Dungeons and Dragons Movie Rights go to trial

[Umbran]

Next week (September 16th, to be precise) the case of who actually holds the movie rights to D&D goes to court.

Interestingly, the case is a bit more interesting than just to fans. It has the possibility of defining what qualifies as a "sequel", and whether development of a script before you own the rights qualifies as copyright infringement....


Hasbro contends the TV films don't qualify as true sequels. The plaintiff points to the basic fact that the third D&D movie doesn't have characters and plots that flowed from the prior films. Plus, as one of the company's trial briefs put it, "It is unheard of for the producer to have the right to retroactively extend its theatrical motion production rights by starting production of a television motion picture."

Sweetpea points to evidence supporting the theory that The Book of Vile Darkness is a sequel: the film's $2.5 million budget, more than a typical made-for-TV movie; that it was submitted to the MPAA for a rating in hopes of a theatrical release; that it originally contained TV-unfriendly nudity; that labor agreements classified it to be a "low budget theatrical" film; and most especially, that Hasbro had input and never brought forward its nonsequel argument during the project's production. As Sweetpea and Hasbro fight over how to interpret an ambiguous contract, Warners and Universal await word from their licensors about what they have the authority to do. But the case isn't merely about how to define a "sequel." It's also raised the cutting-edge legal issue about whether film projects in early development can amount to copyright infringement. This is something of interest to Hollywood at large. Universal, for example, is currently in court defending itself over Section 6, a film script about the early days of the U.K.'s spy agency MI-6. MGM and Danjaq, rights-holders of the lucrative James Bond franchise, are suing Universal for allegedly infringing the copyright to their famous spy character, while Universal demands an end to what it sees as a lawsuit over "hypothetical future infringement in works yet to be produced."

From the Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dungeons-dragons-movie-fight-son-731444

 

[GMMichael]

I'm just hoping that the rights to go a company that doesn't like Jeremy Irons. Or Channing Tatum. Sorry Mr. Irons.

Seriously though - can we expect a Lord of the Rings-level movie from D&D? Or does the brand depend too much on its younger fanbase to support a serious movie?

It doesn't need a huge budget. I watched Dragonslayer a while back and it was much better than I was expecting. The producers need to spend money on a good screenwriter, not special effects.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm just hoping that the rights to go acompany that doesn't like Jeremy Irons. Or Channing Tatum. Sorry Mr. Irons.

I'm hoping the rights go to a company that will make an actual D&D movie. It's pretty stupid to make a D&D movie and then not use anything from D&D.

Seriously though - can we expect a Lord of the Rings-level movie from D&D?

No

Or does the brand depend too much on its younger fanbase to support a serious movie?

I think that has been part of the problem. The people produing the movies seem to have decided that there is only so much money to be made from what they believ the fanbase it, so they try to keep under budget. The D&D movie with Jeremy Irons had a budget of about 45 million. It made about 15 million. They are probably afraid that there isn't a fanbase to support nig budget movies. They probably blame the epic failure of the first D&D movie on the limited fanbase instead of the abortion they paid to produce.

It doesn't need a huge budget. I watched Dragonslayer a while back and it was much better than I was expecting.

I think the previous movies have lowered your expectations so much that as long as they put in less than minimal effort and make something slightly better than the previous movies, you'll feel it's a good movie.

The producers need to spend money on a good screenwriter, not special effects.

Yeah, they need someone that knows at least a bit about Dungeons & Dragons. At least more than there are dungeons and dragons in it. They should also spend good money on special effects. It could have the greatest screen play ever written, but if the special effects make it look like some Youtube fan film, it's going to be terrible.

 

[Quickleaf]

More D&D litigious shenanigans. Actually what I'm following the most about his case has little to do with D&D and more to do with the precedent that's being established.

The "contributory copyright infringement" ruling in February by US District Judge Dolly Gee has me a bit concerned. Apparently writing the spec script Chainmail "even in the absence of a final script or film" by Warner Brothers constituted an infringement.

So where do you draw the line? Are all spec scripts now infringement? What about fan fiction?

 

[Morrus]

Part of the problem with the movies is that "Dungeons & Dragons" isn't anything.

Lord of the Rings is a story. D&D isn't. It's a game system.

There are elements of WotC's IP - the Dragonlance trilogies, some Drizzt novels, etc. - which could be leveraged in that manner. They don't have 1% of the brand awareness of LotR, but at least they have something to leverage.

Thus Tyranny of Dragons, etc. WotC needs brand-leverageable stories.

 

[Kramodlog]

The BoVD ain't a WotC IP? It is fluff and part of the ingame universe, it is not just the name of a splat book, like Bo9S.

 

[Umbran]

Part of the problem with the movies is that "Dungeons & Dragons" isn't anything.

It isn't any specific content, no. But only a few of the movies out there sell well due to the specific story content (like LotR and the Hunger Games films). Some sell on the *general* content (like modern superhero movies - largely new stories, but with a recognizable hook for marketing). And still more just on it being, "Actor X's next flick, in Genre Y, Directed by Z!!!1!"

So, on that basis, having the brand, and a couple decent actors or director are the actual starting basis for a movie that will market well. Having a specific story you're remaking seems far less important to the success of the film.

I expect the pre-emptive copyright infringement thing should (and will hopefully/probably) fail, unless the draft contained WotC IP in detail. Copyright protects *specific* expression, not general intents.

 

[Elven]

Next week (September 16th, to be precise) the case of who actually holds the movie rights to D&D goes to court.

Interestingly, the case is a bit more interesting than just to fans. It has the possibility of defining what qualifies as a "sequel", and whether development of a script before you own the rights qualifies as copyright infringement....


Hasbro contends the TV films don't qualify as true sequels. The plaintiff points to the basic fact that the third D&D movie doesn't have characters and plots that flowed from the prior films. Plus, as one of the company's trial briefs put it, "It is unheard of for the producer to have the right to retroactively extend its theatrical motion production rights by starting production of a television motion picture."

Sweetpea points to evidence supporting the theory that The Book of Vile Darkness is a sequel: the film's $2.5 million budget, more than a typical made-for-TV movie; that it was submitted to the MPAA for a rating in hopes of a theatrical release; that it originally contained TV-unfriendly nudity; that labor agreements classified it to be a "low budget theatrical" film; and most especially, that Hasbro had input and never brought forward its nonsequel argument during the project's production. As Sweetpea and Hasbro fight over how to interpret an ambiguous contract, Warners and Universal await word from their licensors about what they have the authority to do. But the case isn't merely about how to define a "sequel." It's also raised the cutting-edge legal issue about whether film projects in early development can amount to copyright infringement. This is something of interest to Hollywood at large. Universal, for example, is currently in court defending itself over Section 6, a film script about the early days of the U.K.'s spy agency MI-6. MGM and Danjaq, rights-holders of the lucrative James Bond franchise, are suing Universal for allegedly infringing the copyright to their famous spy character, while Universal demands an end to what it sees as a lawsuit over "hypothetical future infringement in works yet to be produced."

From the Hollywood Reporter: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dungeons-dragons-movie-fight-son-731444

Thats really interesting thanks for the heads up on this,

Of course no one can really comment without knowing the details of that specific agreement,
but it seems an interesting tactic to try to claim development is infringement (which if people are being paid "and making money" off that copyright could be considered "infringement" (which is a stupid one shot trick, no one will fall for again, everything would be project X thereon)

But personal, i would like to see the toy company get it, they can't have made a worse bunch of films (and yes i do have DVDs of the first two, bought the third, watched the third, then threw the third movie away, .......so not my cup of tea......)

 

[Morrus]

It isn't any specific content, no. But only a few of the movies out there sell well due to the specific story content (like LotR and the Hunger Games films). Some sell on the *general* content (like modern superhero movies - largely new stories, but with a recognizable hook for marketing). And still more just on it being, "Actor X's next flick, in Genre Y, Directed by Z!!!1!"

So, on that basis, having the brand, and a couple decent actors or director are the actual starting basis for a movie that will market well. Having a specific story you're remaking seems far less important to the success of the film.

Well, yes. I'm not sure why you opened with the word "no" and then agreed with me for two paragraphs.

As you say (and I said) it isn't the D&D brand. It might be an actor's branding or a very clever marketing campaign, but it's not "Dungeons & Dragons" that'll sell the tickets.

Maybe one day. But someone will have to turn D&D into such a brand.

 

[Elven]

Well, yes. I'm not sure why you opened with the word "no" and then agreed with me for two paragraphs.

As you say (and I said) it isn't the D&D brand. It might be an actor's branding or a very clever marketing campaign, but it's not "Dungeons & Dragons" that'll sell the tickets.

Maybe one day. But someone will have to turn D&D into such a brand.

To be fair, if you ask the general public to name a rpg, chances are it would be D&D,
Many people have heard of the game and understand (maybe from the name alone) that its fantasy,

(this is useful to the right holders, as there will be a hole in that genre market for fantasy once the last hobbit is released, in a year or two there is the Warcrft (world of warcraft) movie, (its already finished shooting)

That does show there is a demand for such, and starting with a known brand is a better start than none,