D&D 5E Why I Think D&DN is In Trouble

[GreyLord]

Mistwell, you are the one who brought up boys toys and compared it to WotC. Boys Toys is indeed a section as much as gaming...it is NOT a brand. You are correct. But you compared Boys Toys to WotC and then inferred Boys Toys had less influence. In that, point blank, you are wrong. Both in profits and in relation to the company. WotC is a big portion of Hasbro, but it is NOT HASBRO (in that Hasbro is FAR more than simply WotC).

As for Transformers, please read the report. It is obvious (and only states it three or four times that Transformers has had growth, you can't get more blatant than that). I sent you the availability via PM...please read that.

I'm not trying to disparage you here...as I said in my post, what I'm wanting to do is make sure that everything is accurate. You are casting allusions as to what and how important something is...at least lets have the accurate numbers and statements up rather than posting a partial graph of one section of Hasbro.

IN regards to brands, what exactly are you trying to state. MtG can be seen as a brand, with WotC as the company. NERF saw significant growth as well as My Little Pony. WotC can be seen as a part of Gaming, which would be comparable to Boys Toys as far as sections of Hasbro go. BOTH are valuable commodities, and all the brands under Hasbro are important...not just one.

 

[TwoSix]

Considering that the written down version of those fairy tales by Grimm are only about 200 years old I don't think they are as central to western Europe as things like the Nibelungen, Beowulf, Arthur or even Herakles are.

Just so I'm clear, we're defining works post 18th-century as falling outside the umbrella of "traditional fantasy"?

I'm not entirely clear where I would draw the line, but I'd put Grimm in as "traditional" and something like Dunsany as more "modern".

 

[Derren]

Just so I'm clear, we're defining works post 18th-century as falling outside the umbrella of "traditional fantasy"?

No, we are defining the dark fantasy adaption of a child movie adaption of a post 18th century fairy tale as not "traditional fantasy" while talking about the hypothetical interest in a D&D movie.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Considering that the written down version of those fairy tales by Grimm are only about 200 years old I don't think they are as central to western Europe as things like the Nibelungen, Beowulf, Arthur or even Herakles are.
And don't forget that what comes into cinema this year is not even the Grimm version but the 50 year old Disney version which was mainly aimed at children and then got adapted again for a dark fantasy movie. That thing is about as traditional as that Snow White movie from 2012 is.

tolken is less then that and I think it is traditional fantasy...

 

[billd91]

Considering that the written down version of those fairy tales by Grimm are only about 200 years old I don't think they are as central to western Europe as things like the Nibelungen, Beowulf, Arthur or even Herakles are.
And don't forget that what comes into cinema this year is not even the Grimm version but the 50 year old Disney version which was mainly aimed at children and then got adapted again for a dark fantasy movie. That thing is about as traditional as that Snow White movie from 2012 is.

So, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, anything by Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, or Robert E. Howard are also not traditional fantasy because they're written considerably more recently than Grimm's Fairy Tales?

I'm having trouble seeing where all of this Tru-Traditional Fantasy(tm) genital-measuring is going. Why would we consider fairy tales to not be an element of traditional fantasy? They're clearly a strain of fantasy. Does Tru-Traditional Fantasy(tm) require swords-and-sorcery Leiberisms, questing Tolkienisms, and Conanesque thews?

 

[TwoSix]

No, we are defining the dark fantasy adaption of a child movie adaption of a post 18th century fairy tale as not "traditional fantasy" while talking about the hypothetical interest in a D&D movie.

Fair enough.

 

[TwoSix]

So, The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, anything by Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, or Robert E. Howard are also not traditional fantasy because they're written considerably more recently than Grimm's Fairy Tales?

I'm having trouble seeing where all of this Tru-Traditional Fantasy(tm) genital-measuring is going. Why would we consider fairy tales to not be an element of traditional fantasy? They're clearly a strain of fantasy. Does Tru-Traditional Fantasy(tm) require swords-and-sorcery Leiberisms, questing Tolkienisms, and Conanesque thews?

Yea, it looks like an unnecessary digression (partially my own fault, of course).

The real question is, "What elements need to be introduced into the culture that would increase the chance of acceptance and embrace of a D&D movie by a wider audience?" I think anything with magic and monsters helps, but it isn't enough on its own. D&D isn't just a synonym for "fantasy", it's specifically an experience that's correlated with nerdist escapism, which no Harry Potter success can change.

 

[Derren]

which no Harry Potter success can change.

Or dark movies about Disney villains or naked Greek superman to come back to the mentioned 300 prequel.

The type of fantasy a D&D movie would be about is on its way out as after LotR and Hobbit the interest in such movies is sated for now. And even if not, those movies still are the goalpost if you want to have a "Avenger" like effect on the Brand which was the intention of those people suggesting the movie in the first place.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I do also think that while a D&D movie could be made profitably, I doubt one could be made that would be a zeitgeist-affecting hit.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call that a likely outcome.

But then again, the first movie that jumps to my mind as being a "zeitgeist-affecting hit" is a comic book movie. It's not that far-fetched. These adaptations are as much about the people doing them as they are about the original source material being adapted.

 

[Mistwell]

Mistwell, you are the one who brought up boys toys and compared it to WotC. Boys Toys is indeed a section as much as gaming...it is NOT a brand. You are correct. But you compared Boys Toys to WotC

No, I compared it to Gaming, of which WOTC makes up a plurality of the revenue.

and then inferred Boys Toys had less influence.

Less influence than Gaming. Because it brings in less revenue than Gaming.

In that, point blank, you are wrong.

Only because you strawmanned me and changed what I said to match what you apparently wanted me to say as opposed to what I actually said.

Both in profits and in relation to the company. WotC is a big portion of Hasbro, but it is NOT HASBRO (in that Hasbro is FAR more than simply WotC).

Please stop. We both know I never said or implied WOTC is Hasbro. So please putting words in my mouth. It's getting really tiresome.

You are casting allusions as to what and how important something is...at least lets have the accurate numbers and statements up rather than posting a partial graph of one section of Hasbro.

1. Do you agree that Gaming brings in more revenue now than Boys Toys, or another of the other divisions of the four divisions?
2. Do you agree that WOTC makes a plurality of the revenue for the Gaming division?

If you agree with both those, then what are you disputing? And if you disagree, show me how I am wrong.

IN regards to brands, what exactly are you trying to state. MtG can be seen as a brand, with WotC as the company. NERF saw significant growth as well as My Little Pony. WotC can be seen as a part of Gaming, which would be comparable to Boys Toys as far as sections of Hasbro go. BOTH are valuable commodities, and all the brands under Hasbro are important...not just one.

I didn't say only one was important. Again CUT IT OUT WITH THE STRAWMANNING. Really, if you can't effectively debate this topic without pretending I said things I didn't, then you cannot effectively debate the topic at all.

What I said, and what I will repeat, is this:

1) Gaming now brings in the most revenue, of the four Hasbro divisions;
2) WOTC now brings in the most revenue for Gaming, of all the components that make up Gaming;
3) In terms of components of the various Hasbro divisions, WOTC brings in more revenue than any other particular component that makes up one of the four divisions of Hasbro.
4) Given the above, WOTC now has a lot more influence over what happens at Hasbro than they used to. More than any other particular component of, for example, Boys Toys (like "Marvel"). More influence than they had back when the old revenue goals were set for D&D that were discussed earlier in this thread. More influence, in fact, than they had when 4e was launched.

Is that clear now? I am not saying WOTC brings in the most revenue, nor that they are a majority of anything, nor that they are Hasbro, nor that they control Hasbro, nor that they are the only important component of Hasbro or Gaming, nor any of the stuff you claimed I said.