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

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

That to me is the problem; I get the reasons they have for it, but they have used same approach and the same reasons before, and the closest thing they have to a sure success, however small a success they clearly view the tabletop game to be, ends up getting neglected to the point that it can't support all the rest the way WotC needs it to. Just because WotC believes it has something to sell doesn't mean that the would be buyers agree, and that has been WotC's consistent problem throughout their ownership. In the end, the D&D name simply hasn't been worth the cost that WotC attaches to it, so it's just as easy for other companies to build their own IP, and not have to deal with WotC, however useful the D&D name itself could have been to them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

EA? What have they got to do with it? They have ME movie plans, dunno about Dragon Age. If you mean Activision, the Warcraft movie has finished shooting and is in post.

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.

Sorry, I was thinking of a movie that would help the D&D brand, not further run it into the ground. Obviously total crap is easy to get made, as are high concepts.

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?

Because the reason those movies are being made is a specific deal with Universal which named specific board-game properties? Not "big media" properties.

It started with this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ame-movies-candy-land-monopoly_n_1423194.html

It hasn't been a bed of roses for Universal:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambr...aster-scuttles-hasbros-plans-for-board-games/

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Universal-Paid-Millions-Make-Hasbro-Board-Game-Movies-29296.html

Still it's kind of immaterial, the law suit I missed does show they are trying to get a D&D movie made.
 

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...

Well I can't comment further on that topic.
 


Ruin Explorer said:
Sorry, I was thinking of a movie that would help the D&D brand, not further run it into the ground. Obviously total crap is easy to get made, as are high concepts.

I'm not saying the inevitable D&D movie will be successful or any good (noting that those two things don't always come together anyway). I'm just saying it makes sense for WotC to do it. There's a logic there. It holds up. It's not unfathomable.

It it attracts some hack who makes a passable summer popcorn action flick and does gangbusters (*cough*Transformers), Hasbro will be happy, anyway.
 
Last edited:

It it attracts some hack who makes a passable summer popcorn action flick and does gangbusters (*cough*Transformers), Hasbro will be happy, anyway.
The first Transformers was what it needed to be. I didn't want an Oscar contender; I wanted huge frikkin robots smashing the crap out of each other. My needs with respect to D&D are similar.
 

Hrm, little known property that makes a bajillion dollars doing a fantasy movie... Pirates of the Caribbean anyone?

In 2002, the year before PotC came out, would you honestly have thought a fantasy action movie starring Johnny Depp based on a Disney ride would have been a huge thing?
 

D&D's stories are generally terrible and few would be worth paying for.

<snip>

WotC does not own any particularly appealing, relatable, "sexy" (in the broad sense, not the sexual sense) characters or stories for Hollywood to use. It really does not. D&D as a brand has little inherent value NOW, because that value has been squandered by years of neglect and association with low-quality products
Frankly, I think you are setting the bar too high. And the fact that there is currently litigation over the D&D movie rights with movie studios waiting in the wings tends to confirm that.
 

I'm not saying the inevitable D&D movie will be successful or any good (noting that those two things don't always come together anyway). I'm just saying it makes sense for WotC to do it. There's a logic there. It holds up. It's not unfathomable.

It it attracts some hack who makes a passable summer popcorn action flick and does gangbusters (*cough*Transformers), Hasbro will be happy, anyway.

I disagree.

Hasbro is a high caliber corporation so a 'meh' cheesy flim is not going to be to their liking.
 

I disagree.

Hasbro is a high caliber corporation so a 'meh' cheesy flim is not going to be to their liking.

Not sure if serious...

Hasbro are in a legal battle (or have won/lost a legal battle, it's unclear) with the guy who made the super-cheesy D&D movies to take the rights from him and WB and give them to Universal. So in that sense, yes, they're trying to move away from cheesiness.

On the other hand, Hasbro are trying to get movies made of Candyland, Monopoly, Ouija, Stretch Armstrong, and Clue, and already got a Battleship movie made, which, whilst clearly quite expensive, was certainly "cheesy" and got "meh" reviews. So Battleship could easily be said to be "meh" and "cheesy".

I'm also quite sure that Hasbro don't give a flying sod as to whether the movies are "cheesy" if they are successful, and help sell Hasbro products.

The idea that "high caliber corporations" don't produce/back "meh"/"cheesy" movies is a pretty funny one, though. Virtually every "meh"/"cheesy" movie has an extremely high caliber corporation behind it. A recent example is the utterly godawful Google propaganda film with Vince Vaughn (thankfully the name of which escapes me). It could not have been any more "meh" or "cheesy".

Frankly, I think you are setting the bar too high. And the fact that there is currently litigation over the D&D movie rights with movie studios waiting in the wings tends to confirm that.

I didn't know about the litigation when I made my comments. That does make things more interesting. I don't believe that WB/Solomon want anything but to hang on to the rights, though - they're not "waiting in the wings" to make some sort of high-quality D&D movie (c.f. Solomon's record on D&D movies) to further WotC's brand. They're just litigating to hold on to an IP - but that does show that they place SOME value on it, so I concede that point! :D

Hrm, little known property that makes a bajillion dollars doing a fantasy movie... Pirates of the Caribbean anyone?

In 2002, the year before PotC came out, would you honestly have thought a fantasy action movie starring Johnny Depp based on a Disney ride would have been a huge thing?

Not many people, that's for sure. But PotC was kind of "the perfect storm", with an ultra-accessible high concept (the title is the concept), and which happened to combine an good script, an excellent director able to get great performances, and smart enough to let them happen, and an excellent ensemble cast.

You can't MAKE that happen. It's more luck than judgment when those things come together. Attempts to do the same sort of thing, even by Disney, have not been very successful (c.f. John Carter etc.). Still, one can hope. I just think it's a bit silly.

I'm not saying the inevitable D&D movie will be successful or any good (noting that those two things don't always come together anyway). I'm just saying it makes sense for WotC to do it. There's a logic there. It holds up. It's not unfathomable.

It it attracts some hack who makes a passable summer popcorn action flick and does gangbusters (*cough*Transformers), Hasbro will be happy, anyway.

Successful and good are generally pretty closely related. The Transformers movies are the only recent ones I can think of which were successful despite being dire in pretty much every quantifiable way (except perhaps consistent visual design and SFX quality).

I think everyone would be happy if a D&D movie did that well. I would be astonished if it did. I agree that a D&D movie is inevitable, actually, but that brings us full-circle, back to what I was originally trying to say (whether I conveyed it or not), which was that it would be very hard to get a D&D movie made that actually operated as part of a "multimedia strategy", rather than actively damaging the brand/putting people off, as I kind of feel recent D&D movies have.
 

Remove ads

Top