Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 9078455" data-attributes="member: 2525">That is you spinning. Robbins did not confirm that. That's commentary from the author of that article, not Robbins. To see the same quote from a different author, see <a href="https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/dungeons-dragons-movie-sequel-update/?fbclid=IwAR1Tn-LJqJKFJV8F4Cw_EhgERboz5Vccs2WqSb9f5fRPQfszKR-_Dfn7D1s" target="_blank">here</a>.Robbins, who knows what the total theatrical plus non-theatrical revenue looks like, is saying a sequel remains possible now but he wants to make it for less. Which is the same thing he's saying about all the movies he listed. But he's only naming the ones he thinks have franchise potential - not actual bombs. There are some he regrets, like he names Babylon as breaking his heart. But he doesn't seem to regret Transformers, Mission Impossible, Fast and Furious, and Dungeons and Dragons. Part of what he's saying is that $100M movies were made for $200M instead due to the drastically increased costs from Covid and sudden inflation and that nobody could have done anything about that unexpected happenstance. Compare this to the people in this very thread who claimed a sequel was never going to happen because the movie was a bomb and lost them tons of money. That is definitely not the tone Robbins is taking and again, he's the guy who knows what it made in total, including both theatrical and non-theatrical revenue. If he planned to write the movie off as some big loss, that's not the language he would be using publicly. In fact he did use that kind of "bomb" language when he talked about Babylon, and him shunting a movie I've never heard of off to streaming ("Under the Boardwalk"). He's talking like they left money on the table with these movies he didn't regret with too high a budget, some of which was out of their control due to Covid and sudden rapid inflation. Same thing pretty much all studios are doing right now in their negotiations with the WGA and SAG/AFTRA.I also see an implication, and tell me if I am reading things into this or not, where he's kind of hinting that having three A-list actors for D&D was going overboard where perhaps they only needed two (the leads probably) and could have cast a non-A-list actor as the villain (instead of Hugh Grant). He doesn't say that, but he's kind of implying that in some of his discussion of stars, at least in my reading between the lines. I don't know what Hugh Grant was paid for the movie, but if that's what he's saying I agree they could have cast someone else for that role and probably gotten almost as much out of it.</blockquote>

Verification