D&D Movie/TV D&D: Honor Among Thieves Director/Cast Interviews begin as marketing ramps up!

[OB1]

@Morrus

As the marketing for the $151M production starts ramping up for the 3/31 release, the directors and stars have started the interview circuit with magazines like Variety and Esquire. Links below!

Directors Interview - Variety

Chris Pine - Esquire Magazine

Gizmondo Article from Linda Codega

A few interesting tidbits.

In the Variety article, the directors talk about how the cast is meant to represent various player types, and how the film itself is the DM, putting the characters through an adventure. They also talk about how Wizards had someone on set to ensure that the details were correct, such as a spellcaster needing to be seen speaking when certain spells with a Verbal component are cast.

In the Esquire article, the interviewer (who played a lot of D&D as a kid) gives the movie a 9/10, and says it captures the essence of playing a game of D&D.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

@Morrus

As the marketing for the $151M production starts ramping up for the 3/31 release, the directors and stars have started the interview circuit with magazines like Variety and Esquire. Links below!

Directors Interview - Variety

Chris Pine - Esquire Magazine

Gizmondo Article from Linda Codega

A few interesting tidbits.

In the Variety article, the directors talk about how the cast is meant to represent various player types, and how the film itself is the DM, putting the characters through an adventure. They also talk about how Wizards had someone on set to ensure that the details were correct, such as a spellcaster needing to be seen speaking when certain spells with a Verbal component are cast.

In the Esquire article, the interviewer (who played a lot of D&D as a kid) gives the movie a 9/10, and says it captures the essence of playing a game of D&D.

We finally have an actual budget number! $151,000,000usd

So to make their money back they need to make over 2 to 2.5 times that number to make money on the movie to also account for marketing and other none production costs.

That is $302,000,000usd to $377,500,000usd to break even and start to make money, depending on their level of none production costs.

I think they will make money still on this movie. If it makes $400,000,000usd that is a small, but reasonable profit margin.

If it makes a billion that is a huge profit margin.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

They also talk about how Wizards had someone on set to ensure that the details were correct, such as a spellcaster needing to be seen speaking when certain spells with a Verbal component are cast.

Is this what Mike Mearls has been up to?

 

[Bitbrain]

In the Variety article, the directors talk about how the cast is meant to represent various player types, and how the film itself is the DM, putting the characters through an adventure.

May not have gotten the player archetypes 100% correct, but glad to know I was on the right track!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

We finally have an actual budget number! $151,000,000usd

So to make their money back they need to make over 2 to 2.5 times that number to make money on the movie to also account for marketing and other none production costs.

That is $302,000,000usd to $377,500,000usd to break even and start to make money, depending on their level of none production costs.

I think they will make money still on this movie. If it makes $400,000,000usd that is a small, but reasonable profit margin.

If it makes a billion that is a huge profit margin.

On this, it is notoriously complicated to understand if a movie makes money.

The reason why is two-fold.

A. There is so-called "Hollywood Accounting" ("HA"). HA is just a slightly-more extreme version of regular accounting, but the general idea is that any movie, no matter how successful, will rarely record a "net profit." Basically (and very simplified), studios form a number of different companies (and SPEs) and allocate various revenues and charges among them in order to zero out profits (tax reasons). That's why you have the old saw that you never want to be a profit participant in a Hollywood production - always go for the gross points.

B. Then there is the issue with understanding the basic numbers. First, you have to assume the reported budget is accurate; it's usually fairly accurate, but there are reasons why studios will want it underreported. Taking Batman v. Superman as an example, it had a reported budget of $250 million, but apparently this involved some creative accounting and had an "actual" budget of well over $325 million.

Next, there is the distribution and marketing costs; the rule of thumb is that this tends to be an addition 50%- so, for example, a $100 million film is assumed to actually cost $150 million when you take that into account. However, that's just a rule of thumb; generally lower-budget movies are less, and higher-budget movies are more. A movie like Batman v. Superman might have close to a 100% additional cost for marketing and distribution (it was reportedly claimed to be $160 million, and reported at over $200 million).

Finally, there is the issue of box office. The studio doesn't get the entire cut of the box office, but instead get a percentage. A higher percentage for domestic than for international. Numbers vary, but 50% domestic and 35% international isn't a bad place to start (different studios and properties have different bargaining power).

So when you put all of that together, you often have confusion. So to use the Batman v. Superman example again (because it's been reported about so extensively), you can have reputable sources saying everything from the movie made a "$300 million profit" to a "$100 million profit" to "it barely broke even" to "it lost money on theatrical release."

Of course, all of this is just on first pass. Yes, movies will make the majority of their money from the box office, but then there is the fact that there is now a property that can be sold in the future - maybe there isn't the lucrative DVD market, but there will still be a recurring revenue stream from the movie. Not to mention any other deals (product placement?) during the movie and associated advertisements, or toys.

Yeah- it's complicated.

 

[OB1]

If it makes a billion that is a huge profit margin.

If it makes a billion, D&D could end up being the next MCU. Now, I've been thinking that $600M or so would be the absolute highest worldwide gross it could go, and there's no way it could get to $1B. But then I thought about it some more, and it's probably not impossible.

Fifteen years ago, Paramount took a chance on another nerdy property, that while popular in some circles, certainly didn't have what was considered mass appeal to general audiences. Iron Man, of course, broke through the barrier of just being for Marvel fans, appealing to a wide audience with a fun, engaging story with an amazing performance by RDj, earning $600M worldwide in 2008 (about $900M in today's dollars).

Last summer, Top Gun Maverick had early opening weekend estimates in the $75M-$80M range and a project worldwide gross in the $400-500M range, and of course it went on to a $150M opening and $1.5B worldwide total. Paramount had a similar media blitz with Top Gun, with interviews appearing in all kinds of mass market magazine/web-sites.

Now, I'm not saying that D&D is going to get close to Top Gun numbers, but would a performance around Iron Man be possible? Paramount certainly knows how to open a tentpole film, and the media blitz I've been seeing 4 weeks prior to release tells me that they think they have a film that could break through to general audiences, and that they are giving the movie the full push to get there. Even the release date move seems now to be calculated on having the SxSW screening generate additional buzz leading up to the release (something they absolutely wouldn't do if they didn't think they had a good movie on their hands).

And then there's the synergy with Keys from the Golden Vault on DDB. D&D:HAT is being described as a heist movie, and DDB is full of articles about running the perfect heist, heist movies to inspire your game, etc. If half of DDB subscribers see the film opening weekend, that would be $60M in box office right there (double that if most go with a SO or friend).

I'm still sticking with my estimate of around $500M worldwide for the film (which would still be considered a hit), but if the film is as good as Paramount thinks, maybe a billion isn't crazy to think about.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

"In that vein, I was really struck in “Honor Among Thieves” that the lead female characters — Michelle Rodriguez’s Holga and Sophia Lillis’ Doric — are at the forefront of the action scenes, and the men are often hanging back.




GOLDSTEIN: That was not an attempt at wokeness on our part.

DALEY: Swear to God, it wasn’t. We liked that Holga is the bruiser that does the dirty work for Edgin, and he doesn’t like to get his hands dirty. We also love emasculating leading men.

GOLDSTEIN: Not for woke reasons!

DALEY: Just because it’s funny and fun and fresh. It was the dynamic we had with Rachel McAdams and Jason Bateman’s characters in “Game Night.”

GOLDSTEIN: Or Tom Holland versus Robert Downey Jr. in “Spider-Man.” We like our male heroes to be challenged and not simply heroic."

This had me laughing my ass off. Y

If it makes a billion, D&D could end up being the next MCU. Now, I've been thinking that $600M or so would be the absolute highest worldwide gross it could go, and there's no way it could get to $1B. But then I thought about it some more, and it's probably not impossible.

Fifteen years ago, Paramount took a chance on another nerdy property, that while popular in some circles, certainly didn't have what was considered mass appeal to general audiences. Iron Man, of course, broke through the barrier of just being for Marvel fans, appealing to a wide audience with a fun, engaging story with an amazing performance by RDj, earning $600M worldwide in 2008 (about $900M in today's dollars).

Last summer, Top Gun Maverick had early opening weekend estimates in the $75M-$80M range and a project worldwide gross in the $400-500M range, and of course it went on to a $150M opening and $1.5B worldwide total. Paramount had a similar media blitz with Top Gun, with interviews appearing in all kinds of mass market magazine/web-sites.

Now, I'm not saying that D&D is going to get close to Top Gun numbers, but would a performance around Iron Man be possible? Paramount certainly knows how to open a tentpole film, and the media blitz I've been seeing 4 weeks prior to release tells me that they think they have a film that could break through to general audiences, and that they are giving the movie the full push to get there. Even the release date move seems now to be calculated on having the SxSW screening generate additional buzz leading up to the release (something they absolutely wouldn't do if they didn't think they had a good movie on their hands).

And then there's the synergy with Keys from the Golden Vault on DDB. D&D:HAT is being described as a heist movie, and DDB is full of articles about running the perfect heist, heist movies to inspire your game, etc. If half of DDB subscribers see the film opening weekend, that would be $60M in box office right there (double that if most go with a SO or friend).

I'm still sticking with my estimate of around $500M worldwide for the film (which would still be considered a hit), but if the film is as good as Paramount thinks, maybe a billion isn't crazy to think about.

This latest interview didn't help that goal, suggesting you emasculinated your lead male character is turning a lot of folks off the movie. I've been doing damage control online, having read the prequel novels, Edgin isn't emasculated, he's just a Bard, but it's a mess.

They need a home run at the movie festival to cause the movie to go viral in a good way and reassure audiences that Edgin is an awesome character.

 

[mamba]

DALEY: Swear to God, it wasn’t. We liked that Holga is the bruiser that does the dirty work for Edgin, and he doesn’t like to get his hands dirty. We also love emasculating leading men.

GOLDSTEIN: Not for woke reasons!

DALEY: Just because it’s funny and fun and fresh.

it’s so fresh that it happens in almost every movie and everyone expects it at this point… have these guys not seen any movies the last 10 years?

 

[bedir than]

it’s so fresh that it happens in almost every movie and everyone expects it at this point… have these guys not seen any movies the last 10 years?

I can't think of a big budget action movie that centers women, with the exception being Wakanda Forever. And that was because the make star died.

Not Top Gun, not Avatar, not any MCU with a multi gender cast, not DCEU (excepting Wonder Woman).

 

[mamba]

I can't think of a big budget action movie that centers women, with the exception being Wakanda Forever. And that was because the make star died.

Not Top Gun, not Avatar, not any MCU with a multi gender cast, not DCEU (excepting Wonder Woman).

I was focusing on emasculating leading men with women, Galadriel in Rings of Power, Willow, She-Hulk does it to the Hulk, Thor is emasculated in his own movie, the female Ghostbusters and their male (and incapable) assistant, and these are just off the top of my head. It feels like it is in more Marvel movies than not. Top Gun was the exception to the rule (also not Marvel…)

If you expand this to ‘females being better at X’ and not care about the emasculation part, then there are even more. This is a well worn trope at this point. If you think this is fresh, you did skip the last 10 years.