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

[Storyteller Hero]

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

Not all movies make the same amount of ticket sales in the first week though, so other factors have to be considered when deciding whether the same percentages for drop off rate are good or not.

I'm saying that the actual floor would be closer to the top if the top's amount is lower, which would make the same percentage have different practical value.

If a movie's expected minimum proceeds is higher than zero, then the same percentage drop for different movies would logically not have the same worth to the studios and investors.

Let's say movie A made 10 million in the first week and movie B made 20 million in the first week, and the minimum expected proceeds for both movies was 10 million for week 1 and 2. A 50% drop for movie A in week 2 becomes 5 million less than expected, and a 50% drop for movie B in week 2 becomes 5 million more than expected.

It's obviously going to be even more complicated than that since different movies would usually have different projected floors, perhaps depending on budget and scale, but as such, the same percentages in drop off will not necessarily have the same intrinsic value.

 

[mamba]

Not all movies make the same amount of ticket sales in the first week though, so other factors have to be considered when deciding whether the same percentages for drop off rate are good or not.

that is your claim, so far you failed to demonstrate it

I'm saying that the actual floor would be closer to the top if the top's amount is lower, which would make the same percentage have different practical value.

I understand what you are saying, I disagree. Drop off is universal.

If a movie's expected minimum proceeds is higher than zero, then the same percentage drop for different movies would logically not have the same worth to the studios and investors.

yes, no one claimed that. This is missing the point

Let's say movie A made 10 million in the first week and movie B made 20 million in the first week, and the minimum expected proceeds for both movies was 10 million for week 1 and 2. A 50% drop for movie A in week 2 becomes 5 million less than expected, and a 50% drop for movie B in week 2 becomes 5 million more than expected.

yes, but for both the 50% drop off is the expected rate (or rather should have been, no one would base their estimate on 0% drop off, like you did here…). Movie B simply was more successful than expected while movie A was not

It's obviously going to be even more complicated than that since different movies would usually have different projected floors, perhaps depending on budget and scale, but as such, the same percentages in drop off will not necessarily have the same intrinsic value.

so far nothing was the least bit complicated, it was however missing the point.

Here is your claim as I understood it: HAT had fewer viewer’s than expected in week one. Because of that its drop off rate should have been, I don’t know, 30%. Better than normal in any case. It was in the standard range however. That it was not better, even though it ‘clearly should have been’ is due to the Mario movie.

Did I get that right?

Then show why the drop off should have been lower because the movie had fewer viewer’s than expected. Why is this not simply a matter of the movie having fewer viewers overall, ie why would you expect the ‘missing’ viewers of week one to show up in week two, rather than there being fewer viewers overall, so the drop off stays in the standard range and week two has fewer viewers than expected as well?

So far you have not shown any reason for this.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

that is your claim, so far you failed to demonstrate it

yes, but for both the 50% drop off is the expected rate. Movie B simply was more successful than expected while movie A was not

Anyone can look up how much movies make week to week on Box Office Mojo, so it's not hard to find that not all movies make the same amount in week 1, and it's not exactly a secret that different demographics exist within the general audience, with different impacts on them and different standards of attraction.

I never denied that 50% is still 50% mathematically - my point is that 50% will not necessarily be good or bad the same way for different movies.

Was HAT's week 2 drop off actually good for its week 1 income? My argument is that it perhaps wasn't, due to how much it needed to make in the eyes of investors, given its reported production budget and likely marketing costs. Practically nobody funds a big budget movie just for fun after all.

To a non-investor, it might seem okay or even great, but not so much to an investor, and that affects whether a movie gets a sequel or spin-off or even reboot sooner than later, if at all.

 

[beta-ray]

No and no.

Dungeons and Dragons should have been in the title, as that is the "universe" the movie was taking place in. For a property that only has a film once in a while, it should be in the title. I would argue the name is "household" but not that many people really know much about it.

Would it work if it were more serious? Sure. However, I don't think it had to be, and I have my doubts it would work as well if it did.

Though the box office was disappointing (I was surprised, I enjoyed it), it did well critically. I know at the end of the day, dollars (or whatever currency you have) is what counts, but it is difficult to call it a disaster if it reviewed well. I kind of hate rotten tomatoes, but if it is even partially correct, it was pretty well-received. I watch a few reactors on youtube (yeah not a representative sampling) and the ones I did really enjoyed the film (most are not steeped in D&D). The small amount of people I know said they'd watch another one if it came out. That does not make for box office success, but it's nice to see non D&D fans actually like it.

 

[mamba]

Anyone can look up how much movies make week to week on Box Office Mojo, so it's not hard to find that not all movies make the same amount in week 1

missing the point, also, this is obvious

Was HAT's week 2 drop off actually good for its week 1 income? My argument is that it perhaps wasn't, due to how much it needed to make in the eyes of investors, given its reported production budget and likely marketing costs. Practically nobody funds a big budget movie just for fun after all.

you are yet again making a claim, not a case. The problem was that week one was too small, the drop off was in the expected range, percentage wise…

The ‘perhaps it wasn’t’ is what you need to show, without the ‘perhaps’ part. Otherwise this remains a claim that no one has any reason to believe

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i dunno i think you probably could've given them all their own themed magics without it getting confusing, although i say this not having seen the movie, but why not could you of had the druid summoning a thick undergrowth to slow foes and later uses speak with animals, and the audience thinks 'oh that makes sense the druid uses nature themed powers', have the bard focus on support magics and maybe healing, and/or full on lean into the magic music aspect with a sleep spell performed through playing music? i'm hearing here the sorcerer got shafted in the magic department until the end of the movie but were they casting anything at all or were they just the 'potentially powerful but functionally useless until the climax lets their powers finally work like they should've been all movie' trope for the main runtime?

 

[Corinnguard]

i dunno i think you probably could've given them all their own themed magics without it getting confusing, although i say this not having seen the movie, but why not could you of had the druid summoning a thick undergrowth to slow foes and later uses speak with animals, and the audience thinks 'oh that makes sense the druid uses nature themed powers', have the bard focus on support magics and maybe healing, and/or full on lean into the magic music aspect with a sleep spell performed through playing music? i'm hearing here the sorcerer got shafted in the magic department until the end of the movie but were they casting anything at all or were they just the 'potentially powerful but functionally useless until the climax lets their powers finally work like they should've been all movie' trope for the main runtime?

The movie pretty much had it where the Druid was doing a lot of wildshaping into various animals and the Snowy Owlbear, and where the Bard was doing a lot of Bardic Inspiration.

 

[Storyteller Hero]

you are yet again making a claim, not a case. The problem was that week one was too small, the drop off was in the expected range, percentage wise…

The ‘perhaps it wasn’t’ is what you need to show, without the ‘perhaps’ part. Otherwise this remains a claim that no one has any reason to believe

I'm not a mind reader nor one of the studio executives so I wouldn't have intimate knowledge of whether they want a movie to succeed or fail.

Even if a drop off is assumed in an expected range, percentage-wise, that doesn't make it automatically good for what it cost to make. The movie needed a much smaller drop off rate for the drop off rate to be good for what it cost to make, if one wanted the movie to be successful that is.

 

[mamba]

Even if a drop off is assumed in an expected range, percentage-wise, that doesn't make it automatically good for what it cost to make.

agreed, but that is not something I claimed, nor was it your claim

The movie needed a much smaller drop off rate for the drop off rate to be good for what it cost to make, if one wanted the movie to be successful that is.

agreed, or a much bigger audience to start with, but this too was not in dispute

What was in dispute is that it should have had a smaller drop off based on the size of the week one audience. You never showed any evidence of that

 

[Storyteller Hero]

What was in dispute is that it should have had a smaller drop off based on the size of the week one audience. You never showed any evidence of that

That's not the point I was pursuing. My point was that the values (perhaps I should have said perceived values) of drop offs are not the same at the same percentages, in response to the potential implication that HAT had a good drop off.