Honor Among Thieves wasn't a good movie. It was a Dungeons and Dragons movie that managed to not be awful, which, in a way, IS an accomplishment.
It came and it went, and the best thing people said about it was "it wasn't as bad as I expected." Like other, wildly more successful movies (Avatar), it left virtually no cultural footprint: no really intriguing characters, no quoted dialogue, no memorable set pieces, just... content.
D&D deserves better than that. With more than fifty years of history: classic modules and campaign settings, brilliant artwork, and beloved characters, they can't produce ANYTHING that will linger longer than a fart on the wind?
Give me Keep on The Borderlands, The Tomb of Horrors, The Temple of Elemental Evil, Dragons of Despair, Castle Ravenloft, or Freedom (1st Dark Sun module). Give me a poster by Jeff Easley and characters designed by Larry Elmore. Give me the feel of Ral Partha pewter minis, Chessex dice, cheap mechanical pencils, and scratch paper. Give me pizza, soda pop, and gummy worms. And last, give me either the DM, or the DM's girlfriend playing the "hot" chick.
In short, give me authentic Dungeons and Dragons made by people who understand what that means, or don't give me anything at all.
Imho: I am with you from Keep on the Borderlands to Larry Elmore. That is the aura that old school DnD fantasy want. Modern. Critical Role type fans want basically a soap dressed up in fantasy clothes. Which has its place, somewhere, but not in a DnD adaption that transports what really made the game special.
I disagree from minis to gummy worms, because I think that does translate to the screen if you want a good and engaging movie. No minis and gummy worms in the old Drizzt books or the Dragonlance novels. That is what should be the template for a movie imho, the setting rather then the actual dice game. Except of course where the mechanics determine setting tropes, like spell slots, but I think you know what I mean.
Oh and stay as far away from me as possible with the DM's gf playing the "hot" chick. I have never played with a group where that didn't end in disaster along the way.
Btw for all the things I said I dont want in a DnD movie there is a genre where that fits, too. If you have seen "The Gamers", you know. If you haven't: watch it. It' great entertainment. Should be on YouTube.
Re-reading, I may not have made it clear I'm looking for the feel of certain things, not a 1-to-1 representation. Ral Partha and Chessex are a feeling in old school D&D just as much as the old graph maps and the black line drawings (man, I miss those).
How does that (and gummy worms) translate to the screen without direct representation? I don't know exactly, but then again, I'm not being paid millions of dollars for my vision. I probably stay away from any "this is all a game" framing device, but I might use screen transitions, character/monster intro splashes, background/design elements, certain textures, cinematography, framing, and lighting, things of that nature.
And I know DM's girlfriend is like asking Yoko Ono to permanently join the Beatles, but you takes the good with the bad I say. There's inherent tension and drama in that kind of setup, which you want. Too many D&D parties are "met in a tavern, have no real backstory, are real life friends who only argue meta stuff, just hanging out, killing monsters, and taking their stuff."
And besides, you want the hot chick crazy, (crazy, not girl boss) because crazy hot is the best kind of hot, or we wouldn't keep letting them get away with it. (Bang on me for that if you want, but many generations of human history attest to this biological fact.)
And I will make a bit of pushback on one thing. The game bit absolutely is a part of RA Salvatore's stories. It may not be called out as such, but you know exactly which magic items, spells, monsters, etc he's writing about. They're not table minis, no, but they are tabletop mechanics clear as day (which I think is actually part of why those books are so popular because they FEEL like D&D).
Likewise, the original Dragonlance books weren't really even "novels" in the beginning, they were an adaptation/made in conjunction with the modules being released alongside, so the "dice" bit of the game is all over them too.
Anyway, love your take and differ only on matters of opinion.
I didn't find the movie grotesque, but it wasn't D&D. It was basically a buddy cop movie when none of the main cast have any chemistry, none of the jokes land, and the diversity the Forgotten Realms settings allows was squandered. I'll hand it to Hugh Grant though, for 90% of the movie he was clearly digging his role. Him and whoever did the Paladin. There should be an award for such roles, call it "The Shirley", because that performance was worthy of Leslie Nielsen.
This goes back to an article the other day about setting expectations and then EXPECTATIONS. The concept a D&D movie could be watchable, at all, means this exceeded most expectations; it couldn't help but stumble over the approval bar. But it totally failed the "look and feel" expectation bar. It didn't feel like D&D.
Out of 50 years this is the best they could do? I was an avid TSR book reader way, way back when. You'd think if they were going to use Forgotten Realms as the setting they'd pull out their big guns to launch a franchise. We're talking Drizzt, Elminister, and other world shakers.
That said, it surprises me a company was willing to fork out that much money on a movie like this. They certainly didn't get what they paid for.
The problem is, Hollywood doesn't respect the content. They think that they can do better despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Worse, the stewards of the content themselves (WoTC) don't respect it either.
It's why every attempted movie has been Hollywood schlock using new scripts and "ideas" rather than adapting any one of hundreds of possibilities from the novels, modules, campaign settings, and varied characters.
Hollywood has been falling all over themselves to find the next Fantasy property after LOTR, AGOT, and Harry Potter, yet they won't touch Dragons of Autumn Twilight, The Crystal Shard, The Verdant Passage, I Strahd, Gord the Rogue, and The Legend of Huma. They won't even consider the lower-hanging fruit of highly successful video games: Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, Neverwinter Nights, The Curse of Strahd, Eye of the Beholder, or Pool of Radiance.
It's disdain for the source material and unchecked egoism to attempt anything other than such an adaptation.
Who cares if they "trust them"? Amazon trusted the idiots behind Rings of Power and a billion dollars later, what do they have to show for it but the Temu version of a day-time soap opera wearing the skinsuit of Middle Earth.
Trust in Hollywood must mean something different than the real world. I wouldn't pay this pair of nitwits to go spend $150m of my dollars if the first thing out of their mouth is a concept that undermines the goodness (realistic or not) of the entire franchise. And if these choads decide to start our alienating fans, they have a whole more few years of Rachel Zeigler-ing themselves and whatever might come from their work. In the meantime, handing over the reins of rebooting to idiots who want to "modern day" The Federation, likely showing Starfleet and the Federation involved in some corrupt and/or evil "colonizer" behavior or other slimy deeds.
That's not Star Trek, and that's why they aren't hoping to capture the fans. Because, what we have here, is another betrayal of the Star Trek concept and franchise that still hasn't recovered from Klutz-man. And fans won't turn out for that.
Honor Among Thieves wasn't a good movie. It was a Dungeons and Dragons movie that managed to not be awful, which, in a way, IS an accomplishment.
It came and it went, and the best thing people said about it was "it wasn't as bad as I expected." Like other, wildly more successful movies (Avatar), it left virtually no cultural footprint: no really intriguing characters, no quoted dialogue, no memorable set pieces, just... content.
D&D deserves better than that. With more than fifty years of history: classic modules and campaign settings, brilliant artwork, and beloved characters, they can't produce ANYTHING that will linger longer than a fart on the wind?
Give me Keep on The Borderlands, The Tomb of Horrors, The Temple of Elemental Evil, Dragons of Despair, Castle Ravenloft, or Freedom (1st Dark Sun module). Give me a poster by Jeff Easley and characters designed by Larry Elmore. Give me the feel of Ral Partha pewter minis, Chessex dice, cheap mechanical pencils, and scratch paper. Give me pizza, soda pop, and gummy worms. And last, give me either the DM, or the DM's girlfriend playing the "hot" chick.
In short, give me authentic Dungeons and Dragons made by people who understand what that means, or don't give me anything at all.
Imho: I am with you from Keep on the Borderlands to Larry Elmore. That is the aura that old school DnD fantasy want. Modern. Critical Role type fans want basically a soap dressed up in fantasy clothes. Which has its place, somewhere, but not in a DnD adaption that transports what really made the game special.
I disagree from minis to gummy worms, because I think that does translate to the screen if you want a good and engaging movie. No minis and gummy worms in the old Drizzt books or the Dragonlance novels. That is what should be the template for a movie imho, the setting rather then the actual dice game. Except of course where the mechanics determine setting tropes, like spell slots, but I think you know what I mean.
Oh and stay as far away from me as possible with the DM's gf playing the "hot" chick. I have never played with a group where that didn't end in disaster along the way.
Btw for all the things I said I dont want in a DnD movie there is a genre where that fits, too. If you have seen "The Gamers", you know. If you haven't: watch it. It' great entertainment. Should be on YouTube.
Ha! Love the counterpoints.
Re-reading, I may not have made it clear I'm looking for the feel of certain things, not a 1-to-1 representation. Ral Partha and Chessex are a feeling in old school D&D just as much as the old graph maps and the black line drawings (man, I miss those).
How does that (and gummy worms) translate to the screen without direct representation? I don't know exactly, but then again, I'm not being paid millions of dollars for my vision. I probably stay away from any "this is all a game" framing device, but I might use screen transitions, character/monster intro splashes, background/design elements, certain textures, cinematography, framing, and lighting, things of that nature.
And I know DM's girlfriend is like asking Yoko Ono to permanently join the Beatles, but you takes the good with the bad I say. There's inherent tension and drama in that kind of setup, which you want. Too many D&D parties are "met in a tavern, have no real backstory, are real life friends who only argue meta stuff, just hanging out, killing monsters, and taking their stuff."
And besides, you want the hot chick crazy, (crazy, not girl boss) because crazy hot is the best kind of hot, or we wouldn't keep letting them get away with it. (Bang on me for that if you want, but many generations of human history attest to this biological fact.)
And I will make a bit of pushback on one thing. The game bit absolutely is a part of RA Salvatore's stories. It may not be called out as such, but you know exactly which magic items, spells, monsters, etc he's writing about. They're not table minis, no, but they are tabletop mechanics clear as day (which I think is actually part of why those books are so popular because they FEEL like D&D).
Likewise, the original Dragonlance books weren't really even "novels" in the beginning, they were an adaptation/made in conjunction with the modules being released alongside, so the "dice" bit of the game is all over them too.
Anyway, love your take and differ only on matters of opinion.
I didn't find the movie grotesque, but it wasn't D&D. It was basically a buddy cop movie when none of the main cast have any chemistry, none of the jokes land, and the diversity the Forgotten Realms settings allows was squandered. I'll hand it to Hugh Grant though, for 90% of the movie he was clearly digging his role. Him and whoever did the Paladin. There should be an award for such roles, call it "The Shirley", because that performance was worthy of Leslie Nielsen.
This goes back to an article the other day about setting expectations and then EXPECTATIONS. The concept a D&D movie could be watchable, at all, means this exceeded most expectations; it couldn't help but stumble over the approval bar. But it totally failed the "look and feel" expectation bar. It didn't feel like D&D.
Out of 50 years this is the best they could do? I was an avid TSR book reader way, way back when. You'd think if they were going to use Forgotten Realms as the setting they'd pull out their big guns to launch a franchise. We're talking Drizzt, Elminister, and other world shakers.
That said, it surprises me a company was willing to fork out that much money on a movie like this. They certainly didn't get what they paid for.
The problem is, Hollywood doesn't respect the content. They think that they can do better despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Worse, the stewards of the content themselves (WoTC) don't respect it either.
It's why every attempted movie has been Hollywood schlock using new scripts and "ideas" rather than adapting any one of hundreds of possibilities from the novels, modules, campaign settings, and varied characters.
Hollywood has been falling all over themselves to find the next Fantasy property after LOTR, AGOT, and Harry Potter, yet they won't touch Dragons of Autumn Twilight, The Crystal Shard, The Verdant Passage, I Strahd, Gord the Rogue, and The Legend of Huma. They won't even consider the lower-hanging fruit of highly successful video games: Baldur's Gate, Planescape Torment, Neverwinter Nights, The Curse of Strahd, Eye of the Beholder, or Pool of Radiance.
It's disdain for the source material and unchecked egoism to attempt anything other than such an adaptation.
The whole "because Star Trek is an old institution" angle, sounds like a setup for the beginning of deconstructionist subversion.
We must subvert expectations even harder--it's the last thing they'll expect!
Who cares if they "trust them"? Amazon trusted the idiots behind Rings of Power and a billion dollars later, what do they have to show for it but the Temu version of a day-time soap opera wearing the skinsuit of Middle Earth.
Trust in Hollywood must mean something different than the real world. I wouldn't pay this pair of nitwits to go spend $150m of my dollars if the first thing out of their mouth is a concept that undermines the goodness (realistic or not) of the entire franchise. And if these choads decide to start our alienating fans, they have a whole more few years of Rachel Zeigler-ing themselves and whatever might come from their work. In the meantime, handing over the reins of rebooting to idiots who want to "modern day" The Federation, likely showing Starfleet and the Federation involved in some corrupt and/or evil "colonizer" behavior or other slimy deeds.
That's not Star Trek, and that's why they aren't hoping to capture the fans. Because, what we have here, is another betrayal of the Star Trek concept and franchise that still hasn't recovered from Klutz-man. And fans won't turn out for that.