Essential D&D Characters

[GBantaR]

Survey question for the DDO community as a whole:

If Hollywood were to make a GOOD Dungeons & Dragons movie (not the travesties that they popped off in the 90's) what would you consider to be the essential main characters? I mean what races and classes?

Consider two things:
1. What you would like to see
2. What you think would be essential for a good story

I think the party would have to have a Paladin and a Rogue who, normally, wouldn't give each other the time of day, but who have to work together for some reason. I think the Paladin should be a Half Elf and the Rogue a Human for that extra bit of "I'm better than you" from the Paladin.

I would also love to see a Halfling Monk, and a Half-Orc barbarian just for the cool factor. They could also be extremely compelling characters in themselves.

What about for a spellcaster? What do you guys think?

Would love to hear people's ideas.

[donfilibuster]

It may depend on the setting, wether it's low level heroes climbing up or able characters on their own.

For example, on low level setting the fighter may be afraid of magic, the wizard would seek to find some magic lore and the rogue might be on the way to become a treasure hunter instead of a thief.
It may involve your typical elf and dwarf as well.

On high magic the backstories could be more complex and less cliche.
There might be a paladin that is struggling to stay on favor, or a cleric seeking to drive out a lurking evil.
The wizards might be tapping on too much power, etc.
There would be other races involved like drow.

[Chai]

I think something from Dragonlance would make a good live action movie (not the travesty that they popped off as a cartoon).

The dwarf is a dwarfs dwarf. The kender rules by definition alone. The wizard has character flaws out the wazoo. The paladin is in constant struggle to stay in the party with a "neutral" wizard he knows is actually evil. The "good" fighter and the "evil" dragon lord were lovers at one point.

-OR-

The story of how Lord Soth became a death knight. Mainly because good doesnt win out in the end, so its definately not cliche.

[donfilibuster]

I think something from Dragonlance would make a good live action movie (not the travesty that they popped off as a cartoon).

There's such thing as too much character development , each of the individual stories is worth a movie, yet the mistake with the franchise is to insist on making the movie out of Autumn Twilight.

Not that you can't do it, it's just too much cliche d&d and rushed action that there's no room for the backstory and context.

It was the first work of the series and if that was good almost everything else that cames after was good as well.
Until they tried to forcefully fit the setting to 3e of course, although the narratives save the day again in that mess.
Personal opinions of course, it's a good setting yet sometimes feels like a glass cannon.

What would work better to depict the events in autumn might be to scope out to tell the story of the war of the lance instead.
Remember the 12th module where you could do a table game out of the various armies movements? that'd be a good panoramic view of the age.

Otherwise the trilogy of raistlin with crysania makes a good movie and depicts d&d things like planar travel and deific ascension.

As for the results of their lattest movie attempt, it doesn't surprise me the least bit.
I don't feel bad for weis and hickman the way i feel bad for Ursula K. Le Guin.
The earthsea series had been failed time after time due to low budget and bad productions.
But Le Guin perseveres and the latest attempt she tried with Miyazaki because he had shown interest before.
Only to find Miyazaki had sort of retired and Ghibli turned the work to Goro and yet another mess came out of it.
Reading the story i'm under the impression Miyazaki regrets that decision, or at least i hope he did.
Again a series of books where the sequels grow and improve on the earlier works.

Another trial and error was hurrying up the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
How can be a sequel if the first one was bad or not good enough for seconds?
That's just another case where the first was good but the sequels were better.
Sadly Adams could not see it to its end, so it was left to the studio to be blamed.

The one fantasy author that is doing things right is Pratchett with discworld.
He takes personal duty to see nothing goes wrong and been refusing bad movie deals like forever.
The only thing is the british humour tends to make slow paced movies, yet the stories are no fail.

[Shuleagh]

I think getting stuck in the "we must have this" or "these are essential characters" mind set kills movies. A D&D movie where the director was forced to show a bunch of races/classes just to sort of prove its D&D would suck. I would much rather they just pick a universe and a timeline and just go with it. Focus on one tiny aspect of it (a country, state, or small group of races" and tell your tale.

[Doomcrew]

Rather simple, write a good story, let the characters fill the needs of the
story. Reap the rewards of a great movie.

End of the day, a good story will carry much. Whereas a weak story with
potential good characters, (read overused stereotypical roles) will be stale
and forgotten shortly, (only if the gods are merciful).

Would love to see a continuation/full version of the cg intro movie that DDO
started years ago. To me, there is potential there.


Cheers

[GBantaR]

OK, let me ask another question based on all you guys have said: Do you think a D&D movie should DEFINITELY be based on an already-existing backstory in D&D, or should it be based on entirely new characters, with just the elements (swords, sorcery, monsters, etc.) that make all D&D, D&D?