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.

 

[Alzrius]

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

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to say that errors happen, especially when WotC openly admits that an error happened. It's more correct to say that there's no need for apologism.

sure, but there is being skeptical, and being paranoid.

Yes, and this the former, not the latter.

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.

Again, skepticism is the default. You don't need evidence to be skeptical of someone reporting on themselves and not showing how they reached their conclusions; you need a reason not to be skeptical.

Here it sounds like you expect the numbers to be fabricated

No, it doesn't sound like that. I don't "expect" anything; that's the point. I'm waiting to be convinced, and an infographic with nothing to show how its numbers were reached, on a topic where WotC has a vested interest in what the results say, isn't convincing.

even though you admitted that you do not even know in which direction to manipulate them to make them look better.

Yeah, that's what skepticism is; I'm not starting out with a conclusion, I'm looking at what's been presented and saying that it's insufficient to reach one.

If you do not even know that, then I'd say you should take them at face value.

Quite the contrary, if you take things at face value, you're effectively asking to get things wrong. Just ask everyone who didn't see the mention of the lack of players 46+ years and older in the infographic being a typo; if they took that at face value, they'd think that 5E had no older players. Hence, skepticism is better.

sure, and your evidence for any is?

An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In order to conclude that there are no other errors, I'd need to see the underlying data myself.

I assume nothing whatsoever...

You literally just stated that we should take WotC's presentation at face value. That's an assumption, i.e. that it's something which merits being valued on its face.

So given your information concerning the errors in the data, how do you correct the results to account for them?

Again, I'm not presenting "information" regarding the data; I'm pointing out that we don't have sufficient information in that regard. WotC corrects that by turning over their available data for public consumption. If they don't want to do that, that is (as I said before) their prerogative, but it's mine to then continue to find insufficient reason to believe what they tell me.

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.

I'd say it's the right 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).

Which is why it's fortunate that I haven't done that, which I presume is why you haven't quoted me doing that. Saying that the possibility of there being other, unnoticed errors is just that: a possibility. I need more data in order to rule it out.

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

Which is why we'd all be better served if WotC would release more information about how they got the conclusions they did. And yet we're still waiting for them to do so.

 

[mamba]

Quite the contrary, if you take things at face value, you're effectively asking to get things wrong. Just ask everyone who didn't see the mention of the lack of players 46+ years and older in the infographic being a typo; if they took that at face value, they'd think that 5E had no older players. Hence, skepticism is better.

and that is the difference, the graphic saying 40-45 with no one older is reason for skepticism. Just not having all the details of how the data was collected and processed and therefore basically calling it wrong is not.

In order to conclude that there are no other errors, I'd need to see the underlying data myself.

I guess there is a lot of data you cannot trust then, even from reputable sources, if you require that level of detail about how they collected the data and arrived at the result

I reserve that level of skepticism for much more important things

 

[Alzrius]

and that is the difference, the graphic saying 40-45 with no one older is reason for skepticism.

Again, skepticism does not require a reason; it's the default state until you're given a reason to believe what you're being told.

Just not having all the details of how the data was collected and processed and therefore basically calling it wrong is not.

You're mistaken if you think I'm "basically calling it wrong." I'm saying that there needs to be a reason to call the conclusions that we're being presented with right. So far, one hasn't been presented, besides a vague implication of "you should trust them (because reasons)."

I guess there is a lot of data you cannot trust then, even from reputable sources, if you require that level of detail about how they collected the data and arrived at the result

The reason most of those sources are reputable is because they make their data available for public perusal, and so can be checked and verified, which means that you don't have to trust the data; it's right there for you to examine.

I reserve that level of skepticism for much more important things

And here I thought not defaulting to a state of believing whatever you're told to believe unless there's a compelling reason not to was one of the important things.

 

[Hussar]

Again, it’s not taking WotC at face value. It’s WotC, Paizo, TSR, Gen Con attendance records, other convention records, DnDBeyond before they were bought out by WotC and the fact that in fifty years, no one has presented any contrary evidence.

There’s healthy skepticism sure. But it’s not like this is one solitary source of evidence that is being taken at face value.

 

[Alzrius]

Again, it’s not taking WotC at face value. It’s WotC, Paizo, TSR, Gen Con attendance records, other convention records, DnDBeyond before they were bought out by WotC and the fact that in fifty years, no one has presented any contrary evidence.

If you want to cite supporting sources, I'd recommend actually citing them, rather than just saying "I know they're out there." Of course, I'm still not sure what you're referring to here that you think there's no contrary evidence to, so there's that. All the more so since I suspect that Paizo, Gen Con, other conventions, etc. would all be measuring different things anyway.

There’s healthy skepticism sure. But it’s not like this is one solitary source of evidence that is being taken at face value.

Again, evidence of what, exactly? What point are you referring to? Because I'm still not clear on what you're talking about, except that it's not what I'm talking about, which is that simply being told "this what our data tells us about us" isn't convincing.

 

[mamba]

Again, skepticism does not require a reason; it's the default state until you're given a reason to believe what you're being told.

eh, skepticism means at most you withhold ultimate judgement until you can decide either way, it does not require you to dismiss everything until then.

You're mistaken if you think I'm "basically calling it wrong.

you are treating it as if it were, aren't you?

And here I thought not defaulting to a state of believing whatever you're told to believe unless there's a compelling reason not to was one of the important things.

I'd say apportioning your level of confidence based on what you (or others you trust) can verify is. Do I think their numbers are exact to three decimal places? No, polls rarely are, but I have no reason to expect WotC to fabricate them

 

[Alzrius]

eh, skepticism means at most you withhold ultimate judgement until you can decide either way, it does not require you to dismiss everything until then.

Withholding judgment is exactly what I'm doing, not dismissing. You're the one who said we should take what we're being told at face value.

you are treating it as if it were, aren't you?

Nope.

I'd say apportioning your level of confidence based on what you can verify is.

If you can't verify something, how are you supposed to measure your level of confidence in its veracity?

Do I think there numbers are exact to three decimal places? No, polls rarely are, but I have no reason to expect WotC to fabricate them

Do you have any reason to expect them to make errors, particularly since they've already admitted to making one?

That's without even getting into the issue of trusting people to report on themselves without bias.

 

[mamba]

Withholding judgment is exactly what I'm doing, not dismissing

then I am not sure what your point is in all of this, just saying 'I do not trust this'?

If you can't verify something, how are you supposed to measure your level of confidence in its veracity?

you look at the source. I cannot verify most of what science tells me, but that does not mean I do not trust it

Do you have any reason to expect them to make errors, particularly since they've already admitted to making one?

no, this is simple math, and I am not basing any life decisions on the data, so it being exactly right is not all that important, to the point where I can take it at face value (with the correction and its explanation)

 

[Alzrius]

then I am not sure what your point is in all of this, just saying 'I do not trust this'?

Yes, and I think it's an important point to make, considering that a lot of people seem to be willing to believe what WotC's saying for no other reason than because WotC's saying it.

you look at the source. I cannot verify most of what science tells me, but that does not mean I do not trust it

I'd wager that's because you do the next best thing, which is receiving verification from numerous independent sources. Which is possible because the data is put out there into the public, for everyone to look at, analyze, discuss, and review. That's not quite as good as doing it for yourself, but consensus from multiple third-parties who have no dog in a particular fight (and can show their work) is better than from one entity with skin in the proverbial game (i.e. has a partisan interest in what the data says) and who doesn't show their work.

no, this is simple math, and I am not basing any life decisions on the data, so it being exactly right is not all that important, to the point where I can take it at face value (with the correction and its explanation)

Which is fine, but is not in and of itself a rational basis for objecting to someone else's withholding judgment.

 

[Hussar]

If you want to cite supporting sources, I'd recommend actually citing them, rather than just saying "I know they're out there." Of course, I'm still not sure what you're referring to here that you think there's no contrary evidence to, so there's that. All the more so since I suspect that Paizo, Gen Con, other conventions, etc. would all be measuring different things anyway.

Again, evidence of what, exactly? What point are you referring to? Because I'm still not clear on what you're talking about, except that it's not what I'm talking about, which is that simply being told "this what our data tells us about us" isn't convincing.

Evidence of the general age of gamers. Polls in Dragon Magazine, demographic numbers from Gen Cons past, numbers from DnD Beyond are all a Google search away.

It’s not like this is a new issue. People have been trying to claim that gamers are older for decades now.