# Forum > Discussion > Media Discussions > Movies Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

## Palanan

And then there's this:






Looks like high-budget goofy, silly fun.

Also accurately depicts bards in most campaigns.

----------


## Dire_Flumph

I think I saw more D&D references in this one trailer than the last 3 movies combined.

It's got an owlbear.  I'm in.

----------


## Palanan

Looks like a grand tour of classic monsters, actually.  

*Spoiler*
Show

Owlbear, displacer beast, gelatinous cube, mimic, and of course several dragons.  

And whatever the giant red spider was.

----------


## Millstone85

I will echo the general sentiment of YouTube, which is surprise at the fact that the movie might not suck after all.

----------


## DigoDragon

As long as the movie doesn't try to take itself seriously, this could be pretty entertaining. I'll give it a chance.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

So despite taking place in ostensible fantasy setting it's full of ridiculous wisecracking with a classic rock soundtrack and a general sense of a group of people who have an incredibly bad plan with little foresight doing very stupid things and then solving problems they caused.

Sounds like a fair slice of actual D&D games, all right. I'm game.

----------


## JNAProductions

> So despite taking place in ostensible fantasy setting it's full of ridiculous wisecracking with a classic rock soundtrack and a general sense of a group of people who have an incredibly bad plan with little foresight doing very stupid things and then solving problems they caused.
> 
> Sounds like a fair slice of actual D&D games, all right. I'm game.


When you put it that way, Im suddenly interested!

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *DigoDragon*
> _As long as the movie doesn't try to take itself seriously...._


Pretty sure there's close to zero chance of that.     :Small Tongue:

----------


## Saelethil

I had pretty low expectations for this but it looks like it could actually be a lot of fun.
Fingers crossed

----------


## Corvus

Not going to lie, that looks like good dumb fun and I'm in for it.

The druid shapeshifting into an owlbear is what sold it.

It's giving off fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy vibes.

----------


## Millstone85

> The druid shapeshifting into an owlbear is what sold it.


Let's take a moment for all the poor 5th Edition DMs who will have to deal with "But in the movie the druid could do that!"  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Let's take a moment for all the poor 5th Edition DMs who will have to deal with "But in the movie the druid could do that!"


"And in the movie it looks like Michelle Rodriguez batters people around while her hands are bound, but I'm not letting you get weapon proficiencies in 'manacles' either."

----------


## Jervis

The owlbear druid better be accompanied by a monstrosity Druid subclass or something. If it isnt im gonna hear people asking if their moon Druid can turn into one for a solid year. Alternatively maybe this movie is running off 5.5 mechanics, in which case Druid buff question mark?

Also were those the Red Wizards of Thay?

----------


## dancrilis

Well a trailer is not meant to actively put you off watching the movie - so mission accomplished.

My hopes are still pretty low - going after the 'greatest evil the world has ever known' sounds like a lot for a single movie unless the evil doesn't live up to the hype (or the world has been lacking in evil up to now).

----------


## Mechalich

The trailer gives off the general vibe that this movie isn't taking itself too seriously, which is absolutely essential, so that's good. Also Chris Pine and Michelle Rodriguez are about as good as you can ask for when it comes to 'quality fantasy action' which suggests that the fights will be good, as does the owlbear bit. An action comedy romp with some fun and inventive fight sequences is to me exactly what you should try to do for a D&D film, so it definitely appears that they tried to do this the right way. It remains to be seen whether the execution will be there.

----------


## Zevox

> It's giving off fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy vibes.


That was my takeaway as well, which is considerably better than I was expecting. This has just gone from something I have no interest in or expectations will be even decent to something I might just actually see. I'm pleasantly surprised.

----------


## Ralanr

> The owlbear druid better be accompanied by a monstrosity Druid subclass or something. If it isnt im gonna hear people asking if their moon Druid can turn into one for a solid year. Alternatively maybe this movie is running off 5.5 mechanics, in which case Druid buff question mark?
> 
> Also were those the Red Wizards of Thay?


Or they just went Rule of Cool since, by Raw, wait...

_Frantically reads wild shape._

Huh...either I'm blind, or you can wild shape from one form to another without reverting to your base form. Neat. 

Just rule the bear transformation as Owl Bear.

----------


## Jervis

> Or they just went Rule of Cool since, by Raw, wait...
> 
> _Frantically reads wild shape._
> 
> Huh...either I'm blind, or you can wild shape from one form to another without reverting to your base form. Neat. 
> 
> Just rule the bear transformation as Owl Bear.


I was so bothered by it that I made a subclass in the homebrew thread. Curse you hyper fixation!

----------


## GentlemanVoodoo

> My hopes are still pretty low.


Same. Looks just meh and trying to hard to copy Guardians and Thor movie formula of the big action comedy (which is getting old at this point). Perhaps next trailer might do more with it but as of now will pass on it.

----------


## Grey Watcher

> Well a trailer is not meant to actively put you off watching the movie - so mission accomplished.
> 
> My hopes are still pretty low - going after the 'greatest evil the world has ever known' sounds like a lot for a single movie unless the evil doesn't live up to the hype (or the world has been lacking in evil up to now).


Yeah, for me I just get this bad vibe off of it.  Like I know trailers in general and action movie trailers in particular are pretty frenetic in the editing, but I can't shake the feeling that it's so full of very short cuts of action heavy scenes because anything longer or lower key just isn't good enough to show.  The two dialogue scenes we get are... ok?

I dunno, it really is more of a vibe than anything else.  Maybe I've just been disappointed too often.

----------


## chainer1216

When this was first announced I assumed it wouldn't make it through production, and if it did it'd be another terrible movie.

But now that there's a trailer I'm hesitantly looking forward to it.

If it's just Guardians Of The Galaxy but D&D I'll consider it a win because GotG was just D&D but space.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> a group of people who have an incredibly bad plan with little foresight doing very stupid things and then solving problems they caused.  Sounds like a fair slice of actual D&D games, all right. I'm game.


 It does indeed.  The trailer opening with Led Zepplin was OK by me. 



> Not going to lie, that looks like good dumb fun and I'm in for it.
> The druid shapeshifting into an owlbear is what sold it.
> It's giving off fantasy Guardians of the Galaxy vibes.


 Know your audience (and I am not in the demographic) and tell them a fun story. Profit.  I will go for sure. Hope I can talk my wife into joining me. 



> Let's take a moment for all the poor 5th Edition DMs who will have to deal with "But in the movie the druid could do that!"


 "This isn't a movie"  :Small Wink:

----------


## EggKookoo

The closing credits better be ByTor and the Snow Dog or there'll be Unrest in the Forest!

----------


## Giggling Ghast

I have a feeling Chris Pine is gonna carry the movie cast-wise.

Anyone notice the chonky dragon?

----------


## Millstone85

> Anyone notice the chonky dragon?


I have seen comments that it might be Themberchaud from _Out of the Abyss_.

----------


## J-H

Edwin's line from Baldur's Gate II about low expectations comes to mind.
Still, it looks kind of fun, and has a bunch of D&D monsters in it.  I think someone's at least read the source material.

The overall plot, as far as I can tell, matches a fairly typical D&D campaign structure.
-Party tries to get rich.
-Party accidentally releases BBEG Evil in a Box that may Destroy The World.
-Party has to go get richer and level up to face BBEG.  Party engages in bad plans along the way, manages to survive and get loot and level up.
-Party goes and kills BBEG using newfound abilities, teamwork, and magical loot.
-Party is rewarded with gold and status, and can resolve personal goals.

I see a bard, a barbarian (or fighter, but probably barbarian), a druid, a wizard or sorc, and I'm not sure what class the other guy is.

----------


## BRC

> Edwin's line from Baldur's Gate II about low expectations comes to mind.
> Still, it looks kind of fun, and has a bunch of D&D monsters in it.  I think someone's at least read the source material.
> 
> The overall plot, as far as I can tell, matches a fairly typical D&D campaign structure.
> -Party tries to get rich.
> -Party accidentally releases BBEG Evil in a Box that may Destroy The World.
> -Party has to go get richer and level up to face BBEG.  Party engages in bad plans along the way, manages to survive and get loot and level up.
> -Party goes and kills BBEG using newfound abilities, teamwork, and magical loot.
> -Party is rewarded with gold and status, and can resolve personal goals.
> ...


Either Fighter or Paladin, I get Paladin vibes from him?

If this is a fantasy action heist romp with a few sprinkles of fan service, it will probably be fun but forgettable.

----------


## DigoDragon

> I have a feeling Chris Pine is gonna carry the movie cast-wise.


Maybe true, but I don't mind Michelle being in this.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I see a bard, a barbarian (or fighter, but probably barbarian), a druid, a wizard or sorc, and I'm not sure what class the other guy is.


Bard, barb, druid, sorc, pally. The villain is a rogue. What are the odds that he's their former leader?

I said way back when it was first announced. To my mind a good D&D movie will revolve around the themes that players experience while playing the game. Teamwork, trust, growth, challenges, difficult decisions, humor, wonder, awe, fear, and turning failure into success. The trailer suggests that's what we'll get.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> If this is a fantasy action heist romp with a few sprinkles of fan service, it will probably be fun but forgettable.


 I can live with that. 



> Bard, barb, druid, sorc, pally. The villain is a rogue. What are the odds that he's their former leader?


 Decent odds on that. 



> To my mind a good D&D movie will revolve around the themes that players experience while playing the game. Teamwork, trust, growth, challenges, difficult decisions, humor, wonder, awe, fear, and turning failure into success. The trailer suggests that's what we'll get.


 The only problem is that so many trailers are so misleading ... but yes, I think that's what's on tap.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> Maybe true, but I don't mind Michelle being in this.


Chris Pine, as an actor, is exactly who you need in your cast when you need your film to be consistently funny and have some humor to smooth over bits while also being capable of drama and genuine pathos when it's called for.

Michelle Rodriguez, by contrast, is exactly who you need as an actress to tell you that it's okay not to take the film _too_ seriously, because she's so good at giving a turn that's not precisely comic but inhabits the world with a sort of a wink and a nod reminding you that even to the inhabitants of the world this is kind of stupid.

Beyond that, the trailer feels like it hits the notes you need to make things entertaining. You've got the party leader who is pretty good and also kind of an idiot, his hanger-on who doesn't _quite_ believe him but goes along with it anyhow, the muscle who recognizes he's an idiot but also thinks she might have fun with it, the guy on his own quest that happens to overlap with these idiots, and the wildcard who has her own reasons for going along but also isn't quite sure how to take anyone yet. Fit in Hugh Grant as a villain and yeah, this sounds like an entertaining cast.

Also, for anyone who missed it, we do have an official class list. I appreciate this class breakdown, too.

----------


## Whoracle

> Also, for anyone who missed it, we do have an official class list. I appreciate this class breakdown, too.


They even got the stupid naming from most groups right :D

"Forge the rogue" - OK, I see what you did there.
Simon the Sorcerer" - Oh gods, yes.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> They even got the stupid naming from most groups right :D


"You named your bard 'Edgin'?"
"See, it's a reference to -"
"I have been on the internet in the past year, I know what it means. And your paladin is... Xenk?"
"Fantasy names have weird letters in them!"
"That's not even a normal name without the X!"
"Sure it is, it's like Hank."
"But it's _not_ Hank."
"My sorcerer is named Simon, that's a normal name!"
"It's _your middle name_!"
"Coincidence."

----------


## Millstone85

> Bard, barb, druid, sorc, pally. The villain is a rogue. What are the odds that he's their former leader?


So much for "_We are a team of thieves_", right?

----------


## Wintermoot

As near as I can figure from the preview, 

The Bard, Barbarian and Sorcerer are the "team of thieves". The recruit the Paladin and the Druid after they get double crossed because they need them to right the wrong. 

Forge the Rogue and, at least, the bard have history. He may have been the entire team's ex-leader, or he just might be a former partner of the bard alone.

----------


## EggKookoo

> The only problem is that so many trailers are so misleading ... but yes, I think that's what's on tap.


My most fervent hope is that instead of a movie inspired by a game, we get the hypothetical movie that was so amazing it inspired D&D in the first place.




> So much for "_We are a team of thieves_", right?


Maybe they all multiclass rogue (thief)?

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> My most fervent hope is that instead of a movie inspired by a game, we get the hypothetical movie that was so amazing it inspired D&D in the first place.


My understanding is that such a hypothetical film runs into a significant problem with our current understanding of linear time.

----------


## EggKookoo

> My understanding is that such a hypothetical film runs into a significant problem with our current understanding of linear time.


Don't be a naysayer!

----------


## Millstone85

> My most fervent hope is that instead of a movie inspired by a game, we get the hypothetical movie that was so amazing it inspired D&D in the first place.


I hear that _Lightyear_, the real movie that is also a movie within the _Toy Story_ universe and allegedly was the reason Andy was so excited to get a Buzz toy, isn't doing so good though.




> Maybe they all multiclass rogue (thief)?


Now that would be funny!  :Small Smile:

----------


## EggKookoo

> I hear that _Lightyear_, the real movie that is also a movie within the _Toy Story_ universe and allegedly was the reason Andy was so excited to get a Buzz toy, isn't doing so good though.


I haven't seen it, but from what I hear it's just simply not a great movie (and it doesn't feel like a movie from the late 80s or early 90s). The concept behind it -- making the movie that would inspire something that IRL came earlier -- is perfectly sound.

What I really mean by it, though, is that the movie shouldn't rely on the existence of the game to be good, and should stand on its own. At the same time, we should be able to see the connections. As well, the movie should engage in some good deconstruction/reconstruction of the game, so that the game actually can take something from it. Imagine if the movie provided some fresh insights into tabletop roleplaying that the game picked up on and was the better for it. Wouldn't that be amazing?

----------


## Kareeah_Indaga

> When this was first announced I assumed it wouldn't make it through production, and if it did it'd be another terrible movie.
> 
> But now that there's a trailer I'm hesitantly looking forward to it.


Same; I first saw this as an add for a different clip and surprised myself by letting it run to the end instead of hitting the Skip button ASAP. Its not reached NWH levels of excitement for me but I can see myself taking a free weekend to go see it.

----------


## Millstone85

> I haven't seen it, but from what I hear it's just simply not a great movie (and it doesn't feel like a movie from the late 80s or early 90s). The concept behind it -- making the movie that would inspire something that IRL came earlier -- is perfectly sound.


Careful now, you might not like how deep the rabbit hole goes.




> What I really mean by it, though, is that the movie shouldn't rely on the existence of the game to be good, and should stand on its own. At the same time, we should be able to see the connections. As well, the movie should engage in some good deconstruction/reconstruction of the game, so that the game actually can take something from it. Imagine if the movie provided some fresh insights into tabletop roleplaying that the game picked up on and was the better for it. Wouldn't that be amazing?


You are quite right.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Giggling Ghast

Wait, the redhead is supposed to be a tiefling? Where's the red skin?  :Small Annoyed: 

(Im also partial to bubblegum pink tieflings.)




> So much for "_We are a team of thieves_", right?


I mean, aren't all adventurers basically glorified thieves ...?

----------


## Millstone85

> Wait, the redhead is supposed to be a tiefling? Where's the red skin?


No complaint from me. Modern tieflings look like full or half fiends, instead of humans with a bit of fiendish blood.

Maybe the director decided they wanted to go old-school _Planescape_. Or maybe they just didn't have the budget.




> I mean, aren't all adventurers basically glorified thieves ...?


Well, yes.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Maybe the director decided they wanted to go old-school _Planescape_. Or maybe they just didn't have the budget.


My initial thought was the eye FX weren't complete in time for the trailer.

----------


## Giggling Ghast

> Maybe the director decided they wanted to go old-school _Planescape_. Or maybe they just didn't have the budget.


They didnt have the budget for make-up? All they did to turn Zoe Saldana into Gamora was dye her hair and paint her green.

Anyway, booooooooooooooo. Thats already one strike against this film.

----------


## EggKookoo

> They didnt have the budget for red make-up? All they did to turn Zoe Saldana into Gamora was dye her hair and paint her green.


I was thinking more of a schedule thing. Eyes can be tricky if the actor can't tolerate contact lenses. They have to do the effect in post, and if it just hadn't gotten done in time for this (very early) trailer, well, sometimes they got to go with what they got. It can still be done in time for release.

----------


## J-H

> Wait, the redhead is supposed to be a tiefling? Where's the red skin?


I just thought they were cute little deer horns or something, and didn't think anything more of it until someone said Tiefling.  The Owlbearing was more important.

----------


## Kantaki

Looks fun. Not much else to say for now.
Just that all we're missing is a Rust Monster and this could be a Rusty & Co movie. :Small Tongue: 
Also, did I see someone _jump_ into a Geltinous Cube? Seems like a bad life choice. :Small Amused:

----------


## Ranxerox

> I mean, aren't all adventurers basically glorified thieves ...?



Not all of them are glorified.

----------


## dancrilis

> Not all of them are glorified.


It is how one seperates the low charisma from the high charima.
High Charisma: We liberated a relic of your deity from a tomb that might very well have been infested with the undead and curses - we are interested in giving it to the most worthy temple and the temple of 'Next Door' has offered us X for it but we wish to display in across the land first.
Low Charisma: We nicked this thing from some old temple of your deity, we are flogging it to believers, give us enough money and we will give it back.

----------


## Ranxerox

> It is how one seperates the low charisma from the high charima.
> High Charisma: We liberated a relic of your deity from a tomb that might very well have been infested with the undead and curses - we are interested in giving it to the most worthy temple and the temple of 'Next Door' has offered us X for it but we wish to display in across the land first.
> Low Charisma: We nicked this thing from some old temple of your deity, we are flogging it to believers, give us enough money and we will give it back.


Yeah, way to many players make charisma their dump stat.

----------


## Rafaelfras

> The owlbear druid better be accompanied by a monstrosity Druid subclass or something. If it isnt im gonna hear people asking if their moon Druid can turn into one for a solid year. Alternatively maybe this movie is running off 5.5 mechanics, in which case Druid buff question mark?
> 
> Also were those the Red Wizards of Thay?


Indeed they are. The lich maybe even be Szaz tan

----------


## t209

After this, maybe animated series or live action on "slice of life" (at least maybe City Watch).

----------


## Thane of Fife

> My most fervent hope is that instead of a movie inspired by a game, we get the hypothetical movie that was so amazing it inspired D&D in the first place.


You want to look up the movie that came with _Dragonstrike_.

----------


## NRSASD

> "You named your bard 'Edgin'?"
> "See, it's a reference to -"
> "I have been on the internet in the past year, I know what it means. And your paladin is... Xenk?"
> "Fantasy names have weird letters in them!"
> "That's not even a normal name without the X!"
> "Sure it is, it's like Hank."
> "But it's _not_ Hank."
> "My sorcerer is named Simon, that's a normal name!"
> "It's _your middle name_!"
> "Coincidence."


In our most recent campaign, we have a barbarian named Blockus, because thats what our friend saw when he glanced at our game shelf. Hes pals with Scales the Lizardfolk, Smithereen the other barbarian, Sacred the Cleric (the D is silent), Quent of Delin, and our graffiti artist Banksy.

The movies names sound authentic to me!

----------


## Millstone85

> It is how one seperates the low charisma from the high charima.
> High Charisma: We liberated a relic of your deity from a tomb that might very well have been infested with the undead and curses - we are interested in giving it to the most worthy temple and the temple of 'Next Door' has offered us X for it but we wish to display in across the land first.
> Low Charisma: We nicked this thing from some old temple of your deity, we are flogging it to believers, give us enough money and we will give it back.


 


> Yeah, way to many players make charisma their dump stat.


Charisma runs into a problem other abilities don't have, or not as bad.

Player 1 says "We liberated a relic..." and conveniently forgets the Cha 8 on their sheet.

Player 2 says "We nicked this thing..." and asks if it passes with a Cha 20.

Who gets the glory?

----------


## EggKookoo

> After this, maybe animated series or live action on "slice of life" (at least maybe City Watch).


Hasbro has said that if this movie is successful, they will be looking into extending it into a kind of cinematic universe. The backbone of that seems to be various streaming shows.

----------


## Rodin

What struck me is how much more exciting this trailer was than the one for LOTR Rings of Power.  Maybe Rings of Power just had a bad trailer, but it looked painfully generic and reminded me of the bad Wheel of Time trailers.  Given how the Wheel of Time turned out that's not a good sign.

This film on the other hand?  It feels like it has its own identity.  It's intentionally going for goofy dumb fun.  It has an identity other than "this is an adaptation of popular thing", which bodes well for the potential quality as a film.

I'll still probably wait for initial reviews just because D&D has priors when it comes to films.  But I'm down for this if the reviews are even halfway decent.  And that surprises me.

----------


## ecarden

> Charisma runs into a problem other abilities don't have, or not as bad.
> 
> Player 1 says "We liberated a relic..." and conveniently forgets the Cha 8 on their sheet.
> 
> Player 2 says "We nicked this thing..." and asks if it passes with a Cha 20.
> 
> Who gets the glory?


I mean, you only roll if there's a chance of failure/success. So it depends what they're trying to do. If it's get paid, then the first player is just saying the wrong thing. If you're trying to make allies with the temple, then the second is, but in neither case would I personally call for a roll. The question is how much is the relic 'worth' to the temple which is generally an objective question, though I would call for a check if they try to haggle.

But, if they were trying to make allies with the temple and the character says 'we nicked a holy artifact' there's no roll required, they have failed to make allies in the temple. Though maybe they can salvage things with some fast talking and maybe a persuasion/deception roll.

----------


## Zevox

> What struck me is how much more exciting this trailer was than the one for LOTR Rings of Power.  Maybe Rings of Power just had a bad trailer, but it looked painfully generic and reminded me of the bad Wheel of Time trailers.  Given how the Wheel of Time turned out that's not a good sign.
> 
> This film on the other hand?  It feels like it has its own identity.  It's intentionally going for goofy dumb fun.  It has an identity other than "this is an adaptation of popular thing", which bodes well for the potential quality as a film.
> 
> I'll still probably wait for initial reviews just because D&D has priors when it comes to films.  But I'm down for this if the reviews are even halfway decent.  And that surprises me.


I think the problem is that the Rings of Power trailers don't really tell us much. They're just vague and confusing, peppered with occasional references that fans who are familiar with pre-LotR stories will get (like the Two Trees and Gurthang), but not much else. They don't make the basic premise or story clear beyond vaguely hinting at Sauron, and showing enough of Galadriel to get across the idea that she's probably a/the main character. The trailers ultimately exist to do little more than show that yes, this show does look a lot like the movies and will involve things you remember from them, and drop those few references for the hardcore fans to pick up on.

By contrast, this D&D trailer gives you the basic idea of what it's going for pretty well: band of thieves turned unlikely heroes in action-comedy film. Throw in some classic D&D monsters for fans to recognize and people who aren't familiar with it to go "woah, what's that thing?" over, and it's a simple but effective trailer. Possibly because it's not a follow-up to anything, so it has to explain what it is in order to get anyone interested in the first place. Where the folks behind the Rings of Power trailers clearly expect a built-in audience and think that teasing and mystery will be a better way to get attention.

----------


## Precure

There is no honour among thieves.

----------


## Kornaki

> There is no honour among thieves.


Yes,  that is the line the movie is referencing.

----------


## Callos_DeTerran

I don't know why, but this trailer...underwhelmed pretty badly. Like...maybe its just the trailer, but it feels like its trying too hard to throw out all these things that are...classic D&D. Like a 'look at this, its a displacer beast! We're D&D!'. It feels performative rather then genuine and like the writers missed an important mark. That a good D&D story is just a good fantasy story, if you hit that then you can just tap D&D for creature/effect ideas. More importantly, these wow moments or jokes work for people who are already familiar with D&D, it doesn't feel like this movie is setting a good stage for these moments/jokes to land properly.

I'unno, maybe its just my sour mood right now but this trailer landed poorly.

----------


## dancrilis

> That a good D&D story is just a good fantasy story


I am not sure about this - a traditional good fantasy story is able to focus somewhat on the villains*, a scene where the Dark Lord gives instruction to servants, or reports to an even greater power etc. 
DnD really only has the villain getting screentime when the characters are in the room to watch and occassionaly act.

The story needs to stand with the PCs it cannot rely on NPCs even the most important ones.

*I am using a villain example, but it holds true for all NPCs, unless the PCs are in the room none of the NPCs get screentime (a DM could run a game with a lot of cut away scenes where they talk about what other people are doing I suppose, but it would likely be somewhat odd).

----------


## Zevox

> (a DM could run a game with a lot of cut away scenes where they talk about what other people are doing I suppose, but it would likely be somewhat odd).


As someone who has played with a DM who tried to find excuses to do things like that on a semi-regular basis, yes, it is very odd and awkward.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

Sweet. I'm in.  :Smile:

----------


## Tyrant

> I don't know why, but this trailer...underwhelmed pretty badly. Like...maybe its just the trailer, but it feels like its trying too hard to throw out all these things that are...classic D&D. Like a 'look at this, its a displacer beast! We're D&D!'. It feels performative rather then genuine and like the writers missed an important mark. That a good D&D story is just a good fantasy story, if you hit that then you can just tap D&D for creature/effect ideas. More importantly, these wow moments or jokes work for people who are already familiar with D&D, it doesn't feel like this movie is setting a good stage for these moments/jokes to land properly.
> 
> I'unno, maybe its just my sour mood right now but this trailer landed poorly.


I didn't get that vibe but that is my overall concern. I'll watch a movie with a real budget that is meant for D&D fans, but it won't be launching any franchises.



> I am not sure about this - a traditional good fantasy story is able to focus somewhat on the villains*, a scene where the Dark Lord gives instruction to servants, or reports to an even greater power etc. 
> DnD really only has the villain getting screentime when the characters are in the room to watch and occassionaly act.
> 
> The story needs to stand with the PCs it cannot rely on NPCs even the most important ones.
> 
> *I am using a villain example, but it holds true for all NPCs, unless the PCs are in the room none of the NPCs get screentime (a DM could run a game with a lot of cut away scenes where they talk about what other people are doing I suppose, but it would likely be somewhat odd).


I think it comes down to if this movie is trying to recreate the D&D experience (whatever that is) or if it is telling a story set in the Forgotten Realms (in this particular instance). The latter is very doable. It's been done hundreds of times in the novels. The former is a little more difficult and adaptations will be made, one of which is almost certainly more screen time for the villain so the movie makes sense, because it's a movie and not an adventure people are playing through.

As far as the trailer, I'm cautiously optimistic but I will have to see more to be sold on seeing it in a theater.

----------


## t209

So just remembered something.
I wonder why the first DnD movie didn't just adapt Forgotten Realms stories (even can be doable with budget at that time) and just go with...Michael Irons.
Heck, DnD animated series wouldn't be that bad.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I think it comes down to if this movie is trying to recreate the D&D experience (whatever that is) or if it is telling a story set in the Forgotten Realms (in this particular instance). The latter is very doable. It's been done hundreds of times in the novels. The former is a little more difficult and adaptations will be made, one of which is almost certainly more screen time for the villain so the movie makes sense, because it's a movie and not an adventure people are playing through.


A straightforward story set in a fantasy setting that, if we're being honest, could come across as fairly generic to the general audience, would (I fear) get lost in the noise. IMO a successful D&D movie will be one that highlights the unique nature of the _game_, rather one that tries to hook people based on the setting. "This is not your grandfather's LotR" sort of thing.

----------


## Mechalich

> A straightforward story set in a fantasy setting that, if we're being honest, could come across as fairly generic to the general audience, would (I fear) get lost in the noise. IMO a successful D&D movie will be one that highlights the unique nature of the _game_, rather one that tries to hook people based on the setting. "This is not your grandfather's LotR" sort of thing.


D&D _is_ generic, deliberately so. It's a kitchen sink that tries to offer everything to everyone. There's nothing to highlight. However, you're correct that the setting's aren't anything to write home about either. This trailer sells the movie as a fairly generic action-comedy romp, with a modest measure of meta humor. That's fine, it's okay to make a movie in which fun actors run around and make quips, fight monsters, and people get thrown into walls a lot. Most D&D tables, when things are going well, top out at 'glorious dumb fun' which seems to be what this movie is aiming for as well.

----------


## Callos_DeTerran

> A straightforward story set in a fantasy setting that, if we're being honest, could come across as fairly generic to the general audience, would (I fear) get lost in the noise. IMO a successful D&D movie will be one that highlights the unique nature of the _game_, rather one that tries to hook people based on the setting. "This is not your grandfather's LotR" sort of thing.


In which case I would argue that a straight forward fantasy movie (which this seems to be) is the wrong style if a successful D&D movie is going to highlight the unique nature of the game. Cause all of the unique nature of the game comes from the characters interactions with each other, unexpected interactions with enemies/traps/their environment, and the dynamic between the players as well as the DM. You'd need a movie that shows the group at the D&D table and then also fantasy action scenes showing the characters doing what their players describe.

That's why I said a good D&D story (as in what the characters experience) is just a good fantasy story, you would never see or suspect any game mechanics and thus never know if it was 'D&D' unless it was labelled as such. It could use monsters from it, sure, but that doesn't make it anything but a fantasy story. Meta jokes about bards playing lutes (an example from the trailer) will feel weird because...what else would they play? It would have to be strange in the setting of the story for it to be noteworthy in anyway which the story needs to set up before hand. In short, its more work to bring a general audience into and I didn't see anything in this trailer that suggested that work is going to be done. A Lego Movie-type reveal or somesuch could make it work but don't know if this movie is going that route.

A good D&D movie (as in about the game itself) isn't about the characters, but the players and how what's going on among them affects the game. A simple idea of a joke being if the barbarian's player goes to the bathroom or needs to take a call that runs long in the middle of a fight, you could have the characters panic and flailing around trying to cope with a limp and Weekend-at-Bernie's-esque or frozen in place Michelle Rodriquez until she suddenly jumps back into the action like nothing happened cause the player is back from whatever they're doing...but the joke only works if you know why the barbarian goes unresponsive. In other words, that there is a player and the player is suddenly occupied with something else. Otherwise its just a weird non-sequiter or attempt at meta humor that will only land with a very narrow section of the audience who might pick up on what it was that just happened. That's not what this movie looks like at all.

This is all opinion obviously and I would probably really enjoy that second idea quite a bit. As a straight up fantasy story though? Honor Among Thieves feels off.

----------


## EggKookoo

> D&D _is_ generic, deliberately so. It's a kitchen sink that tries to offer everything to everyone.


The game is kitchen sink so that any given table can play the kind of D&D game the players want. Very few tables, if any, use all the available material. Every DM I've played with has pruned and curated stuff from the sourcebooks to make a tailored setting. To most individual players, especially ones in a stable group with a consistent DM/setting, D&D isn't kitchen sink.

But what I mean by generic is "humans and token non-human race team up to fight evil monsters like dragons and whatnot." If that's all a D&D movie is going to offer, it will fail. A good D&D movie needs to showcase the stuff that makes it _not_ that, and I see some of that in the trailer. An acid-spitting dragon, a casual shapeshifting hero, jumping into a gelatinous cube, a chonky dragon. All stuff that says the movie won't totally rely on standard medieval fantasy tropes.

----------


## Dame_Mechanus

> In which case I would argue that a straight forward fantasy movie (which this seems to be) is the wrong style if a successful D&D movie is going to highlight the unique nature of the game. Cause all of the unique nature of the game comes from the characters interactions with each other, unexpected interactions with enemies/traps/their environment, and the dynamic between the players as well as the DM.


See, I think a straightforward light-hearted romp of a fantasy movie is exactly the right sort of story for D&D, because that's the real disconnect between D&D and most fantasy novels/films/whatever. Because D&D is, in my mind, an attempt to replicate that media and... never quite getting it right.

The characters aren't a collection of heroes that they're supposed to be, not _quite_, no matter how careful you were during character creation. They never seem quite as afraid of the big evil threat as they're supposed to, probably because they're being played by actual people who recognize it's all a game. There's always the sense of someone doing something to remind you of some other recent or popular media. The fights aren't quite as epic as they're supposed to be, the most dramatic fights can often turn into the funniest, unexpected things happen, and so forth.

Don't get me wrong, this is a strength of the game to me. This is part of what I _love_ about tabletop roleplaying games in general. But it also means that the deceptive struggle of adapting D&D to any sort of other media is to convey _that feel_ without the obvious aspect of being a game. (Something that Dragonlance just gave up on altogether by just... adapting a game.) So I'm on board for this film giving it a shot this way.

Will it work? Don't know, haven't seen it yet. But the pieces look right to me.

----------


## Mechalich

> The characters aren't a collection of heroes that they're supposed to be, not _quite_, no matter how careful you were during character creation. They never seem quite as afraid of the big evil threat as they're supposed to, probably because they're being played by actual people who recognize it's all a game. There's always the sense of someone doing something to remind you of some other recent or popular media. The fights aren't quite as epic as they're supposed to be, the most dramatic fights can often turn into the funniest, unexpected things happen, and so forth.


It's common for action thrillers to take place in highly-stylized setting that resembles our world with everything turned up to eleven, a sort of hyper-reality masquerading as reality. One of the most notable recent examples would be the John Wick films. Action-comedies, by contrast, tend to run in the opposite direction, with everything except the humor turned down. Danger is reduced, injuries are less severe (often allowing for comical reactions to things like fire, explosions, falls, etc.), and verisimilitude is easily sacrificed for the sake of a good joke or even a musical interlude. In many ways, the key to making both approaches is the same: making sure that everyone commits to the overall tone and theme. This means the actors, but also the VFX teams, the stunt crew, the lightning and sound techs, and all the way down. John Wick shots always look slick, sharp, and razor crisp, they can never be slack, and Keanu needs to bring 110% of whatever emotion he's supposed to be conveying to every shot (something that plays to his strengths as an actor). For this D&D film you go the opposite, sound should be soft and rounded off, colors should be bright even when the scene is supposed to be dark, and Chris Pine should never stop smirking. The trailer is a little more shadowy than I'd prefer (probably to save money), but it seems to get the gist.

----------


## Precure

> Yes,  that is the line the movie is referencing.


No, they are different idioms, ideological opposites.

_Honor among thieves is the sentiment that even criminals have a code of conduct among themselves. Some aspects of this code of conduct may be to not steal from each other, or to not testify against a fellow criminal to the police. The idea of the proverb honor among thieves dates back at least to Cicero, an orator and politician in ancient Rome. In Cervantes Don Quixote, published in 1612: The old proverb still holds good, thieves are never rogues amongst themselves. Even at this time, the idea is an old one.

No honor among thieves is the sentiment that thieves are criminals, and are untrustworthy. This proverb is a direct disputation of the original proverb, honor among thieves, and first appeared in the early 1800s. In both phrases, the American spelling is honor, the British spelling is honour.
_
Source

----------


## Corvus

> It's common for action thrillers to take place in highly-stylized setting that resembles our world with everything turned up to eleven, a sort of hyper-reality masquerading as reality. One of the most notable recent examples would be the John Wick films. Action-comedies, by contrast, tend to run in the opposite direction, with everything except the humor turned down. Danger is reduced, injuries are less severe (often allowing for comical reactions to things like fire, explosions, falls, etc.), and verisimilitude is easily sacrificed for the sake of a good joke or even a musical interlude.


It makes sense given D&D is a system where getting stabbed multiple times with swords, falling off cliffs and being dropped into lava isn't fatal and isn't even an impairment.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I think this movie or TV show will be an improvement compared to the other D&D TV show and movies.  :Smile:

----------


## sluggerbaloney

Think its gonna be bad. 

D&D is played in the mind, every person has a unique idea of the look and feel of it. Trying to capture that in a film is impossible

----------


## EggKookoo

> D&D is played in the mind, every person has a unique idea of the look and feel of it. Trying to capture that in a film is impossible


Have you never liked the film adaptation of a novel?

----------


## Psyren

> Let's take a moment for all the poor 5th Edition DMs who will have to deal with "But in the movie the druid could do that!"


I'm willing to bet we'll have a new subclass coming in her honor  :Small Amused: 




> As long as the movie doesn't try to take itself seriously, this could be pretty entertaining. I'll give it a chance.


The main character is a bard so it appears they're leaning into the whimsy. 

That, and the premise of the "heroes" "accidentally" breaking the world. 

In short, I'm pretty optimistic for this one!




> Also, for anyone who missed it, we do have an official class list. I appreciate this class breakdown, too.


Not a single int-based class. Oh yes, this is going to be dumb fun.




> I mean, aren't all adventurers basically glorified thieves ...?


Pretty sure this is what they're going for.

----------


## lord_khaine

I do think it seems like the focus is more on making a good fantasy movie, than on making a good d&d movie.
Previous movies have tried to hard, or not had enough of a budget. 

But on first glance the actors seemed decent.
The lead guy did seem kinda familiar? from peoples reaction it did sound like he can carry a title.

----------


## Psyren

> I do think it seems like the focus is more on making a good fantasy movie, than on making a good d&d movie.
> Previous movies have tried to hard, or not had enough of a budget. 
> 
> But on first glance the actors seemed decent.
> The lead guy did seem kinda familiar? from peoples reaction it did sound like he can carry a title.


You mean Chris Pine? He's perhaps most famous for being Captain Kirk in the modern Trek movies (opposite Zachary Quinto's Spock) but some other high-profile roles of his include Steve Trevor in the Wonder Woman movies, voicing Peter Parker in Into the Spiderverse, and Prince Charming from the film adaptation of the Broadway hit Into The Woods.

----------


## The Glyphstone

I'll admit that I got him mixed up with Chris Pratt on a few occasions.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I'll admit that I got him mixed up with Chris Pratt on a few occasions.

----------


## lord_khaine

> voicing Peter Parker in Into the Spiderverse


Oh he is Peter Parker? Im sold  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Mechalich

> You mean Chris Pine? He's perhaps most famous for being Captain Kirk in the modern Trek movies (opposite Zachary Quinto's Spock) but some other high-profile roles of his include Steve Trevor in the Wonder Woman movies, voicing Peter Parker in Into the Spiderverse, and Prince Charming from the film adaptation of the Broadway hit Into The Woods.


A relevant entry regarding this role in Chris Pine's IMDB is the Netflix historical film Outlaw King, which while not particularly memorable proved that Pine can handle a swordfight while covered in muck. He, and Michelle Rodriguez (obviously), will do as many of their own stunts as can safely be done, and when the big stars make that commitment other actors usually follow. This is important, because action scenes just look better when the principals put in the effort as it provides the director and stunt coordinator with more options.

----------


## Psyren

He's a pretty large step up from the Wayans Brothers I'd say.

Regarding the villain, is that supposed to be a Red Wizard of Thay? Any info on where this is set?

----------


## JadedDM

> He's a pretty large step up from the Wayans Brothers I'd say.
> 
> Regarding the villain, is that supposed to be a Red Wizard of Thay? Any info on where this is set?


It's set in the Forgotten Realms.  In the trailer, you can see a few scenes of Waterdeep, Neverwinter, Icewind Dale, and the Underdark.

----------


## Lvl45DM!

> Oh he is Peter Parker? Im sold


Not Janky Broke Hobo Spiderman. The blonde Peter Parker who gets killed at the start

----------


## Luccan

Alternate theory on the tiefling without red skin: they're not willing to push it that far for the first big D&D movie release this decade. Like, come on, you're basically handing certain people license to denounce the film for being "demonic" if you do that

Second theory: someone with decision making power thought it looked dumb. Now, in a world where the most powerful media franchise has at least three character painted a 100% saturation choice from a basic color wheel this seems unlikely, but if someone did think it was dumb maybe everyone else thought a fight about it wasn't worth it.

Also, thanks trailer. I really hadn't considered maybe a black dragon's acid breath was just vomit, but now I have. Looks promising

----------


## JadedDM

> Alternate theory on the tiefling without red skin: they're not willing to push it that far for the first big D&D movie release this decade. Like, come on, you're basically handing certain people license to denounce the film for being "demonic" if you do that


If this is the case, then why make her a tiefling at all?  Elven Druid is far more archetypal anyway.  I feel like making her a tiefling was a deliberate choice.

----------


## Corvus

Red skin for teiflings is a fairly new addition.   If you look at older editions they could look exactly like the one in the movie.

----------


## Eldan

Yeah, in older editions tieflings could look like anything. They didn't even necessarily have visible demonic traits, though they were suggested. They all looked different too. I don't think I saw any with unusual skin colour before fourth edition. See for example Planescape Torment:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/to...20150806230824

No horns, normal skin color. Or these two from the Planewalker's handbook:

https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...pg?format=500w

----------


## EggKookoo

> Yeah, in older editions tieflings could look like anything. They didn't even necessarily have visible demonic traits, though they were suggested. They all looked different too. I don't think I saw any with unusual skin colour before fourth edition. See for example Planescape Torment:
> 
> https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/to...20150806230824
> 
> No horns, normal skin color. Or these two from the Planewalker's handbook:
> 
> https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/c...pg?format=500w


From the 5e PHB: "Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red."

Red is just additional option, not a requirement.

----------


## Zalabim

Crpg tieflings:
Annah from Torment. https://torment.fandom.com/wiki/Annah

Red hair, pale skin, tail.

Neeshka from NWN2.
https://nwn2.fandom.com/wiki/Neeshka

Red hair, small horns, spots/freckles, tail.

Doric from this movie
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Sophia_Lillis
Red hair, horns, and cgi tail.

She seems to be perfectly tiefling inspired.

----------


## Luccan

> From the 5e PHB: "Their skin tones cover the full range of human coloration, but also include various shades of red."
> 
> Red is just additional option, not a requirement.


You know, I totally forgot that line because I don't think I've seen a single PC or official piece of art this edition that didn't assume tieflings had red skin or another primary color. I know they _used_ to look different, but I really thought they just made them all Hellboy for 5e

----------


## JadedDM

Yes, Tieflings can have normal human skin tones.  But it's still a deliberate and odd choice to make.  Every depiction I've seen a Tieflings in 5E have had, if not red, then blue, pink, purple or some other alien skin color.  

It's like if there was a Dwarf in the party without a beard.  Can dwarves be clean-shaven?  Sure they can.  But it's a deliberate choice, so it does make one wonder _why_ it was made.

----------


## LaZodiac

A couple things.

One, the first depiction of Tieflings as just kinda hellboy people was definitely 4e, not 5e.

Two, here are some other reasons why they have a tiefling that is not noticably a tiefling, just off the top of my head.
 - Has a glamour and her being a tiefling is a spoiler oops
 - The idea of a DND movie in this day and age is so ridiculous that they just didn't have the budget to do make up or CG effects for this character.
 - Since she's also the Druid if I read this right, she's ALREADY going to be half CG due to Wild Shape, and the actress may just want to be IN the movie for any amount of time, so minimum effects for her character.
 - As others have said, while all art and basically 99% of the collective human consciousness sees Tieflings as just hellboy people (cause it's the coolest and the hottest and the most gender) they traditionally can be any assortment of things, and they may have just done that.
 - Demon stuff only pops out when real mad maybe?

----------


## Kornaki

Money was my first thought.  I tried to look up an estimated budget for the movie and couldn't find it.  Presumably it's decent,  but I would be surprised if it was marvel sized

----------


## JadedDM

Right, but if those were concerns (not enough money, the actor didn't like body paint, etc.) then it still raises the question why make her a Tiefling at all?  She could be human, or Elven or Half-Elven instead.  Unless her being Tiefling is somehow important to the story?

----------


## Kornaki

I think we should just wait to see the movie play out.  There are so many explanations, and it's always possible they just blow it.

----------


## Rodin

> I think we should just wait to see the movie play out.  There are so many explanations, and it's always possible they just blow it.


If we're hanging "is the movie good" on whether or not the tiefling design is 100% accurate then I don't think any possible movie would be satisfactory.

On the flip side, if the tiefling design is what we're arguing about after seeing it that's the best possible scenario since it means the rest of the movie was good.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Right, but if those were concerns (not enough money, the actor didn't like body paint, etc.) then it still raises the question why make her a Tiefling at all?  She could be human, or Elven or Half-Elven instead.  Unless her being Tiefling is somehow important to the story?


One of the things they want to communicate is that this isn't LotR. I would bet minimal elves and dwarves. Conceptually, tieflings aren't unique to D&D, but they're a pretty good poster child for "not LotR."

Regarding the skin, I mean, we don't want people thinking about this...

----------


## Tyrant

> One of the things they want to communicate is that this isn't LotR. I would bet minimal elves and dwarves. Conceptually, tieflings aren't unique to D&D, but they're a pretty good poster child for "not LotR."


Hollywood loves to ride trends and steal copy take inspiration from successful movies so I would be quite surprised if the goal is to be "not LotR". Besides, there are way worse movies to draw from. 



> Regarding the skin, I mean, we don't want people thinking about this...


If you mean that specifically, I think we're safe. That movie came out almost two decades before the target demographic was born. If you mean that as a stand in for Lucifer, I would say two things. 1) Most people who would be put off by that will likely not watch this movie. 2) The moment anyone explains what a Tiefling is, the connection will be made.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Hollywood loves to ride trends and steal copy take inspiration from successful movies so I would be quite surprised if the goal is to be "not LotR". Besides, there are way worse movies to draw from.


By "not LotR" I mean they want to communicate that the D&D movie isn't something you've seen (and sat through for hours) before. Or more accurately, your parents or older siblings did. The first LotR movie is over 20 years old now. And the Hobbit movies were not especially well-received, and that's the more recent "LotR" stuff. Plus there's whatever Amazon is doing, which seems to be polarizing fans. "Is LotR" is not any kind of magic success pill at the moment.




> If you mean that specifically, I think we're safe. That movie came out almost two decades before the target demographic was born. If you mean that as a stand in for Lucifer, I would say two things. 1) Most people who would be put off by that will likely not watch this movie. 2) The moment anyone explains what a Tiefling is, the connection will be made.


I mean mainly the first thing, but not specifically about Darkness himself. Just the general campy vibe of "devils" in media. Regarding 2), by the time people make that connection, the butt is in the seat and the ticket's bought. Although you have a point that there will certainly be some outrage in some quarters of society about the D&D movie having such a protagonist. But then, people get outraged about just about anything...

----------


## MarkVIIIMarc

D&D is to Lord of the Rings what The Orville is to Star Trek?

Escaping LOTR in any fantasy movie is a pretty tall task.

----------


## Psyren

> Conceptually, tieflings aren't unique to D&D, but they're a pretty good poster child for "not LotR."


I think this is important - they'll want at least one core race main character that clearly isn't a human, elf, dwarf, (half-)orc or halfling. That leaves gnome (which might as well be an elf or halfling to a layperson), dragonborn (would be striking but unfortunately breaks the CGI budget) or Tiefling. Sticking some horns and a tail onto an actress seems like an obvious choice.




> Escaping LOTR in any fantasy movie is a pretty tall task.


I don't think they want to "escape" it necessarily, but some amount of differentiation is useful.

----------


## LaZodiac

> D&D is to Lord of the Rings what The Orville is to Star Trek?


This is one of the most brutal things I've ever seen said against Dungeons and also Dragons.

----------


## Millstone85

> D&D is to Lord of the Rings what The Orville is to Star Trek?





> This is one of the most brutal things I've ever seen said against Dungeons and also Dragons.


Until LotR fans start saying that _D&D: Honor Among Thieves_ turned out far more faithful to Tolkien's vision than _LotR: The Rings of Power_.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## EggKookoo

> This is one of the most brutal things I've ever seen said against Dungeons and also Dragons.


I think it speaks well of D&D.

----------


## Bunny Commando

> Hollywood loves to ride trends and steal copy take inspiration from successful movies so I would be quite surprised if the goal is to be "not LotR". Besides, there are way worse movies to draw from.


_Honor Among Thieves_ won't be a stand-alone movie, there's a spin-off in development plus other projects yet to be announced; production might want to have a product with a clearly different identity from LotR, otherwise viewers might not be interested in following the other projects.

----------


## Tyrant

> By "not LotR" I mean they want to communicate that the D&D movie isn't something you've seen (and sat through for hours) before. Or more accurately, your parents or older siblings did. The first LotR movie is over 20 years old now. And the Hobbit movies were not especially well-received, and that's the more recent "LotR" stuff. Plus there's whatever Amazon is doing, which seems to be polarizing fans. "Is LotR" is not any kind of magic success pill at the moment.


True, they do want to differentiate. I guess my point is that the connection will be drawn given how much LotR (the books) set the tone for basically all of fantasy that came after it, D&D very much included. And all things considered, I would want it favorably compared to LotR over something like Your Highness. Good point on maybe not wanting that comparison given other, more recent LotR works though. 



> I mean mainly the first thing, but not specifically about Darkness himself. Just the general campy vibe of "devils" in media. Regarding 2), by the time people make that connection, the butt is in the seat and the ticket's bought. Although you have a point that there will certainly be some outrage in some quarters of society about the D&D movie having such a protagonist. But then, people get outraged about just about anything...


Good point on the ticket already being sold. Also, I think most people that are going to take issue with the movie over anything remotely along the lines of the Satanic Panic won't be going to see the movie. I expect any serious negativity to come from any number of other directions.

----------


## t209

So any idea if the Tiefling Druid is trying to emulate Keyleth, who would be familiar among those familiar with Critical Role.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Until LotR fans start saying that _D&D: Honor Among Thieves_ turned out far more faithful to Tolkien's vision than _LotR: The Rings of Power_.


Not happening.

mostly because they'll both fail in doing that, for different reasons.

DnD right from the start goes against every theme that Tolkien wrote about and was concerned with. Just by being DnD, it will never capture Tolkien, because thats like saying Deadpool is a more faithful vision of what a superhero stands for than Captain America or Superman. Or Firefly being a more faithful vision of Star Trek than Star Trek. DnD is just the funny anti-hero version of fantasy that makes pop-culture references without going any deeper while defying every lesson that Tolkien made. its success at being DnD (if it succeeds at that), is not success at being Tolkien. in fact, if succeeds at being faithful to Tolkien there is a good chance it won't be faithful to DnD at all!

Ring of Power will just fail because it'll probably be done by people who don't care and think they can just put their own vision on a previous creative work without consequences. like certain film recent film examples.

----------


## DigoDragon

> D&D is to Lord of the Rings what The Orville is to Star Trek?.


The answer to this is gonna vary a lot between people. ^^

----------


## Thrudd

Tolkien is just one, small influence on D&D among many, and modern D&D has moved even farther away from his small influence. Star Trek is Orville's only inspiration, it is an irreverent comedic (whatever can be said of the quality) version of Roddenberry's shows (mostly TNG), updated for 21st century audience. 
I don't think it's a very accurate analogy. 

This looks like it's going to be "5e: The Movie!" I don't think they needed to try hard to make it "not LotR". Putting it in the 5e version of FR, and making a story more reflective of the type of characters, magic and adventures typical for D&D already does that.

----------


## Psyren

> So any idea if the Tiefling Druid is trying to emulate Keyleth, who would be familiar among those familiar with Critical Role.


She looks to be a little less of an earnest ingenue given her rather pointed/skeptical questions towards Edgin in the trailer, but no way to be sure from the snippets we were shown.

----------


## t209

> Tolkien is just one, small influence on D&D among many, and modern D&D has moved even farther away from his small influence. Star Trek is Orville's only inspiration, it is an irreverent comedic (whatever can be said of the quality) version of Roddenberry's shows (mostly TNG), updated for 21st century audience.


Well, this is what happens when you have new players who are too old for Elric, Conan, and Lieberman fantasies.
Ironically, Warhammer Fantasy is more Tolkienian (albeit as dark fantasy) and Elric.

----------


## Rodin

I don't know that you can say the influence is small given that there was a lawsuit to take a bunch of the things stolen out of LoTR - balrog, dragon, dwarf, elf, ent, goblin, hobbit, orc, and warg. They got balrog, warg, and hobbit removed and D&D kept the rest.  You'll note that ent has since also been renamed to Treant.

Despite failing on dwarves and elves, they're pulled pretty much directly from Hobbit/LOTR.  Halflings are hobbits with a name change.  Orcs were also clearly pulled directly from Tolkien.  Goblins are a bit more debatable, but given their characterization in the Hobbit and their D&D description it's hard not to draw a direct line there too.  Wargs got renamed to "worg", and are ridden by Goblins.  I wonder where they got THAT idea from?  Balrogs got renamed to Balor, because why try to hide it when everyone knows what you're pulling?

I'm not disputing D&D pulling from a large fantasy soup when it was created.  They stole from a lot of people, after all.  I just find it hard to say that Tolkien's works weren't the biggest single source for original D&D, no matter how much that has changed over time.

----------


## The Glyphstone

The surface trappings of D&D were lifted from Tolkein, but I do agree that the 'meat' of the game has always been very different. In a way, D&D has actually become _more_ Tolkein-esque over time as it evolved from a loot-and-murder, episodic dungeon crawl-centric game into the sprawling save-the-world heroic fantasy adventures that are a dime a dozen these days.

----------


## Mechalich

> The surface trappings of D&D were lifted from Tolkein, but I do agree that the 'meat' of the game has always been very different. In a way, D&D has actually become _more_ Tolkein-esque over time as it evolved from a loot-and-murder, episodic dungeon crawl-centric game into the sprawling save-the-world heroic fantasy adventures that are a dime a dozen these days.


Of the major sources that were used to build D&D, Tolkien had - by an absurd margin - the most complete world-building, and therefore in terms of _setting elements_ Tolkien-derived material dominated. At the same time it was the other inspirations, Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, Vance, etc., with their mostly self-contained adventure stories that informed the core _gameplay elements_.

However, D&D did indeed evolve towards prioritizing 'save the world' plots, and in fact it did so very rapidly. The Dragonlance Chronicles, first published in 1984-85, and by far the most influential piece of D&D related media ever produced, redefined D&D in that mode very firmly.

----------


## DigoDragon

> I'm not disputing D&D pulling from a large fantasy soup when it was created.  They stole from a lot of people, after all.  I just find it hard to say that Tolkien's works weren't the biggest single source for original D&D, no matter how much that has changed over time.


So much so that things circled around in the LotR movies when the Hobbits refered to themselves ah Halflings for the Ent to understand what they were. ^^

I know in my case, it's because of D&D that I got into LotR, so there's a small benefit for the two things having connections.

----------


## MinimanMidget

> So much so that things circled around in the LotR movies when the Hobbits refered to themselves ah Halflings for the Ent to understand what they were. ^^


No, halfling was a word used for hobbits in LotR (the books) as well. It's just that the word hobbit is trademarked and halfling isn't, so D&D had to call them halflings.

----------


## Jervis

> My most fervent hope is that instead of a movie inspired by a game, we get the hypothetical movie that was so amazing it inspired D&D in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe they all multiclass rogue (thief)?


Your class doesnt always need to be the same as your job description

----------


## Psyren

> Your class doesnt always need to be the same as your job description


And to illustrate the point further, the Greysky City thieves' guild employs e.g. bards and clerics of Loki.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Your class doesnt always need to be the same as your job description


Oh sure, I was being facetious. I guess I should have gone blue with it.

I'm a big advocate that PCs know nothing about classes.

----------


## Psyche

> I think the problem is that the Rings of Power trailers don't really tell us much. They're just vague and confusing, peppered with occasional references that fans who are familiar with pre-LotR stories will get (like the Two Trees and Gurthang), but not much else. They don't make the basic premise or story clear beyond vaguely hinting at Sauron, and showing enough of Galadriel to get across the idea that she's probably a/the main character. The trailers ultimately exist to do little more than show that yes, this show does look a lot like the movies and will involve things you remember from them, and drop those few references for the hardcore fans to pick up on.
> 
> By contrast, this D&D trailer gives you the basic idea of what it's going for pretty well: band of thieves turned unlikely heroes in action-comedy film. Throw in some classic D&D monsters for fans to recognize and people who aren't familiar with it to go "woah, what's that thing?" over, and it's a simple but effective trailer. Possibly because it's not a follow-up to anything, so it has to explain what it is in order to get anyone interested in the first place. Where the folks behind the Rings of Power trailers clearly expect a built-in audience and think that teasing and mystery will be a better way to get attention.


When I saw this I just had to comment. I haven't seen the trailer but I hope with all my hopers that tom bombidail is there. I like that guy better than gandalf.

----------


## Giggling Ghast

So theres a poster out now and, uh, it looks absolutely terrible.  :Small Tongue: 

BEHOLD!

----------


## Keltest

> So theres a poster out now, and uh, it looks absolutely terrible. 
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...tm_name=iossmf


Im not sure if I love it for being exactly the sort of thing a real D&D group would make for themselves or if I hate it for that same reason.

----------


## Eldan

It's a terribly cheap looking dragon, at least. And an incredibly bland composition. Everything is either red or brown, with the same lighting, so it blurs together a lot.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> So theres a poster out now and, uh, it looks absolutely terrible. 
> 
> BEHOLD!


I gotta be honest guys, I'm not liking this new direction the MCU is taking here, seems oddly lacking in superhero costumes and tech.

----------


## Giggling Ghast

> I gotta be honest guys, I'm not liking this new direction the MCU is taking here, seems oddly lacking in superhero costumes and tech.


This looks more like the poster for a B-movie knockoff of a MCU film.

Be-Vengeancers, congregate!

----------


## EggKookoo

Assemblers avenge!

----------


## LaZodiac

I'll come out and say that Chris Pine does not rock the moustache as well as he thinks he does.

----------


## Eldan

> I gotta be honest guys, I'm not liking this new direction the MCU is taking here, seems oddly lacking in superhero costumes and tech.


What, you don't like this team up of Morbius, Star Lord, Killmonger, the Collector, black Dr. Strange, Black Widow and Valkyrie?

----------


## Psyren

I like the previous (Walmart) poster better




> What, you don't like this team up of Morbius, Star Lord, Killmonger, the Collector, *black Dr. Strange,* Black Widow and Valkyrie?


His name's Mordo  :Small Tongue: 

And this would make a killer Midnight Suns lineup!

----------


## BRC

I personally appreciate that they're leaning into the goofiness. 

Will it make a great movie? Probably not, but it WILL make a movie that captures what a lot of people like about D&D, the idea of having an epic adventure that's also just goofing off with your friends.

----------


## Giggling Ghast

I think we all know it's not going to be a great movie. But hopefully it will be entertaining.

----------


## Zevox

> So theres a poster out now and, uh, it looks absolutely terrible. 
> 
> BEHOLD!


Eh, looks like a pretty typical movie poster to me.

----------


## Millstone85

> Everything is either red or brown, with the same lighting, so it blurs together a lot.


They must have forgotten to apply the blue&orange filter.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Eh, looks like a pretty typical movie poster to me.


The make up on the looming guy looks a little meh.
I'll echo you, though, Zevox-it doesn't look really out of the ordinary.

I'll also echo the sentiment of "Doesn't look like it'll be AMAZING but hopefully it'll at least be fun."

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I just find it hard to say that Tolkien's works weren't the biggest single source for original D&D, no matter how much that has changed over time.


 Then say it, because whether you believe it or not, it's true. 
Hobbits were in the original game, but a cease and desist order from the Tolkien estate got that changed to halfling. It was interesting to read years later that Gygax was against including them but so many players wanted the option that he caved.  The wargamer geeks of the early 70's were a fusion of SF and Fantasy and Sword and sorcery fans.  
SF influenced D&D. Ask Arneson where his Clone spell came from. 
Howard/Conan
Burroughs/Carter of Mars, Tarzan, et al
Lieber/Fafhrd+Mouser
Anderson/3 hearts/lions
Lovecraft/Clark Ashton Smith/ Et Al ... all of those weird tales stories. 
Comic books Conan also. 
Moorcock/Elric, Corum, hawkmoon, et al
The influences were many.

That attempts by the war gamers to try and put a LotR into Chainmail - successfully - gets an outsized share of credit for the game's final form.

----------


## Giggling Ghast

> Eh, looks like a pretty typical movie poster to me.


It is not the most horrendous thing Ive ever seen, but as someone who knows a tiny bit about design, its not what I would expect of a professionally-made movie poster.

Its more of a Hey, my kids good at Photoshop, lets get him to design it level of quality.

----------


## InvisibleBison

> It is not the most horrendous thing Ive ever seen, but as someone who knows a tiny bit about design, its not what I would expect of a professionally-made movie poster.
> 
> Its more of a Hey, my kids good at Photoshop, lets get him to design it level of quality.


Would you be willing to explain what sort of issues you see for those of us who know nothing about design?

----------


## Giggling Ghast

Bad composition of the heads, terrible lighting. Does a very poor job of drawing the eyes down to the title. And that dragon looks awful.

----------


## Saintheart

DM made the classic mistake of taking more than 4 players I see.

----------


## Metastachydium

> DM made the classic mistake of taking more than 4 players I see.


Hey! We can't be _that_ bad!

----------


## EggKookoo

> Would you be willing to explain what sort of issues you see for those of us who know nothing about design?


(I know you didn't ask me specifically, but...)

Stuff like this can be hard to explain. If the poster looks good to you, then it's fine. It's doing its job after all. I can go into how I think most designers or people with some design experience or awareness might react to it, but that can come across as an attempt to turn something fundamentally subjective into an objective mindset. There is no objective good or bad in art. At the same time, there are plenty of things that most people will like or not like, which can create the impression that there is.

I do find things "wrong" with this poster, but it's important to remember that this is just my opinion and interpretation. I know enough about design to imagine I can perceive the decisions made by those who created it, and I can judge those decisions individually and how they add up to the whole, and compare them to decisions I would have made instead. Of course once I start doing that, and I wonder why the artist(s) behind this poster made different decisions, I'm reminded that often those decisions get overruled by people higher up in pay grade and it becomes There But For the Grace of Bahamut Go I.

I don't know if you can tell that I _really_ want to list out all the problems I see with this poster.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Millstone85

> DM made the classic mistake of taking more than 4 players I see.


Two of these characters are antagonists. Another is the main protagonist, which would imply a DMPC. 

That leaves exactly four players at the table.  :Small Wink:

----------


## Saintheart

> Hey! We can't be _that_ bad!


Merely that the DM makes it hard for _himself_ :D

----------


## EggKookoo

Just like to point out that a subpar poster doesn't necessarily mean a subpar movie. I mean, here's the official poster for Endgame. Arguably it's better than the D&D poster, but really not by all that much (mainly in its use of color to drive your eye). Granted, it had the benefit of being a late entry in a pretty large series, so we already knew these characters.

----------


## lord_khaine

To be fair, they could possibly have written "Avengers : Endgame" in crayon,
and had people show up all the same.

----------


## PontificatusRex

> Will it make a great movie? Probably not, but it WILL make a movie that captures what a lot of people like about D&D, the idea of having an epic adventure that's also just goofing off with your friends.


This captures my feelings about the trailer as well.

----------


## EggKookoo

> This captures my feelings about the trailer as well.


I have stakes-fatigue. I'm tired of action/adventure movies where the fate of the world or universe or multiverse hangs in the balance. I would love a D&D movie that's primarily about something personal, like getting revenge on an enemy, or winning the love of someone, or recovering an ancient heirloom/artifact simply because it's important to the hero, or all of the above.

You know, something structured more like Princess Bride than LotR.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> DM made the classic mistake of taking more than 4 players I see.


 Sorry, that's an error.  :Small Wink:   Not a mistake to have more than 4.  
OotS has six. 
The sweet spot for D&D 5e is four plus or minus one.  (I have found in about 8 years of play).  Three to five.   Six is tough, seven and eight get towards unwieldy.  
Original game we'd have seven or eight and it worked fine.  We had fun.  Not sure what WotC did to mess that up, but maybe the player base changed sufficiently?  Hard to say. 



> This captures my feelings about the trailer as well.


Using _"Whole lotta love"_ as the musical back drop to the trailer gets big +1 from me.  :Small Smile: 
(My D&D mix tape that I made decades ago includes some Led Zepplin: _Ramble On, Battle of Forever More, Gallows Pole_)

----------


## Peelee

> I don't know if you can tell that I _really_ want to list out all the problems I see with this poster.


Given that InvisibleBison literally asked for that, I don't see why you're not doing so.

Frankly, for as far as my untrained eye can tell, it just looks incredibly formulaic. Only thing missing is the orange/blue color wheel tinting.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Given that InvisibleBison literally asked for that, I don't see why you're not doing so.


I didn't want to be redundant. What I'd have to say would be essentially what Giggling Ghast said, just with more bits and pieces.




> Frankly, for as far as my untrained eye can tell, it just looks incredibly formulaic. Only thing missing is the orange/blue color wheel tinting.


_Uninspired_ is the word I'd use. It's okay to use a formula, but this looks like a half effort. I don't get the feel that the movie is going to be outstanding or quirky. There's not a lot of enthusiasm on display.

----------


## Kornaki

I thought this reddit post was useful for explaining

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...hare&context=3

----------


## Peelee

> I didn't want to be redundant. What I'd have to say would be essentially what Giggling Ghast said, just with more bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> _Uninspired_ is the word I'd use. It's okay to use a formula, but this looks like a half effort. I don't get the feel that the movie is going to be outstanding or quirky. There's not a lot of enthusiasm on display.





> I thought this reddit post was useful for explaining
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comm...hare&context=3


I'm not seeing anything substantially different in these comments from, say, Infinity War poster or The Force Awakens poster to pull out two massively successful, insanely high-budget productions with mountains of advertising behind them.

The D&D poster seems along those exact same lines to me. Sure it's uninspired, because a lot of the schlock they put out to advertise these days is uninspired. I guess what I'm saying is I don't get why this movie is getting flack for it when it should be pretty expected at this point.

----------


## EggKookoo

> I guess what I'm saying is I don't get why this movie is getting flack for it when it should be pretty expected at this point.


That was kind of what I was saying up there with the Endgame poster. It's not substantially better than the D&D one. On the other hand, Marvel (by the time Endgame came out) and SW have massively larger inherent cultural PR, so they can get away with less.

I don't think this poster has any predictive power for the quality of the movie. It might for the _revenue_ of the movie, sadly (although being as objective as possible, I don't think the D&D movie is going to break any records that way regardless).

----------


## Rodin

> I'm not seeing anything substantially different in these comments from, say, Infinity War poster or The Force Awakens poster to pull out two massively successful, insanely high-budget productions with mountains of advertising behind them.
> 
> The D&D poster seems along those exact same lines to me. Sure it's uninspired, because a lot of the schlock they put out to advertise these days is uninspired. I guess what I'm saying is I don't get why this movie is getting flack for it when it should be pretty expected at this point.


I'd say there's two things.

The first is the obvious copying going on.  The descriptions of the character designs being ripped off from Marvel are not wrong, particularly Not-Black-Widow.

The second is that it looks low budget, whether or not the film actually is.  This follows on from the first - the Marvel movie poster isn't particularly inspiring, but by using the same format the D&D film is getting people to compare it to the Marvel poster and the difference in budget is immediately clear.  It _looks_ like a B movie from the poster.  To be fair, that's the impression I got from the trailer as well, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.  But it does invite criticism.




> I have stakes-fatigue. I'm tired of action/adventure movies where the fate of the world or universe or multiverse hangs in the balance. I would love a D&D movie that's primarily about something personal, like getting revenge on an enemy, or winning the love of someone, or recovering an ancient heirloom/artifact simply because it's important to the hero, or all of the above.
> 
> You know, something structured more like Princess Bride than LotR.


I just read a book called _Below_ by Lee Gaiteri.  It's a love letter to the old _Rogue_ games complete with unidentified scrolls and wands of random polymorph, and it's a ton of fun.

What's struck me most after completing it was that lack of stakes.  What would happen to the world if the characters didn't go in search of treasure?  ...Absolutely nothing.  Did they stir up an unspeakable evil that they must stop from conquering the world?  Of course not, these are a bunch of schmucks who are afraid of a single troll, nevermind take on a Dark Lord.  

The stakes were personal.  If the hero didn't go, he would never get out from under his debts and marry his beloved.  The characters talked often about their families waiting for them on the surface.  You want them to succeed to get their happily ever after, and I was rooting just as hard for that as I would for the downfall of Prince Evil of Grimdark.  Probably harder.

It is sadly rare for us to get that sort of story in fantasy books and almost nonexistent in fantasy cinema.  The world must always be saved.

----------


## Azuresun

> Just like to point out that a subpar poster doesn't necessarily mean a subpar movie. I mean, here's the official poster for Endgame. Arguably it's better than the D&D poster, but really not by all that much (mainly in its use of color to drive your eye). Granted, it had the benefit of being a late entry in a pretty large series, so we already knew these characters.


Someone once pointed out that in every MCU film poster where Captain America is in the foreground, he looks like a seagull just stole his ice cream. And now I can never unsee it.

----------


## Lord Raziere

> Just like to point out that a subpar poster doesn't necessarily mean a subpar movie. I mean, here's the official poster for Endgame. Arguably it's better than the D&D poster, but really not by all that much (mainly in its use of color to drive your eye). Granted, it had the benefit of being a late entry in a pretty large series, so we already knew these characters.
> *snip*


Whatever.

I'm comparing the two posters side by side, they look so similar, this and the trailer really makes it sound like its more just more MCU no matter what the stakes are.

----------


## EggKookoo

This one is much better, at least conceptually.

There's another one on the D&D movie FB page that's a kind of circular composition with you looking up at them, as if they just gave you a beatdown. I can't find it separately from FB but it's an order of magnitude more interesting than the original one in this thread.

----------


## PontificatusRex

> Someone once pointed out that in every MCU film poster where Captain America is in the foreground, he looks like a seagull just stole his ice cream. And now I can never unsee it.


I'm afraid I must disagree. In this poster Cap has clearly heard the Ice Cream Truck outside on the street, but took too long getting out of the house and is now watching it drive away.

----------


## Wintermoot

> I'm afraid I must disagree. In this poster Cap has clearly heard the Ice Cream Truck outside on the street, but took too long getting out of the house and is now watching it drive away.


Right before a giant seagull swoops down, picks up the ice cream truck and flies away.

----------


## EggKookoo

I can't unsee that Tony is so obviously rolling his eyes. Probably at Steve's failure to get/retain his ice cream.

----------


## Millstone85

> There's another one on the D&D movie FB page that's a kind of circular composition with you looking up at them, as if they just gave you a beatdown. I can't find it separately from FB but it's an order of magnitude more interesting than the original one in this thread.




I don't hate the others but I do think this is the best one so far.

----------


## EggKookoo

That's the one I meant. Much better!

----------


## Giggling Ghast

Yeah, thats actually pretty good. Better use of lighting and composition, at any rate.

----------


## Peelee

That one also looks kind of formulaic, if lesser used

So does the one with the silhouettes and the D&D logo, to be fair, but I like that one best so far from a design perspective.

----------


## BRC

> That one also looks kind of formulaic, if lesser used
> 
> So does the one with the silhouettes and the D&D logo, to be fair, but I like that one best so far from a design perspective.


Eh, there's only so many ways to put 6+ characters on a poster.

----------


## EggKookoo

> That one also looks kind of formulaic, if lesser used


I can't pull to memory too many instances of movie posters taking the risk of putting some actors' faces upside down. I kind of wish they released a series of that one, each with the central image rotated so a different pair of characters are near the bottom.

Actually I would love a series of posters, each featuring a single party member, with some quirky/weird/funny statement about how they function within the group. "Eats, shoots, leaves... commas intended" or something like that. Just enough to prompt an affectionate chuckle.




> So does the one with the silhouettes and the D&D logo, to be fair, but I like that one best so far from a design perspective.


I do like that one as well, but the other one fulfills the presumed contracts requiring the faces of the actors to be visible (although again the upside-down thing is chancy).

----------


## Peelee

> Eh, there's only so many ways to put 6+ characters on a poster.


The Usual Suspects had a good one with 5. 12 Angry Men had a great one with, well, 12.  And you don't even _need_ to have all six on the poster. Lord of War had an amazing poster design which was ostensibly just Nic Cage's face. Catch Me If You Can blurred out it's two main leads on its best poster, and another poster borrowed the minimalist stick figure design of the intro.

The art department doesn't need to show all 6 people. Not even the marketing department needs to. But mandating it is going to lead to crowded, formulaic posters.

Also,i should not at this point that one of my favorite movies ever, In Bruges, has an absolutely atrocious poster. And trailer. Hell, all of the marketing for it was just horrible and advertised a different movie than what you would be getting. Movie was still great. I'm excited for HAT regardless. I don't need it to be good. I just need it to be really entertaining. I'll gladly take that.

----------


## tyckspoon

> That one also looks kind of formulaic, if lesser used
> 
> So does the one with the silhouettes and the D&D logo, to be fair, but I like that one best so far from a design perspective.


_What are they standing on._ Like.. you can see the Bard's feet. What the heck is he standing or leaning on? Nothing, apparently? And from there.. all of the other characters pretty much have to just be floating in the air at various angles. They're not supported on anything. There's no consistent sense of view or direction - they're not 'looking down at you', because if they were doing that they'd all be angled in toward the viewpoint, and their bodies would be positioned and posed so they'd all appear to be supported on the same surface.

What this actually looks like, to me, is they took an image for each character that was supposed to be a solo pic, like a trading-card profile picture, and then slapped them all into one arrangement. And they're images that were supposed to be in a completely different context, too, like Bard seems pretty clearly supposed to be doing the cliche 'leaning on a low wall playing music nonchalantly' thing, but here he's just balancing on one foot with his other feet braced back against nothing?

----------


## EggKookoo

> _What are they standing on._ Like.. you can see the Bard's feet. What the heck is he standing or leaning on? Nothing, apparently?




Who knew Darth Vader was also Knowhere?

----------


## Peelee

> _What are they standing on._ Like.. you can see the Bard's feet. What the heck is he standing or leaning on? Nothing, apparently? And from there.. all of the other characters pretty much have to just be floating in the air at various angles. They're not supported on anything. There's no consistent sense of view or direction - they're not 'looking down at you', because if they were doing that they'd all be angled in toward the viewpoint, and their bodies would be positioned and posed so they'd all appear to be supported on the same surface.
> 
> What this actually looks like, to me, is they took an image for each character that was supposed to be a solo pic, like a trading-card profile picture, and then slapped them all into one arrangement. And they're images that were supposed to be in a completely different context, too, like Bard seems pretty clearly supposed to be doing the cliche 'leaning on a low wall playing music nonchalantly' thing, but here he's just balancing on one foot with his other feet braced back against nothing?


That doesn't bother me at all. Movie posters are a very limiting medium, you have to convey what the movie is about and get people interested with a static image and you're competing with every other poster in the theater. An idea of what it's about and being eye catching are the two most important facets. A poster with a bunch of faces isn't eye catching, especially when it looks just like every other poster with a bunch of faces. Arranging them so they look down on you as if you're on the ground is better, but it's still just a bunch of faces. The Star Wars poster above is fantastic design because it incorporates all the elements without looking too busy - a giant space station, a fleet of small fighter ships going to a space battle, an evil masked villain looming over everything larger than life, two leads looking like they're out of a fantasy movie with a mythical sword being held aloft, bam, you got a great idea of what it's about and it looks visually unique. That's going to catch an eye.

Compare this to the two HAT faces posters. You have a bunch of fantasy characters, and.... Not much else. A dragon, in one of them. It looks like any other fantasy movie. Nothing special about it but hey maybe you like the actors, they're very pretty. The silhouette poster conveys immediately and most prominently that it's a D&D movie, and the amount of empty space outside of the logo helps focus on the art in the logo. It's good design. It tells you immediately it's a D&D movie, and by not going for a similar "bunch of faces" design gives the impression that it's distancing itself from the other D&D movies and also other fantasy movies by not being generic. Who knows if that's actually true, the poster gives that impression while the other two don't (IMO).

Back when I was a projectionist I decked out an empty hallway in my booth with some framed posters. Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark.  That Raiders poster is amazing. Look at that thing! You have the hero who wields a bullwhip! That just looks fantastic. All around the edging you have a ton of detail but not so much it looks crowded. There's vipers and gun-toting villains and golden treasure scimitar-wielding villains and an ancient temple and man, that movie just looks like it has everything! And then the pièce de résistance, that tagline! So short and simple but so effective and evocative. "The Return of the Great Adventure". That's a bold claim right there, but everything in the poster fuels that claim. That poster damn sure looks like it's the return of the great adventure! That's an attention grabber right there. That's a poster that makes you a promise, see this movie for an _adventure_!

I don't like the "bunch of heads" style posters. There's nothing attention grabbing. There's nothing interesting in it. There's no interest or intrigue or promise. There's just the actors.

----------


## BRC

> That doesn't bother me at all. Movie posters are a very limiting medium, you have to convey what the movie is about and get people interested with a static image and you're competing with every other poster in the theater. An idea of what it's about and being eye catching are the two most important facets. A poster with a bunch of faces isn't eye catching, especially when it looks just like every other poster with a bunch of faces. Arranging them so they look down on you as if you're on the ground is better, but it's still just a bunch of faces. The Star Wars poster above is fantastic design because it incorporates all the elements without looking too busy - a giant space station, a fleet of small fighter ships going to a space battle, an evil masked villain looming over everything larger than life, two leads looking like they're out of a fantasy movie with a mythical sword being held aloft, bam, you got a great idea of what it's about and it looks visually unique. That's going to catch an eye.
> 
> Compare this to the two HAT faces posters. You have a bunch of fantasy characters, and.... Not much else. A dragon, in one of them. It looks like any other fantasy movie. Nothing special about it but hey maybe you like the actors, they're very pretty. The silhouette poster conveys immediately and most prominently that it's a D&D movie, and the amount of empty space outside of the logo helps focus on the art in the logo. It's good design. It tells you immediately it's a D&D movie, and by not going for a similar "bunch of faces" design gives the impression that it's distancing itself from the other D&D movies and also other fantasy movies by not being generic. Who knows if that's actually true, the poster gives that impression while the other two don't (IMO).
> 
> Back when I was a projectionist I decked out an empty hallway in my booth with some framed posters. Star Wars, Back to the Future, and Raiders of the Lost Ark.  That Raiders poster is amazing. Look at that thing! You have the hero who wields a bullwhip! That just looks fantastic. All around the edging you have a ton of detail but not so much it looks crowded. There's vipers and gun-toting villains and golden treasure scimitar-wielding villains and an ancient temple and man, that movie just looks like it has everything! And then the pièce de résistance, that tagline! So short and simple but so effective and evocative. "The Return of the Great Adventure". That's a bold claim right there, but everything in the poster fuels that claim. That poster damn sure looks like it's the return of the great adventure! That's an attention grabber right there. That's a poster that makes you a promise, see this movie for an _adventure_!
> 
> I don't like the "bunch of heads" style posters. There's nothing attention grabbing. There's nothing interesting in it. There's no interest or intrigue or promise. There's just the actors.


I wonder if there's something to be said for poster design being less prominent in the modern age with Trailers being much more accessible. 

Like, that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" poster might be the first somebody has heard of the film, and while it doesn't exactly give you a plot synopsis, it does give you a sense of what sort of movie it is. "I like adventure movies starring handsome men, I'll go see that!". It's an Advertisement. Somebody might walk past the theater, see that poster, and decide they want to see the movie, and that's the Poster's Job. The poster was an important piece of the film's marketing, and the appropriate effort was put into it, which shows in the design of the poster itself as a piece of art.  

These days, everybody has access to youtube. Some people are going to hear about announcements through entertainment media, then go through the media hype cycle, and most people who think the movie sounds interesting are likely to look up and watch a trailer online, or see a trailer in the theaters. Posters are less advertisements designed to get you into the theaters, and more reminders that the film exists, a bid for attention in an overstimulated world. They don't need you to look at the poster and be intrigued, that's what the trailer is for, they just need you to look at it and say "Oh yeah, that movie is coming out". Even if the poster is somebody's first exposure, it only need to be interesting enough to get them to watch the trailer or look up more details, the poster itself doesn't need to sell the movie.  Release 3 or 4 posters over a few months so people have something to pass around twitter and keep your film in mind before it hits theaters, but the posters themselves are basically just a fancy sign saying "THIS MOVIE EXISTS AND STARS THESE PEOPLE". Why spend money having skilled people spend a lot of time making a poster when you can just plug cutouts of the cast in a few different arrangements and get the same effect on your box office returns.

----------


## Palanan

> Originally Posted by *EggKookoo*
> _I do like that one as well._


The poster with the silhouettes is by far my favorite.  Each character has an easy visual hook that lets you know who they are and what they dostaff and robes for the wizard, axe for the fighter, instrument for the bard, etc.

That speaks to me far more than a clutter of faces, or worse yet a circle of faces looking down on me.  The silhouettes are quick, evocative, and tell me this is a D&D party from the days of yore.  That right there makes me want to see this.

----------


## Peelee

> The poster with the silhouettes is by far my favorite.  Each character has an easy visual hook that lets you know who they are and what they dostaff and robes for the wizard, axe for the fighter, instrument for the bard, etc.
> 
> That speaks to me far more than a clutter of faces, or worse yet a circle of faces looking down on me.  The silhouettes are quick, evocative, and tell me this is a D&D party from the days of yore.  That right there makes me want to see this.


A good silhouette is a good character design. For example, Indiana Jones without accouterments is just a silhouette of a guy. Could be anyone. But a wide-brimmed Australian fedora and a coiled whip and his waist and you have an instantly recognizeable character.

----------


## runeghost

> The poster with the silhouettes is by far my favorite.  Each character has an easy visual hook that lets you know who they are and what they dostaff and robes for the wizard, axe for the fighter, instrument for the bard, etc.
> 
> That speaks to me far more than a clutter of faces, or worse yet a circle of faces looking down on me.  The silhouettes are quick, evocative, and tell me this is a D&D party from the days of yore.  That right there makes me want to see this.


Early World of Warcraft was quite good at this - you could tell race (and thus faction), and make a fair guess at class of just about any character from just their silhouette. It worked on almost a subconscious level, and was a marvel of design work. (They tossed it all out the window later, possibly without even realizing what they were doing, after team turnover.)

----------


## Murk

> Posters are less advertisements designed to get you into the theaters, and more reminders that the film exists, a bid for attention in an overstimulated world.


I think this is it. The only time I see movie posters is on internet forums where the movie is already being discussed. I can't remember the last time I saw an actual, real-life movie poster. 

Since I only see the posters in forum threads for the movie, I am generally already aware of the movie, and often already interested in it.
The only exception would be movie posters that are so terrible that I come across discussion of the poster without being aware the movie exists. So maybe it's even beneficial to make a terrible poster? 

Good movie posters only serve a purpose if there is an opportunity for me to see the poster without already being interested in the movie. 
Trailers do this! Several websites like youtube put trailers in my recommend list for movies I was unaware of; movie theatres do the same; I guess television does, too. 

So indeed the poster is just a heads-up: hey, remember this movie exists. These people are in it. See ya.

----------


## Eldan

I only ever see posters at the cinema, when I'm already on my way to watch that movie. And I guess there's banner ads on websites that are based on the posters.

----------


## Peelee

> I think this is it. The only time I see movie posters is on internet forums where the movie is already being discussed. I can't remember the last time I saw an actual, real-life movie poster.


Not to self, Murk cannot remember the last time they went it an actual, real-life movie theater.  :Small Tongue: 

Imean, really, they haven't gone away because of the internet. Big cities still have movie ads like they alway did. Movie theaters still have movie ads like they always did. Where did you used to see them that you don't anymore?

----------


## Murk

> Not to self, Murk cannot remember the last time they went it an actual, real-life movie theater. 
> 
> Imean, really, they haven't gone away because of the internet. Big cities still have movie ads like they alway did. Movie theaters still have movie ads like they always did. Where did you used to see them that you don't anymore?


Honestly, don't know!

Twenty years ago I remember seeing movie posters at train stations or bus stops or even in magazines and newspapers. 
(Granted, it's been a long time since I've touched a newspaper)

I _do_ go to real-life movie theaters every now and then, but I don't actually think they have these big movie posters hanging on the walls anymore. Not so sure, but I often only see cardboard cut-outs (for the big budget movies) and screens with short trailers.

----------


## BRC

> Not to self, Murk cannot remember the last time they went it an actual, real-life movie theater. 
> 
> Imean, really, they haven't gone away because of the internet. Big cities still have movie ads like they alway did. Movie theaters still have movie ads like they always did. Where did you used to see them that you don't anymore?


It's less that you don't see them anymore, you do (movie theatres, billboards, ect), and more that a poster is far less likely to be your first exposure to a film, and your next step upon seeing a poster isn't going to be to look up film times in the newspaper if you're intrigued, it's to go watch the trailer online.

Thus, the importance of the poster is far reduced.

----------


## Peelee

> Honestly, don't know!
> 
> Twenty years ago I remember seeing movie posters at train stations or bus stops or even in magazines and newspapers. 
> (Granted, it's been a long time since I've touched a newspaper)
> 
> I _do_ go to real-life movie theaters every now and then, but I don't actually think they have these big movie posters hanging on the walls anymore. Not so sure, but I often only see cardboard cut-outs (for the big budget movies) and screens with short trailers.


The really huge ones are called bus shelters, and it looked like they're still being made and distributed. They're made out of vinyl and require much more wall space so they're less common overall.

For the rest, I can't say, but the last time I went to NYC I sorely remember seeing an enormous amount of ads for movies and TV shows and wondering how much it actually affects the take they get in, because they were _everywhere_.

----------


## Bartmanhomer

I think movie posters play a minor part when people seek interest to see what movie is playing in theaters.

----------

