D&D Movie/TV (Yet another) D&D Movie Speculation thread.

[Pauln6]

How do you explain Michel Bay then? His movies are consistently profitable, and consist of nothing but spectacle. Given the choice between character, plot, and big robots punching each other, audiences consistently turn out for the robots.

The robots have had a large fan base for decades but generally, although we go to see them, my friends and I don't really like them. Star Trek the Motion Picture was the most financially successful Star Trek movie until 2009 but not many view it as the best Star Trek movie. Sure, I could come on here and say, let's hope the Dungeons and Dragons movie churns out the same turgid, hollow, derivative, craptastic actionfest just to make a buck to ensure we get more of the same, or we can ask for something smart, and intriguing, as well as entertaining.

 

[Jester David]

You could have elves and dwarves, but you would want to do them differently to the recent Tolkien movies. Sure, D&D has always ripped off Tolkien, and Peter Jackson ripped off D&D, but the movie needs to look like it's own thing.

I'd like to see more that proves Peter Jackson consciously ripped off D&D and is more than casually aware of D&D.

He made a couple references in the LotR commentaries that referenced D&D but in a way that implied he was very dismissive and considered it B-fantasy. And generally in relation to weaker elements of the story and naming, commenting that one plot point felt like Tolkien ripped off D&D or that the "Crack of Doom" was a bad D&D name.

But I have other reasons for suggesting a tiefling, other than simply "being different". Aquaman is currently doing well, with people praising it's "stunning visuals". Avatar was a huge hit almost entirely on it's visuals. "Stunning visuals" is one way a D&D movie could stand out from the crowd, but that would be hard to achieve in a generic pseudo-medieval setting. Going to Sigil would give creative artists and VFX people a chance to really go to town. And tieflings are common in Sigil.

"Stunning Visuals" also cost mega $$$. They're not going to give that to the first D&D movie. It's going to have a moderate budget as a test, which might increase over time.

 

[Quartz]

Going to Sigil would give creative artists and VFX people a chance to really go to town. And tieflings are common in Sigil.

I really don't want the Star Wars Cantina scene that has become such a cliche.

 

[Mistwell]

Thor 2 and Hellboy 2 to be precise.

Yes apparently Hollywood thinks evil elves are albinos, or near albinos. The D&D movie should probably just stick with that, as it's a well established trope at this point anyway.

Thor 2

Hellboy 2

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes apparently Hollywood thinks evil elves are albinos, or near albinos.

Correction: Hollywood thinks albinos are evil.

See The Omega Man, Stick, Foul Play, Defiance, Stargate: Atlantis...

 

[Parmandur]

The robots have had a large fan base for decades but generally, although we go to see them, my friends and I don't really like them. Star Trek the Motion Picture was the most financially successful Star Trek movie until 2009 but not many view it as the best Star Trek movie. Sure, I could come on here and say, let's hope the Dungeons and Dragons movie churns out the same turgid, hollow, derivative, craptastic actionfest just to make a buck to ensure we get more of the same, or we can ask for something smart, and intriguing, as well as entertaining.

I'm setting my expectations to Transformers level for enthusiasm control purposes. I came into The Avengers with expectations set to Transformers, and that made the experience of a great movie even better.

If I expect Transformers and I get Transformers, great. If I expect Transformers and get The Avengers, Fantastic. Anywhere in-between is gravy, too. The key is setting a low enough bar.

 

[Parmandur]

"Stunning Visuals" also cost mega $$$. They're not going to give that to the first D&D movie. It's going to have a moderate budget as a test, which might increase over time.

Studios don't make mid-budget movies anymore, no margin in it. They swing for the fences or bunt with low-budget stuff. A comparable budget to G. I. Joe or other similar Hasbro movies Paramount has made seems likely, so $150-$200 million. If it fails, it's a tax write off to Paramount and Hasbro, if it succeeds they get big rewards.

 

[Jester David]

Studios don't make mid-budget movies anymore, no margin in it. They swing for the fences or bunt with low-budget stuff. A comparable budget to G. I. Joe or other similar Hasbro movies Paramount has made seems likely, so $150-$200 million. If it fails, it's a tax write off to Paramount and Hasbro, if it succeeds they get big rewards.

Mortal Engines is $100 million
Into the Spider-Verse is $90 million
Nutcracker is $120 million
Bumblebee is $135 million
Deadpool was $58 million and the sequel is $110 million
Venom is $100 million
The Predator is $88 million

They're not going to spend $150 million on a gamble, let alone $200 million. They'll give it a safe $100 million and tell them to aim low.

 

[guachi]

Deadpool was a rare mid-budget movie and it shows. Dodgy CGI and in many instances, sets that would be no different than any random drama.

Mortal Engines bombed.
Into the Spider-Verse got incredible reviews and will likely break even.
Nutcracker did poorly.
Bumblebee got great reviews and it's doing poorly bordering on a bomb considering its budget.
Deadpool 2 did amazing box office both foreign and domestic.
Venom was terrible and yet did phenomenal, especially overseas.
The Predator was awful and it bombed. It also had dodgy effects.

If the D&D movie is given a budget of $100 million the makers better work overtime to ensure that the effects and sets don't actually cost a lot in the first place or it's going to look terrible. Intentionally designing a cheap movie is probably the best way to go.

 

[Parmandur]

Mortal Engines is $100 million
Into the Spider-Verse is $90 million
Nutcracker is $120 million
Bumblebee is $135 million
Deadpool was $58 million and the sequel is $110 million
Venom is $100 million
The Predator is $88 million

They're not going to spend $150 million on a gamble, let alone $200 million. They'll give it a safe $100 million and tell them to aim low.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra had a $175 million budget
Transformers (which was a gamble at the time) had $150 million
Battleship had $209 million (yes, that's right)

Bumblebee had a lower budget than the previous film in that series, which also under-performed: Last Knight had a $217 million budget.

Now, some of these gambles paid off, some didn't, but Hollywood lives on go big or go home gambles these days, particularly in the quest for a "cinematic universe," with which Hasbro is especially obsessed.

We don't know what kind of budget this movie will get: but big fat gambles are something in principle that Hasbro is into with making films (and Paramount has been extremely willing to work with them on), partly because the toy payoff is way bigger than any risk from the outlay to make these big splashy toy comm...movies.

I don't necessarily think the movie will be good: but I expect it to be big budget, and professionally made (like Battleship or Transformers).