|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 19, 2022 17:51:01 GMT -6
The recent Japanese trailer for D&D got me to thinking what a real D&D movie would be like. Picture this:
A group of friends gather around the table to play D&D. By their interactions you can already see the friction, the social problems, and the friendships. They start playing and their personalities come to life. We transition to the D&D world where they are actually their characters. As they adventure, overcome problems, defeat challenges, conquer monsters we go back to the real world and see as each of the player's are working out personal problems, and repair their relationships with one another, etc. parallel to what is happening to their characters.
Basically D&D as a therapy session. Or Knights of the Dinner Table meets Lord of the Rings if you will. (or even use the D&D cartoon!)
Ok, ok, I know that could be totally cheesy. But, if handled right would be amazing and a real D&D movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 21, 2022 15:55:35 GMT -6
Um, no. It isn't. That just plays into the furor of negative press that started back in the early 1980s (post-Jonestown, post-Dallas Egbert). Let's not validate that s**t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2022 18:16:32 GMT -6
Um, no. It isn't. That just plays into the furor of negative press that started back in the early 1980s (post-Jonestown, post-Dallas Egbert). Let's not validate that s**t. I agree for the most part. So the Japanese have taken to D&D like runaway stone golems or singing dragonnes (or dragons). For more just wait for the other movie in 2023! That said, I dislike any therapeutic sentiment in and around D&D beyond that attained when a player rolls a crit at the game table! Afterall, there is leveling up built into the game and these levels are named. So squarely leveling up also feels good when it happens. Alas, it remains true that some people may never resolve what bugs them about others. A good game table with a competent DM and on task players/adventurers is a treasure type H plus a treasure type Z, at least!  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 26, 2022 20:57:29 GMT -6
Um, no. It isn't. That just plays into the furor of negative press that started back in the early 1980s (post-Jonestown, post-Dallas Egbert). Let's not validate that s**t. Some people have difficult lives and D&D is an escape. Helps them cope. If you understand how movie storytelling works at all the protagonist has an external and an internal problem. What they want and what they need. The story is satisfactorily resolved when both are solved. This is the formula of practically every movie ever. And the best movies do it really really well. I was just marrying the two. Let's hear your better idea. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2022 4:06:04 GMT -6
If you understand how movie storytelling works at all the protagonist has an external and an internal problem. What they want and what they need. The story is satisfactorily resolved when both are solved. This is the formula of practically every movie ever. And the best movies do it really really well. Um...no. Many of literature's best-loved stories do not follow this formula: Hamlet, the Count of Monte Cristo, Oedipus Rex, Slaughter House Five - to name a few classics. Even many of the works of Roger Zelazny (Lord of Light, Chronicles of Amber), Jack Vance (Demon Princes), and Hemingway (Garden of Eden, Farewell to Arms) defy this notion. Many of these stories are about broken characters whose external success does not solve their internal conflict. Or whose desires, despite their best efforts, slip their fingers. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 27, 2022 13:27:02 GMT -6
I was going to post something but it was too long and made it seem like I was picking sides, when really I have none.
Just pointing out that some are describing movie scripts, and some are describing literature and staged drama which were never built on the hegemonic structure of studio editors who need to greenlight scripts before hundreds of people spend millions making the movie. So really everyone is accurate. Different mediums at different times, for different audiences, will have their own story conventions.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 27, 2022 14:02:15 GMT -6
I don't think I follow your train of thought. The proposition of "films are often made this way" is not the same as "this way unlocks the potential of a great story."
Furthermore, I'm not sure your other arguments hold much water:
1) The "hegemonic" frorces that great literature (including film) must withstand go much deeper than that of mere studio editors. A great work must survive one of the most crushing and relentless forces humanity will ever contend with: time.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is an unbelievably transformative work (to my estimation). Had it not been, it would not have been read consistently over the past 3,000 years. I grew up in the US. My wife grew up in the middle east. We both read that work in high school despire growing up on different continents. We both enjoyed it and found it meaningful. We both reference it in discussions occasionally.
I doubt much of Hollywood film will survive 3000+ years of scrutiny. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
2) All of literature (not only modern film) has had to appeal to the masses. As far as audiences go, Shakespeare's audience was little different than the modern movie goer. Both audiences came from a variety of backgrounds, nationalities, and economic classes, yet still enjoyed his plays. It's fun to look at which jokes Shakespeare wrote were aimed at which subsections of his audience.
3) Story conventions have been around, and thoroughly examined, since at least the time of Aristotle's Poetics. Nearly all of those principles that Aristotle identifies have are incorporated thousands of years of literature and continue into modern film. Star War isn't all that different from the myth of the Buddha, after all, at least when viewed from the right angle. Pretty Woman is an updated version of the Much Ado About Nothing. Twilight draws upon the same themes as the first book of the previous mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh.
Besides, even if film scripts are selected using a different (or expanded) list of criteria, how do we judge the effectiveness of those criteria from our current place in history? I'm skeptical of using revenue as a measure of greatness and artistic worth, but I'm open to an argument in favor of such.
However, if we have more interest in literature as (primarily) an economic pursuit, I have little to add. Rats will always run their rat races.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2022 17:15:11 GMT -6
If you understand how movie storytelling works at all the protagonist has an external and an internal problem. What they want and what they need. The story is satisfactorily resolved when both are solved. This is the formula of practically every movie ever. And the best movies do it really really well. Um...no. Many of literature's best-loved stories do not follow this formula: Hamlet, the Count of Monte Cristo, Oedipus Rex, Slaughter House Five - to name a few classics. Even many of the works of Roger Zelazny (Lord of Light, Chronicles of Amber), Jack Vance (Demon Princes), and Hemingway (Garden of Eden, Farewell to Arms) defy this notion. Many of these stories are about broken characters whose external success does not solve their internal conflict. Or whose desires, despite their best efforts, slip their fingers. You are talking about stories, I am talking about movies. Having worked in the film industry I can tell you, they will NOT greenlight a script unless it has that formula. This is why the John Carter movie came out the way it did. It is a deep seated belief in the movie business. That said, yes, you can find the exception. There are always exceptions. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2022 17:22:26 GMT -6
However, if we have more interest in literature as (primarily) an economic pursuit, I have little to add. Rats will always run their rat races. Movies cost a lot of money to make. A LOT. Economic interests are always the primary driving factor. That is a fact. I am not arguing that it is a good thing, or even my own personal preference, just stating that it is the way it is. So to get back to the proposal it is a very Hollywood friendly suggestion as well as being somewhat true to the D&D experience. I don't care what DungeonDevil says or thinks, therapy is a factor. Perhaps therapy is not the best word, but friendships are formed, issues are resolved, people experience a range of emotions when playing. Some people become enemies while some people overcome differences by playing D&D together. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 27, 2022 22:51:43 GMT -6
I don't think I follow your train of thought. The proposition of "films are often made this way" is not the same as "this way unlocks the potential of a great story." Furthermore, I'm not sure your other arguments hold much water: 1) The "hegemonic" frorces that great literature (including film) must withstand go much deeper than that of mere studio editors. A great work must survive one of the most crushing and relentless forces humanity will ever contend with: time. The Epic of Gilgamesh is an unbelievably transformative work (to my estimation). Had it not been, it would not have been read consistently over the past 3,000 years. I grew up in the US. My wife grew up in the middle east. We both read that work in high school despire growing up on different continents. We both enjoyed it and found it meaningful. We both reference it in discussions occasionally. I doubt much of Hollywood film will survive 3000+ years of scrutiny. Perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. 2) All of literature (not only modern film) has had to appeal to the masses. As far as audiences go, Shakespeare's audience was little different than the modern movie goer. Both audiences came from a variety of backgrounds, nationalities, and economic classes, yet still enjoyed his plays. It's fun to look at which jokes Shakespeare wrote were aimed at which subsections of his audience. 3) Story conventions have been around, and thoroughly examined, since at least the time of Aristotle's Poetics. Nearly all of those principles that Aristotle identifies have are incorporated thousands of years of literature and continue into modern film. Star War isn't all that different from the myth of the Buddha, after all, at least when viewed from the right angle. Pretty Woman is an updated version of the Much Ado About Nothing. Twilight draws upon the same themes as the first book of the previous mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh. Besides, even if film scripts are selected using a different (or expanded) list of criteria, how do we judge the effectiveness of those criteria from our current place in history? I'm skeptical of using revenue as a measure of greatness and artistic worth, but I'm open to an argument in favor of such. However, if we have more interest in literature as (primarily) an economic pursuit, I have little to add. Rats will always run their rat races. Well again, you're not wrong, and most or all of that I agree with wholeheartedly; I just don't think we're talking about the same subject. One explanation is simply to point out that there's a reason why Pretty Woman isn't just Much Ado About Nothing: it's Pretty Woman, an updated retelling of more or less the action narrative that unfolds in Much Ado About Nothing, as we (or the scriptwriters, at the very least) perceive it. Whether people will be holding Pretty Woman up against Shakespeare in 400 years is irrelevant to the fact that Pretty Woman was made and resounded in the public heart for entertainment. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 27, 2022 23:25:22 GMT -6
All of this aside, the core idea of a group of gamers that become their characters in a fantasy world like this Japanese D&D commercial, would be much more of a D&D movie, and more original and interesting than just another standard fantasy movie.
I'll still see this new D&D movie on opening weekend, but I don't have high hopes and think they missed an opportunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 28, 2022 0:49:09 GMT -6
You are talking about stories, I am talking about movies. Having worked in the film industry I can tell you, they will NOT greenlight a script unless it has that formula. This is why the John Carter movie came out the way it did. It is a deep seated belief in the movie business. That said, yes, you can find the exception. There are always exceptions. I think we have a different definition of movie. For me, movie equal story + camera. Nothing more or less. I too have worked in the film industry (though briefly and in a very different subsection, I suspect). Most films are not Hollywood blockbusters. Small independent productions account for over 90% of all films screened. Heck, most films aren't made in (or ever translated into) English. Many film awards place a cap on their contestant's budgets (although some are still atrociously high). Nevertheless, I am skeptical that the Hollywood formula is the best way of recording narrative on film. Our ancestors will find out in 400 years. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 28, 2022 0:56:40 GMT -6
Well again, you're not wrong, and most or all of that I agree with wholeheartedly; I just don't think we're talking about the same subject. One explanation is simply to point out that there's a reason why Pretty Woman isn't just Much Ado About Nothing: it's Pretty Woman, an updated retelling of more or less the action narrative that unfolds in Much Ado About Nothing, as we (or the scriptwriters, at the very least) perceive it. Whether people will be holding Pretty Woman up against Shakespeare in 400 years is irrelevant to the fact that Pretty Woman was made and resounded in the public heart for entertainment. Shakespeare wrote for the entertainment of an audience and with at least some eye towards profit. I don't see why stories creates for entertainment cannot also be masterpieces. A masterpiece would, in fact, be inherently entertaining, as entertainment value would be one (though not the only) criteria for its greatness. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 28, 2022 3:00:56 GMT -6
I think we have a different definition of movie. For me, movie equal story + camera. Nothing more or less. Sure. Anyone can pick up a camera and make a movie. Getting a studio to distribute it and theaters to play it, well...that's a whole other matter. |
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Aug 28, 2022 3:54:55 GMT -6
Sure. Anyone can pick up a camera and make a movie. Getting a studio to distribute it and theaters to play it, well...that's a whole other matter. Such is a difference of values, not artistic worth. Not that the formula you have presented cannot make great art. But to turn it into dogma is to do a disservice to the promise makes art sacred (in the Platonic sense). Pray not we do with literature what we have done to architecture. |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Aug 28, 2022 11:21:26 GMT -6
Well again, you're not wrong, and most or all of that I agree with wholeheartedly; I just don't think we're talking about the same subject. One explanation is simply to point out that there's a reason why Pretty Woman isn't just Much Ado About Nothing: it's Pretty Woman, an updated retelling of more or less the action narrative that unfolds in Much Ado About Nothing, as we (or the scriptwriters, at the very least) perceive it. Whether people will be holding Pretty Woman up against Shakespeare in 400 years is irrelevant to the fact that Pretty Woman was made and resounded in the public heart for entertainment. Shakespeare wrote for the entertainment of an audience and with at least some eye towards profit. I don't see why stories creates for entertainment cannot also be masterpieces. A masterpiece would, in fact, be inherently entertaining, as entertainment value would be one (though not the only) criteria for its greatness. Exactly! I think we don't disagree about anything here.  If it sounds as though we do, it's probably only because I didn't write my thoughts well enough about the monetization of Hollywood scripts, making it sound like I was cynically stating that it was an either/or process of money vs quality. Really all I mean is that the economic principles and requirements behind the film industry are unique in history, and therefore need to be handled on their own terms. The basic terms are that it is, for better or worse, hyperfocused on a very specific story format that is inherited from the 19th-century Bildungsroman as seen through the lens of Joseph Campbellisms about the hero's journey*. Of course it's still possible to make a masterwork movie in another way; but it was also possible in Shakespeare's time to make a masterwork play in another way from that day's own tropes, but the reality is that 99% of everything made then and now conformed to the tropes and formats of the time, and while that resulted in innumerable derivative stinkers in both cases, it certainly didn't harm the masterworks themselves. *I actually have a hot take on Campbell that's probably not very popular to anyone other than folklorists: basically that he was never looking at folklore itself (where it was immediately pointed out how incorrect his assumptions were), but that he was looking at myth & folklore as he knew them from the perspective of a 20th-century American whose primary understanding of narrative came from watching movies and reading novels both steeped in the relatively new tradition of the Bildungsroman, and therefore whose 19th & 20th retellings of those myths almost always and exclusively focused on interpreting them using the same techniques as the Bildungsroman. But that's another topic altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 28, 2022 18:30:25 GMT -6
Such is a difference of values, not artistic worth. Not that the formula you have presented cannot make great art. But to turn it into dogma is to do a disservice to the promise makes art sacred (in the Platonic sense). Pray not we do with literature what we have done to architecture. Sadly I think it is happening to literature. Architecture has become so ugly (I even admire some of the architects who could be blamed like Hugh Ferris and Lebbeus Woods), and literature seems to be going that way too. Deconstructionism and post-modernism are ruining art. |
|
