D&D Movie/TV Should the D&D Movie Been Serious or Not Called D&D?

[LordEntrails]

The core audience it WAS appealing to is too niche.

I don't think the target audience was actually D&D fans. See below.

Combine that with our recent inability to actually determine if a lot of movies turn a profit or not and we're left with a fair amount of guessing and some talking past each other.

I don't think the success of this movie should be determined by profitability.
I feel Hasbro invested in this movie with one goal in mind and it wasn't turning a profit on this movie. Build the D&D brand so that they can make more money in the coming years not just on movies, but games, merchandise and licensing.

The question I think we should ask, was that ~$50 million they did not recoup on theatre ticket sales worth the investment in the brand? Only time will tell, but I think they are probably happy with the exposure and good will their investment has wrought. i.e. a $50 million brand campaign is not unusual for company like Hasbro. Brand campaigns are not aimed at selling a product, they are aimed at building the consumer awareness of the brand. The movie has done that.

 

[The Grinning Frog]

Is it possible you've conflated serious with GOT style misery? I think a lot of people are exhausted by Drama so deep that there's no hope.

I was saying NO to the heavy drama and asking to be entertained. The opposite of what you think I said.

 

[The Grinning Frog]

I don't think the target audience was actually D&D fans. See below.

I don't think the success of this movie should be determined by profitability.
I feel Hasbro invested in this movie with one goal in mind and it wasn't turning a profit on this movie. Build the D&D brand so that they can make more money in the coming years not just on movies, but games, merchandise and licensing.

The question I think we should ask, was that ~$5 million they did not recoup on theatre ticket sales worth the investment in the brand? Only time will tell, but I think they are probably happy with the exposure and good will their investment has wrought. i.e. a $50 million brand campaign is not unusual for company like Hasbro. Brand campaigns are not aimed at selling a product, they are aimed at building the consumer awareness of the brand. The movie has done that.

I hope you are correct, and I hope they are willing to double down on their brand building to do another film in the same vein.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

"D&D" could be replaced with the name of some setting: Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Mystara, Savage Coast/Red Steel, Spelljammer.

The brand D&D allows to start a new story with a totally new group and with only a cameo of the original group. Here the producers can feel they enjoy more creative freedom because the brand is not about a little group of characters.

How many people in this forum has watched the last Conan movie, that with Jason Momoa without beard? It was a "serious" movie.

Fantaguirò is a child-friendly fantasy Italian production from 90's. Today it would be "low budget" comparing to blockbuster, but after the first movie other titles were produced. And the princess had got a "woke" touch in the right way. Lots of FXs weren't necessary.

Fantaghirò (film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[EzekielRaiden]

it lost a lot, it did not even make its production cost back (at the box office)

Mmmm...You sure about that?

Or if you prefer, [citation needed.]

Wikipedia lists, with multiple citations, the budget at $150M and the worldwide box office at $208M. It's not much of a success, and I understand that "budget" and "total cost" are not identical. But to say it did not earn back its production cost is simply wrong, from what I'm seeing.

 

[mamba]

Mmmm...You sure about that?

Or if you prefer, [citation needed.]

Wikipedia lists, with multiple citations, the budget at $150M and the worldwide box office at $208M. It's not much of a success, and I understand that "budget" and "total cost" are not identical. But to say it did not earn back its production cost is simply wrong, from what I'm seeing.

Yes, because half of that does not get back to Paramount, it stays with the cinemas. So they got around 110M for a cost of 150M, They did not make it back.

 

[MwaO]

Mmmm...You sure about that?

Or if you prefer, [citation needed.]

Wikipedia lists, with multiple citations, the budget at $150M and the worldwide box office at $208M. It's not much of a success, and I understand that "budget" and "total cost" are not identical. But to say it did not earn back its production cost is simply wrong, from what I'm seeing.

The $150M doesn't include marketing — as an example, they likely paid several million for the Super Bowl ad. And then theaters typically take a 50% cut of revenue over the length of a showing — so the likely amount of money they lost is around $35M before the cost of marketing.

There may be some sort of ancillary effects or benefits, such as toys or the benefit to D&D as a whole, what have you, that Hasbro or Paramount can point to as benefitting them. $35M+marketing costs though is a lot of money to make up.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In short, there is no end to ways to make sure your movie didn't make money. For bookkeeping reasons.

 

[Zardnaar]

Mmmm...You sure about that?

Or if you prefer, [citation needed.]

Wikipedia lists, with multiple citations, the budget at $150M and the worldwide box office at $208M. It's not much of a success, and I understand that "budget" and "total cost" are not identical. But to say it did not earn back its production cost is simply wrong, from what I'm seeing.

Studio only gets around half that amount so no D&D did not earn back its production cost.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Studio only gets around half that amount so no D&D did not earn back its production cost.

I only really need to be told once, not three times.