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]

/edit

Whoops, nope. Not falling into that troll hole. I'll be bowing out now.

 

[Alzrius]

/edit

Whoops, nope. Not falling into that troll hole. I'll be bowing out now.

Thank you for that. "I'm right, and you should go look up why everything I said is right" is unfortunately one of the more common fallacies/trolling points that get thrown around on the Internet today, and I appreciate that you're backing off of it.

 

[mamba]

I shouldn't have to explain that skepticism is not "mistrust" per se.

I’d say it very clearly is mistrust, you mistrust the numbers, don’t you?

Ditto for having to remind you that starting from that position until there's a good reason to abandon it is a principled stance.

there is such a thing as taking something too far, there is healthy skepticism and then there are Flat Earthers…

I do not consider yours a principled stance, but clearly we disagree on that.

You literally just described the same thing two different ways.

yes, as a healthy level of skepticism and as what you are doing, these are not the same thing… that was the point

I'd like for there to be more accurate data, but the people who presumably have it (i.e. WotC) don't seem to want to share it.

oh well, so you have no data to base anything on, too bad, I will then continue to use the available data instead of basing it on your superior data or throwing my hands in the air and claiming ‘we have no data to base anything on’

In that regard, we can't judge whether or not what they're offering us is the "best approximation" or not.

until you have a better one, it is, unless your claim is not just that these numbers might be slightly off but that they are completely made up and intentionally misleading

This line is where you cross from skepticism to tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist

Saying "anything is better than nothing" is likewise not a stance I put any faith in

as a general principle I agree, believing made up nonsense is worse than not knowing. Are you saying this is such a case, because that goes way beyond skepticism.

You are now going from ‘WotC might have made a mistake so the result is imprecise’ to ‘WotC is lying to us, do not trust the numbers they publish’

 

[Alzrius]

I’d say it very clearly is mistrust, you mistrust the numbers, don’t you?

Again, you don't seem to be drawing a distinction between "mistrust" and "skepticism." What do you think the difference is?

there is such a thing as taking something too far, there is healthy skepticism and then there are Flat Earthers…

Which isn't relevant here, since "they haven't shown us their data, so I'm not taking their conclusions at face value" is far and away different than "there's a vast conspiracy dedicated to feeding us false information for their own nefarious purposes!"

I do not consider yours a principled stance, but clearly we disagree on that.

If you don't think that not simply believing what you're told to believe, until there's evidence to support it, is a matter of principle then I don't know what to tell you.

yes, as a healthy level of skepticism and as what you are doing, these are not the same thing… that was the point

Your point is wrong. Saying "this company is reporting on the use of its own product, without showing how they reached their conclusions (and has already publicly admitted to at least one error in those conclusions), ergo I'm skeptical of their results" is entirely healthy.

"I'm going to believe what they tell us to believe, despite their having been wrong before, and a partisan interest in the results" is not.

oh well, so you have no data to base anything on, too bad,

When you have no data to base anything on, not making a conclusion (since that would be based on nothing) is not "too bad." It's the correct method of reasoning.

I will then continue to use the available data instead of basing it on your superior data or throwing my hands in the air and claiming ‘we have no data to base anything on’

Again, I'm not saying I have "superior data." I'm saying WotC hasn't shown their data, so believing what they say is essentially taking their word on faith alone. I don't particularly care for faith-based stances, but you do you I guess.

until you have a better one, it is, unless your claim is not just that these numbers might be slightly off but that they are completely made up and intentionally misleading

Again, not having a better one doesn't mean that the existing one is any good. If I don't have a map of the Appalachian Trail, trying to navigate it via a map of the Grand Canyon isn't a good idea. Likewise, I've already replied to and disproven the "you're accusing them of being intentionally misleading" strawman, i.e. if someone has a partisan interest in the results they're reporting on, suspending judgment is simply prudent.

as a general principle I agree, there are cases where made up nonsense is worse than not knowing. Are you saying this is such a case, because that goes way beyond skepticism

Again, your point is that you should take WotC's results at "face value," apparently because there's nothing better. I'm saying that "there's nothing value" doesn't imbue their data with value, facial or otherwise. The map of the Grand Canyon doesn't become more helpful in navigating the Appalachian Trail just because it's the only map you have.

 

[payn]

 

[Raunalyn]

Hmmm...you seem to fall into a considerable number of those types of conversations.

If one finds themselves falling into "troll holes" and bowing out so often, then it is likely that the problem is not the accused "troll," but the one doing the accusing.

 

[mamba]

Again, you don't seem to be drawing a distinction between "mistrust" and "skepticism." What do you think the difference is?

you are the one making the distinction, I am not, as you pointed out more than once, so why don’t you explain it then…

I’d say skepticism is a healthy level of mistrust

Which isn't relevant here, since "they haven't shown us their data, so I'm not taking their conclusions at face value" is far and away different than "there's a vast conspiracy dedicated to feeding us false information for their own nefarious purposes!"

you certainly lean towards the latter (except the vast part, it only takes WotC)

When you have no data to base anything on, not making a conclusion (since that would be based on nothing) is not "too bad." It's the correct method of reasoning.

the difference is that you have data, you just entirely reject it because you do not trust it.

That wholesale rejection is where you lose me, that no longer is skepticism, that is tinfoil hat

 

[Alzrius]

you are the one making the distinction, I am not, as you pointed out more than once, so why don’t you explain it then…

To be clear, this is you saying that you don't draw a distinction between mistrust and skepticism, which is illuminating.

To that end, I'll point out that skepticism is an unwillingness to believe without conclusive evidence, whereas mistrust implies doubt based upon suspicion. While often used as synonyms, the two in fact connote different things (and it's possible to be skeptical in general while also mistrustful of a particular person or group).

you certainly lean towards the latter (except the vast part, it only takes WotC)

Please quote where I said there was a conspiracy going on. (Hint: you won't be able to, though I suspect you will (deliberately) misinterpret my saying that WotC has a partisan interest in their conclusions as being such.)

the difference is that you have data, you just entirely reject it because you do not trust it.

WotC saying that they've reached a conclusion, without saying how they reached it, is not data.

That wholesale rejection is where you lose me, that no longer is skepticism, that is tinfoil hat

You're wrong. Pointing out that the conclusions posted have not shown their data is not "wholesale rejection," it's noting that how those conclusions were reached hasn't been shown. Placing your faith in that is, well, faith-based. If you want to accept whatever you're told, that's on you, and doesn't make everyone else paranoid.

 

[mamba]

Please quote where I said there was a conspiracy going on.

I'd say this does

WotC has a vested interest in presenting information about themselves in the best possible light (which is only to be expected, and not something I hold against them in-and-of themselves

You can argue that it does not take much of a conspiracy as only WotC is involved, but I consider WotC lying to look better still qualifies as a conspiracy, even if all of the members of that conspiracy work for WotC.

(Hint: you won't be able to, though I suspect you will (deliberately) misinterpret my saying that WotC has a partisan interest in their conclusions as being such.)

then explain to me the difference between 'WotC has a vested interest in lying to us, so we should dismiss their numbers outright unless they release the full data' and a conspiracy - or it and the case you are making

WotC saying that they've reached a conclusion, without saying how they reached it, is not data.

it still is data, it just is not data we should take as fully reliable and you want to dismiss entirely

Pointing out that the conclusions posted have not shown their data is not "wholesale rejection,"

agreed, but you saying we should not use the data to draw any conclusions or as support for what we said, that is wholesale rejection.

If you told me, that since we do not know the methodology, the numbers might be off by 2 or 3 percent by age group, that would be one thing, but you are telling me that the data is so unreliable that we should not consider it at all...

 

[Alzrius]

I'd say this does

How so? Who have I said are the conspirators, and what have I said they're trying to accomplish?

You can argue that it does not take much of a conspiracy as only WotC is involved, but I consider WotC lying to look better still qualifies as a conspiracy, even if all of the members of that conspiracy work for WotC.

Again, having a partisan interest in the conclusions they're presenting is not an accusation of lying. Just like with the difference between skepticism and mistrust, there are critical shades of difference which you're not acknowledging. (That's leaving aside that WotC is being presented as a singular entity in this context, and not as any sort of group.)

then explain to me the difference between 'WotC has a vested interest in lying to us, so we should dismiss their numbers outright unless they release the full data' and a conspiracy - or it and the case you are making

I'll point out that both of those things which you've posited, i.e. "'WotC has a vested interest in lying to us, so we should dismiss their numbers outright unless they release the full data" and "a conspiracy," are misrepresentations of my point. As I noted above, having a partisan interest in something is not the same as calling someone a liar; it can simply be that they're falling subject to confirmation bias, or are presenting the truth in a manner that's most favorable to them, or any number of other things that compromise the integrity of their conclusions to some degree without actually telling an untruth.

Nuance and distinctions aren't things to be glossed over; they're important.

it still is data, it just is not data we should take as fully reliable and you want to dismiss entirely

No, they're a conclusion, and we're not being told how that conclusion was reached. As such, I'm not "dismissing" it, but am saying that I haven't been given sufficient reason not to be skeptical of it.

agreed, but you saying we should not use the data to draw any conclusions or as support for what we said, that is wholesale rejection.

No, it's not. I'm saying that the conclusions we've been presented with haven't shown their work, and as such it can't be determined whether or not those conclusions are accurate. Calling that a "rejection" is a misnomer (let alone "wholesale").

If you told me, that since we do not know the methodology, the numbers might be off by 2 or 3 percent by age group, that would be one thing, but you are telling me that the data is so unreliable that we should not consider it at all...

Why 2 or 3, specifically? Are you saying you know for certain that it can't be 4 or 5? If so, how do you know that? Because if you don't know that for certain, then you have to entertain the possibility that it could be 4 or 5 points off. At which point you'd need to admit it could be 6 or 7 points off, or 9 or 10 points off, etc. That's skepticism in a nutshell, and is why we shouldn't take what we're being told at face value.