D&D Movie/TV Should the D&D Movie Been Serious or Not Called D&D?

[Vaalingrade]

Yep. Feels like the whole premise of the original post could have been summed up as "Did you know the D&D move was a flop?" It's purely a matter of opinion, of course, but some people really need to believe that.

I personally appreciate the new twist of 'what if it had been substantially worse?' though.

 

[mamba]

If week one is weak, then the largest amount of drop off could never reach the largest drop off that a strong week one could get. That's what the word potential used here means.

drop off is measured in %… it can always be between 0 and 100, no matter how many viewers you had in week one

 

[Storyteller Hero]

drop off is measured in %… it can always be between 0 and 100, no matter how many viewers you had in week one

10% of 40 is 4, and 10% of 60 is 6 so percentages aren't the same value for different box office takes, and the thresholds at which percentages are good or bad will differ depending on the actual value of the drop offs rather than the percentages (as well as the costs that have to be reclaimed for the productions).

We can also take into consideration the diminishing returns on drop off, and the minimum numbers of people going into theaters for A and B, so it's not necessarily a good thing to have drop of value X that would normally be good for a different box office take.

Simply put, the story behind the drop off rate is more complicated than a simple percentage comparison.

 

[mamba]

10% of 40 is 4, and 10% of 60 is 6 so percentages aren't the same value for different box office takes, and the thresholds at which percentages are good or bad will differ depending on the actual value of the drop offs rather than the percentages

no, the percentage is pretty much universal, regardless of how many viewers you had in week one. That is my point

I understand that that represents a different number of people dropping off, but the drop off is generally somewhere around 50%, give or take 10. HAT’s drop off rate was ordinary

 

[Leatherhead]

The only thing wrong with the movie was the time it was released.

 

[Mecheon]

It would have been more interesting if the Bard, Druid and Paladin had been able to cast their own spells. Why was it so important to keep them from outshining the Sorcerer again?

When making a movie to introduce people to a franchise, you want to keep it simple and give each archetype its Thing to do. Making half the crew cast spells would make it too messy and also could be confusing as to each person's gimmick. Sure, we're people who know "oh that's a bard they can only cast X and Y", but your regular audience isn't going to know that and is going to wonder what's up with the one archetyped as the sneaky one all of a sudden doing magic as well.

 

[Corinnguard]

When making a movie to introduce people to a franchise, you want to keep it simple and give each archetype its Thing to do. Making half the crew cast spells would make it too messy and also could be confusing as to each person's gimmick. Sure, we're people who know "oh that's a bard they can only cast X and Y", but your regular audience isn't going to know that and is going to wonder what's up with the one archetyped as the sneaky one all of a sudden doing magic as well.

This would explain why Edgin was using a lot Bardic Inspiration on his fellow party members.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think to “flop” a movie has to lose like, a lot of money.

Not making a ton doesn’t qualify.

And it sure as hell wasn’t because of the name or the tone lol

Indeed "flop" traditionally denotes a "total or spectacular failure". For a movie, the term is usually applied to one that absolutely hemorrhages money and/or one that is infamous in its production or marketing missteps (which sometimes includes movies that eventually show modest profits like Waterworld). This movie was (probably) only a modest failure, and its modest failure caught no real mainstream attention. It's a bummer for those of us wanting sequels, but it probably won't kill any careers, nor make Hollywood studios substantially more anti-pseudo-medieval fantasy than they already were. It is simple, garden-variety financial failure. And really, long term, as a movie well-received by most people who did watch it and tied to a popular IP, it is likely to have substantial ongoing value, even if Paramount and Hasbro continue failing to really make the most out of it in the near term. .

And the reason the terminology matters, is because "flop" is also generally associated with a movie that was utterly doomed to failure, not a movie that has solid fundamentals but just didn't find its audience due to marketing, timing, or subtle shifts in audiences' cinema preferences.

In my opinion the movie had strong enough fundamentals. It's not the D&D movie I would have made, but everything about it seems carefully attuned to be an audience pleaser in 2023, and we should all accept the fact that if this failed our own personal pet versions of what it should have been would have almost certainly failed harder. So that leaves it being a failure of circumstance rather than fundamentals. I think it probably should have either released a few weeks earlier (to take advantage of spring break moviegoers) or else been a Summer or Holiday release. I think while the marketing seemed good, it gave a lot of people the impression that this was spiritually a knock-off Marvel movie more than it really was, and audiences seem to have fatigue for actual Marvel movies. But I think the biggest issue was simply the insurmountable one that 2023 has a post-COVID movie glut at a point where movie-going is in decline, and its just very slim pickings out there for anything that doesn't manage to be one of the big event movies (which for me it was, but clearly not for most people).

In summary, it was a modest failure, not a huge one, and not one that teaches us a clear lesson about why it failed, nor a failure that marks it as clearly incapable of being a hit. If it was a flop that might be instructive, but it was just a moderately unprofitable movie, as many movies are.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

no, the percentage is pretty much universal, regardless of how many viewers you had in week one. That is my point

I understand that that represents a different number of people dropping off, but the drop off is generally somewhere around 50%, give or take 10. HAT’s drop off rate was ordinary

In my opinion, it would not be universal if we take into consideration the actual people going to the movies, and the limited time and money they're willing to spend on theater going, especially in the age of streaming.

 

[mamba]

In my opinion, it would not be universal if we take into consideration the actual people going to the movies, and the limited time and money they're willing to spend on theater going, especially in the age of streaming.

well, it is universal, because what you describe applies equally for all movies.

If you want to make a case why HAT should have had a lower standard drop off rate than other movies, and the fact that it did not is somehow to blame on Mario, then show that. So far you have not even tried, despite claiming it