D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[SkidAce]

I loved it....but am not hopeful for any sequels.

Dungeons & Dragons' Release Date Prevented Box Office Success

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves was a flop among good reviews, and the biggest reason for its financial failure was its steep competition.

www.cbr.com

 

[Eyes of Nine]

I loved it....but am not hopeful for any sequels.

Dungeons & Dragons' Release Date Prevented Box Office Success

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves was a flop among good reviews, and the biggest reason for its financial failure was its steep competition.

www.cbr.com

they too a gamble that Mario would suck and be a flop

It didn't and wasn't

Oh well

It'll break even in the long tail; but the questions WotC will ask - did it drive sales? (certainly) Did it enhance the brand? (yes) Could it be the lynchpin of a new cinematic universe (probably) Can they get another sucker/studio to back a sequel (probably, although at cheaper cost)

 

[bedir than]

they too a gamble that Mario would suck and be a flop

It didn't and wasn't

Oh well

It'll break even in the long tail; but the questions WotC will ask - did it drive sales? (certainly) Did it enhance the brand? (yes) Could it be the lynchpin of a new cinematic universe (probably) Can they get another sucker/studio to back a sequel (probably, although at cheaper cost)

It only cost Paramount 75m + majority of marketing. They aren't losing Big Budget Flop money. They're losing about 30 million, assuming even split of theater take where the control distro (eOne has Canada and UK iirc).

They'll certainly at least break even on streaming. Paramount+ and Showtime are in ~100 million homes globally (last quarter P+ was 77 and added 10% Q2Q). The cheapest plan in the US is $5 a month and the most expensive is $15.

 

[mamba]

they too a gamble that Mario would suck and be a flop

I am not sure Mario made that much of a difference. They might have made 10M or 20M more at the box office without it, that is not enough to change the trajectory.

It'll break even in the long tail; but the questions WotC will ask - did it drive sales? (certainly) Did it enhance the brand? (yes) Could it be the lynchpin of a new cinematic universe (probably) Can they get another sucker/studio to back a sequel (probably, although at cheaper cost)

concerning the cheaper cost, I am not sure they can afford that. No one wants a repeat of the year 2000 movie at a cost of 70 or 80M (I know it was cheaper, but it also was 20 years ago)

Will be interesting to see what the next steps are

 

[Zardnaar]

It only cost Paramount 75m + majority of marketing. They aren't losing Big Budget Flop money. They're losing about 30 million, assuming even split of theater take where the control distro (eOne has Canada and UK iirc).

They'll certainly at least break even on streaming. Paramount+ and Showtime are in ~100 million homes globally (last quarter P+ was 77 and added 10% Q2Q). The cheapest plan in the US is $5 a month and the most expensive is $15.

Way it works is first clicks apparently. Established subscribers that watch it won't matter. New subscribers who watch it first will.

That marketing cost is likely in the 50-100 million range. Paramont probably lost around 75-100 million all up. Hasbros lst around 30 million. Assuming a 50/50 split and Paramontbpaid for narrating.

Adjusted for inflation this is the biggest loss ever in D&D history. More that the 2000 movie, more than TSRs losses.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am not sure Mario made that much of a difference. They might have made 10M more at the box office without it, that is not enough to change the trajectory.


concerning the cheaper cost, I am not sure they can afford that. No one wants a repeat of the year 2000 movie at a cost of 70 or 80M (I know it was cheaper, but it also was 20 years ago)

Will be interesting to see what the next steps are

2000 movie lost less money.

60 odd million can pay for something like Shadow and Bone TV show.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I am not sure Mario made that much of a difference. They might have made 10M more at the box office without it, that is not enough to change the trajectory.


concerning the cheaper cost, I am not sure they can afford that. No one wants a repeat of the year 2000 movie at a cost of 70 or 80M.

Will be interesting to see what the next steps are

I do not believe that the 2000 movie was a bad movie only because of the budget but because the people in charge of the movie lacked skill and experience. Better script and better direction would have gone a long way. It was not a bad movie because it looked cheap but because the dialog, plot and direction were crap.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

It would be funny if Universal produced a movie based in Legend of Zelda and then this was indirectly beneficial for D&D.

I reject the idea it was a failure. The audience didn't know they would enjoy if they dared to watch it. Someone will think it is too violent to be watched by children, and teenages and young adults may believe it is too nerdy and childish.

 

[bedir than]

Way it works is first clicks apparently. Established subscribers that watch it won't matter. New subscribers who watch it first will.

Completely and utterly untrue.
Established subs are counted towards likely renewal, a key driver in streaming income

 

[bedir than]

That marketing cost is likely in the 50-100 million range. Paramont probably lost around 75-100 million all up. Hasbros lst around 30 million. Assuming a 50/50 split and Paramontbpaid for narrating.

Adjusted for inflation this is the biggest loss ever in D&D history. More that the 2000 movie, more than TSRs losses.

This could only be true if you were to consider Box Office to be the only source of income available to the movie.
We know that's unfactual.


You got your win on the box office loss, but you still insist on repeating untruths