D&D 5E D&D Next: Let's discuss it's mass multimedia goal.

[billd91]

You're optimistic, but you have no more to support your optimism than those that show pessimism, probably less if you look at WotC's track record, yet you demand proof from others that you yourself cannot give. That's not trying to have a debate, that's trying to outshout your opponent, which it would very much disappoint me if that's all this thread turned into, because it is actually a very interesting topic with ramifications that go well beyond WotC and D&D.

I agree that WotC's record on multimedia offerings to tie in with D&D isn't very good. Most things, however, have been out of their hands. The D&D movie was a bomb, though WotC (and Hasbro) were not responsible for that. The computer games have been mixed in quality, but again, licensed out to someone else. Their computerized tools have a spotty, mostly negative, record as well. The D&D character builder in the initial 3e release was interesting but clunky to use and never got any significant support. 4e's big online tool ambitions never reached fruition.

So I'm not necessarily optimistic. I do think that if they can figure out a good hook, yet can develop a decent franchise
.

 

[The Black Ranger]

The biggest problem I am seeing on this thread is using success stories from other brands to somehow justify this multimedia thing being successful. For every success, there are tons of failures and so far, D&D has failed in most ways outside of it's RPG.

I think quite simply that Hasbro has overestimated the brand and their abilities.

 

[sunshadow21]

I agree that WotC's record on multimedia offerings to tie in with D&D isn't very good. Most things, however, have been out of their hands. The D&D movie was a bomb, though WotC (and Hasbro) were not responsible for that. The computer games have been mixed in quality, but again, licensed out to someone else. Their computerized tools have a spotty, mostly negative, record as well. The D&D character builder in the initial 3e release was interesting but clunky to use and never got any significant support. 4e's big online tool ambitions never reached fruition.

So I'm not necessarily optimistic. I do think that if they can figure out a good hook, yet can develop a decent franchise
.

They are trying to get their next movie into their own hands, so that's an area that WotC cannot be blamed. Computer games will continue to be licensed out, but the nature and the receivers of the licenses are a key factor, so WotC's fate in this arena is not entirely out of their hands, and never has been. Novels fall into the same category; they will not be able to write all the novels, but the lack of significant new characters or authors under their watch is entirely their own to claim. Their forays into the internet have been entirely in their hands, as is the rpg itself. In the end, there may have been things beyond WotC's control, but for the most part, WotC has had the ability to shape their own destiny, and this is where we are today. For whatever reason, nothing has taken off, and the common item in all of the failed attempts and lacklustre successes has been WotC itself. WotC has to figure out how to get past itself before it can grow the brand anymore; if WotC can do that, the brand will take off. The ceiling on the brand is exactly as high as WotC sets it. So far, that's been pretty low. Only time will tell if they effectively move it any higher.

 

[pemerton]

Okay, fair enough? I made the assertion knowing that I was in the eight who couldn't!

Just to continue this important line of discussion - I left out at least The Atom and Hawkman!

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Few outside of comics fans knew the story of Iron Man.

Few outside of comics fans knew the story of Thor, aside from the actual historical Thor myth (not the comics one).

There are probably fewer people these days who are familiar with the Norse myths than are at least passingly familiar with the existence of the Marvel character. Such is the power of marketing and the sad decline in knowledge about mythology and ancient cultures.

There is a certain degree of general cultural knowledge about Iron Man, Thor, and many of the others you listed. Even if there wasn't, the basis of the movies was on particular characters that are fairly unique (in movie terms) with an existing fan base.

There is a general cultural knowledge of D&D as a game, but D&D itself isn't built around particular characters and stories. It's a framework for people to create those things. WotC could construct a set of characters with strong stories set in a well-defined world and sell that as a movie (if they didn't make it derivative and hokey), but right now those things don't exist with D&D. If they did a "Dark Sun" movie with some strong characters (just to pick one setting), for example, they could use that as a brand that included an rpg setting, comics, movies, a TV show, etc. The basis of the brand would be the specific world and characters, though, not the game from which they were derived.

They succeeded with stories about as strong as the stories of Drizzt Do'Urden and Elminster, Raistlin and Tasslehoff, Gord the Rogue, Mordenkainen and Bigby, etc.

Specific stories, settings, and characters - like the ones you mentioned above - are far more marketable in movie terms than the D&D property itself. WotC will need to zoom in on a particular setting and character set to market at first, though. The big question is which will be marketable to the most people in the general public. One that is very Tolkien-ish is less likely to work than one that is more original and unique.

The name "Dungeons & Dragons" itself carries recognition for people, just as "Marvel Superhero" carries recognition. Those broad titles are far more important than the recognition people have for the specific character.

A huge number of people in the U.S. recognize Wolverine, Captain America, Superman, Batman, etc. Wolverine has been around for decades, and the others have been around much longer, so anybody who read comics at any point in their youth will be familiar with the most common characters and the longest-running teams (particularly the Avengers, FF, Justice League, and X-Men). Iron Man has been around for as long as Marvel comics has existed. His comics may not have always been the most popular, but chances are high that most men who were born in the 60s or more recently could at least see a picture of the character and say "that's Iron Man," even before the movies came out. They may not have ever read Iron Man comics, but the basic cultural knowledge is there, at least in the U.S.

Most people in the general public couldn't tell you which particular comic company owns which character, though. The majority of non-fanboy types that go to superhero movies go to see a specific character (probably from a limited list), or more commonly are attracted by an interesting trailer (like with "Guardians of the Galaxy.") They aren't going because it is a "Marvel Superhero" or a "DC Superhero" movie. At most, they're going because it's a "superhero" movie.

I see the same thing in my library every day. More people ask for book series by naming the main character, rather than the author. They ask for the newest Sookie Stackhouse, Lincoln Rhyme, or Jack Reacher book. A surprisingly large number don't really know anything about the author, beyond his or her name (if that). Very, very few know (or care) if the series is put out by Dell, or Random House, etc. Many absolutely love one particular series that an author puts out, but have absolutely NO interest in the author's other series, even if they are in the same genre and have the same writing style. They are most interested in the character. A tremendous number of people decide whether to check out or buy a book (or not) based on the cover art. A frighteningly large number of people will only read a book - ANY book - if it is on a bestseller list or (mostly for women) if a friend recommends it. All that surprised me at first, but after 3 years of working in a bookstore and 11 as a librarian I realized that it is more the norm than the exception.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

In the end, there may have been things beyond WotC's control, but for the most part, WotC has had the ability to shape their own destiny, and this is where we are today. For whatever reason, nothing has taken off, and the common item in all of the failed attempts and lacklustre successes has been WotC itself. WotC has to figure out how to get past itself before it can grow the brand anymore; if WotC can do that, the brand will take off. The ceiling on the brand is exactly as high as WotC sets it. So far, that's been pretty low. Only time will tell if they effectively move it any higher.

Well stated.

When it comes to products that they have licensed to others, I would say that their challenge is going to be in learning how to choose their licensees carefully.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

The biggest problem I am seeing on this thread is using success stories from other brands to somehow justify this multimedia thing being successful. For every success, there are tons of failures and so far, D&D has failed in most ways outside of it's RPG.

Yes, exactly.

There has also been a tendency to compare apples to oranges. A brand derived from a series of books differs from one derived from a game, and both differ from a brand originally derived from a movie or series of movies.

When we look at brands that started off as games, we mostly have ones that started as video games or board games (Clue, Battleship, etc.). With a few exceptions, most of those haven't done particularly well, at least in terms of multimedia marketing. Overall, video game movies have been more successful than board game ones, most likely because they come with a recognizable set of visuals and settings, and are more similar to movies than other types of games.

Even if you stick to D&D, there has been a lot of effort put forth over the years to take a multimedia approach to development, starting back with TSR. It has never been very successful. There are reasons for that.

I think quite simply that Hasbro has overestimated the brand and their abilities.

I do, too. Hasbro has no real experience with this type of property. In fact, their overall focus has been pretty limited over the years. They are a board game and toy company. They have granted licenses for people in other entertainment industries to use their properties, but they aren't in the multimedia field. Roleplaying games are far outside of their regular products, in many ways.

 

[pemerton]

The real problem, though, with marketing D&D stuff, as compared to Marvel, is that Marvel is about stories

I think there are two responses to this.

The first is [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s comment, that D&D is about the same thing as stories, namely, conflict - and it brings with it certain particular tropes for the framing of that conflict (eg underground settings - and the shadows make CG effects easier!; clerics with maces, fighters, wizards with spellbooks and staves, thieves in leather armour; thieves and assassins guilds; druids and monks with ritual combat as part of their practices for establishing hierarchies; etc).

The second is that D&D has bucketloads of stories in its modules, its novels, etc. The GDQ series is a story. Night's Dark Terror is a story. Heck, even Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan can be turned into a story if you edit it down to some highlights and use it as an Indiana Jones-style intro piece.

Whether those stories can be turned into successful movies luckily isn't my problem. But to me they're not inherently worse than the Avengers, which in my view have always been pretty second-tier comics-wise. (I love the X-Men, especially Claremont X-Men, but there's a lot in there that's not all that brilliant in its original form. I think the first X-Men movie is a better version of a Magneto story than any single Magneto story in the comics, for instance, with the possible exception of #150.)

You say you don't think most people were familiar with the LotR novels, I note. I think that's both true and false. It's true, I think, that most people in the audiences hadn't actually read all of the novels. However, I would suggest that most people in the audience were either going with people who had read some or all of the novels, or were least culturally familiar with them, aware of the general themes and so on.

Yes and no. In one sense, everyone who's ever heard a European fairy tale or come across a kids book on knights and castles knows the general themes of LotR: it is good vs bad fantasy, predicated on romantic conceptions of the importance of individual honour, the divine right (and righteousness) of kings, and an ultimate faith in providentially-ordained outcomes that comport with the requirements of justice.

But I find it hard to believe that every group of friends who went to see LotR had at least one reader in it. My evidence for that is, admittedly, little more than conjecture (in my case many of those I went with had read the books, because I went with RPG friends - but my friend who bought them all on DVD, both theatrical and directors' versions, hadn't read the books and didn't see them at the theatre with anyone who had as far as I know - he just fell in love with Liv Tyler's ears). But for what it's worth here it is: heaps of people at my work have seen LotR. Few of them have read LotR. And most of those who haven't I expect move in family/friendship circles where the others haven't either.

People go to see LotR because it is highly promoted, by a well-regarded if somewhat minor director, it involves a well-recognised title, and when you see the trailer it looks beautiful and spectacular.

I would be gobsmacked (but very happy) if any D&D movie compared to LotR. But it seems feasible that it could compare to Dragonheart, or even Ladyhawke.

The key with both Transformers and Iron Man is that while neither had been particularly smash hits prior to their breakout movies, both were easily recognizable IPs that had a dedicated fan base that simply required the right combination of money, talent, script, and timing. Not easy tasks, but far easier than what WotC faces with D&D, which lacks clear ownership of any world or character they might try to use on top of the fact that the D&D brand means completely different things to different people.

Iron Man means different things to different people, too - to most people it means either nothing, or (say in the case of my partner) it means Robert Downey Jr in a funny rocket-powered suit. I don't think D&D is in any worse place than Transformers or Iron Man in terms of market recognition.

You don't make an Iron Man film with the idea of existing Iron Man fans as your core audience (there aren't enough of them). Likewise for a D&D film.

I also don't know what you mean by "WotC lacking clear ownership of any world or character". They own bucketloads of them, starting with Driz'zt and FR, Dragonlance and all its protagonists and antagonists, then heaps of lesser-tier worlds after those one. (The Black Eagle Barony was mentioned upthread.) The D-Series - with its memorable characters including the giant rulers, Obmi, Eclavdra and Lolth is another example, rooted in the game itself rather than spinoff fiction. The Slavers, with memorable characters including Markess, the blind fighter in the eyeless helmet, and Stalman Klim leading the Slave Lords, is another example along those lines.

Whilst there are novels attached, and they've sold well, they don't have a huge rabid fanbase, nor a youthful fanbase (who are the most useful fanbase for getting bums on seats in cinemas, generally, and importantly, selling merchandise

<snip>

I could very easily see "Forgotten Realms" or "Dark Sun" becoming big, popular brands, if WotC could get a company to actually make a good, aesthetically striking game set there (and simplify the settings to the point where they were accessible and distinctive). "Ravenloft" might be another option

The core Iron Man product was already there; the core Marvel brand was already there. It just took some dollars to infuse the Iron Man product line. D&D is not nearly as easy to work with. There is no single definition of the core brand that WotC can sell to investors

<snip>

Forgotten Realms is the closest thing that they have to being a sellable subbrand

the novel line is for all practical purposes it's own product and brand, the success of which has little to no bearing on any other part of the brand.

I'm not a marketing person, and so some of this "brand" stuff is a bit opaque to me. But wouldn't making "Forgotten Realms" or "Driz'zt" or (perhaps most plausibly) "Dragonlance" into successful brands count, from WotC's point of view, as a growing of the D&D brand? I don't see in what practical sense the novel line is its own product and brand. For instance, it's not as if someone else owns the rights and hence derives the revenue (is it?).

And even if the recognition on these D&D novels is not as big as LotR (but perhaps is as big as Iron Man?), they are still stories that could in principle be cinematised and thereby monetised more broadly.

If some movie causes people to identify D&D with some setting or even a new setting, that's great. WOTC doesn't care if they're selling 1,000,000 copies of Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, or even Birthright, so long as they're selling 1,000,000 copies of one of them.

If they are, then D&D is thriving.

<snip>

A well done movie, whether it is an existing storyline or a new one, is only a good thing, and D&D has more than enough brand recognition to explode if a good movie is produced.

This makes perfect sense to me. 1,000,000 books (or action figures, or pairs of socks, or whatever) sold is 1,000,000 things sold, whatever the logo or the precise mental state of the purchasers. Why would WotC not consider that a success?

The D&D Brand just lacks character and in itself does not draw any people outside of PnP games, because only there D&D has some defining characteristics (like D20, etc.)
What would make a D&D movie any different from a generic fantasy movie?

The big problem in gaming is, though, the precedent Bioware set with Dragon Age. They explicitly decided to avoid using D&D, and to create their own IP, so they were beholden to no-one.

<snip>

This is an increasingly common view in the games industry - Bobby Kotick from Activision recently noted that a significant reason that Destiny is an original IP was to prevent them ever being beholden to anyone

All fantasy movies are in some sense "generic fantasy movies". Just like Iron Man is a generic superhero movie ("wealthy playboy has morality-inducing experience that leads him to use his wealth to fight wrongdoers in a visually dramatic if bizarrely inefficient manner").

Why do people invest in Marvel's Iron Man movie rather than invent their own generic superhero? Not for the prospect of attracting Iron Man fans to the theatre, I don't think - there aren't enough of them. Presumably it is seen as easier to start with a character and story that is, to some extent at least, already developed. The same considerations, presumably, would make investing in a D&D movie attractive. There are already-developed stories and story elements. Obviously it's not an auto-win, but it doesn't strike me as absurd.

Outside of PnP games people do not care if it is D&D or not. Also, D&D lacks characters to draw people in also. At best they have settings.
So what is left is marketing to draw people and based on previous performances I doubt that Hasbro will spend enough money on it so that whatever gets promoted reaches critical mass.

Battleship has no characters. The closest it has to a "story" is the firing of blind salvos within a defined target area in an attempt to sink enemy vessels. No one (or, at least, no one in serious numbers) goes to see the Battleship movie out of a profound love of the game. At best, they remember playing Battleship as a kid (or with their kids) and that puts the movie on their radar. Yet Hasbro got a movie out of Battleship. Why couldn't D&D (or FR, or Dragonlance, or . . .) do the same?

Until WotC themselves can create a truly sellable product outside of the game itself, no one else is going to bother

<snip>

Relying on Hasbro to fill in gaps or provide resources, name, and/or expertise is folly, because D&D isn't owned and controlled by Hasbro directly

<snip>

WotC's best chance for success is to reach the level that Blade did with Next

Unless I'm mistaken, WotC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hasbro, and D&D is wholly owned by WotC. That makes Hasbro, for all practical purposes, the direct owner and controller of D&D (the brand - not the game, which is outside of their control via the OGL).

So relying on Hasbro to fill in gaps doesn't really make sense - Hasbro doesn't rely on itself, it just does the stuff it thinks it needs to do.

I also think the idea that D&Dnext would reach the level of Blade might be unrealistic. Here is what Wikipedia says about Blade box office:

The film was produced on a budget of $45 million. . .

Blade went to number one in both Spain and Australia for their opening weekends. With 200 theatres showing the film, Spain's cinema goers earned the film $1.5 million (US) in three days, whilst Australia earned $1 million from 132 cinemas showing the film. In the Flemish Region of Belgium, the film earned $323,000 from 20 cinemas, and the Netherlands earned the film $246,000 from 44 cinemas. France made $1.9 million in five days from 241 cinemas, but the film was less successful in Hong Kong (with $182,000 from 22 cinemas) and South Africa ($159,000 from 64 cinemas). The United Kingdom was more successful, taking in $5.7 million over 10 days, as was Brazil, making $855,000 in four days from 133 cinemas.​

That's over $11 million, or one quarter of budget, in less than two weeks. Maybe I'm wildly out of touch with the RPG market, but I really wouldn't expect D&Dnext to do anything like that in either absolute or relative terms.

As I understand the WotC/Hasbro strategy, the inability of an RPG to perform at that sort of level is why they want to take D&D in a multimedia direction.

The biggest problem I am seeing on this thread is using success stories from other brands to somehow justify this multimedia thing being successful. For every success, there are tons of failures and so far, D&D has failed in most ways outside of it's RPG.

I think quite simply that Hasbro has overestimated the brand and their abilities.

Who is justifying the multimedia thing being successful? At least for my part, I'm saying that it's not irrational, and there's no inherent reason why it couldn't work.

 

[The Black Ranger]

Nobody is saying it's irrational and D&D is not unique when you say there is a possibility, but I don't think with all honesty that this is going to go where Hasbro thinks it's going to go.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

All fantasy movies are in some sense "generic fantasy movies". Just like Iron Man is a generic superhero movie ("wealthy playboy has morality-inducing experience that leads him to use his wealth to fight wrongdoers in a visually dramatic if bizarrely inefficient manner").

Most D&D worlds and characters go beyond simply being generic - they are highly stereotypical. There was a time when stereotypical fantasy movies could do fairly well with the public, but that eventually got old. The same will happen to superhero movies - in fact, the backlash is already starting.

Clerics with maces, dungeons, knights with magic swords, etc. has been done to death over the last several decades. For something like that to be marketable today it would need to have something really unique to offer. Medieval-ish movies today tend to do better if they are gritty and adult in nature. I don't see WotC or Hasbro going that route.