This thread is not about the new Star Wars trilogy.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D Movie/TV Chris Pine is making $11.5 million for D&D movie
- Thread starter Henadic Theologian
- Start date
Mannahnin
Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Back on topic, I just hope they had a good screenplay and script.
For me, acting is necessary, special effects need to be good to keep disbelief suspended, but writing generally trumps all. Here's hoping that this investment in the lead actor also betokens investments in good writing (and hopefully good editing!), though they're not highly correlated.
For me, acting is necessary, special effects need to be good to keep disbelief suspended, but writing generally trumps all. Here's hoping that this investment in the lead actor also betokens investments in good writing (and hopefully good editing!), though they're not highly correlated.
Enevhar Aldarion
Hero
As far as I can find, this is also the most he has ever been paid for a film, so they must be expecting great things from him.
Zardnaar
Legend
Adjusted for inflation though that's a bit less than the 90's.
I don't think Chris is that big of a draw based on his name. Most of his movies don't earn that much unless they're part of a larger franchise.
Well, I think we've already established that most movies don't earn much unless they are part of a larger franchise at this point.
But, we should note that many big-franchise movies aren't all that great, either. So, the question is, would some of those big franchise movies have made notably less if they'd had a nobody in Pine's role?
Do you ever make bread at home? Do you know what happens if you make a loaf of most standard breads, but leave out salt? The salt is not necessary for the structure of the bread - it will bake up fine, with the texture and crust you expect. However, it will taste... flat, for lack of a better term. It will not be a good loaf of bread.
Chris Pine is probably like salt in breadmaking. He can keep a thing that looks structurally sound without him from falling flat, which is still extremely valuable.
To reference the Michael Cain issue mentioned above, sometimes bad movies pay for big names to give an air of legitimacy and hype to their otherwise lackluster film. Not sure how much that happens now a days, with brand being king, and I don't want to come off being too negative, but there is that.
Obviously I can't know the thoughts of the moviegoers, but I suspect they weren't going to see 'a Chris Evans film' and more 'this looks interesting, and it has a bunch of people I've heard of involved so is probably legit'.
Well, that was my thought process. I can't speak for anybody else.
humble minion
Legend
Sometimes it seems like every thread that lasts long enough eventually becomes about the new Star Wars trilogy, alas…
It raises a reasonable point though - presumably WotC and the filmmakers don’t want this d&d movie to be a one and done. They’ve got sequels and a 'cinematic universe' in mind - because every genre filmmaker hopes that these days, and because D&D is such a big, broad canvas that you can never 'finish' it, unlike a book adaptation for example. But that means you have to make the film with the future films partly in mind (as, arguably, the new Star Wars films failed to do)
That's a hard balance to meet, scriptwise, and it's going to need a lot of forward planning and writing skill. It's not like Marvel (or Star Wars) where the characters you're working with at least have some presence in the cultural consciousness. You're introducing all these characters, and this world, pretty much from scratch. Also, there's going to be an ensemble of characters (because that's what D&D is), which means that each character has less screentime to establish themselves. And you want to have a story that's a satisfying standalone rather than a cynical and transparent set-up for a series (like the Tom Cruise Mummy film was), while still leaving logical space for that sequel. And because you've chosen some fairly big names to be in your film (rather than getting middle-tier actors cheaper, locking them in for multiple contracts, and hoping your talent ID is on point), if you do capture lightning in a bottle and it works out, then they're going to be harder to pin down and even more expensive for the sequels. And it's not like Lord of the Rings where you know in advance that you have multiple multi-hour films to do all your worldbuilding and character work - it'd be very easy to make a rushed mess as you try to cram all the exposition in.
It's a hell of a balancing act to pull. The only film i can think of that HAS successfully pulled something similar off is Pirates of the Caribbean.
On the upside though, as every D&D game is different and there is no single 'canon' storyline, you're at least spared some of the wailings of the 'you ruined my childhood!' crowd when you inevitably have to adapt or simplify for the screen....
Ogre Mage
Hero
There was an article recently on how 'Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings' changed the future of Hollywood.
The article talks about how these film franchises brought fantasy to the masses. Because of them, fantasy media started getting backed with the huge budgets normally reserved for other types of films. As someone who was a child in the 1980s and a young person in the 1990s, I remember when fantasy budgets were much smaller. Chris Pine's salary for the D&D movie isn't unusually high these days, but big budgets for fantasy media were not always the norm.
The article also brings up a topic previously mentioned in this thread -- that 'Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings' started the push toward Intellectual Property being a bigger draw then movie stars. The Marvel movies are the most ubiquitous example of IP dominance. I do think there is some truth to this. For the big-budget tentpole movies, people are more likely to go based on the IP rather than the movie star.
But I think movie stars can still have an impact. There used to be a vibrant range of mid-level movies when I was younger -- films that were smaller than a big-budget tentpole but bigger than a little art-house flick. The aforementioned Knives Out is an example of the kind of excellent mid-level movie which doesn't get made as often these days. It is at this level I think movie stars can still have a major impact.
The article talks about how these film franchises brought fantasy to the masses. Because of them, fantasy media started getting backed with the huge budgets normally reserved for other types of films. As someone who was a child in the 1980s and a young person in the 1990s, I remember when fantasy budgets were much smaller. Chris Pine's salary for the D&D movie isn't unusually high these days, but big budgets for fantasy media were not always the norm.
The article also brings up a topic previously mentioned in this thread -- that 'Harry Potter' and 'Lord of the Rings' started the push toward Intellectual Property being a bigger draw then movie stars. The Marvel movies are the most ubiquitous example of IP dominance. I do think there is some truth to this. For the big-budget tentpole movies, people are more likely to go based on the IP rather than the movie star.
But I think movie stars can still have an impact. There used to be a vibrant range of mid-level movies when I was younger -- films that were smaller than a big-budget tentpole but bigger than a little art-house flick. The aforementioned Knives Out is an example of the kind of excellent mid-level movie which doesn't get made as often these days. It is at this level I think movie stars can still have a major impact.
Last edited:
Zardnaar
Legend
I think there's only two a listers left now. Tom Cruise and Dwayne Johnson.
Not convinced about Cruise either outside his main franchise.
