Irons walks onto the set of Dungeons and Dragons years ago to any more of a degree than folks wanting to see the new Dune are going to associate it with David Lynch Alan Smithee's work.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
Or heck look at what Disney did with either Marvel (oversimplification of dense lore) or Star Wars (there were how many decades of lore attached to ... nah, we'll get around to calling them Legends maybe and maybe port them back in on the flip side, but we're going back to the movies as if none of that were there.
Movie won't change anyone's game. Might make a few more people curious about it.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
Don't know what you're trying to say there, other than prove my point about Disney taking Marvel and oversimplifying dense lore. The Guardians' various iterations are part of a pretty dense ecosystem of "cosmic" adventures (Captain Marvel riffs off of too). I'm actually disappointed that they've done two Guardians movie, Rocket appears in four, and they're evidently waiting for the third Guardian's movie for the Gideon punchline.
So again, we can at best expect a Disney handling of D&D and at worst (IMHO) Bayformers ride. Since Hasbro was actually involved with the latter as well as, ahem, Battleship, I think lowered expectations on the fan fidelity front are in order.
Side not, Guardians also had the benefit of MCU picking either well established (Branagh) or "proven rising talents" (Gunn) for their films. D&D has ... two guys who directed an episode of "In the Dark" together ... it's just not promising.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
"You want to check out that Dungeons and Dragons movie?" "Yeah, sure, I never played, but curious what they made of the movie."
"You want to check out this Greyhawk movie?" "What? I heard there isn't even a pigeon in it, let alone a grey hawk."
"You want to check this Forgotten Realms movie?" "...."
Dungeons and Dragons means something, it has cultural cachet beyond the player base. Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure there are D&D players who think they know quite a bit about the game that haven't heard of the former and may not even realized the published adventures for the most part are set in the latter.
No one's going to make any association between this Dungeon and Dragons and Jeremy Irons walks onto the set of Dungeons and Dragons years ago to any more of a degree than folks wanting to see the new Dune are going to associate it with David Lynch Alan Smithee's work.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
Or heck look at what Disney did with either Marvel (oversimplification of dense lore) or Star Wars (there were how many decades of lore attached to ... nah, we'll get around to calling them Legends maybe and maybe port them back in on the flip side, but we're going back to the movies as if none of that were there.
Movie won't change anyone's game. Might make a few more people curious about it.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
On that note, remember John Carter of Mars? Pretty decent flick for the genre, massive budget, and also a massive failure at the box office because it didn't have the pull to warrant that budget. No guarantees about quality, but a D&D branded movie starring Chris Pine will at least have two advantages over that. Anything that helps pull in audiences early on after release matters to a movie's financial success.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"You want to check out that Dungeons and Dragons movie?" "Yeah, sure, I never played, but curious what they made of the movie."
"You want to check out this Greyhawk movie?" "What? I heard there isn't even a pigeon in it, let alone a grey hawk."
"You want to check this Forgotten Realms movie?" "...."
Dungeons and Dragons means something, it has cultural cachet beyond the player base. Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure there are D&D players who think they know quite a bit about the game that haven't heard of the former and may not even realized the published adventures for the most part are set in the latter.
No one's going to make any association between this Dungeon and Dragons and Jeremy Irons walks onto the set of Dungeons and Dragons years ago to any more of a degree than folks wanting to see the new Dune are going to associate it with David Lynch Alan Smithee's work.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
Or heck look at what Disney did with either Marvel (oversimplification of dense lore) or Star Wars (there were how many decades of lore attached to ... nah, we'll get around to calling them Legends maybe and maybe port them back in on the flip side, but we're going back to the movies as if none of that were there.
Movie won't change anyone's game. Might make a few more people curious about it.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
On that note, remember John Carter of Mars? Pretty decent flick for the genre, massive budget, and also a massive failure at the box office because it didn't have the pull to warrant that budget. No guarantees about quality, but a D&D branded movie starring Chris Pine will at least have two advantages over that. Anything that helps pull in audiences early on after release matters to a movie's financial success.
John Carter failed for a myriad of reasons, the film in itself isn't bad, but the marketing around it is acknowledged to have been awful. There are rumours that Disney (who underwent a studio executive change mid filming) wanted it to fail because they had started negotiating to buy the starwars franchise from Lucas and didn't want another "space opera" competing once they bought it. But even if you don't believe the conspiracy theory (I don't personally) the fact is the studio didn't understand the movie, the franchise or who they where selling it to. They alienated the fans early on with really bad trailers, they marketed it as a generic sci fi movie and didn't push the fact that this is the book that started it all, George Lucas has stated without John Carter there would be no starwars.
The DnD movie will succeed or fail based on it's marketing and promotion. There are not enough DnD players to make it a box office success, you need to attract the millions of non players, especially in China to make money on the movie, If the studio pushes the DnD element above all it may well be it's undoing as people may decide they are not going to go and see that geeky film. Big Budget Fantasy movies without a known pedigree (LOTR, Hobbit, Harry Potter) perform poorly compared to the equivalent sci fi movies. World of Warcraft was only rescued from being an international box office bomb by the China Market and didn't perform well enough to warrant a sequel. As much as I hope it succeeds I really think, regardless of how good it is, this film will just do ok, meaning we won't get a sequel.
"You want to check out that Dungeons and Dragons movie?" "Yeah, sure, I never played, but curious what they made of the movie."
"You want to check out this Greyhawk movie?" "What? I heard there isn't even a pigeon in it, let alone a grey hawk."
"You want to check this Forgotten Realms movie?" "...."
Dungeons and Dragons means something, it has cultural cachet beyond the player base. Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure there are D&D players who think they know quite a bit about the game that haven't heard of the former and may not even realized the published adventures for the most part are set in the latter.
No one's going to make any association between this Dungeon and Dragons and Jeremy Irons walks onto the set of Dungeons and Dragons years ago to any more of a degree than folks wanting to see the new Dune are going to associate it with David Lynch Alan Smithee's work.
Honestly I think the D&D fanbase ought to look at what love Bay's Transformers (hi Hasbro!) paid or served that toy's fans if you want to see how much attention the movie is really giving those who "really know" the brand. It took the Transformers fandom some time to really except Bay's movies as the standard bearer, quite a few still don't. Yet those movies do phenomenally well compared to other efforts to get big robots the spotlight on the big screens.
Or heck look at what Disney did with either Marvel (oversimplification of dense lore) or Star Wars (there were how many decades of lore attached to ... nah, we'll get around to calling them Legends maybe and maybe port them back in on the flip side, but we're going back to the movies as if none of that were there.
Movie won't change anyone's game. Might make a few more people curious about it.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
Don't know what you're trying to say there, other than prove my point about Disney taking Marvel and oversimplifying dense lore. The Guardians' various iterations are part of a pretty dense ecosystem of "cosmic" adventures (Captain Marvel riffs off of too). I'm actually disappointed that they've done two Guardians movie, Rocket appears in four, and they're evidently waiting for the third Guardian's movie for the Gideon punchline.
So again, we can at best expect a Disney handling of D&D and at worst (IMHO) Bayformers ride. Since Hasbro was actually involved with the latter as well as, ahem, Battleship, I think lowered expectations on the fan fidelity front are in order.
Side not, Guardians also had the benefit of MCU picking either well established (Branagh) or "proven rising talents" (Gunn) for their films. D&D has ... two guys who directed an episode of "In the Dark" together ... it's just not promising.
Well, if I need to spell it out, my point was this: the guardians of the galaxy, before the movies, were obscure characters. If you'd ask someone in 2000 who Rocket Raccoon was, unless they were into comics, they likely wouldn't know. And yet the film still did well.
Saying that it should be a D&D movie instead of a Forgotten Realms for brand recognition is misguided. Many of the big brands had to be established originally. But that doesn't mean Iron Man was called "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Iron Man".
Well, if I need to spell it out, my point was this: the guardians of the galaxy, before the movies, were obscure characters. If you'd ask someone in 2000 who Rocket Raccoon was, unless they were into comics, they likely wouldn't know. And yet the film still did well.
Saying that it should be a D&D movie instead of a Forgotten Realms for brand recognition is misguided. Many of the big brands had to be established originally. But that doesn't mean Iron Man was called "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Iron Man".
Iron Man had some degree of brand recognition, and a huge marketing campaign. By the time Guardians of the Galaxy was released, the MCU was firmly established as a franchise, the fact that the GotG were obscure was largely irrelevant thanks to being already part of a well-known series.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes. And what makes you think another high name recognition Hasbro property is getting parsed through Hollywood any differently?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Don't believe that I said otherwise.
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.
No worries, I thought I was pretty clear that Hasbro/Bay possibly intentionally disregarded fan service/love in favor of what they figured would blockbuster. So was just head scratching what you were expanding.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
At this point, I'm not sure either.
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.
And my point was that the original D&D movie tried to do both, pandering to the hardcore fans while also making a big epic blockbuster, and it fell flat on it's face. Granted, it could have been done better but they tried way two hard at both and in the process ignored the part about actually making a good movie. Seriously, the writers were idiots.
The real problem is that Lord of the rings showed you can do a large expansive fantasy epic, but you really need to spread it over several movies and need a recognised IP to get people into the cinema and even then it is not a guarantee. Warcraft was the most recent attempt to make a Fantasy Movie, and while it did well in China it tanked in the rest of the world and was critically panned.
Game of Thrones showed you can do fantasy in a TV series and that is a better medium for really turning a generic story into something with depth. The wheel of time is coming out as a fantasy series, and the Shannara books where turned into a TV series. As most fantasy books span multiple sequels it feels like most producers when handed an IP that has depth they are deciding that being able to spread one book over 8 hours of TV is better then trying to cram it into a 2 hour movie, and more and more Directors are looking at converting books to movies and asking to do it over multiple films.
DnD works because it is a setting and a genre, not a story that has to be converted. Although it would be amazing to see a campaign book turned into a movie (personally out of the abyss would be amazing, seeing Demagorgan erupt from a subterranean lake to attack a village of fish people would look amazing on the big screen)
I mean personally I loved the first transformers movie, it gave me everything I was looking for, and many people forget that while the original movie had some heart wrenching moments the actual cartoon was largely just an advert for the toys, so it kind of makes sense to have the king of product placement making those films. The sequels, where meh but I don't find them as offensive as some do.
What you are seeing now are people who are able to turn the things they loved as children into movies. I imagine there will be subtle hints to the lore of DnD, the strong cast indicates the script may well be strong. I am disappointed Joe Manganiello does not seem to be appearing in it (the DnD aficionado of hollywood, more so than Vin Diesel, who Joe has openly questioned on his DnD credentials). But TTRPG in general is prevalent throughout the entertainment now days, a friend of mine who has been in the industry for many years told me that while 10 or so years ago cast would do things like Shakespear readings for between shoot/day off entertainment he has seen far more roleplay table set ups for players to grab when they have a few hours spare between shoots. So I have to hope that the writers, cast, and crew have enough representation of the hobby scattered through that they do a good job.
Now you've made me worried that the movie is going to be an adaptation of the Dungeons And Dragons cartoon.
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.
What do you mean, "worried"? That could be awesome.
But to alleviate your worries, I don't think they'd bring in Chris Pine to either play a teenager or an antagonist so you don't have anything to fear on that front.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
No but he could be playing a character in his age bracket that got on a D&D roller coaster and ended up in the Forgotten Realms which is where the cartoon series took place, if you read the comics as Presto stay in the Realms to learn actual magic, as an adult Presto was in 1 or more of them.
That'd be an adaptation of the comics then though, not of the cartoon. The comics are much less recognizeable than the cartoon for a broader audience, if either were to be used as a stepping off point for a movie I'd expect it to be the latter - but it won't be either, I'm sure.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
He'll be Dungeon Master. And Uni.
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.
Hey, remember when they announced the Guardians of the Galaxy movie which was a space adventure with no recognisable heroes, a cartoon racoon and a "talking" tree?
Don't know what you're trying to say there, other than prove my point about Disney taking Marvel and oversimplifying dense lore. The Guardians' various iterations are part of a pretty dense ecosystem of "cosmic" adventures (Captain Marvel riffs off of too). I'm actually disappointed that they've done two Guardians movie, Rocket appears in four, and they're evidently waiting for the third Guardian's movie for the Gideon punchline.
So again, we can at best expect a Disney handling of D&D and at worst (IMHO) Bayformers ride. Since Hasbro was actually involved with the latter as well as, ahem, Battleship, I think lowered expectations on the fan fidelity front are in order.
Side not, Guardians also had the benefit of MCU picking either well established (Branagh) or "proven rising talents" (Gunn) for their films. D&D has ... two guys who directed an episode of "In the Dark" together ... it's just not promising.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
On that note, remember John Carter of Mars? Pretty decent flick for the genre, massive budget, and also a massive failure at the box office because it didn't have the pull to warrant that budget. No guarantees about quality, but a D&D branded movie starring Chris Pine will at least have two advantages over that. Anything that helps pull in audiences early on after release matters to a movie's financial success.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
John Carter failed for a myriad of reasons, the film in itself isn't bad, but the marketing around it is acknowledged to have been awful. There are rumours that Disney (who underwent a studio executive change mid filming) wanted it to fail because they had started negotiating to buy the starwars franchise from Lucas and didn't want another "space opera" competing once they bought it. But even if you don't believe the conspiracy theory (I don't personally) the fact is the studio didn't understand the movie, the franchise or who they where selling it to. They alienated the fans early on with really bad trailers, they marketed it as a generic sci fi movie and didn't push the fact that this is the book that started it all, George Lucas has stated without John Carter there would be no starwars.
The DnD movie will succeed or fail based on it's marketing and promotion. There are not enough DnD players to make it a box office success, you need to attract the millions of non players, especially in China to make money on the movie, If the studio pushes the DnD element above all it may well be it's undoing as people may decide they are not going to go and see that geeky film. Big Budget Fantasy movies without a known pedigree (LOTR, Hobbit, Harry Potter) perform poorly compared to the equivalent sci fi movies. World of Warcraft was only rescued from being an international box office bomb by the China Market and didn't perform well enough to warrant a sequel. As much as I hope it succeeds I really think, regardless of how good it is, this film will just do ok, meaning we won't get a sequel.
Careful what you wish for: the 2000 D&D movie did get a really poor made for TV sequel, after all.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, if I need to spell it out, my point was this: the guardians of the galaxy, before the movies, were obscure characters. If you'd ask someone in 2000 who Rocket Raccoon was, unless they were into comics, they likely wouldn't know. And yet the film still did well.
Saying that it should be a D&D movie instead of a Forgotten Realms for brand recognition is misguided. Many of the big brands had to be established originally. But that doesn't mean Iron Man was called "Marvel Cinematic Universe: Iron Man".
Iron Man had some degree of brand recognition, and a huge marketing campaign. By the time Guardians of the Galaxy was released, the MCU was firmly established as a franchise, the fact that the GotG were obscure was largely irrelevant thanks to being already part of a well-known series.
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.