# UPDATE: Hasbro files lawsuit - Warner Bros. to make a D&D Movie. AICN



## darjr (May 8, 2013)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/62302

Never heard of the writer. Here's to hoping it's great.

Here's the link to the article 
http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/dungeons-dragons-movie-warner-bros/

UPDATE
Well looks like Hasbro is suing.

http://www.purplepawn.com/2013/05/hasbro-files-suit-over-dd-movie/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262


----------



## darjr (May 8, 2013)

Ha! Looks like someone originally got the license for a 'Chainmail' movie! That's genius. Make a 'D&D' movie using material from Gygax without having to deal with the folks that have the D&D license? Yea.

But it looks like they now have the D&D license. Fingers crossed.


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 8, 2013)

Written by the writer of Wrath of the Titans and Red Riding Hood? Produced by the director of the 2000 D&D movie? Maybe it's a late April Fool's joke.


----------



## Quickleaf (May 8, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> Written by the writer of Wrath of the Titans and Red Riding Hood? Produced by the director of the 2000 D&D movie? Maybe it's a late April Fool's joke.




Dude that's my thought.

As long as there's a raise dead scene with the party pawning gear to afford it. And a halfling joke, gotta have a halfling joke.


----------



## Empirate (May 8, 2013)

I'm expecting lots of showy flashy bang-bang, and exactly none of the things that make D&D great. Namely, unearthly worlds, imaginative stories, character interaction, character development, atmosphere, surprise twists, unexpected results to unlikely actions, and the sheer suspense of the unknown.

Among a million other things which can't possibly be put in a movie, but that's a question of medium, not of bad execution: like the whole thing being a social experience, not a purely audiovisual feed; the whole thing not being just one story set in just one world, but a myriad of stories playing out in a myriad of worlds over time; the whole thing being an emergent construction in which I take an active part, as opposed to passively consuming another guy's work of imagination. So in these fields, I can only give the finger to Warner Bros. for trying at all, not for botching the job. Although they'll probably do that, too.

Sigh.


----------



## Herobizkit (May 8, 2013)

Someone had BETTER use a 10' pole in every scene.


----------



## delericho (May 8, 2013)

Under the circumstances, this is probably the second-best thing that could have happened on the D&D movie front (the best being if WotC were to buy out Courtney Solomon and get the rights back). I'm sure that whatever they come up with can't possibly be worse than "Book of Vile Darkness" (although I did enjoy the bit where the knight swore an oath of chastity, just like his father before him).


----------



## Pour (May 8, 2013)

Exposure is exposure. And kids judge things way differently than you or I, largely on the spectacle and cool factor. This might do more for Next than any playtest or fan placation. I agree, though, also give us a good cartoon.


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2013)

One thing I'm curious about is whether it will be sword-and-sorcery, mercenary-style D&D in the dungeoncrawling style, or high fantasy epic quest D&D in the Dragonlance style.

Also, will they find a way to make slightly silly D&D tropes, like some of the monster and the spells, into viable elements of a movie? I think the high point for this sort of achievement is the X-Men movie, which did this with mutants in general, and also with the Mansion, the Blackbird, Cerebro etc. The Avengers movie also did a reasonable job of making the SHIELD Helicarrier plausible. Can the same be done for beholders, gelatinous cubes and prismatic spheres?


----------



## Alzrius (May 8, 2013)

I predict that this will be a generic fantasy movie with a few D&D-isms thrown in, satisfying no one.


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I predict that this will be a generic fantasy movie with a few D&D-isms thrown in, satisfying no one.




And just what are you basing that historically accurate cinematic prediction on? ;P


----------



## Dragoslav (May 8, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> I predict that this will be a generic fantasy movie with a few D&D-isms thrown in, satisfying no one.



I think this is likely the most accurate prediction.


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2013)

If the license is for Chainmail, then many of the common "D&Disms" we all think of won't be present.  They can do generic fantasy, and any game elements that were present in Chainmail, but things that arose in D&D itself will be off-limits.

Of course, there's worse they could do than make a decent generic fantasy flick...


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

I just don't understand how anyone involved is allowing Solomon within spitting distance of the project.

[EDIT] Maybe he just lucked out and was the one who secured the rights to Chainmail, and just refuses to let go of them.


----------



## delericho (May 8, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If the license is for Chainmail...




It _was_ for Chainmail, but they've now acquired the rights to D&D and are therefore retooling to the bigger property.



Nytmare said:


> I just don't understand how anyone involved is allowing Solomon within spitting distance of the project.




For the same reason he directed the first movie and was producer on the second and third - he still holds the rights. WB almost certainly got the rights only by allowing him involvement in the project.


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

delericho said:


> For the same reason he directed the first movie and was producer on the second and third - he still holds the rights. WB almost certainly got the rights only by allowing him involvement in the project.




Heh.  Yeah, I figured it out as soon as I hit the submit button.  

Hopefully they'll be able to just keep him as a name on the project, and as far away from the creative process as possible.


----------



## Gorgoroth (May 8, 2013)

In my experience in videogames, a good producer is one that lets his employees do good work without unduly getting in the way, and a bad one means death to the project, or at least a poor result. I'm not optimistic, but we'll see. Can WB replace a producer once the project starts? Or ideally, before? Perhaps the guy learned lessons from past mistakes (nah, probably not)


----------



## tuxgeo (May 8, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> Heh.  Yeah, I figured it out as soon as I hit the submit button.
> 
> Hopefully they'll be able to just keep him as a name on the project, and as far away from the creative process as possible.




They might be able to insulate the project a little bit from his influence by _hiring lots more producers_. 

For example, look at _"The Fellowship of the RIngs"_: 
Producers: Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Tim Sanders, and Fran Walsh. 
Executive Producers: Michael Lynne, Mark Ordesky, Robert Shaye, Bob Weinstein, and Harvey Weinstein. 
Co-Producers: Rick Porras, Jamie Selkirk. 
Associate Producer: Ellen M. Somers. 

When you have a dozen producers on a project, it becomes possible for at least a few of them to have restricted influence.


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

In film, there are a handful of different kinds of good producer, and twice as many bad ones.  In the broadest of terms, producers are only really worried about the resource management of money.  This of course interfaces with time, and man power, and a million other variables, but primarily, that's what their focus is supposed to be.  Depending on the size of the project (and the number of producers) this means that a producer's scope might be as broad as worrying about every monetary problem the film has to deal with, or as narrow as being a source of money and exchanging it for a producer credit.

In the end, what it really comes down to is how well they understand the process, how well they understand where they fit into that particular machine, and how good they are at solving more problems than they are causing.

Just because he's a producer doesn't mean that he's going to have any input or control at all.  It doesn't even mean that he's necessarily going to be invited to set.

All that being said, a producer can be replaced at any point during pre-production, production, or post-production.  I was on a job where a producer was excised on the last day of post production, and it was a mad dash rush to get their name out of the credits.


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

tuxgeo said:


> They might be able to insulate the project a little bit from his influence by _hiring lots more producers_.




It's less the number of producers, and more what those producers were hired to do.

You have someone (usually the executive producers) that secured the money and whoa are paying attention to how fast that money is moving.  You might have someone else dealing only with contracts and talent.  You might have a producer or two dealing with a secondary and stunt unit, someone specifically watching crew over-time on a week to week basis.  Someone watching the art and construction departments so that everything is finished before the shoot crew gets there.  Maybe a producer or two sitting with the director at the monitor to give their input on the creative process.  Someone working with the Transpo Coordinator and the Locations department to ok trucks and teamsters and figure out where everything is going to park.

At the end of it all you've got the Associate Producer credit which might have been best described by David Mamet in State and Main as "what you give to your secretary instead of a raise."


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2013)

delericho said:


> It _was_ for Chainmail, but they've now acquired the rights to D&D and are therefore retooling to the bigger property.




Ah, sorry.  The rights history wasn't entirely clear in the articles i had seen



> For the same reason he directed the first movie and was producer on the second and third - he still holds the rights. WB almost certainly got the rights only by allowing him involvement in the project.




That kind of follows.  We can hope, though, that WB went, "Dude, we want the rights, but clearly from your last attempts, you kinda stink at this.  We'll give you a producer credit.  You get paid.  Your resume will look great.  But you will stand aside and let our people do the work."  That would be nice.


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

To be fair, it has been more than a decade since the first film.  That is a significant chunk of time to learn things.

Has anyone watched any of his more recent films?


----------



## Umbran (May 8, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> Has anyone watched any of his more recent films?




http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0813309/

Given that list of titles to his name, we should have confidence that this guy knows how to make a good movie?


----------



## Nytmare (May 8, 2013)

There's always a chance.  Just cause it's a low budget, indie film doesn't mean that it's a complete waste.  Two Universal Soldier sequels?  That doubles the chances of one of them being another Slumdog, right?


----------



## Quickleaf (May 8, 2013)

I just read an interesting interview with Courtney Solomon about the first D&D movie over here: http://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/courtney_solomo.html.

Perhaps the most salient quote from the article is:


			
				Courtney Solomon said:
			
		

> Basically it took two years of negotiating with them and sending them proposals and convincing them that we would take care of them and listen to what they had to say, which was sort of a blessing and not a blessing at the same time. Sometimes it's hard dealing with right's holders who have opinions about what should be in the movie and don't really know anything about making movies.



While that's certainly true, you'd better make a damn fine movie after saying something like that. Which none of the D&D movies have been.

Here's an idea...

Let's challenge Courtney Solomon, Roy Lee, and David Leslie Johnson to appear on Tabletop with Will Wheaton for a session of D&D


----------



## Manbearcat (May 8, 2013)

- Our intrepid heroes meet at a tavern and get together for reasons that make no sense at all (to each other or the audience).
- A mysterious pedlar sells them a cursed magic item for tons of gold that turns the male dwarf into a female when he puts it on (eliciting bad jokes from his mates for the rest of the movie about not being able to tell the difference).
- Our brave heroes avoid every fight possible, pilfering gold and observing how odd it is that they're getting better at their job all the while.
- Bob the overeager, dumb fighter gets eaten by an animated chest, the group slays it, mournful music is queued while everyone sheds a tear trying futily to remember anything interesting about poor Bob in a pathetic eulogy, the music quickly screeches to a halt and everyone fights over his stuff.
- 10 ft poles don't save the group from Acerak's Spheres of Annihilation and ridiculous traps.
- Last man standing is so weighed down by all of his mates' gear that he dies in a high speed chase with a Gelatinous Cube moving 50 feet per minute.
- Rocks fall.  Audience dies. 
- Curtain drops to Benny Hill Theme.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2013)

Empirate said:


> I'm expecting lots of showy flashy bang-bang, and exactly none of the things that make D&D great. Namely, unearthly worlds, imaginative stories, character interaction, character development, atmosphere, surprise twists, unexpected results to unlikely actions, and the sheer suspense of the unknown.




Since when were any of that ever a priority in D&D? All of them were secondary to combat, no matter the edition, especially Chainmail. And combat would translate to "showy flashy bang-bang" in screen.


----------



## darjr (May 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> Since when were any of that ever a priority in D&D? All of them were secondary to combat, no matter the edition, especially Chainmail. And combat would translate to "showy flashy bang-bang" in screen.




this does not speak for me. I want all that non-combat greatness... and combat.


----------



## Stormonu (May 9, 2013)

The best chance for a D&D movie was, in my opinion, putting Dragonlance to screen.  Unfortunately, they muffed that one with that piece of animated gak that went straight to video (and instead should have went straight to landfill).  It'll be 20 years or more before anyone in Hollywood will touch it now.  I mean, I see it kind of like the animated Lord of the Rings film.  It was 31 years before some redid it as a blockbuster.

I just don't get the sense that outside the RPG, the folks administrating D&D have much of a clue how to promote the game - and I think that translates into poor handling of the movie rights.  I mean, as for D&D computer games, it didn't release the first gold box game until 1986, whereas the likes of Ultima was already in its 5th incarnation.  Same thing for the MMO scene.  Again, late to the party with the choose-your-own adventure book craze (and vastly inferior to the Lone Wolf books).  Crash and burn card game knockoffs Spellfire and Blood Wars, too late and crummy games in themselves.  While I personally liked the LBJ toys from the 80's, why in the heck haven't they had Hasbro put out a new line of D&D toys?  They've had what - ten years to figure that one out?  About the only thing they didn't hang themselves with was the cartoon series, and it only ended up lasting a single season.  And I'm not sure I'd want to hold that up as "good entertainment".

And finally, we are talking about a franchise that has based itself stealing ideas from B movies, other folk's pulp fiction novels and whatever pop culture could be copied and have it's serial numbers filed off.  For default D&D, we're not talking about a lot of original creativity here.

In short, I wouldn't hold my breath that we're ever going to see a half-way decent D&D movie.  I just don't.


----------



## dd.stevenson (May 9, 2013)

I can't think of any D&D campaign I've ever been involved with that wouldn't be better suited to a youtube series.

Still, I hope WB makes a good go of it--odds are good that the movie profits will have more impact than anything else on the overall future of the D&D IP.


----------



## Plaguescarred (May 9, 2013)

I hope they adapt one of the novel series with an established reknown setting, such as Dragonlance's Tale of the Lance, Icewind Dale's Drizzt  or even Greyhawk's Gord The Rogue...

Now THAT would be awesome!!


----------



## GX.Sigma (May 9, 2013)

Plaguescarred said:


> I hope they adapt one of the novel series with an established reknown setting, such as Dragonlance's Tale of the Lance, Icewind Dale's Drizzt  or even Greyhawk's Gord The Rogue...
> 
> Now THAT would be awesome!!



I think WotC has all the rights to the settings and novels and so forth.

Which I guess hypothetically means Hasbro can make a Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance movie as long as it doesn't say "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title. Actually, they could leverage the brand quite a bit by calling it something like _Baldur's Gate_.


----------



## Empirate (May 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> Since when were any of that ever a priority in D&D? All of them were secondary to combat, no matter the edition, especially Chainmail. And combat would translate to "showy flashy bang-bang" in screen.




I wish I could downvote posts like this in this forum... But then again, I pity the kind of games you seem to be playing most of the time, so I'll just say: I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic.


----------



## delericho (May 9, 2013)

Derren said:


> Since when were any of that ever a priority in D&D? All of them were secondary to combat, no matter the edition, especially Chainmail. And combat would translate to "showy flashy bang-bang" in screen.




One of the very best things to come out of the 5e development is WotC's "three pillars" approach - recognising that combat is, indeed, hugely important, but that so too are interaction and exploration.

It could well be the optimal approach for a D&D movie to be built on the same three pillars.


----------



## howandwhy99 (May 9, 2013)

It looks like they finally gave up trying to get out of the contract with that ridiculous producer / director. This is both awesome and it sucks. We stand to get a decent film, but that sponge gets rich too.


----------



## knottyprof (May 9, 2013)

Would rather see another Gamers sequel.  That way at least I am aware that the intent was to make fun of the genre and those that partake.

I think Paramount should counter strike and sign a movie deal with Paizo for a Pathfinder movie (the game not that Vikings vs Native Americans movie that came out a few years back).

Honestly, I agree that games are based off of other materials (movies, books, etc...).  After all, the point is to allow people to partake in the story rather than just being a spectator.  Not to say that there isn't some good published materials out there for the game, just not sure if it translates well to the big (or small) screen.  How about a movie based on one of the 1e modules or module series?  Movie based on the Tomb of Horrors would be interesting, even to the point where the party is destroyed at the end and focus on the Horror part of it.


----------



## Kaodi (May 9, 2013)

If the movie turns out to be horrible I saw we make our own EN World Fantasy Movie That Is Definitely Not Dungeons & Dragons. 

Hoos withe meh!?


----------



## Matthias (May 9, 2013)

There is no good way to do a "D&D movie." At best it should be a miniseries, a single-season 1-hour TV show, preferably released online. Any way you do it, you can't squeeze a genuine D&D campaign into 100 minutes of screen time.

You would also have to break the fourth wall--by turning the camera on the actual players sitting round the table, vs. their characters--more often than Ahnold delivers one-liners in any movie he stars in.


----------



## Nytmare (May 9, 2013)

I would be afraid that any attempt to focus on players playing a game over the world and story that a normal game is trying to emulate would lead to one of a hundred different jokey parades of stereotypes and "the imaginary world is just as real" cliches.

I'm also afraid, with studio pressure, that this might end up being yet another one of those dark, psuedo-gothic, cookie cutter, teeny-fantasies that have been creeping out over the last couple of years.  Van Helsing, Red Riding Hood, Snow White and the Huntsman, Hansel and Gretel, whatever that Werewolf movie was...


----------



## Umbran (May 9, 2013)

Matthias said:


> Any way you do it, you can't squeeze a genuine D&D campaign into 100 minutes of screen time.




Why on Earth would you think that you need to have an _entire campaign_ in there to make it a good D&D movie?  

Does the first Star Wars movie cover an entire campaign?  No!  The first movie is one adventure.  The *series* covers the campaign, and then not all of it is on screen.  Much of it is understood, in the background, between films.

One good story.  That's all we need for one good movie.


----------



## DnD_Dad (May 9, 2013)

*Warner Bros. to make a D&D Movie. AICN*

Tome of horrors.  Bunch of total party wipes just over an over again, with each death overshadowed by nerdy laughter.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 9, 2013)

Umbran said:


> One good story.  That's all we need for one good movie.



Unfortunately, Solomon's producing credits inspire only trepidation.  The writer is given as, "Frank Darabont protege David Leslie Johnson" because according to IMDB he has 1 credit - producer on a Red Riding Hood short.  No writing credits at all.  Total unknown quantity.  I say we should only fear this when paired with Solomon and his merry band of others who, though having had plenty of work, seem to have given nothing of worth or note since the first D&D movie debacle to demonstrate they've learned anything except how to make a paycheck as opposed to a good movie.  The fact that WB is willing to throw money at this I think only adds momentum to the all-but-inevitable train wreck that's coming.

Safe to say that we all want a GOOD D&D movie if not a really GREAT one.  The first thing you need is a really good script.  The likelihood that they have such in hand is _not _high.  The next thing is having money to do the expensive things necessary.  They MIGHT have that from WB.  Then you need producers and director who know what is needed to turn out a worthwhile fantasy film.  There is no director attached yet it seems but the chances of good stuff coming from the crowd already involved?  Low indeed, if existent at all.  I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## knottyprof (May 10, 2013)

Well Courtney Solomon did produce Bullet to the Head, the last Sly Stallone movie.  Didn't see it and had no desire to see it but at least it made it to the big screen.  Looks like a majority of the stuff he produces goes straight to DVD or streaming (Universal Soldier sequels, honestly haven't seen any of these other than the first one).  So if all the stars align just right maybe, just maybe this will make it to the big screen and might almost be worth watching.  My money is on the straight to DVD/Netflix or Hulu route and something I can pick up at Red Box in the next year or two and listen to my wife complain about it while watching it.  And the saddest thing of all is she will probably have just cause.


----------



## Matthias (May 10, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Why on Earth would you think that you need to have an _entire campaign_ in there to make it a good D&D movie?
> 
> Does the first Star Wars movie cover an entire campaign?  No!  The first movie is one adventure.  The *series* covers the campaign, and then not all of it is on screen.  Much of it is understood, in the background, between films.
> 
> One good story.  That's all we need for one good movie.




That is how we get movies like the one with Jeremy Irons (not his fault), Wrath of the Dragon God, Willow, new Clash/Wrath of the Titans, and every other one-off fantasy movie that, if you squint real hard, can almost look like a D&D campaign squished into a couple hours or so, but are still, in essence, "just" movies. Even Conan the Barbarian may have covered the entire first half of a single adventurer's career, but it was still "just" a movie. LOTR is the D&D prototype, and even 12-odd hours of extended film time has to leave out some parts which fans still grumble over. Even The Hobbit is better off as two (or three) episodes.

This conversation convinces me that the roleplaying campaign is its own medium and simply can't translate to film in the way that Hollywood likes to do adaptations. Even a full-on TV show is beholden to ratings, the whims of upper management, and advertisers. Youtube video series, graphic novels, and full novelizations (ie Dragonlance) hit closer to the mark. But what you really would need to do is videorecord every session, cut out the non-game related chitchat, maybe do some cheap special effects and scans of DM handouts to go along with the dialogue, and then produce an episode a week (or however frequent the sessions are).


----------



## darjr (May 10, 2013)

I would LOVE a D&D series that covers a whole campaign. I'm thinking something like walking dead but more upbeat and less post apocalyptic. But I also wan't a decent movie, for what a movie can provide. It doesn't even have to be epic. A good story with good characters done by a good director with decent cinematography and makeup/costuming/special effects and decent acting. It could be just one short story torn out of a longer campaign.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2013)

Matthias said:


> This conversation convinces me that the roleplaying campaign is its own medium and simply can't translate to film in the way that Hollywood likes to do adaptations.




Yes.  But I just said that - you don't want to *try* to do a whole campaign in a single movie.  A campaign is countless hours of play. A movie is maybe two hours.  Of course they don't translate well!

However, you can make an excellent movie that depicts events that could be found *within* a D&D campaign.  One adventure, not the entire campaign.


----------



## Kaodi (May 10, 2013)

"Epic" is not what I want to see in a new D&D movie. They tried that; it does not seem to have worked out thus far. 

Gritty should be the order of the day. Claustrophobic, dark, though not bleak. More "overgrown" . 

I think _Buried_ should be required watching for anyone making a D&D film. That film is an object lesson in doing more with less and the importance of light.


Anyway... Right now my personal choices for the make-up of the party would be a hard drinking female human fighter with a more barbarian aesthetic, a sensible male dwarven rogue/spelunker, a female elven wizard/fighter modeled on the old elf class, and a male cleric that focuses a bit more on the magic rather than the martial. Some inspirations would be Etoh for the clerc, Deedlit for the elf, Bronn (but nicer) for the dwarf, and Siege Girl/Farmer/Lady Montbarron for the fighter.


----------



## knottyprof (May 10, 2013)

I agree that any new movie should not strive for "Epic".  Give us a simple straightforward story arc with relatible characters with maybe just a few suggestions (nothing heavy handed) that something larger is going on.  If it is done right it leaves the door open for further sequels that people will actually want to go see.  Don't try to replcate LOTR where the whole world hangs in the balance through the whole series, but something simple for a first movie.  Good old fashion Orcs raze a town or two and characters have to hunt them down and exact retribution.  Maybe tie in or build the finalle scene of the movie where the orcs (or goblins or whatever) were working for someone or something bigger.  Story stands on its own and can lead to sequels if successful.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2013)

Well, of course, it gets more complicated.

Apparently, Hasbro has gotten into the mix, claiming that they own the rights.  

http://www.deadline.com/2013/05/rig...agons-warner-bros-and-universalhasbro-tangle/


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (May 10, 2013)

GX.Sigma said:


> Written by the writer of Wrath of the Titans and Red Riding Hood? Produced by the director of the 2000 D&D movie? Maybe it's a late April Fool's joke.




Where did I put my rye-whiskey?


----------



## darjr (May 10, 2013)

*Warner Bros. to make a D&D Movie. AICN*

well where's my popcorn


----------



## Nytmare (May 10, 2013)

Isn't Chris Morgan the guy who was going to redo Highlander except with gun fights instead of sword fights, and during car races, and without anyone actually being immortal?


----------



## Quickleaf (May 12, 2013)

My understanding is Solomon has the rights to any "D&D" movie with the caveat that certain IP can't go in it. Hasbro has the rights to that IP and could put it in a movie but the movie couldn't be called "D&D". That about sums up the contract I believe.

Username "Foamy" over at Deadline gives a longer explanation...



> This HAS come up before. They HAVE previously had a decision. This is Hasbro Studios being out of the loop and not paying attention to the past history of the case of their subsidiary.
> Both sides’ lawyers have commented on this previously. Courtney Solomon has the indefinite rights to make a generic fantasy movie using the trademark “Dungeons and Dragons”. He doesn’t have access to any of the previously generated stories affiliated within the sprawling property, but as long as it’s set in “his” universe he’s free to do as he likes.
> Hasbro, on the other hand, are free to make any movies based on anything else within the Dungeons and Dragons property as long as they don’t use the title “Dungeons and Dragons”. So all the Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms/Whatever stories that Hasbro owns as part of Dungeons and Dragons can be adapted for movies by Hasbro.
> They’re distinct and separate properties in terms of copyright, and because there was no rights return clause in the original agreement Solomon has indefinite use of the trademark for movies.
> Comment by Foamy — Thursday May 9, 2013 @ 6:50pm PDT  REPLY TO THIS POST


----------



## Kaodi (May 12, 2013)

How in Gods name did WotC get wrangled into completely selling the rights to a "D&D" movie anyway? Did someone lie to their face and say, "This is just the way it is done?" Did they need the money that badly? Because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could just surrender a potentially important part of their IP like that.


----------



## jonesy (May 12, 2013)

What if Hasbro made a movie under the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" title? Do they have the rights for that? What if they used something like "Official D&D"?


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (May 12, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> How in Gods name did WotC get wrangled into completely selling the rights to a "D&D" movie anyway?




I believe that deal was made before WotC got TSR, and thus before Hasbro got anything involved in D&D.


----------



## cavalier973 (May 12, 2013)

"Dungeons & Dragons: Acquisitions, Inc."

Begin the story where the last podcast left off--with the AQI hurtling through space inside the remnants of Darkmagic Manor.

The characters take the time to describe their attacks before doing them.
Omin Drann: "I'm going to launch Lancing Faith at that hobgoblin, and blind him with holy light."  The character then makes the appropriate motion, light flares out, and misses.  "Son of a #$&@!!!"

Edit: I didn't realize that there was a 2012 session.  I'll need to watch that asap.


----------



## jonesy (May 12, 2013)

cavalier973 said:


> "Dungeons & Dragons: Acquisitions, Inc."
> 
> Begin the story where the last podcast left off--with the AQI hurtling through space inside the remnants of Darkmagic Manor.
> 
> ...



That's brilliant! They could just film all of the AQI adventures all the way from the beginning.


----------



## Empirate (May 13, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> How in Gods name did WotC get wrangled into completely selling the rights to a "D&D" movie anyway? Did someone lie to their face and say, "This is just the way it is done?" Did they need the money that badly? Because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could just surrender a potentially important part of their IP like that.




What do you think anybody with an interesting bit of content is supposed to do if they're interested in the movie thing, but don't have the resources to make a movie of their own? They sell the rights, that's what. Any given non-movie company is basically stuck with that option if they want movie dollars at all. It's not as if you're "surrendering" anything: you're basically just shifting responsibility and risk to somebody who might actually have a clue how to pull off a movie. For doing that, you get a bucketful of money. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
And if the D&D movie blows? If it bombs at the box office? Not WotC's problem, but Warner Bros.'


----------



## Kaodi (May 13, 2013)

Empirate said:


> And if the D&D movie blows? If it bombs at the box office? Not WotC's problem, but Warner Bros.'




I believe they call it "brand" .


----------



## Empirate (May 13, 2013)

I don't believe the D&D brand will suffer for a bad movie, at least not where the pen&paper RPG is concerned. The two media are barely interconnected. Granted, if the D&D movie is a huge success, that may get people to look into what came before, and might hook some on roleplaying. I don't consider that to be very likely, though.


----------



## Nytmare (May 13, 2013)

Empirate said:


> I don't believe the D&D brand will suffer for a bad movie, at least not where the pen&paper RPG is concerned. The two media are barely interconnected. Granted, if the D&D movie is a huge success, that may get people to look into what came before, and might hook some on roleplaying. I don't consider that to be very likely, though.




That's more what it is in my opinion.  A good movie (hell even a mediocre movie) would open the game up to new people who didn't know about it.  It's advertising, plain and simple.  If either group managed to produce a movie that people watched, it would mean money, and toy lines, and card games, and tee shirts, and most importantly new blood.  I don't know if I have much faith in either group being able to do that though.

A bad movie is embarrassing, but it's not going to drive people away from the game.  It's just a wasted opportunity.


----------



## Felon (May 14, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> How in Gods name did WotC get wrangled into completely selling the rights to a "D&D" movie anyway? Did someone lie to their face and say, "This is just the way it is done?" Did they need the money that badly? Because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could just surrender a potentially important part of their IP like that.






Empirate said:


> What do you think anybody with an interesting bit of content is supposed to do if they're interested in the movie thing, but don't have the resources to make a movie of their own? They sell the rights, that's what. Any given non-movie company is basically stuck with that option if they want movie dollars at all. It's not as if you're "surrendering" anything: you're basically just shifting responsibility and risk to somebody who might actually have a clue how to pull off a movie. For doing that, you get a bucketful of money. Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.
> And if the D&D movie blows? If it bombs at the box office? Not WotC's problem, but Warner Bros.'




A little from column A, a little from column B. Yes, it's sensible for companies to license their franchises. Yes, it's bad business to sell that license away. 

But you'll be amazed what a company staring down the barrel of insolvency will sign away to generate short-term revenue. Especially when it's not just privately-owned, but solely-owned. 

It seems that whateer form future D&D films will take, you can expect to see Courtney Solomon's name attached as producer.


----------



## DnD_Dad (May 15, 2013)

*Warner Bros. to make a D&D Movie. AICN*

They should just do the first 9 Drizzt books or the dragonlance twins series and get it over with.


----------



## darjr (May 15, 2013)

Well looks like Hasbro is suing.

http://www.purplepawn.com/2013/05/hasbro-files-suit-over-dd-movie/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262


----------



## jonesy (May 15, 2013)

Huh. So Hasbro is saying that because the last two movies were tv movies the sequel rights revert back to them. They aren't contending the original rights, just the rights to make sequels. That tactic might bite them back big time if they lose the case.


----------



## darjr (May 15, 2013)

I kinda informs a bit about what's going on. The guy who bought the rights just might be releasing crap in an attempt to just hang onto the license.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (May 15, 2013)

Fascinating.
Paragraphs 6-9 deal with movie rights, and 10-12 deal with TV rights.  With that structure, interpretation of the contract language looks quite clear to me.  I wonder if there is some other agreement or judgment not described in the complaint.


----------



## Dioltach (May 15, 2013)

DnD_Dad said:


> They should just do the first 9 Drizzt books or the dragonlance twins series and get it over with.




They tried this with the original Dragonlance trilogy: an animated movie with a star cast. It never made it past the first part, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Empirate (May 15, 2013)

darjr said:


> I kinda informs a bit about what's going on. The guy who bought the rights just might be releasing crap in an attempt to just hang onto the license.




Just like the last Spiderman movie, or X-Men: Origins. Sigh...


----------



## frankthedm (May 15, 2013)

I hope they kill him (figuratively, in court) and take his stuff! 

Weird being able to root for Hasbro's Lawyers and not feeling dirty.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 15, 2013)

Hi,

I find the information about the movie, but what's this about a lawsuit?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## CAFRedblade (May 15, 2013)

Here is an article on the lawsuit..
http://rewired.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/hasbro-sues-stop-warner-bros-522262
Me thinks I'll make some popcorn.

Summary (from what I understand): Hasbro claims that the rights for Film Movies had reverted, as the Made for TV Movies (WoDG and BoVD) did not extend the Film Movie rights, and had no direct ties to the original (abomination of a movie for the most part).
Thus Film Movie rights are now back at Hasbro, while TV Movie Rights may still fall to Solomon.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2013)

frankthedm said:


> Weird being able to root for Hasbro's Lawyers and not feeling dirty.




Yeah, really.  Between the fact that they may well be right - if the original rights for TV and Film Movies were separated, Mr. Solomon may well be out of luck - and that Solomon can't seem to make a decent D&D movie to save his life, it is hard not to want Hasbro's lawyers to win this fight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 15, 2013)

> ...Solomon can't seem to make a decent D&D movie to save his life...




Was "D&D" necessary to that phrase?


----------



## Lord Mhoram (May 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Was "D&D" necessary to that phrase?




Just pertinent to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Knightfall (May 19, 2013)

Hopefully Hasbro wins this and allows someone else to reboot the series into something that makes more sense. For while a Chainmail movie would be cool, I have come to believe that Sweetpea Entertainment isn't the right company to make more D&D films. And that is coming from someone who liked the first movie and really liked the second one.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 19, 2013)

The G. I. Joe are decent enough as popcorn flicks and don't hurt for budgets, so perhaps Hasbro recapturing the IP would bode well.


----------



## Kaodi (May 19, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> The G. I. Joe are decent enough as popcorn flicks and don't hurt for budgets, so perhaps Hasbro recapturing the IP would bode well.




Plausible logic. However: Is Dungeons & Dragons as "big" as G. I. Joe?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 19, 2013)

Arguably no- GI JOe is much older and has more of a hold in American toy culture.  There may not be an American male over age 30 who didn't have one or play with a buddy's.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 20, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> Plausible logic. However: Is Dungeons & Dragons as "big" as G. I. Joe?





Depends on the timing.  If they can move quickly and time a summer blockbuster with the June 2014 release, or late summer with Gencon, it might catch the right synergy to help the game and movie simultaneously.


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 20, 2013)

Just wish the team from Spartacus would set their eyes to a fantasy series!


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (May 21, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> Just wish the team from Spartacus would set their eyes to a fantasy series!




Just imagine all the penises, sex and cursing a D&D series could provide!


----------



## Hand of Evil (May 21, 2013)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Just imagine all the penises, sex and cursing a D&D series could provide!



seems that Micheal Bay is getting on the nudity band wagon with Black Sails.  Also, History Channels Vikings was rather good.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 21, 2013)

Can Hasbro make a decent movie? When?
Transformers movies sucked (except for the 1986 one).
G.I.Joe movie 1 sucked (haven't seen second one). Yeah, GIJoe has been around since... the 60s at least (OK, a slightly different format).
Any bad movie is a wasted opportunity. If anyone has the power to make a movie, they have the power to make a good one. Or even a great one. Anything less than good is a waste.

I would love to see this guy win, then make a kick-a$$ movie.
I'll settle for someone--anyone--making a kick-a$$ movie.


----------



## Nytmare (May 21, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> I would love to see this guy win, then make a kick-a$$ movie.




First off, I'd argue that Hasbro is pretty far down on the list of people to blame for the bad movies they've sold the rights to.  All they're interested in is backing a 90 minute commercial, having it accidentally end up being a work of art isn't something they're going to worry about.  If you're going to look for someone to blame, you should start with the studio execs, director, and writers.

I would daresay however that Hasbro has backed a significantly higher caliber of bad movie than what Courtney Solomon is capable of producing.  You have watched the two D&D movies he already made, right?   

Just being able to make a movie in no way qualifies you to be able to make something good, great, or beautiful.  In most cases, and especially at the budgets he usually operates at, all it means is that you've found a bunch of very gullible people with money, who haven't watched any of the movies you've already made.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 21, 2013)

No, I haven't.
Uwe Boll actually managed to make one 1/2way enjoyable fantasy movie, (In the Name of the King"). The reason he keeps making movies is because he is able to take advantage of various tax laws to get the job done. His movies otherwise, suck and blow. At the same time.
Yes, the writers, directors, and actors higher on the list of people to blame than the owners of the source material. Mind you, had they bothered to retain any level of control on their property--if only the right to supervise--then maybe they could have corrected some of the more major problems.


----------



## Nytmare (May 21, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Uwe Boll actually managed to make one 1/2way enjoyable fantasy movie, (In the Name of the King").




I'm sorry.

I will no longer be able to accept any statements you make to be true.


----------



## Cor Azer (May 21, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Mind you, had they bothered to retain any level of control on their property--if only the right to supervise--then maybe they could have corrected some of the more major problems.




Hasbro didn't have much choice; those rights were gone long before even WotC came into the picture.


----------



## El Mahdi (May 21, 2013)

deleted


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 21, 2013)

"A wizard's staff has a knob on the end..."


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 21, 2013)

Cor Azer said:


> Hasbro didn't have much choice; those rights were gone long before even WotC came into the picture.



I was referring to TF and GIJoe


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 22, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> I'm sorry.
> 
> I will no longer be able to accept any statements you make to be true.



I didn't say it was great, or outstanding--just that it was at least watchable and didn't suck every single second or with every single line of dialog. That is a major step up for any Uwe Boll movie.
And, sadly, with 0 expectations, it was probably better than any of the D&D movies.


----------



## Nytmare (May 22, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> And, sadly, with 0 expectations, it was probably better than any of the D&D movies.




I've tried watching In the Name of the King on three separate occasions.  I don't think I have ever made it to the end of the first fight.

Somehow I managed to sit through the entirety of all three of the D&D movies, the Dragons of Autumn Twilight, and the Dragon Strike video.  Dragon Strike is the only one of those that I'm willing to watch again.


----------



## frankthedm (May 22, 2013)

Agree with StC, ItNoTK:ADST wasn't good, but was better than other offerings from Eww Bowel.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 22, 2013)

And then there was the sequel to ItNoTK. Much more in keeping with Uwe's normal work (including the honda parked behind the trees of a fantasy world).


----------



## cavalier973 (May 22, 2013)

Here's Nostalgia Critic's take on the first movie.  HA-tcha-tcha-tcha-tcha-tcha!!!


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 22, 2013)

cavalier973 said:


> Here's Nostalgia Critic's take on the first movie.  HA-tcha-tcha-tcha-tcha-tcha!!!



thanks. that was good for a chuckle.
There were only 2 reasons to watch that first D&D movie: to see Tom Baker act again, and to see a Wayans brother tortured and killed.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 22, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> I've tried watching In the Name of the King on three separate occasions.  I don't think I have ever made it to the end of the first fight.





I couldn't help thinking when watching ItNotK that I was being presented with what folks who despised fantasy thought folks who liked fantasy would enjoy seeing.


----------



## DnD_Dad (May 23, 2013)

Besides all that.  What person that plays d&d won't watch a bad d&d movie?  You all know that we would watch it just because it's d&d.  We all have better d&d stories that would be better than any movie they could ever make, and we all enjoy fantasy stories.  If you want a good-fun d&d experience just watch journey quest on YouTube.


----------



## Dausuul (May 23, 2013)

DnD_Dad said:


> Besides all that.  What person that plays d&d won't watch a bad d&d movie?  You all know that we would watch it just because it's d&d.




Maybe you will. I won't. I haven't seen a single one of the D&D movies. I expected them to suck horribly, all the reviews confirmed that they did in fact suck horribly, I didn't waste my time.

Given who's writing the new one, I expect to continue not seeing the D&D movies.


----------



## DnD_Dad (May 23, 2013)

I remember seeing the first one in the theater and was disappointed so bad I never watched it again.  The second on however was much better than the first, but was still bad.  I don't know, maybe I just find things to enjoy about bad movies and try no to get to emotionally invested in something I know can't be done right.


----------



## Alzrius (May 23, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> thanks. that was good for a chuckle.
> There were only 2 reasons to watch that first D&D movie: to see Tom Baker act again, and to see a Wayans brother tortured and killed.




There's a persistent rumor that Baker only accepted the role of an elf in that movie because, when it was described to him, he misheard and thought he'd be playing an "elk."

Also, the Nostalgia Critic's review is funny, but I still prefer the Spoony One's review, though it's written rather than filmed.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 23, 2013)

ItNoTK starts with farmers actually fighting like farmers! with shovels and hoes! (OK, I understand that was lifted from the video game, but how many times do the farmers in movies all have broadswords or compound bows, or just happen to have master weaponsmiths in town?)

D&D movie looks to have been written by someone who has no idea what RPGs are like, or what the worlds should/could be, probably decision by committee, with an emphasis on not offending religious fanatics in the bible belt. So neuter any references to gods, and make sure that the wizards are mostly bad people.

I can believe Baker wanted to play an elk. That sounds just like him.

Oh, for reviews: Mr Cranky


----------



## Nytmare (May 23, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> ItNoTK starts with farmers actually fighting like farmers! with shovels and hoes! (OK, I understand that was lifted from the video game, but how many times do the farmers in movies all have broadswords or compound bows, or just happen to have master weaponsmiths in town?)




I might be mistaken, seeing as how I've only seen the first 3/4 or so of that fight, but don't the farmers fight like an army of ninjas armed with shovels and hoes (and also machetes and boomerangs?)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2013)

> I can believe Baker wanted to play an elk. That sounds just like him.




Just had a vision of an elk with a scarf & floppy brown hat.




And a bow.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2013)

Alzrius said:


> Also, the Nostalgia Critic's review is funny, but I still prefer the Spoony One's review, though it's written rather than filmed.




Spoony was far kinder than I was.


----------



## jonesy (May 23, 2013)

I love Tom Baker. He could play a boulder and be brilliant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH2QIAkyfCQ


----------



## darjr (May 23, 2013)

I wonder if _*GRStrayton*_ has anything to do with either group?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?298747-New-D-amp-D-Movie


----------



## Jhaelen (May 24, 2013)

Dausuul said:


> Maybe you will. I won't. I haven't seen a single one of the D&D movies. I expected them to suck horribly, all the reviews confirmed that they did in fact suck horribly, I didn't waste my time.
> 
> Given who's writing the new one, I expect to continue not seeing the D&D movies.



Ditto, ditto, ditto, and ditto.


----------



## Dausuul (May 24, 2013)

You know, if I were setting out to make a D&D movie, the first rule would be this: _Make it funny._

I don't mean that it would be a pure comedy. I'm thinking something more along the lines of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which is ultimately a serious (indeed, pretty freakin' grim) show, but isn't afraid to tell a lot of jokes and poke fun at its own cliches. One of the biggest mistakes you can make in telling a story is to take yourself too seriously, and that goes double in fantasy, where writers tend to assume that because everything is SO FREAKIN' EPIC and THE FATE OF THE WORLD IS AT STAKE, the audience will hang breathlessly on every word. But since epic tales are a dime a dozen and the fate of the world is at stake in every single one of them, you have to earn the audience's engagement. And one way to do that, oddly enough, is to make them laugh.

This is something most DMs learn very fast. No matter how dramatic and harrowing and suspenseful _you_ think your story is, your players are going to use you as the straight man while they quote Monty Python, so just roll with it. A D&D movie should learn the same lesson. Just the fact that you've got elves and dwarves and halflings is going to make your movie come across as a rip-off of "Lord of the Rings"--which it is; ripping off Tolkien is what Gygax and Arneson did back in the day, and you're following in their footsteps--so what are you going to make it? A lame imitation by a pretentious hack trying to snarfle up some of Peter Jackson's profits? Or a cheeky riff on Jackson and Tolkien that pays homage to their accomplishments while tweaking them for their flaws?


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 24, 2013)

Oooo, oooh, ooo, I know:
A movie about Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, with an elf named Vulcan, and the doors all make the star trek swoosh sound! Get Brent Spiner to do the voices of the robots, and Majel Barret as the Computers! Yeah!
And to boost the acting chops, get Colin Baker to play the old wizard.
There's a D&D movie too see.


----------



## Umbran (May 24, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> and Majel Barret as the Computers! Yeah!




Um... she passed away over four years ago.  Which makes this kinda less funny.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 24, 2013)

Sorry. Haven't kept up on my trek celebrity gossip.


----------



## Mark CMG (May 25, 2013)

I haven't seen this link in the thread yet -

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-courtney-solomon-will-retain-the-dungeons-dragons-movie-rights


----------



## Nytmare (May 25, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> I haven't seen this link in the thread yet -




I think that's the most depressing thing I've read all week...


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 25, 2013)

cripes, could they throw any more pop-ups or offensively gibbering adds onto that page? Almost as bad as going to a porn site.


----------



## jonesy (May 25, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> cripes, could they throw any more pop-ups or offensively gibbering adds onto that page? Almost as bad as going to a porn site.



I haven't seen pop-ups in years. What browser are you using?


----------



## Kaodi (May 25, 2013)

Theoretically speaking, I wonder if this would be a valid test for the quality of a D&D script: Can I get Vin Diesel to star in this film?


----------



## Nytmare (May 25, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> Theoretically speaking, I wonder if this would be a valid test for the quality of a D&D script: Can I get Vin Diesel to star in this film?




Is there some kind of script that that _does_ work for?


----------



## Mark CMG (May 25, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> Is there some kind of script that that _does_ work for?





Anything "Riddick" or "Fast/Furious" or "XXX" related.  Look what happened to the XXX franchise when they cut Vin out.  Looks like they are bringing him back for the third one of those though.


----------



## Kaodi (May 25, 2013)

Nytmare said:


> Is there some kind of script that that _does_ work for?




I do not know. But since Vin Diesel is (or was) an avid player of Dungeons & Dragons, and a pre-dominantly action movie star, I figure that he would have a good idea when it comes to judging whether a D&D action film would be worth his time and reputation.


----------



## Nytmare (May 25, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> I do not know. But since Vin Diesel is (or was) an avid player of Dungeons & Dragons, and a pre-dominantly action movie star, I figure that he would have a good idea when it comes to judging whether a D&D action film would be worth his time and reputation.






Mark CMG said:


> Anything "Riddick" or "Fast/Furious" or "XXX"  related.  Look what happened to the XXX franchise when they cut Vin out.   Looks like they are bringing him back for the third one of those  though.




I rest my case.


----------



## sabrinathecat (May 25, 2013)

jonesy said:


> I haven't seen pop-ups in years. What browser are you using?



FireFox.
Not just popups, but all the ads that are talking or whatever.
FireFox did block some pop-ups, but when I was trying to scroll around or highlight text to make it easier to read, tons more crap would pop up or block my view.


----------



## jonesy (May 25, 2013)

Huh. I'm using Opera and it kills all the pop-ups so I don't see them. I don't even have java off or anything like that. The talking ad on right hand side you can pause and it shuts up.

Edit:
But looking at the source there are a heck of a lot of ads on that page.


----------



## knottyprof (May 26, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> Anything "Riddick" or "Fast/Furious" or "XXX" related.  Look what happened to the XXX franchise when they cut Vin out.  Looks like they are bringing him back for the third one of those though.



Don't forget *The Pacifier*

Fast and Furious 6 just came out and they already have 7 scheduled for next year per IMDB


----------



## Knightfall (May 27, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> I haven't seen this link in the thread yet -
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/why-courtney-solomon-will-retain-the-dungeons-dragons-movie-rights



Ick!

I did not know that Solomon was so connected to that... that... person. Now, I REALLY hope Hasbro gets the rights back.


----------



## Knightfall (May 27, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> I do not know. But since Vin Diesel is (or was) an avid player of Dungeons & Dragons, and a pre-dominantly action movie star, I figure that he would have a good idea when it comes to judging whether a D&D action film would be worth his time and reputation.



I'd be thrilled if Diesel considered starring in a rebooted D&D franchise.


----------



## Kaodi (May 27, 2013)

I think it would be cool, but it is not strictly necessary for what I meant: using him to take measure by as opposed to actually employing him. If he were in the movie though I hope it would not to be just another version of Dom, Riddick, or whoever that guy in xXx is. I would rather see him play a character who is tough but not aggressive by default.


----------



## jonesy (May 27, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> ..or whoever that guy in xXx is.



It's Vin Diesel.


----------



## Kaodi (May 28, 2013)

jonesy said:


> It's Vin Diesel.




Obviously it is Vin Diesel. I was referring to the _character_; Xander Cage, apparently.


----------



## jonesy (May 28, 2013)

Kaodi said:


> Obviously it is Vin Diesel. I was referring to the _character_; Xander Cage, apparently.



Woosh.


----------

