Re: The new Dungeons & Dragons series is canceled by Paramount+

spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:

Well, no surprise here after the lackluster response to the D&D movie.

Really? I thought it did respectfully well, at least better than previous
attempts and enough to discuss another movie.

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again:
>
Dungeons & Dragons is not an exciting license on which to base a
television or movie franchise. The GAME is exciting. The various IPs
-Ravenloft, Baldurs Gate, Drizzt DuOrden, Spelljammer- are all great.
But D&D is a lousy license that alone can't carry a movie. A D&D movie
(or TV show) without those associated worlds is... well, it's just
dull fantasy adventure with some license-specific monsters. Nobody is
going to go to see the D&D movie /because/ the wizard uses "Bigby's
Grasping Hand" or so they can see a rust monster. They'd go to see a
D&D movie because they want to see Raistlin or Elminster or Drizzt.
>
But -for whatever reason- we never get movies that use those
intellectual properties. Whether its because Hollywood doesn't want to
be bound to somebody elses world-building, or because Hasbro isn't
licensing anything but the D&D branding, I don't know.
>
And, honestly, I'm not even sure that /with/ the characters and
settings associated with D&D you'd get a good movie. What makes for a
good game setting doesn't necessarily translate into a good cinematic
experience. The D&D world is weird; a melange of ideas that is
designed for DMs to pick-and-choose to make their own exciting
adventures. Its character classes are unrealistic, designed for game
balance (and, at least in the older editions, for team-building) over
realism. It has little structure and coherence. It's fun for a game.
It's not really great for narrative.
>
I don't think it's surprising that D&D and Hollywood have never really
come out with a hit product based on the brand. It is surprising that
it took Hollywood to realize it.

How would do it, if you had to?

--
Let's go Brandon!