D&D Movie/TV Paramount+ Will Not Proceed with Dungeons & Dragons Live-Action TV Show

Deadline reports that the live-action Dungeons & Dragons television series will not continue at Paramount+. The show was originally announced in January 2023 as Paramount+ placed an eight episode straight-to-series order. Normally that’s the best you can hope for in terms of a guarantee of the show happening as the show would produce the entire first season instead of needing to make a pilot to be approved.

Two big corporate changes happened since then, however. First, Hasbro sold the show’s co-producer Entertainment One to Lionsgate in December 2023 and shifted the production to Hasbro Entertainment. Currently, Paramount is searching for a buyer for the company with the current front runner according to reports being Sony Pictures, who have partnered with private equity firms to place a rumored $26 billion offer for the studio.

Little was announced about the plot other than it would be character-focused and involve the Underdark. These tidbits plus the fact that the character of Xenk from the 2023 film Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves was originally intended to be Drizzt Do'Urden but changed during pre-production led to speculation that the series would be an adaptation of the Drizzt novels, particularly the origin story novel Homeland.

Creator Rawson Marshall Thurber (Red Notice, Easy A, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story) and showrunner Drew Crevello (The Grudge 2, WeCrashed) are still attached to the project. Hasbro will repackage and update the pitch for the show and stop it around to other distributors.

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t think that you can make the case that everything created during a time before the ratings existed therefore can be categorized as PG… not that the rating has much to do with the maturity of the story anyway

I can do better than make a case, I can state categorically that everything made in compliance with the Hayes Code is rated G...not PG, not PG-13...G.

But yes,the rating has nothing to do with maturity of the content, just the edginess, which is orthogonal to maturity.

 

[mamba]

I can do better than make a case, I can state categorically that everything made in compliance with the Hayes Code is rated G...not PG, not PG-13...G.

lol, did not know that, I guess you can after all.

So what I meant then will have to be more along the lines that you cannot make the case that if the same criteria were applied to these movies, they all would get a PG (or lower) rating. My comment was more about that than about them being grandfathered in due to some ruling, to not cause issues.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

There is a lot of popular animes with many killed people, but +13: Dragon Ball, Naruto, Saint Seya....

Any Disney villains didn't survive, but we know those movies are produced for all family.

Robocop was a very violent movie, but the cartoon show and the action-live serie was for all audiences. There were killed people in Robocop 3, but not a blood waterfall.

Pepe Le Pew is a character by Warner Bros who has been cancelled, he is not wellcome in the new cartoons.

There are some killed people in Spy x Family, but it is mainly a comedy. And deaths in "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" but we don't watch there characters killed style fatalities of Mortal Kombat.

If Hasbro wants a production with more touchs of comedy, then the level of violence will have to be lower, and if they want to sell toys, then "turn off and let's go" (= nothing more to be said or done).

 

[GrimCo]

Yet plenty of film makers were able to show and not tell in prortraying sophisticated adult stories between the early 30s and 1968.

I'll admit, i'm not very well versed in American cinematography before 70's, outside some all time classics. But i'm decently versed in European cinematography of the era, and to be honest, Europeans didn't shy away from nudity and sexual innuendo, bordering on softcore porn. Fun fact, Hitchcock's Psycho from 1960 is R rated movie. TBH, action movies from that era look unrealistic and comedic by todays standards.

What you don't see, what you only imagine or glimpse, is often worse than what you are shown. Show the aftereffects of what was done by survivors telling you, show the smoking ruin and so on. There are many ways to do it that don't require explicit gore.

Sure, you could. And it worked great. For time when tv sets were b/w and old crt tvs. Those old movies were also constrained by technology of the time. Both in filming and screening (tv sets were grainy and small). Fun fact, in b/w tech, using red for blood would look black on screen. Mainstream color tv was mass adopted only in late 60s, but people still used b/w tv sets in 70s.

Most popular tv shows were Tv-14 cause you couldn't get prime time slot for TV-MA. If i remember correct, those were relegated to slots after 22:00 ( or 23:00).

Also, for long time, cinemas were best ways to watch movies. And cinemas need all the butts in the seats that they can get.

Only couple of decades ago, big flatscreen crt was what, 28-32 inches. By today standards, that's small tv. For about 1000e, you can buy 77" 4k oled tv. Filming and screening tech has advanced. Today, we have streaming. So no need to fight for that prime time tv slot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating sex or gore for it's own sake. But finally, we can have good realistic fight scenes. D&D is mostly about combat. Why not make show with good visual portray of combat a la GoT or Witcher?

 

[Hussar]

But Witcher isn’t MA for gore or violence. It’s MA for the sex and nudity.

 

[GrimCo]

But Witcher isn’t MA for gore or violence. It’s MA for the sex and nudity.

Well, in D&D we have trope that Bard bang anything. So couple of scenes where those mythic bardic seduction abilities are shown is also nice.

Gore, sex, nudity, those are all cool when incorporated into the story and have sense. When they enhance immersion into the world and lives of characters. Having any of those just for sake of having it is meh. Also, Witcher was kind of tame in regards of sex and nudity compared to some old Italian and French movies.

 

[Hussar]

Well, in D&D we have trope that Bard bang anything. So couple of scenes where those mythic bardic seduction abilities are shown is also nice.

Gore, sex, nudity, those are all cool when incorporated into the story and have sense. When they enhance immersion into the world and lives of characters. Having any of those just for sake of having it is meh. Also, Witcher was kind of tame in regards of sex and nudity compared to some old Italian and French movies.

Again, though, we're comparing personal gaming to how the game is presented.

Sex is pretty much absent in most D&D products. It's just not really even mentioned. Certainly sexual violence is something that hasn't really been touched on very often, and certainly not graphically, in D&D. Care should be taken to separate what we do at home with how the game is actually presented. That's the mistake that's been going on throughout this thread in claiming that the game was "adult". It really wasn't. It was never really presented as a game meant for the over 21 crowd.

Are there bits and bobs that might be a bit risque? Sure. D&D has published a LOT of material. I'm sure we can find examples of most anything. But, from the actual, published works, we really don't see a whole lot that would need an MA rating to bring it to the screen. Dragonlance? Nothing in there that would need more than PG-13. Even the Slave Lords modules, a prime setting for some really horrific scenes, skip over the gore and whatnot.

D&D just isn't that kind of product. And it never really has been.

 

[GrimCo]

I get you. To draw parallel with my favourite TTRPG, VtM. It's presented as angsty Ann Rice style existentialism mixed with edgy goth aesthetic. In reality, it's played like superheroes with fangs most of the time.

While D&D is presented as game for under 21s, most of the customer base is over that. Prime customer demographic for D&D are older Zs and millennials. Those are the ones who will spend money on products. There was chart, not perfect one, but decent enough, that shows player demographics by age. Over 75% are adults.

Now, if Hasbro wants classic Hasbro stuff, aka use media as commercial for toys, then yes, show aimed for kids are way to go. You absolutely can make kids show that's fun for adults to watch.

What some of us argue is that D&D needs to get out of that "meant for kids and teens" box.

 

[Oofta]

I'll admit, i'm not very well versed in American cinematography before 70's, outside some all time classics. But i'm decently versed in European cinematography of the era, and to be honest, Europeans didn't shy away from nudity and sexual innuendo, bordering on softcore porn. Fun fact, Hitchcock's Psycho from 1960 is R rated movie. TBH, action movies from that era look unrealistic and comedic by todays standards.

Sure, you could. And it worked great. For time when tv sets were b/w and old crt tvs. Those old movies were also constrained by technology of the time. Both in filming and screening (tv sets were grainy and small). Fun fact, in b/w tech, using red for blood would look black on screen. Mainstream color tv was mass adopted only in late 60s, but people still used b/w tv sets in 70s.

Most popular tv shows were Tv-14 cause you couldn't get prime time slot for TV-MA. If i remember correct, those were relegated to slots after 22:00 ( or 23:00).

Also, for long time, cinemas were best ways to watch movies. And cinemas need all the butts in the seats that they can get.

Only couple of decades ago, big flatscreen crt was what, 28-32 inches. By today standards, that's small tv. For about 1000e, you can buy 77" 4k oled tv. Filming and screening tech has advanced. Today, we have streaming. So no need to fight for that prime time tv slot.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating sex or gore for it's own sake. But finally, we can have good realistic fight scenes. D&D is mostly about combat. Why not make show with good visual portray of combat a la GoT or Witcher?

Sorry, you lost me at D&D being associated with "realistic".

 

[Hussar]

I get you. To draw parallel with my favourite TTRPG, VtM. It's presented as angsty Ann Rice style existentialism mixed with edgy goth aesthetic. In reality, it's played like superheroes with fangs most of the time.

While D&D is presented as game for under 21s, most of the customer base is over that. Prime customer demographic for D&D are older Zs and millennials. Those are the ones who will spend money on products. There was chart, not perfect one, but decent enough, that shows player demographics by age. Over 75% are adults.

Now, if Hasbro wants classic Hasbro stuff, aka use media as commercial for toys, then yes, show aimed for kids are way to go. You absolutely can make kids show that's fun for adults to watch.

What some of us argue is that D&D needs to get out of that "meant for kids and teens" box.

See, that's the problem. No the customer base isn't over 21. Most of the customer base is under 25. By like a whole pile.