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

[I'm A Banana]

You could do all that just as well OR BETTER without paying WotC or using the D&D IP. Why would you pay?

You seem to be under the impression that this is zero-sum. Why would these be mutually exclusive? Just because good or better movies or shows or whatever are out there doesn't mean that there's no value in the WotC IP also being used in the same way. Just because Star Wars did the Joseph Campbell thing really well doesn't mean there's no value in every other movie that knocks off that plot structure. Just because LotR exists doesn't mean there's no value in Brave. Just because World of Warcraft exists doesn't mean there's not a market for DDO.

People would give up some of their profits to use the D&D brand because it has more name recognition than Anonymous Random Fantasy Thing. It's an internationally recognized brand that signifies fantasy adventure. It also lets you use stories that people have already spent millions of dollars on -- Eberron, Planescape, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance. Things that have had proven success in other media streams already (videogames, novels, possibly even comic books of those D&D comics did any real sales).

That's worthless?

You're approaching it from the assumption of "I have all the money I need to make a D&D movie, what do I do?", and your suggestion makes some sense there (though it's a bit old-fashioned), but that's not the reality. The reality WotC faces is "I need to convince a movie studio that it is worth making a D&D movie specifically" (and likely WotC/Hasbro will want to get paid in that deal, making it less attractive to studios).

Movie studios get convinced to do more idiotic things on a daily basis. I don't see this as a particularly hard sell. No harder than the Hungry Hungry Hippos movie, anyway.

 

[technoextreme]

So how many times do you need to try before you realize you won't succeed?

Well considering the fact that they've only really started trying within the past year or so I really wouldn't be giving up right now. First time in my entire life I have ever seen Hasbro as a parent company acknowledge that D&D actually exists only occurred within this year.

At the end of the day, WotC still has no real sellable product to sell under the D&D brand right now aside from Next.

​

Yes they do. In fact the non D&D next stuff paradoxically has had a bigger push than D&D next.
​

 

[delericho]

People would give up some of their profits to use the D&D brand because it has more name recognition than Anonymous Random Fantasy Thing. It's an internationally recognized brand that signifies fantasy adventure.

That's exactly it. Indeed, we've already seen examples of people doing this to their benefit - Bioware being a really good one.

The strategy seems to go something like this:

1) License the D&D name.
2) Produce a really good videogame/movie/whatever. Benefit from the sales that the name recognition gives you.
3) Leverage that success to build your own brand, and to build your own name recognition.
4) Let the license lapse.
5) Write your own really good videogame/movie/whatever. Benefit from it being "from the makers of..."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Universal and WB both already want to make a D&D movie.

Source? I've not heard this and can't find any evidence of it from the last few years.

You seem to be under the impression that this is zero-sum. Why would these be mutually exclusive? Just because good or better movies or shows or whatever are out there doesn't mean that there's no value in the WotC IP also being used in the same way. Just because Star Wars did the Joseph Campbell thing really well doesn't mean there's no value in every other movie that knocks off that plot structure. Just because LotR exists doesn't mean there's no value in Brave. Just because World of Warcraft exists doesn't mean there's not a market for DDO.

No, but it does mean, why go with D&D? If the Warcraft movie does well then maybe D&D becomes more attractive though.

People would give up some of their profits to use the D&D brand because it has more name recognition than Anonymous Random Fantasy Thing. It's an internationally recognized brand that signifies fantasy adventure. It also lets you use stories that people have already spent millions of dollars on -- Eberron, Planescape, the Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance. Things that have had proven success in other media streams already (videogames, novels, possibly even comic books of those D&D comics did any real sales).

That's worthless?

To Hollywood? Pretty close to worthless, as far as I can tell.

Movie studios get convinced to do more idiotic things on a daily basis. I don't see this as a particularly hard sell. No harder than the Hungry Hungry Hippos movie, anyway.

Which hasn't actually got out of development hell, thank the gods. "People do dumb things sometimes!" isn't exactly a winning argument.

 

[delericho]

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.

That's all sort-of true. If I were in charge of doing a D&D movie right now, I'd probably call it something like "Dungeons & Dragons: The Crystal Shard", and base it on the novel of the same name. That way, you get the name recognition of D&D, for those who know that, the name recognition of the novel, for those who know that, and of course the use of Drizzt (probably D&D's most recognisable character).

From there, assuming I'd made a film that is (a) good and (b) successful, I'd proceed with a two pronged strategy - the continued adventures of Drizzt on one hand; and various other "Dungeons & Dragons: novel/comic name" films to widen the appeal.

(Courtney Solomon didn't have this option, of course, because his license was only for the 'main' D&D license, and excluded things like FR, all the characters, etc.)

And, yes, I'd take the view that "Dungeons & Dragons" is actually "Forgotten Realms", at least for the time being. Build the series around that one IP, then consider branching out into Planescape (much as Marvel are only doing GotG now, after several other films), and from there consider doing Dragonlance, Dark Sun, or Ravenloft.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's exactly it. Indeed, we've already seen examples of people doing this to their benefit - Bioware being a really good one.

The strategy seems to go something like this:

1) License the D&D name.
2) Produce a really good videogame/movie/whatever. Benefit from the sales that the name recognition gives you.
3) Leverage that success to build your own brand, and to build your own name recognition.
4) Let the license lapse.
5) Write your own really good videogame/movie/whatever. Benefit from it being "from the makers of..."

And even more... that's pretty much exactly what RPG companies did with the OGL and d20 license. Green Ronin, Paizo, Mongoose Publishing and all these other companies that people love so much got their start or got their major push from using the licenses of 3rd edition. Who knows where any of these companies would be if they hadn't?

So to think licensing the D&D IP is a waste of time just boggles.

 

[Mistwell]

Source? I've not heard this and can't find any evidence of it from the last few years.

You don't get to be that lazy dude.

Open Google. Type any of those keywords in it. Like for example try Universal D&D movie.

 

[delericho]

IIRC, the "two D&D movies" thing was also on the front page here a few months back.

Edit: Yes, it was.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, but it does mean, why go with D&D? If the Warcraft movie does well then maybe D&D becomes more attractive though.

So the fact that licensing a D&D movie and licensing a Warcraft movie are different licenses from different companies with different long-term and short-term brand strategies is an irrelevant detail here?

Even if we lived in a world where a studio head was shopping around and choosing between a Warcraft license and a D&D license to make a movie out of, you don't think D&D might be able to make a competitive offer? If nothing else, because cross-media saturation plays into Hasbro's long-term plans, you don't think that they might make a sweeter offer financially than EA (who apparently has no such plans) would?

To Hollywood? Pretty close to worthless, as far as I can tell.

When we live in a world where almost any semi-popular young adult novel series can be turned into a franchise and where Uwe Boll can make movies out of semi-obscure violence-porn games and hell, where reddit posts are turned into films, I'd recommend taking a closer look at what people with movie-making budgets find potentially valuable. It seems like you are vastly over-estimating their selectivity.

Which hasn't actually got out of development hell, thank the gods. "People do dumb things sometimes!" isn't exactly a winning argument.

Hungry Hungry Hippos. Monopoly. Battleship. Action Man! Hasbro's strategy is linked to making big media properties out of its games and toys. Why wouldn't D&D be caught in that net?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You don't get to be that lazy dude.

Open Google. Type any of those keywords in it. Like for example try Universal D&D movie.

That's quite unnecessarily rude, but yeah, I just tried "D&D movie", because I hadn't seen it on any of the sites I visit last year. How I missed it back then, I don't know!

Still, looks like as long as Solomon manages to hold on to the rights, nothing good will happen. Rumour has it the situation may be "resolved", but if it's favour of Solomon, well...