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.

 

[Hussar]

Skepticism should be, in my opinion, the default; it's where you go unless there's a good reason not to.

The issue of it being a typo is proof of that; errors can creep into the process, and so you shouldn't take what's presented at face value.

Fair enough. And healthy skepticism is a good thing.

But when every single piece of evidence we’ve ever gotten across decades of evidence gives the same results, at what point is skepticism willful denial of reality?

We can go back to polls in Dragon Magazine (yeah yeah scientific blah blah blah) from the 80’s then the 90’s then the oughts which give the same results. Multiple marketing efforts by both TSR and WotC. Virtually zero counter evidence presented by anything outside of personal anecdote.

Why this resistance to saying that DnD has always been primary something played by the 25 and under crowd? It’s not denying that older people like us play too. What’s the issue here?

 

[Alzrius]

Hardly, it was a typo. So all gamers over 40 were 11% per their market research. I see no reason to not believe that to be true. 11% of 40 million is still a lot of people.

Typos are a form of error, which confirms that errors can make their way into the results. It's nice that this one was corrected, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of more being present.

It is also worth noting that when Morrus shared the stats for visitors to ENWorld, his numbers actually skewed even younger than what WotC put in their infographic.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that is, given that different things are being measured (i.e. EN World visitors vs. D&D players).

Fair enough. And healthy skepticism is a good thing.

But when every single piece of evidence we’ve ever gotten across decades of evidence gives the same results, at what point is skepticism willful denial of reality?

Certainly not at the point of sweeping generalizations that are completely unsourced, that's for certain.

We can go back to polls in Dragon Magazine (yeah yeah scientific blah blah blah) from the 80’s then the 90’s then the oughts which give the same results. Multiple marketing efforts by both TSR and WotC. Virtually zero counter evidence presented by anything outside of personal anecdote.

Counter-evidence to what, exactly? Because you seem to be arguing that there's no compelling evidence against...what?

Also, you can't really "blah blah blah" away the issue of, you know, "science" (by which I assume you mean some level of controls being made to reduce errors in the polling).

Why this resistance to saying that DnD has always been primary something played by the 25 and under crowd?

You granted the initial premise that this isn't "resistance," but healthy skepticism. When someone is reporting on themselves, and doesn't show their work, skepticism is not only the default stance, it's the correct one. That's true even if they report unsourced data on themselves more than once.

The correct question is "why the eagerness to believe that their results are faultless?"

It’s not denying that older people like us play too. What’s the issue here?

See above. The issue is that it's not a good idea to believe without question data from a source that's A) reporting on themselves, and B) not showing their work. That they've done that more than once doesn't make the data more trustworthy.

 

[Hussar]

@Alzrius, I'm sorry, but, I cannot read what you wrote. Can you not fisk a fairly short post, line by line? When I read your post as a quote, it makes zero sense without having to read my own post again.

So, could you please restate your point without breaking it up like that?

 

[Alzrius]

@Alzrius, I'm sorry, but, I cannot read what you wrote. Can you not fisk a fairly short post, line by line? When I read your post as a quote, it makes zero sense without having to read my own post again.

So, could you please restate your point without breaking it up like that?

First, let me restate what my point isn't, which is any sort of rant/complaint about older D&D players not being represented, acknowledged, or otherwise taken into account. I posted that notation about the error in the graph before as an example of what my point actually is:

That skepticism should be the default as a general rule when discussing data, especially when that data is A) presented by a person or organization on something in which they have a vested interest, and B) where they don't show their methodology with regard to how they acquired and analyzed said data.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Hussar]

Again, fair enough.

My point was that if the results we get are consistent across decades and multiple sources, how skeptical should we be?

 

[Alzrius]

Again, fair enough.

My point was that if the results we get are consistent across decades and multiple sources, how skeptical should we be?

Even presuming we grant that premise, which in my experience is a fairly major concession, then presuming those results still fall under both of the two caveats listed above, I'd say still quite skeptical.

 

[Zardnaar]

Even presuming we grant that premise, which in my experience is a fairly major concession, then presuming those results still fall under both of the two caveats listed above, I'd say still quite skeptical.

If tgey included the above 45s it wouldn't change the overall statement of majority if D&D players are adults.

Hasbros a toy company do the ttrpg might be adult orientated but they want to sell to kids.

I'll leave that up to you if that's a good idea or not.

 

[mamba]

ake another look at the chart posted earlier in the thread. According to it, 100% of the people who play D&D (presumably 5E) are age 45 or younger. Literally no one age 46+ is playing D&D 5E, if you go by what's on that chart.

They addressed that back then and said it is mislabeled, the last one should be 40+. No need for conspiracy theories

 

[mamba]

Skepticism should be, in my opinion, the default; it's where you go unless there's a good reason not to.

sure, but there is being skeptical, and being paranoid. If I have a reason to assume some numbers are fabricated that is one thing, if I all have is a a distrust and no evidence, that is quite another.

Here it sounds like you expect the numbers to be fabricated even though you admitted that you do not even know in which direction to manipulate them to make them look better. If you do not even know that, then I'd say you should take them at face value.

 

[mamba]

Typos are a form of error, which confirms that errors can make their way into the results. It's nice that this one was corrected, but that doesn't rule out the possibility of more being present.

sure, and your evidence for any is? I assume nothing whatsoever... So given your information concerning the errors in the data, how do you correct the results to account for them?

If all you are saying is, I do not fully trust that these numbers are accurate, there can be polling / statistical anomalies that make them slightly off and there could be math errors too that is one thing. It is quite another to then make up your own numbers and prefer them over the official ones (or draw your own conclusions that are not supported by the numbers that were presented but could be explained by your tweaks).

So if all you say is 'I am not sure these are 100% reliable', no problem, but for more than that you need better numbers, not a distrust of the presented ones