Are we on the cusp of a Tabletop Hollywood moment?

[overgeeked]

That isn't true at all. There was a conscious choice to not use the top tier Marvel characters in case it bombed, thereby protecting Cap and Thor for future licensing and sale. It was thoroughly discussed at the time.

I’ve followed comics for decades. I don’t remember anything like that. But you could be right. Have any sources that show Marvel folks talking about this?

 

[Umbran]

Why not?

Because comic books come with well-know characters and stories attached to them, and tabletop games generally don't.

 

[trappedslider]

That isn't true at all. There was a conscious choice to not use the top tier Marvel characters in case it bombed, thereby protecting Cap and Thor for future licensing and sale. It was thoroughly discussed at the time.

Actually no, the guy (@overgeeked ) you're replying to is half right. Marvel sold off movie rights left and right during the 90s to stay afloat as a comic company.

From the late 1970s through the early 1990s, Marvel Comics Group/Marvel Entertainment Group (MEG) sold options to studios to produce films based on Marvel Comics characters. One of Marvel's superheroes, Spider-Man, was optioned in the late 1970s, and rights reverted to Marvel without a film being produced within the allocated time frame. From 1986 to 1996, most of Marvel's major characters were optioned, including the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, Silver Surfer, and Iron Man. Marvel's first big-screen adaptation of one of its properties was the 1986 film Howard the Duck, which was a box-office flop.

MEG was purchased by New World Entertainment in November 1986 and moved to produce films based on the Marvel characters. It released The Punisher (1989) before MEG was sold to Ronald Perelman's Andrews Group. Two other films were produced: Captain America (1990) released in the United Kingdom on screens and direct to video in the United States, and The Fantastic Four (1994), not intended for release.

The first film packaged and licensed by Marvel Studios was Blade, based on the vampire hunter Blade. The film was directed by Stephen Norrington and starred Wesley Snipes as Blade. It was released on August 21, 1998, grossing $70,087,718 in the United States and Canada and $131,183,530 worldwide.

Blade was followed by X-Men, which was directed by Bryan Singer and was released on July 14, 2000. X-Men grossed $157,299,717 in the United States and Canada and $296,250,053 worldwide.Blade and X-Men demonstrated that widely popular films could be made out of comic book characters not familiar to the general public.

Leading up to X-Men's release, Marvel Studios negotiated a deal with then-functional Artisan Entertainment, successful with the low-budget The Blair Witch Project, for a co-production joint venture that included rights to 15 Marvel characters including Captain America, Thor, Black Panther, Iron Fist, and Deadpool. Artisan would finance and distribute while Marvel would develop licensing and merchandising tie-ins. The resulting production library, which would also include television series, direct-to-video films and internet projects, would be co-owned.By 2001, the success of Marvel Entertainment's Ultimate Marvel imprint comics created leverage in Hollywood for Marvel Studios, pushing more properties into development

 

[Ryujin]

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.

I think that you're over estimating the general penetration of RPGs into the public consciousness and grossly under estimating how much comic characters are part of the Western cultural zeitgeist.

 

[Haplo781]

I’m not sure what to make of the 40K news. Hopefully it’s a Chaos or Imperial Guard story instead of the Space Marines. Talk about going as boring as possible to launch your cinematic hopes.

I dunno. Maybe. It might be nice. Depending on what is made. The Warcraft movie was bad. I don’t see the D&D movie doing much better, honestly.

HBO just did Lovecraft Country but pulled it after one season. How long ago was Fringe? Are we due for another government agents vs horror show already? I could see a lot of properties becoming anime or western cartoons like VM. But the trouble with most of those is there’s no ready-made story to pull from. I think that’s why comics adapt so well, generally. There are characters well known and beloved for generations. Everyone knows Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man. Who’s the character from those properties with that kind of cultural penetration? None. Like the Battleship movie. There’s a game many have played, but there’s no characters or stories ready to adapt.

Lovecraft Country is about racism in the 50s (and doesn't actually involve Lovecraft). Fringe ended over a decade ago.

TTRPGs have ... A ton of metaplot. Lots of supporting characters and antagonists. That the protagonists are roll-your-own isn't really a problem as there's still a rich narrative framework to draw on.

 

[trappedslider]

TBH at this point other than trailers, the only exposure that the masses have to D&D or RPGs in general outside of video games is secondary media like Stranger Things.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Because comic books come with well-know characters and stories attached to them, and tabletop games generally don't.

This

Comics and books are stories. Games are scaffolding to make stories with but aren't stories themselves.

How did Bright (Shadowrun) and Altered Carbon (Futuristic Cyberpunk) do on Netflix?

 

[Umbran]

This

Comics and books are stories. Games are scaffolding to make stories with but aren't stories themselves.

How did Bright (Shadowrun) and Altered Carbon (Futuristic Cyberpunk) do on Netflix?

Bright didn't get great reviews, but, contrary to your implication, in its day it was one of the most viewed shows on the service. The sequel was planned, but got scrapped by production delays and a flap over Will Smith's behavior not long before filming was about to start. It did get an animated spinoff - Bright: Samurai Soul. So, it is hard to say that this didn't work.

Altered Carbon got generally positive reviews, especially for its second season. But the viewership didn't support the cost for making the show.

 

[Argyle King]

Thoughts:

•I believe there was an opportunity for Star Wars to generate interest in tabletop gaming. The prequels came out at a time when the Fantasy Flight Games rpg was still going strong. But Disney's vision for Star Wars originally involved cutting all ties to expanded lore, while also releasing movies which -despite making a lot of money- didn't do much to leave the audience wanting more. Mandalorian is doing pretty good, but (anecdotally) I know a lot of people who watch that and don't watch anything else.

•I could possibly see Warhammer doing well because Cavill is coming off of successful (in the eyes of the audience) stints as both Superman and Witcher. Warhammer is also a game which is relatively easy to market, as there's already minis, paints, and a variety of other accessories. I could see other companies wanting to get behind the marketing for that.

•I love D&D, and there's plenty of lore to draw from, but I feel there are some mechanical changes which would need to be made to the game itself to gain a foothold among a wider audience. While there are currently changes being made, I don't believe they're going in the direction they need to. Additionally, the product has been prominent on the show Stranger Things for several years, but one of the only attempts to capitalize on that was a kinda meh boxed set. (I was surprised to find that the Rick & Morty box was a lot better.)

•I think a Dragonlance show could be good, but it would be tough to not be seen by the general audience as trying to be Game of Thrones. I'm also not sure that a show would be allowed to explore some of the more controversial areas of the story; the contemporary take on the setting by WoTC is to distance from portions of the material.

•There are other RPGs and tabletop games which I enjoy. But I'm not sure if any of them are in a position to grow beyond where they are.

•I do think that now is a good time for something to challenge comics and superheroes as king of the cinema. While there are still movies and shows which I highly enjoy, Marvel isn't as good as it once was. DC is currently going through a shakeup. I also think audiences are ready for something different.

 

[trappedslider]

Thoughts:

•I believe there was an opportunity for Star Wars to generate interest in tabletop gaming. The prequels came out at a time when the Fantasy Flight Games rpg was still going strong. But Disney's vision for Star Wars originally involved cutting all ties to expanded lore, while also releasing movies which -despite making a lot of money- didn't do much to leave the audience wanting more. Mandalorian is doing pretty good, but (anecdotally) I know a lot of people who watch that and don't watch anything else.

•I could possibly see Warhammer doing well because Cavill is coming off of successful (in the eyes of the audience) stints as both Superman and Witcher. Warhammer is also a game which is relatively easy to market, as there's already minis, paints, and a variety of other accessories. I could see other companies wanting to get behind the marketing for that.

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?