D&D 5E Does 5E avoid the overloads of previous editions?

[The Black Ranger]

Am I saying that WotC will be able to easily parley the D&D IP into successful movies, marketing, and merchandising like Marvel has with Iron Man? No.

Am I saying that past failures on TSR and WotC's part to parley the D&D IP into successful movies, marketing and merchandising mean little as far as WotC's future attempts to successfully parley the D&D IP into various cross-media revenue streams? Yes.

Am I saying that the relative current popularity and awareness of various D&D IP mean little for the future success of various cross-media ventures using that IP? Yes.

Basically, it's a question of quality. The comparison is that Iron Man was one of Marvel's lesser known IPs. When they announced they were making a movie with that IP, people laughed at the idea, much as people are pooh-poohing the idea of WotC leveraging the D&D IP in various media. But Marvel made a kick-ass movie, and now their profit margin waxes, and Iron Man is a household name. WotC doesn't need to achieve that level of success -- but if what they create is good, it'll create revenues for the D&D brand, regardless of how crappy the Dragonlance animated movie was, or how dire the Dungeons & Dragons movies were.

D&D can take their most minor IP -- say, the Black Eagle Barony of the Known World, and make a video game of it. If the video game is quality, that will add value to the IP. They can make a Forgotten Realms cartoon. If the cartoon is quality, that will add value to the IP, perhaps leading to even more uses for it.

Now, is anyone saying this will happen? God, no. Quality is difficult! All we're saying is that it could happen, and the upside is high enough that it's worth WotC making the attempt.

Who were these people that were laughing at the idea of Iron Man? Iron Man is not a lesser known IP and I'm sure that is one of the reasons why it was chosen. The thing about Iron Man is it was never done before while D&D? And movies like it, have.

Let's look at a few things.

1: Dragons. (Done)
2: Wizards. (Done)
3: Elves, dwarves, halflings, and Orcs. (Done)
4: Dungeon crawling. (Done)
5: Heroes using magic items. (Done)
6: Vampires, werewolves, ogres, etc... (Done)

D&D has nothing unique that it can bring to the screen that successful others have not.

Video games and table top games is where the brand needs to stay if it wants to really get anywhere.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip lots of good points) D&D has nothing unique that it can bring to the screen that successful others have not. (snip)

I basically agree with your argument with one small exception: I do think there is potential in a Drizzt movie or series. And it really pains me to say that because, as much as I congratulate R A Salvatore on his successful career, to me the author has the same knack with characterisations and dialogue that was displayed by George Lucas in the prequel trilogy. (And like Lucas's gungans, Salvatore's dwarves all have speech impediments and severe mental illnesses.)

However, I think there is a strong story to be told from The Crystal Shard that could translate to film if the film was done properly.

And it's a sad fact that the Drizzt novels are some of the most successful in the fantasy genre and they are certainly the most successful D&D-related novels. It makes business sense not to waste that IP.

 

[pemerton]

Let's look at a few things.

1: Dragons. (Done)
2: Wizards. (Done)
3: Elves, dwarves, halflings, and Orcs. (Done)
4: Dungeon crawling. (Done)
5: Heroes using magic items. (Done)
6: Vampires, werewolves, ogres, etc... (Done)

D&D has nothing unique that it can bring to the screen that successful others have not..

This is like saying that Star Wars has nothing unique to bring to the screen that Kurosawa and Flash Gordon hadn't already done. I mean, that's true, but doesn't really seem to capture what's really going on.

How many reasonably to significantly successful King Arthur movies have their been? But each of them is hardly unique in basic plot elements.

A good D&D film won't be distinguished because of the uniqueness of its plot elements (although they could be features of it, eg drow or the Vecna artefacts or other potentially catchy and somewhat unique creations). It will be distinguished by good scripting and good production (including editing - fantasy movies have a tendency to drag with slack editing and too much Ye Olde Englishe in their scripting and performances, eg Troy).

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) It will be distinguished by good scripting and good production (including editing - fantasy movies have a tendency to drag with slack editing and too much Ye Olde Englishe in their scripting and performances, eg Troy).

Exactly.

And, obviously, WotC's team will play no part in the success of this or otherwise. Movies are a completely different business, no matter how many areas of overlap (story, character etc...) there may be.

But when Hasbro does get the D&D rights back - it may not win in court but it could always pay for them - it really has to make sure it doesn't screw the pooch on a D&D movie, otherwise it's going to be another generation before they can try again.

 

[Mistwell]

Who were these people that were laughing at the idea of Iron Man?

Lots and lots of people.

Iron Man is not a lesser known IP and I'm sure that is one of the reasons why it was chosen.

You are mistaken. Yes, he was lesser known. He consistently didn't rank in the top ten characters of Marvel, in poll after poll, for decades. Sales of his comics were mediocre, back issues of his comics were relatively cheap, the best writers and authors were often uninterested in his book. The general population either didn't know him at all. or didn't think much of him if they did know him. All the audience testing showed he was "best of the rest" and not a first tier character (he ranked below Daredevil I seem to recall). That's why some characters and teams were sold to begin with - if they were first tier, they got sold, and it's why companies wanted to buy them.

He was chosen because he was one of the best known of the IP they still had the rights to, as the ones who were well known had all been sold during the bankruptcy reorganization.

 

[exile]

Jennifer Lawrence playing a low dex cleric could save D&D. I'd certainly go see a movie with her in that role.

 

[exile]

Jennifer Lawrence playing a low dex cleric could save D&D. I'd certainly go see a movie with her in that role.

Oops... double post.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Lots and lots of people.



You are mistaken. Yes, he was lesser known. He consistently didn't rank in the top ten characters of Marvel, in poll after poll, for decades. Sales of his comics were mediocre, back issues of his comics were relatively cheap, the best writers and authors were often uninterested in his book. The general population either didn't know him at all. or didn't think much of him if they did know him. All the audience testing showed he was "best of the rest" and not a first tier character (he ranked below Daredevil I seem to recall). That's why some characters and teams were sold to begin with - if they were first tier, they got sold, and it's why companies wanted to buy them.

He was chosen because he was one of the best known of the IP they still had the rights to, as the ones who were well known had all been sold during the bankruptcy reorganization.

You are not a lesser known hero by making 12th.

Got any sources for those "lots and lots" of people?

 

[The Black Ranger]

I basically agree with your argument with one small exception: I do think there is potential in a Drizzt movie or series. And it really pains me to say that because, as much as I congratulate R A Salvatore on his successful career, to me the author has the same knack with characterisations and dialogue that was displayed by George Lucas in the prequel trilogy. (And like Lucas's gungans, Salvatore's dwarves all have speech impediments and severe mental illnesses.)

However, I think there is a strong story to be told from The Crystal Shard that could translate to film if the film was done properly.

And it's a sad fact that the Drizzt novels are some of the most successful in the fantasy genre and they are certainly the most successful D&D-related novels. It makes business sense not to waste that IP.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't think a Drizzt movie would be a good idea.

The reason I say this is because the dwarf and elf friendship, ( Legolas and Gimli), has already been done on screen. If you left Bruenor out then you run the risk of pissing off a lot of fans. If you tell the story from a different time then you run the risk of only attracting gamers where is you want gamers and non-gamers to like it.

 

[Iosue]

Who were these people that were laughing at the idea of Iron Man?

Industry trade Variety, if I recall "Building a Cinematic Universe" correctly.

Iron Man is not a lesser known IP and I'm sure that is one of the reasons why it was chosen.

I daresay Iron Man was a lesser known IP than Dungeons & Dragons. Sure comics fans knew of it, but precious few non-fans.

The thing about Iron Man is it was never done before while D&D? And movies like it, have.

"Billionaire playboy gadgeteer superhero" has been done lots of times.

Let's look at a few things.

1: Dragons. (Done)
2: Wizards. (Done)
3: Elves, dwarves, halflings, and Orcs. (Done)
4: Dungeon crawling. (Done)
5: Heroes using magic items. (Done)
6: Vampires, werewolves, ogres, etc... (Done)

D&D has nothing unique that it can bring to the screen that successful others have not.

Seriously? So, since James Bond was a huge hit, Jason Bourne didn't stand a chance.
Speaking of vampires, after the huge Anne Rice craze, Coppola's Dracula, and the long-running Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and Angel!), vampires were so played out that Twilight was horrendous failure. Oh, wait...
After the 1998 Godzilla, Cloverfield, and Pacific Rim, why make another Godzilla film?
Speaking of superheroes, whatever gave Marvel the idea they could successfully produce superhero films after the market was saturated by Blade 1, 2, and 3, the X-Men 1, 2 and 3, Spider-man 1, 2 and 3, the Fantastic Four 1 and 2, two versions of the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and Hulk? That's not even counting Superman Returns and Batman Begins!
Speaking of Lord of the Rings, what made splatter-movie director Peter Jackson even think it could ever be successful? Ron Howard had already made the definitive Little People fantasy movie with Willow, and the absolute crash and burn of the Dungeons & Dragons movie should have showed him that people just aren't interested in fantasy.
But having done all that, what does he have to offer with the Hobbit films that people didn't get with LotR? A dragon? Been there, done that: Dragonheart, Reign of Fire, Eragon, How to Train Your Dragon.
Heck, after the big medieval battle spectacle that was LotR, Hollywood brought forth "Troy" followed quickly by "Alexander". Then "Kingdom of Heaven" year later. That same year, "Rome" debuted on HBO. Two years later, "300". And even now more of the same with "300: Rise of an Empire".

I mean, is it really your contention that Hollywood is only interested in original content, and not at all in remakes, reboots, spin-offs, copies, and other material derivative of successful productions?

I stand by my position that the viability of any cross-media D&D IP ventures, be that movies, TV shows, cartoons, video games, boardgames, smartphone games/applications, or whatever, will depend almost entirely with how good that particular creation is, and very little on how original elements of the setting are. As a matter of fact, I'd say the fact that the general public is pretty comfortable and familiar with fantasy, dragons, wizards, elves, etc. etc., works in their favor. They can concentrate on having good stories and performances without overly relying on spectacle.

But when Hasbro does get the D&D rights back - it may not win in court but it could always pay for them - it really has to make sure it doesn't screw the pooch on a D&D movie, otherwise it's going to be another generation before they can try again.

Continuing in the superhero theme, it was a mere 6 years between the release of Batman & Robin and when Nolan and Goyer were given the go-ahead on Batman Begins.