Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.arts.movies.past-films
Subject: Re: The new Dungeons & Dragons series is canceled by Paramount+
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:20:32 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v4carh$1mc14$8@dont-email.me>
References: <v3furo$3cff2$1@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki> <b15p5jli5ininl4sm39qo90up5eudincqu@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 16:20:34 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9e781b59a1023c12833e514639652052";
	logging-data="1781796"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DuIuFu3F8Mkxpp8+49VKBytSWsTsxx9M="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OOSurP1rfWChyXqT9N239bmH6pc=
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.12N (x86 32bit)
Bytes: 2998

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!