Dungeons & Dragons directors are “fine” with Honor Among Thieves subtitle, ok?
Dungeons & Dragons gets a flashy subtitle all its own. In the opinion of its directors, it could've been much worse
Aux News Dungeons & Dragons
Grant, Directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, Michelle
Rodriguez, Chris Pine, and crew on the set of Dungeons & Dragons:
Honor Among Thieves
Photo: Paramount Pictures
There comes a time in every filmmaker’s life when the studio demands a subtitle. Whether it’s some clunky shorthand to remind audiences of the first movie (A Knives Out Mystery) or confuse them with word salad (Dawn Of Justice), subtitles help franchise installments differentiate from each other. We assume that with something like Dungeons & Dragons, it’s to remind people that they aren’t buying a ticket to a board game.
Things could’ve been worse for Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, the co-directors of Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves, at least from their perspective. In a new interview with Variety, the directors admit they probably preferred calling the movie “Dungeons & Dragons.”
“If we were running things, we probably would have just called it ‘Dungeons & Dragons,’” said Goldstein. “There’s so much that goes on in the Dungeons and Dragons world that they were reluctant to just let it have that broad title with no subtitle. I think [the studio] also liked the idea of it being a potential franchise.”
“For the record, we’re fine with it!” Daley said.
That’s not to say that they sound incredibly pleased with the situation. As per Daly’s ringing endorsement: “We don’t think it’ll do any damage to the film.” Admittedly, the subtitle feels like the weight albatross of yet another cinematic universe, but Daly says the pair “totally understand where [the studio was] coming from.” Still, it could’ve been worse. Goldstein said they were “braced for really terrible subtitles.”
“We were ready to fight,” said Daley. “So when they presented that subtitle to us, we were like, all right!”
Honor Among Thieves doesn’t have much significance now, considering the movie’s not out, and we don’t know what it means. It does, however, sound like the name of a D&D campaign, which fits into another interesting tidbit from the interview. As Daley and Goldstein put it, their approach to the movie is to make the film feel like playing the game, with characters standing in for types of players.
“Each character represents a different player and how they go about playing the game,” said Daley. “Xenk, played by Regé-Jean Page, is very much the nerdy player that doesn’t make jokes and adheres strictly to the rulebook. Whereas Edgin, Chris Pine’s character, is the more casual player. He doesn’t bother to learn about the Bardic spells and would prefer to just hit people over the head with his lute.”
Goldstein describes the movie as “almost like a dungeon master.”
“The plot twists that we throw at our characters are what a DM would do at the table, just to screw with you and make it more fun,” he said. “It was our way of capturing what goes on when you’re playing D&D, without breaking the fourth wall or becoming meta with it.”
We’ll roll the dice and see if this movie can do the same on March 31 when Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves hits theaters.
21 Comments
Modern film subtitles are so clunky. This summer we’ve got “Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning: Part I”. I love it.
It hasn’t hit light novel naming conventions yet but I’d be all for that.
Is that the same as the current anime/manga titling trend where it’s basically an entire sentence stating the premise?
I assume the original studio suggestion was “Dungeons & Dragons: You Know, That Game with the Dice and Shit: The Four Quadrant Movie Franchise Version that Your Teens Will Love (We Swear It’s Not Satanic This Time)“
Reverend Godshyne will be watching proceedings closely just in case!
Wait, John Francis Daley?
Lance Sweets is a director now? Our boy’s all grown up!
Sam Weir!
… uh… hey Cindy…
*Lit up face**Flustered wave*
I’m with the studio on this, since I associate D&D with a… not quite a setting, but maybe a concept or platform for storytelling, rather than a particular story. To name a movie just Dungeons & Dragons would be a bit like calling it Marvel Comics or PlayStation.
That’s what I thought, I’m no D&D guy but I know that any one film will be a newly made-up tale set in that world, not “the story” of Dungeons and Dragons, so a subtitle absolutely makes sense here.
I’m actually quite alarmed that the directors apparently wanted to call it just “Dungeons & Dragons”. It suggests they have no real concept of what it is they’re making.
It absolutely could have been worse. Some of the suggestions for subtitles were “Dungeons and Dragons: Ice Dagger” and “D&D: Chilly McFreeze.”
“Dungeons and Dragons: Let’s Try This Again”
I have to believe that part of the reason for the subtitle was to try to do whatever they could to distance it from the 2000-era D&D movies – especially the first one – that they’re hoping people will have forgotten about.I have one friend who actually asked me if it was supposed to be a sequel or a reboot to the 2000 movie. Does it count as a reboot if you’re just using the name and nothing else from the original movie?
Dungeons & Dragons: Dungeony McDragonface
Those are some Stone Cold suggestions
The tone I assume the headline is spoken in is actually pretty hilarious. What a strong reaction lol. Like is the author upset or…?
I want a scene where the main characters flee in terror from a giant d20 rolling to crush them.
Dungeons & Dragons 2: Electric Boogaloo.
You know it was coming.
I was pleasantly surprised by the film.I saw the 2000 film, and while it was well intentioned, I didn’t care for the overall story.This one was more enjoyable overall. The humor was there from the start which I suppose probably helped, especially with general audiences.I was surprised that the film avoided toilet humor. So many of these types of “period” films inevitably have some one-time gag or a recurring joke or sequence about animal manure or flatulence. I didn’t notice that here.You got the sense of who all these characters were, through their actions mainly. Hugh Grant was surprisingly an engaging villain and not simply a kidnapper would be murderer. He’s just greedy.Chris Pine is enjoyable as the “leader who plans” then inevitably things go wrong and he defaults to anything else.I liked Michelle Rodriguez as the barbarian lady, haha.Nice nod to the 80s cartoon kids, though these (non-speaking) actors all looked significantly older. At least there’s “a version” of them in that world.the fight choreography was done really well. not remotely as bloody as I was kind of expecting.Definitely liked the final fight sequence. Kudos.Justice Smith as a bumbling sorcerer was definitely a high point. Half-elf, was he?random questionsWho were the “humanoid dragons”? what race are they?The humanoid cats = Tabaxi?The “miniature people”— not quite dwarves (I don’t think?) and I didn’t recognize Bradley Cooper. They are not considered hobbits, are they?Do all druids have animal-shape shifting powers?I wished that there would be a sequel, but unfortunately I guess there may not be.