Are we on the cusp of a Tabletop Hollywood moment?

[Argyle King]

In response to your first thought the prequels came out when WotC had the RPG/tabletop rights, and they did both the RPG (RCR/Saga and the miniature game) you're thinking of the last three movies.

Second thought...Do you know the start-up cost of Warhammer? Even if you only do the mini-painting aspect?

I meant to say "sequels." Thanks for the correction.

Yes, I do know the cost of Warhammer. I know it is a lot. That is also why I can see other companies trying to get behind it. It already has a built-in way of making money -and one which is easier to explain to marketing execs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In response to your first thought the prequels came out when WotC had the RPG/tabletop rights, and they did both the RPG (RCR/Saga and the miniature game) you're thinking of the last three movies.

Second thought...Do you know the start-up cost of Warhammer? Even if you only do the mini-painting aspect?

Total War: Warhammer 3 is currently $60 on Steam.

 

[Reynard]

I meant to say "sequels." Thanks for the correction.

Yes, I do know the cost of Warhammer. I know it is a lot. That is also why I can see other companies trying to get behind it. It already has a built-in way of making money -and one which is easier to explain to marketing execs.

I don't know this for certain but I would bet real American dollars that Warhammer makes significantly more money is better known (by the general geek public) in the digital space than in the tabletop one.

 

[Argyle King]

I don't know this for certain but I would bet real American dollars that Warhammer makes significantly more money is better known (by the general geek public) in the digital space than in the tabletop one.

Could be

In either case, there's a built-in market.

In a lot of cases, the struggle to get more mainstream companies behind a product/project is explaining how they'll make money on it.

In this case, there's already data to show that Warhammer already has a consumer base that is willing to pay for content and products.

It's also a pretty easy pitch for explaining what shows and movies might be.

In particular, the Space Marines could capture a lot of the audience who like Mandalorian (and wanted less of a Disney-fied Boba Fett.) I think there is an untapped market for more gritty and violent space-action more in the vein of Expendibles (but with better story), old Spaghetti westerns, and the darker aspects of Witcher.

I'd comment on what I think the other factions lend themselves too, but I'm honestly not knowledgeable enough about the overall lore to comment further.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Huh. There’s a reason the first property Marvel did as a movie was Iron Man. They sold the rights to Spider-Man, X-Men, and the FF so they could launch the MCU. And they picked Iron Man as the first to go. He’s not 2nd tier.

As someone who owned/operated a comic book store for ~15 years (1989-2006, with a couple of breaks), from a comic book sales standpoint in the 90's until the IM movie came out, Iron Man was definitely 2nd tier compared to Spider Man and X-Men (FF debatable).

By far.

If X-Men sold 100 copies, Spider-Man would sell 80 copies (Amazing Spider Man); and Iron Man would sell 30 copies.

I also quibble with the idea that they sold the rights to Spider-man and the X-Men to fund the MCU. They sold the rights in the early-mid 90's because Marvel was bankrupt. They didn't have any idea about the MCU back then, they were just trying to survive.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As someone who owned/operated a comic book store for ~15 years (1989-2006, with a couple of breaks), from a comic book sales standpoint in the 90's until the IM movie came out, Iron Man was definitely 2nd tier compared to Spider Man and X-Men (FF debatable).

By far.

If X-Men sold 100 copies, Spider-Man would sell 80 copies (Amazing Spider Man); and Iron Man would sell 30 copies.

I also quibble with the idea that they sold the rights to Spider-man and the X-Men to fund the MCU. They sold the rights in the early-mid 90's because Marvel was bankrupt. They didn't have any idea about the MCU back then, they were just trying to survive.

I've sold comics for 29+ years now. And I concur. Iron Man was a 2nd Tier character before the movies hit. He was always pretty cool, and it would have been obvious at the time that he would make for a good adaptation to movies (if nothing else, the CG budget on metal was easier at the time than many other special effects - this is why Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin was metallic - even though he would have looked scarier in green facepaint.) His "powers" are also an easier sell to a film audience than many other Marvel properties.

Still, not top-tier, in spite of being a Marvel Classic, there were only a handful of runs that were good sellers. Generally sold better than Thor, though!

 

[Tonguez]

Nobody knew who Iron Man was prior to the RDJ film, except that it was something on some cartoon they saw or their kid watched or something? D&D and tabletop games in general easily have as much cultural penetration as 2nd tier Marvel characters like Blade and Iron Man.

Hollywood is going to look for things with story potential and geek cache. D&D is having a moment, and therefore raising the profile of tabletop in general. I don't think it is a stretch at all tobelieve that if the D&D movie is good and Cavill's 40K works, Hollywood is going to dip into the ttrpg field for the Next Big Thing.

No ttrpgs dont have that kind of penetration, even to second or 3rd tier comics.

even my 78 year old father who read Phantom and Mandrake the Magician comics vaguely knew who Ironman was - where as he wouldnt know a DnD from a XYZ. My mother (76) enjoyed Dragonheart and LotR though and so might watch a good Dungeons and Dragons movie

And its still a reality that ALL RPGs are DnD

 

[overgeeked]

As someone who owned/operated a comic book store for ~15 years (1989-2006, with a couple of breaks), from a comic book sales standpoint in the 90's until the IM movie came out, Iron Man was definitely 2nd tier compared to Spider Man and X-Men (FF debatable).

By far.

If X-Men sold 100 copies, Spider-Man would sell 80 copies (Amazing Spider Man); and Iron Man would sell 30 copies.

I also quibble with the idea that they sold the rights to Spider-man and the X-Men to fund the MCU. They sold the rights in the early-mid 90's because Marvel was bankrupt. They didn't have any idea about the MCU back then, they were just trying to survive.

I've sold comics for 29+ years now. And I concur. Iron Man was a 2nd Tier character before the movies hit. He was always pretty cool, and it would have been obvious at the time that he would make for a good adaptation to movies (if nothing else, the CG budget on metal was easier at the time than many other special effects - this is why Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin was metallic - even though he would have looked scarier in green facepaint.) His "powers" are also an easier sell to a film audience than many other Marvel properties.

Still, not top-tier, in spite of being a Marvel Classic, there were only a handful of runs that were good sellers. Generally sold better than Thor, though!

I worked in a comic shop for about a decade. Different markets have different tastes.

 

[RivetGeekWil]

Blades in the Dark has been optioned for a television series. I'm not sure if it's actively in development right now. There was also interest ihunt and I know they put a lot of effort into trying to get a series out of it but it didn't pan out.

Oh and I forgot Cyberpunk Edgerunners is actually a thing

 

[RivetGeekWil]

Shadowrun and Cyberpunk have been prime for the picking for a couple of decades, but they haven't been picked up. Hollywood has a tendency to only latch on to stuff that's in the zeitgeist when it's on the downward slope of popularity, so I think it will be a few years yet before it really hits its stride with the real mass market types.

You do know that Cyberpunk Edgerunners is a thing?