D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[LuisCarlos17f]

I guess the standards for 2023 can't be the same than in 2020. I am watching several potential blockbusters have failed in the box-office, and next to this D&D:HaT may be relatively a hit, or at least enough a green-light for a sequel.

With a right plot, the domain of dread could be used for a horror serie style "From" or "Yellowjackets". Here the key is nobody would say a word about the setting, and only D&D players could realises the characters from our "reality" have been abducted to a "(gothic) horror isekai".

I have searched in internet, and a merger between Paramount and Netflix could be possible in the future. Hasbro has got parnetship with both, but also deals with Amazon and WarnerDiscovery.

An animated serie should be easier to be produced, shouldn't it? You have money with FXs or searching outdoor zones to filming. Legend of Vox Machine (Critical Role) is working in Amazon Prime, isn't it?

HBO has got enough experience with "Game of Thrones" and "House of Dragon". Mabye they are the right people to produce an action-live adapatation of Birthright.

 

[LordEntrails]

yes, we agree on what the goal is, individually making sufficiently more than was spent to make the investment worthwhile.

No we don't. Until I see a quote from WotC/Hasbro that this was their goal, I would not assume theatrical profitability was a primary goal.

are you suggesting WotC is ok with wasting 100M with little to show for, because D&D already makes a profit of 200+M without spending those 100M at all?

Who says they wasted anything? Hasbro is investing long term in D&D. Success will be determined in 5+ years by evaluating the state of the D&D brand, not by the financial success of this one movie.

Hasbro does not make movies to lose money.

Says who? Losing money is certainly not an objective. But Hasbro made this movie with the stated goals of building a brand and hopefully a movie franchise. Spending $100million to build a brand is common practice and well within the advertising budget of Hasbro. How much did Marvel spend on it's early flops (remember the Incredible Hulk (2008) or the even worse one in 2003?)

$100 million dollars is a lot of money, unless you are a large multi-national interested in building a larger brand.

 

[Stalker0]

No we don't. Until I see a quote from WotC/Hasbro that this was their goal, I would not assume theatrical profitability was a primary goal.

I'm pretty sure the default stance of a corporation when they do something is to make profit.

So I would go the other way, until I hear a corporation went with a "loss leader" strategy for something, my default assumption is their goal was to make money.

 

[AnotherGuy]

2022 and 2023 was a bloodbath for hollywood. There were some successes but a Lot of flops. People just aren't spending as much money as they used to. Probably a sign of that inevitable recession chugging up over the hill.

Yup. That's the major factor. A smaller factor I think which has spawned over the last few years is, a sizeable amount of ppl have become disenchanted with a number of celebrities.

 

[mamba]

No we don't. Until I see a quote from WotC/Hasbro that this was their goal, I would not assume theatrical profitability was a primary goal.

well, if you think that any company spends money that they do not see a return on, in whatever form, then I cannot help you

Who says they wasted anything? Hasbro is investing long term in D&D. Success will be determined in 5+ years by evaluating the state of the D&D brand, not by the financial success of this one movie.

the case that was described had the money wasted, basically the scenario was 'WotC already earns 200M with D&D, they can afford to spend 100M without making it back in ticket sales or growing the game'

If WotC gets enough long term marketing benefit / growth from HAT, then we are back to the movie recouping its cost (see the first sentence of mine you quoted, where you even cut off that part from the post...), but right now that is a big if.

Says who?

common sense, even you agree

Losing money is certainly not an objective.

But Hasbro made this movie with the stated goals of building a brand and hopefully a movie franchise. Spending $100million to build a brand is common practice and well within the advertising budget of Hasbro.

None of my posts disagree with that. When I write that Hasbro wants to make a profit on the movie, this is not limited to ticket sales, it also includes merchandising sales and marketing.

The only question is whether given the large gap between cost and ticket sales, can merchandising and marketing / brand growth cover that gap..

$100 million dollars is a lot of money, unless you are a large multi-national interested in building a larger brand.

Even then it is a lot of money. No one is spending that without expecting to receive more back.

 

[Zardnaar]

With so many blockbuster movies not profiting this Summer, I think we're going to see a big adjustment in Hollywood coming up. Which might benefit this movie becoming a potential franchise.

I think we're going to continue to see sequels like we have, but with smaller budgets.

Someone pointed out Raiders of the Lost Ark, adjusted for inflation, cost between $60M to $80M to make. The newest movie in that franchise cost $300M to make. You make that movie for $100M and it's considered a success right now. But at $300M it's considered a failure.

The D&D:HAT movie, I think, will be roughly close to break-even by the end of the day and all the different revenue sources (which is not just theatrical dollars) come in. I can see a sequel being green-lit, at $80M as the budget instead of the $150M the first one had after Hollywood undergoes this adjustment.

That was probably me.

A few of these movies would have made money if their budgets were more in line with 80's movies or even earlier movies in the franchise.

Things like Spidernan, John Wick, Joker are the equivalent now.

Looks l8ke Barbie is trending well (I was wondering if Margot Robbie is box office poison). It seems bright, colorful mostly original movies are the way forward.

People got excited when they compared HAT to GotG formula but I think that's mostly stale now outside GotG3.

 

[robus]

It certainly seems like there's a massive sea change happening in the movie marketplace and HaT is just one of the storm tossed boats (and probably faired better than should be expected given the conditions). Movie theaters definitely seem like they're from the before times (like shopping malls). Now that everyone and their dog has a high quality screen at home, the urge to pay a huge amount of money to go to a theater (especially for a family) must be declining. The price of the concessions alone is astronomical!

(Suddenly that awkward talk at the beginning of the movie doesn't seem so misplaced, they really are that desperate for people to go back to the movies!)

I'm not sure what the end result is but I think we're going to see a massive reduction in the number of movie theaters (or they're going to have to pivot hard to things like "overflow" seating for live events.) Imax-style massive screens is probably the stop gap, as it provides an epic experience, but even that seems like it's not going to cut it and is it really appropriate for most movies?

Interesting times.

 

[Zardnaar]

It certainly seems like there's a massive sea change happening in the movie marketplace and HaT is just one of the storm tossed boats (and probably faired better than should be expected given the conditions). Movie theaters definitely seem like they're from the before times (like shopping malls). Now that everyone and their dog has a high quality screen at home, the urge to pay a huge amount of money to go to a theater (especially for a family) must be declining. The price of the concessions alone is astronomical!

(Suddenly that awkward talk at the beginning of the movie doesn't seem so misplaced, they really are that desperate for people to go back to the movies!)

I'm not sure what the end result is but I think we're going to see a massive reduction in the number of movie theaters (or they're going to have to pivot hard to things like "overflow" seating for live events.) Imax-style massive screens is probably the stop gap, as it provides an epic experience, but even that seems like it's not going to cut it and is it really appropriate for most movies?

Interesting times.

Overall box office isn't to bad these 400-500 million dollar movies the theatre still makes money.

It's the studios that are worse off. Sumner box office was just spread over to many movies.

 

[bedir than]

Overall box office isn't to bad these 400-500 million dollar movies the theatre still makes money.

It's the studios that are worse off. Sumner box office was just spread over to many movies.

Last year there were 21 weekends with $100 million total box or more.
This year there are already 19 of those weekends. We're only halfway through the year.

The glut is real.

 

[Zardnaar]

Last year there were 21 weekends with $100 million total box or more.
This year there are already 19 of those weekends. We're only halfway through the year.

The glut is real.

Yup I think glut is real. 9 superheroes movies this year.