Keep seeing positive reviews for this movie and I have to wonder if I watched the same movie? As much as I was looking forward to the movie I don't think I went in with high expectations, of course I was hoping it would be good but the current state of modern movies kept my expectations quite low. In the end I thought it was just a bad movie, badly written, poorly paced, there are things to enjoy about the movie sure but for the most part it just wasn't a good movie and pretty sure the only reason I enjoyed some parts of the movie is because I am a fan of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms setting, if it wasn't for this I really can't see this movie appealing outside of the D&D fanbase and even inside the D&D fanbase I can't see many people coming back for seconds.
In the end I am just curious of what everyone else thought, not knocking anyone who did enjoy the film as this is just my opinion but just curious what everyone else thinks? Am I alone in thinking the movie bad or does anyone else feel the same way?
I absolutely loved it, laughed until I nearly cried in several places. I thought the characters were great fun and the nods to character features and monsters were well implemented. The story might not have been the most creative one on the planet, but I think that's ok, it doesn't have to be. I thought it did a fantastic job of capturing the chaos that happens at a table, and the plans the group comes up with are just silly sort of plans you think of under stress. I understand that some of the jokes and references might not hit the mark if people aren't DnD fans, but I also think it is a fun Fantasy action movie on its own. It managed to be silly without being cringey and the acting was wonderful all around.
I saw it during an advanced screening and am eagerly looking for an excuse to go and see it again!
It is weird because everyone is saying how much they loved the movie and I can't help but wonder if I watched the same movie as everyone else? I mean that is not to say that there weren't aspects of the movie I enjoyed, I liked how the characters used the hither tither staff to pull of some shenanigans that creative players would no doubt spring on their DM if they had access to such an item, I enjoyed the talk with the dead scene where the party uses up the 5 questions on frivolous questions (a relatable occurrence for a lot of parties I am sure) and I couldn't help but smile at the Bradley Cooper cameo and his tall queens, but apart from that the movie felt mostly like it was trying to cram in a lot of superficial references to locations within the Forgotten Realms and it's inhabitants without any substantive references to the ruleset and items within it.
The movie also felt very disjointed with them sometimes trying to cram too much information into a short scene (Chris Pine's character explaining his backstory at the start as if he is recapping the first movie that does not exist, feels like this should have been the first movie in a trillogy or at least get more time devoted to it) and trivializing other scenes and locations, escaping from Revels End and surviving the wilds of Icewind Dale should be an adventure in itself but they just escape like it is nothing and with a click of their fingers they are back south in the vicinity of Neverwinter, same thing with the Underdark, they just go for a day trip like it is nothing and then they are back in time for dinner, feels like they were just trying to cram in as many references to locations within the world without really giving these locations the relevance they are due. It really feels like they needed to narrow the scope a little bit more, focus on one major area and maybe it's surrounding areas and focus the movie around that, I don't think there was any real need to show Revels End or the Underdark in this particular movie and in a 2 hour movie the time they spent on those scenes could have been better spent fleshing out much more important scenes.
Also had trouble believing the actions and motivations of a lot of the characters, especially the villains, I mean Sofina is pretty self explanatory but Hugh Grant's character? I know he is greedy and wanted the treasure which is why he was working with Sofina and why he betrayed the rest of the group, but why take on the adoptive father role of Chris Pine's daughter and why lie and betray the party after he had already gotten the treasure? Why was he logging the forest pissing off the Emerald Enclave if he was only playing the role of Lord of Neverwinter to abscond with the treasure? And how exactly did he and Sofina put Lord Neverember out of commission in the first place? Also there is a scene where he is about to kill Chris Pine's character and then Sofina convinces him to let Chris Pine participate in the Arena for some reason? What reason would Sofina have to allow the party to live just to participate in the arena other than the fact that the movie needs the party to foil her plans? In the end she becomes the engineer of her own downfall yet there is no practical reason for her to do so? I know every story has plot holes and I try to be forgiving to an extent as most stories need some semblance of suspension of disbelief but there are so many moments in the movie where the plot holes are so gapingly huge and frequent that they become impossible to ignore.
I thought the characters were great fun and the nods to character features and monsters were well implemented.
In what way? Just asking out of curiosity as I was looking out for things like this and honestly can't recall many, only one that comes to mind is the Paladin remarking that there is evil about just before those assassins show up which I can only assume is a nod to the Paladin's divine sense ability? That and the speak to dead spell. Other than that I can't recall many nods to character features and abilities in the movie? The Druid's wildshape has her turning into an Owlbear which is not possible in the rules as written as Owlbears are technically monstrosities and in the scene where she turns into a fly to spy on the vault she burns 7 uses of wildshape as she turns into several different creatures in the one encounter when rules as written you can only use it twice per short rest, sure it is how I wished wild shape worked and it makes it more fun to watch as a movie but not an accurate nod to the ability as it is written in the rules, also this was the only aspect of the druid they showed there were no hints of the other druid abilities such as the spellcasting and speaking with animals and whatnot, same for the other characters, apart from Chris Pine playing the lute there were no real nod to any other Bardic abilities, no Barbarian rage, I don't recall any Wild Magic surges apart from the change of gravity when they first meet up with the sorcerer again but not sure if that was supposed to be a wild magic surge or just him flubbing the spell?
Also I don't recall any nods to magic items that actually exist within the setting before the movie, all the magic items shown in the movie were created specifically for the movie, it would have been nice to see more references to items that existed before the movie such as bags of holding, wand of fireballs or the Deck of Many things or something like that, I don't even think the hither tither staff was based on an existing spell in D&D? I know there are many spells that allow some form of teleportation but the method of teleportation the staff uses does not reflect any of the spells I know of and seems more a reference to Portal than anything else
Also was there any lore about Red Wizard daggers and not being able to resurrect when killed by one? Or was it just a macguffin to explain why they could not resurrect Chris Pine's wife and why he wanted the tablet that allows resurrection that convenient ignores the red wizard's blade.
voted 8/10. A few pacing issues with lore dumps that could have been condensed/eliminated. It bothered me that there was never sign of any bard spells or druid spells. I get that wildshape is flashier but yeah. I get it's hard to make apparent but I wanted a few obvious wild magic surges. It was fun trying to identify the spells that did get cast, like green flame blade. I'm torn on the red dragon. Super campy and probably could have done without it but I'm gathering it's an actual known dragon from extant lore based on the IMDB trivia.
That arena would make a dope one-shot if you needed something last minute for a session when you needed to improvise if you were suddenly down a player and couldn't do what you had planned. I thought they did a good job of capturing the energy of the game table/party and all its ensuant chaos. I liked how they showed attunement even if they fudged the actual mechanics of it with him suddenly attuning in a split second after hours of failed attempts. But mechanics/rules don't really translate off the table so I get they were playing loose with the mechanics.
Edit: A few hours later after stewing more, I'm still at 8/10 but I do wish they'd gone harder on Doric's tiefling-ness. Most of the movie I totally forgot she was a tiefling and not an elf/half-elf/variant human. Her horns just looked like an antlered head piece like Keyleth in VM. Her tail was never visible and only came into play once in a forgettable moment (legit I have no idea what the context was hours after seeing the movie). They could have at least given her cooler horns. Or made her skin turquoise or something. Great character but could have been better visually since being a Tiefling was her big thing about why she doesn't trust humans.
I'm torn on the red dragon. Super campy and probably could have done without it but I'm gathering it's an actual known dragon from extant lore based on the IMDB trivia.
The Dragon is from Out of the Abyss if you have played that module
Themberchaud, basically he lives in the Duergar city of Gracklstugh and keeps the forges lit with his breath, the reason he is so fat is because he has grown complacent since the Duergar feed him and donate treasures to his horde and he does not need to hunt for himself.
His appearance in the film is accurate to the lore but what he is doing outside of Gracklstugh is not really explained, from the information in the module it is sort of implied he is stuck in Gracklstugh and while he holds a position of honor within the city and the Duergar play to his ego I don't think they would willingly let him leave, in fact it is implied that he is not the first red Dragon to hold his position and the Duergar kill them off before they get too powerful and hard to control.
I loved it, it didn't try to be some high fantasy LOTR or the politics in GoT. It tried to be monty python while trying not to break the fourth wall. The fast travel from location to location is what I found funny enough since some groups run that kind of game. Their version of a Dragon is a creature that eats and sleeps so it makes sense to have a pile of bones and a fat figure dragon instead of a fit one. Also the pop culture reference to avengers. All in all, the movie seemed to depict a one shot session of a group of friends and had the budget to make it a movie
My party loved it 10/10 I think the main issue is if you look at it as a movie about a D&D adventure then yeah I can see how you wouldn't like it, but it's a movie set in the world of D&D these aren't player characters going through a campaign. It's a heist movie set in a fantasy world.
The Red Wizard blades stopping healing/resurrection magic makes sense when you consider they are Necromancers and twist the soul, One of my players thought the shadowy figure Sofina was talking to could have been a version of Veccna.
How you view Dungeons and Dragons will affect how you view the movie.
I homebrew everything and almost never follow the rules as written so my players loved it, but I can see if someone plays all the adventures and knows all this lore how they could nitpick this movie apart
Keep seeing positive reviews for this movie and I have to wonder if I watched the same movie? ...
Alright, bit of a background first, for me the first D&D film, or at least the film that got me into D&D was an animated film called Wizards it came out in 1978 and was the #1 film of that year until Star Wars came out. Yes I saw it in the theater as a kid, I'm that old. So when seeing a Fantasy film I compare them all to that film, can't help it.
So where on my scale of Films related to D&D does the 2023 D&D film fall for me?
Fantasy Films that feel like a D&D adventure Better than 2023 D&D
Lord of the Rings Trilogy "extended/Directors Cut " (Peter Jackson films count as one Film that takes a full day to watch, worth it.)
The Princess Bride
Dragonslayer
Dark Cyrstal
Willow
Stardust
Legand
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Excalibur
The Black Caldron
Fantasy Films that feel like a D&D adventure that are worse than 2023 D&D (note some of these films are still personal favorites)
the green knight
Krull
Army of Darkness
Jason and the Argonauts
Clash of the titans (1981)
Lord of the Rings (Animated)
Hobbit (Animated)
Dragoheart
Hobbit trillogy (Peter Jackson)
Wizards
Conan the Destoryer
Red Sonya
Conan (Remake)
WarCraft
Films that are worse than everything I've listed and should be forgotten, as they are so bad they can't even make cult status.
I loved it, it didn't try to be some high fantasy LOTR or the politics in GoT. It tried to be monty python while trying not to break the fourth wall. The fast travel from location to location is what I found funny enough since some groups run that kind of game.
I don't really mind if the movie was going for a sillier more lighthearted tone, I mean if you watch the trailer you kind of expect that is what it is going to be and to be honest most of the games I have played in the party gets up to some pretty weird shit and to be honest this isn't my problem with the movie, however even if you are going for a sillier tone it still kind of needs to be grounded within the universe.
My party loved it 10/10 I think the main issue is if you look at it as a movie about a D&D adventure then yeah I can see how you wouldn't like it, but it's a movie set in the world of D&D these aren't player characters going through a campaign. It's a heist movie set in a fantasy world.
The Red Wizard blades stopping healing/resurrection magic makes sense when you consider they are Necromancers and twist the soul, One of my players thought the shadowy figure Sofina was talking to could have been a version of Veccna.
How you view Dungeons and Dragons will affect how you view the movie.
I homebrew everything and almost never follow the rules as written so my players loved it, but I can see if someone plays all the adventures and knows all this lore how they could nitpick this movie apart
Yeah I get that it was going for more of a heist movie vibe set within the D&D universe, I mean Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is kind of that sort of thing (though not really as it is more of a treasure hunt with multiple factions racing to get the prize) and Keys of the Golden Vault is very much more so that sort of thing, there are definitely a lot of ways they could have made it work however the way they did it just did not work for me, and I promise this is not just me nitpicking the lore and rules lawyering, even if I knew nothing about D&D and the Forgotten Realms the movie has a lot of major issues. I think if they changed some elements, trimmed the fat in parts and devoted more time to relevant scenes and themes they could have had a much better movie.
As for the Red Wizard's blades I don't have any problem with the explanation they give about it preventing resurrection, I was just curious if this was actually a part of the lore as I don't remember anything about it? In the lore there are plenty of things that can cause resurrection spells to fail especially if the body has been defiled in some way so I don't really have an issue with this as it can easily be handwaved that the Red Wizard blades have some sort of necrotic property, it is really more out of curiosity I ask here. Also would have liked to see them use more established items as a nod to the game rather than just make up completely new items for the film but this is really more a nitpick of me being a fan rather than a nitpick of whether or not it is a good movie.
Intro/Backstory + Escape: This is just like the epic backstories of 30 people I've been the DM for, nothing weird.
Well it is a little more than just Edgin's backstory but rather the hook for the entire adventure, feels like they tried to cram a lot in here when it probably needed to be fleshed out more as a part of the movie rather than the thing that happened before the movie began, if this was part 2 in a movie series and this was just him recapping what happened in the previous movie it might have worked but there was no previous movie.
1st part of the film :Session 0: Backstory (DM homebrews a lot of things rule of cool)
2nd part of the film: Private sessions to gather the party
Not sure how you run your games but generally I don't think it is the best idea to start the players in the middle of the adventure and give them an exposition dump of what they did that led up to the position they are in now, if the players went through a heist together and were betrayed by the big bad which leads to them being caught I wouldn't leave this to an exposition dump, I would actually have them play through this.
Sure when it comes to the individual backstories of the players you don't need to play through this, but for the major plot hook that sets the adventure going this kind of needs to be given a bit larger spotlight.
5th part of the film, party on their own somewhat knowing the rules of the game now
6th part The party does the thing.
Travel time hand waved with cut scenes, 1 minute fight takes 20 minutes. Normal D&D thing.
Depends on the game and the location of the adventure, if they are just traveling from one village to another close by in a relatively peaceful area travel time can be handwaved as the journey is pretty trivial and uneventful, but escaping from a high security prison and surviving the harsh climate of the Dale? Traveling to the Underdark and back? Probably not the sort of things that should be trivialized, and if you are going to trivialize these things for the sake of the movie runtime do you need to include them at all? Personally I think these scenes were kind of unnecessary for how much they added, feels like they were just there so they could fill the movie with references to locations that resonate with the players, they could have easily put the macguffin helmet somewhere else.
1- I'm still really unclear on how going through the gelatinous cube meant they were able to get beneath the arena? Seemed super hand-wavy and as a novelist it's bothering me no end. Any ideas on how that worked?
2- Marlamin was a halfling right? They didn't seem keen on distinguishing that beyond the sight gag of the height difference and the novelty of who was in the role. I only question gnome v. halfling because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
3- What was the thing Simon had on his hip that he used for magic? A spellcasting focus? A component "pouch"?
1- I'm still really unclear on how going through the gelatinous cube meant they were able to get beneath the arena? Seemed super hand-wavy and as a novelist it's bothering me no end. Any ideas on how that worked?
2- Marlamin was a halfling right? They didn't seem keen on distinguishing that beyond the sight gag of the height difference and the novelty of who was in the role. I only question gnome v. halfling because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
3- What was the thing Simon had on his hip that he used for magic? A spellcasting focus? A component "pouch"?
1) The arena worked by sending the (10x10) pillars under the ground periodically. That particular pillar had a GC as its base, so willingly getting themselves engulfed sent them below, and changing shape to something Tiny enabled Doric to slip out.
2) Halfling according to the wiki.
3) Per the wiki that's just his component pouch, it was a mechanical dispenser to look better than him digging into a nondescript bag. All the weird stuff that happened whenever he used it was just due to his Wild Magic going, well, wild.
1- I'm still really unclear on how going through the gelatinous cube meant they were able to get beneath the arena? Seemed super hand-wavy and as a novelist it's bothering me no end. Any ideas on how that worked?
2- Marlamin was a halfling right? They didn't seem keen on distinguishing that beyond the sight gag of the height difference and the novelty of who was in the role. I only question gnome v. halfling because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
3- What was the thing Simon had on his hip that he used for magic? A spellcasting focus? A component "pouch"?
1) The arena worked by sending the (10x10) pillars under the ground periodically. That particular pillar had a GC as its base, so willingly getting themselves engulfed sent them below, and changing shape to something Tiny enabled Doric to slip out.
2) Halfling according to the wiki.
3) Per the wiki that's just his component pouch, it was a mechanical dispenser to look better than him digging into a nondescript bag. All the weird stuff that happened whenever he used it was just due to his Wild Magic going, well, wild.
Oh that all makes so much sense now that you say it. Thank you!
I gave it a 7/10. It did have some pacing issues especially toward the beginning.
And it felt that they went a little too “it’s your turn to shine” as they introduced each character. They stand by while Doric does her thing when they first meet her. They stand around as Xenk does his thing when the Tay assassins show up, they stand by while Simon does all his stuff at the theater and reverse gravity.
Some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. Didn’t care for Hugh Grants dialogue much.
I did find it funny Simon claiming magic doesn’t solve all problems when that is a common theme in “casters are OP” comments on these forums. And the characters in the cage toward the end of the maze/arena scene looked like the characters from the 80’s D&D cartoon.
I also felt some of the scenes were a little too “side questy” and could have been more focused for movie purposes. But it does fit the whole D&D vibe.
Very enjoyable DnD big screen adaptation imo. Not my favorite movie ever, and certainly no LotR, but as a fan of the game I thought it was a nice representation of the typical/tropey vibe. When I heard a DnD movie was coming I expected much less.
Hopefully the community supports the film. I am not a movie person at all but would like for this to be successful to give the game more exposure in the mainstream and to give me another reason to go to a theater in the next couple of years.
I'd also love to see them come out now with a fun series on one of the streaming services. I think that would lend itself to the genre even better. Legend of Vox Machina is ok, but something without the Critical Role expectation for crude, modern humor ( I have zero issue with crude humor, I just find it takes me out of the high fantasy feel ) which kind of spoils it for me.
Keep seeing positive reviews for this movie and I have to wonder if I watched the same movie? As much as I was looking forward to the movie I don't think I went in with high expectations, of course I was hoping it would be good but the current state of modern movies kept my expectations quite low. In the end I thought it was just a bad movie, badly written, poorly paced, there are things to enjoy about the movie sure but for the most part it just wasn't a good movie and pretty sure the only reason I enjoyed some parts of the movie is because I am a fan of Dungeons and Dragons and the Forgotten Realms setting, if it wasn't for this I really can't see this movie appealing outside of the D&D fanbase and even inside the D&D fanbase I can't see many people coming back for seconds.
In the end I am just curious of what everyone else thought, not knocking anyone who did enjoy the film as this is just my opinion but just curious what everyone else thinks? Am I alone in thinking the movie bad or does anyone else feel the same way?
I absolutely loved it, laughed until I nearly cried in several places. I thought the characters were great fun and the nods to character features and monsters were well implemented. The story might not have been the most creative one on the planet, but I think that's ok, it doesn't have to be. I thought it did a fantastic job of capturing the chaos that happens at a table, and the plans the group comes up with are just silly sort of plans you think of under stress. I understand that some of the jokes and references might not hit the mark if people aren't DnD fans, but I also think it is a fun Fantasy action movie on its own. It managed to be silly without being cringey and the acting was wonderful all around.
I saw it during an advanced screening and am eagerly looking for an excuse to go and see it again!
In what way? Just asking out of curiosity as I was looking out for things like this and honestly can't recall many, only one that comes to mind is the Paladin remarking that there is evil about just before those assassins show up which I can only assume is a nod to the Paladin's divine sense ability? That and the speak to dead spell. Other than that I can't recall many nods to character features and abilities in the movie? The Druid's wildshape has her turning into an Owlbear which is not possible in the rules as written as Owlbears are technically monstrosities and in the scene where she turns into a fly to spy on the vault she burns 7 uses of wildshape as she turns into several different creatures in the one encounter when rules as written you can only use it twice per short rest, sure it is how I wished wild shape worked and it makes it more fun to watch as a movie but not an accurate nod to the ability as it is written in the rules, also this was the only aspect of the druid they showed there were no hints of the other druid abilities such as the spellcasting and speaking with animals and whatnot, same for the other characters, apart from Chris Pine playing the lute there were no real nod to any other Bardic abilities, no Barbarian rage, I don't recall any Wild Magic surges apart from the change of gravity when they first meet up with the sorcerer again but not sure if that was supposed to be a wild magic surge or just him flubbing the spell?
Also I don't recall any nods to magic items that actually exist within the setting before the movie, all the magic items shown in the movie were created specifically for the movie, it would have been nice to see more references to items that existed before the movie such as bags of holding, wand of fireballs or the Deck of Many things or something like that, I don't even think the hither tither staff was based on an existing spell in D&D? I know there are many spells that allow some form of teleportation but the method of teleportation the staff uses does not reflect any of the spells I know of and seems more a reference to Portal than anything else
Also was there any lore about Red Wizard daggers and not being able to resurrect when killed by one? Or was it just a macguffin to explain why they could not resurrect Chris Pine's wife and why he wanted the tablet that allows resurrection that convenient ignores the red wizard's blade.
voted 8/10. A few pacing issues with lore dumps that could have been condensed/eliminated. It bothered me that there was never sign of any bard spells or druid spells. I get that wildshape is flashier but yeah. I get it's hard to make apparent but I wanted a few obvious wild magic surges. It was fun trying to identify the spells that did get cast, like green flame blade. I'm torn on the red dragon. Super campy and probably could have done without it but I'm gathering it's an actual known dragon from extant lore based on the IMDB trivia.
That arena would make a dope one-shot if you needed something last minute for a session when you needed to improvise if you were suddenly down a player and couldn't do what you had planned. I thought they did a good job of capturing the energy of the game table/party and all its ensuant chaos. I liked how they showed attunement even if they fudged the actual mechanics of it with him suddenly attuning in a split second after hours of failed attempts. But mechanics/rules don't really translate off the table so I get they were playing loose with the mechanics.
Edit: A few hours later after stewing more, I'm still at 8/10 but I do wish they'd gone harder on Doric's tiefling-ness. Most of the movie I totally forgot she was a tiefling and not an elf/half-elf/variant human. Her horns just looked like an antlered head piece like Keyleth in VM. Her tail was never visible and only came into play once in a forgettable moment (legit I have no idea what the context was hours after seeing the movie). They could have at least given her cooler horns. Or made her skin turquoise or something. Great character but could have been better visually since being a Tiefling was her big thing about why she doesn't trust humans.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
The Dragon is from Out of the Abyss if you have played that module
Themberchaud, basically he lives in the Duergar city of Gracklstugh and keeps the forges lit with his breath, the reason he is so fat is because he has grown complacent since the Duergar feed him and donate treasures to his horde and he does not need to hunt for himself.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Themberchaud
His appearance in the film is accurate to the lore but what he is doing outside of Gracklstugh is not really explained, from the information in the module it is sort of implied he is stuck in Gracklstugh and while he holds a position of honor within the city and the Duergar play to his ego I don't think they would willingly let him leave, in fact it is implied that he is not the first red Dragon to hold his position and the Duergar kill them off before they get too powerful and hard to control.
I loved it, it didn't try to be some high fantasy LOTR or the politics in GoT. It tried to be monty python while trying not to break the fourth wall. The fast travel from location to location is what I found funny enough since some groups run that kind of game. Their version of a Dragon is a creature that eats and sleeps so it makes sense to have a pile of bones and a fat figure dragon instead of a fit one. Also the pop culture reference to avengers. All in all, the movie seemed to depict a one shot session of a group of friends and had the budget to make it a movie
I have not played that one. Relatively new to the game. I've played LMoP and we're working through ToD right now.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
My party loved it 10/10 I think the main issue is if you look at it as a movie about a D&D adventure then yeah I can see how you wouldn't like it, but it's a movie set in the world of D&D these aren't player characters going through a campaign. It's a heist movie set in a fantasy world.
The Red Wizard blades stopping healing/resurrection magic makes sense when you consider they are Necromancers and twist the soul, One of my players thought the shadowy figure Sofina was talking to could have been a version of Veccna.
How you view Dungeons and Dragons will affect how you view the movie.
I homebrew everything and almost never follow the rules as written so my players loved it, but I can see if someone plays all the adventures and knows all this lore how they could nitpick this movie apart
Alright, bit of a background first, for me the first D&D film, or at least the film that got me into D&D was an animated film called Wizards it came out in 1978 and was the #1 film of that year until Star Wars came out. Yes I saw it in the theater as a kid, I'm that old. So when seeing a Fantasy film I compare them all to that film, can't help it.
So where on my scale of Films related to D&D does the 2023 D&D film fall for me?
Fantasy Films that feel like a D&D adventure Better than 2023 D&D
Fantasy Films that feel like a D&D adventure that are worse than 2023 D&D (note some of these films are still personal favorites)
Films that are worse than everything I've listed and should be forgotten, as they are so bad they can't even make cult status.
on to your list of complains:
Travel time hand waved with cut scenes, 1 minute fight takes 20 minutes. Normal D&D thing.
I don't really mind if the movie was going for a sillier more lighthearted tone, I mean if you watch the trailer you kind of expect that is what it is going to be and to be honest most of the games I have played in the party gets up to some pretty weird shit and to be honest this isn't my problem with the movie, however even if you are going for a sillier tone it still kind of needs to be grounded within the universe.
Highly recommend Out of the Abyss, has to be my favourite of the official published modules
Yeah I get that it was going for more of a heist movie vibe set within the D&D universe, I mean Waterdeep: Dragon Heist is kind of that sort of thing (though not really as it is more of a treasure hunt with multiple factions racing to get the prize) and Keys of the Golden Vault is very much more so that sort of thing, there are definitely a lot of ways they could have made it work however the way they did it just did not work for me, and I promise this is not just me nitpicking the lore and rules lawyering, even if I knew nothing about D&D and the Forgotten Realms the movie has a lot of major issues. I think if they changed some elements, trimmed the fat in parts and devoted more time to relevant scenes and themes they could have had a much better movie.
As for the Red Wizard's blades I don't have any problem with the explanation they give about it preventing resurrection, I was just curious if this was actually a part of the lore as I don't remember anything about it? In the lore there are plenty of things that can cause resurrection spells to fail especially if the body has been defiled in some way so I don't really have an issue with this as it can easily be handwaved that the Red Wizard blades have some sort of necrotic property, it is really more out of curiosity I ask here. Also would have liked to see them use more established items as a nod to the game rather than just make up completely new items for the film but this is really more a nitpick of me being a fan rather than a nitpick of whether or not it is a good movie.
Well it is a little more than just Edgin's backstory but rather the hook for the entire adventure, feels like they tried to cram a lot in here when it probably needed to be fleshed out more as a part of the movie rather than the thing that happened before the movie began, if this was part 2 in a movie series and this was just him recapping what happened in the previous movie it might have worked but there was no previous movie.
Not sure how you run your games but generally I don't think it is the best idea to start the players in the middle of the adventure and give them an exposition dump of what they did that led up to the position they are in now, if the players went through a heist together and were betrayed by the big bad which leads to them being caught I wouldn't leave this to an exposition dump, I would actually have them play through this.
Sure when it comes to the individual backstories of the players you don't need to play through this, but for the major plot hook that sets the adventure going this kind of needs to be given a bit larger spotlight.
Because everyone loves a DMPC right?
Depends on the game and the location of the adventure, if they are just traveling from one village to another close by in a relatively peaceful area travel time can be handwaved as the journey is pretty trivial and uneventful, but escaping from a high security prison and surviving the harsh climate of the Dale? Traveling to the Underdark and back? Probably not the sort of things that should be trivialized, and if you are going to trivialize these things for the sake of the movie runtime do you need to include them at all? Personally I think these scenes were kind of unnecessary for how much they added, feels like they were just there so they could fill the movie with references to locations that resonate with the players, they could have easily put the macguffin helmet somewhere else.
I don't think they're a level 5 party but I definitely agree with the DMPC Paladin clearly being higher than they are.
A couple of questions about events in the film:
1- I'm still really unclear on how going through the gelatinous cube meant they were able to get beneath the arena? Seemed super hand-wavy and as a novelist it's bothering me no end. Any ideas on how that worked?
2- Marlamin was a halfling right? They didn't seem keen on distinguishing that beyond the sight gag of the height difference and the novelty of who was in the role. I only question gnome v. halfling because of how half-baked Doric's Tiefling look was.
3- What was the thing Simon had on his hip that he used for magic? A spellcasting focus? A component "pouch"?
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
1) The arena worked by sending the (10x10) pillars under the ground periodically. That particular pillar had a GC as its base, so willingly getting themselves engulfed sent them below, and changing shape to something Tiny enabled Doric to slip out.
2) Halfling according to the wiki.
3) Per the wiki that's just his component pouch, it was a mechanical dispenser to look better than him digging into a nondescript bag. All the weird stuff that happened whenever he used it was just due to his Wild Magic going, well, wild.
Oh that all makes so much sense now that you say it. Thank you!
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
I gave it a 7/10. It did have some pacing issues especially toward the beginning.
And it felt that they went a little too “it’s your turn to shine” as they introduced each character. They stand by while Doric does her thing when they first meet her. They stand around as Xenk does his thing when the Tay assassins show up, they stand by while Simon does all his stuff at the theater and reverse gravity.
Some of the dialogue was a bit clunky. Didn’t care for Hugh Grants dialogue much.
I did find it funny Simon claiming magic doesn’t solve all problems when that is a common theme in “casters are OP” comments on these forums. And the characters in the cage toward the end of the maze/arena scene looked like the characters from the 80’s D&D cartoon.
I also felt some of the scenes were a little too “side questy” and could have been more focused for movie purposes. But it does fit the whole D&D vibe.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think I'll watch it someday, probably after the movie makes it to the small screen.
Very enjoyable DnD big screen adaptation imo. Not my favorite movie ever, and certainly no LotR, but as a fan of the game I thought it was a nice representation of the typical/tropey vibe. When I heard a DnD movie was coming I expected much less.
Hopefully the community supports the film. I am not a movie person at all but would like for this to be successful to give the game more exposure in the mainstream and to give me another reason to go to a theater in the next couple of years.
I'd also love to see them come out now with a fun series on one of the streaming services. I think that would lend itself to the genre even better. Legend of Vox Machina is ok, but something without the Critical Role expectation for crude, modern humor ( I have zero issue with crude humor, I just find it takes me out of the high fantasy feel ) which kind of spoils it for me.
Honor Among Thieves is a fun movie imo!