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: 6299636" data-attributes="member: 2525">For movies? Yes they are.  It's about characters and brand recognition, and yes they absolutely are connected and always have been connected. I didn't say the success of the RPG is connected...this discussion has nothing to do with the RPG really.  It has a connection to the movies though, and they've sold more novels than Marvel sold some comics of properties they successfully turned into movies.  That's relevant.Uh, they have several movies in the pipeline right now.  I am getting the sense you have not been following the larger WOTC and Hasbro news, and have been focused just on D&D. You were aware, for example, they're working on a Magic: The Gathering movie?You know what connection the Blade movies had to the success or failure of the Blade comic book at the time? Zero.  Same with Iron Man.Uh, they have a ton of IP.  It's all sellable.  They're already making movies with some of it.Unless you think everyone at WOTC is just outright lying right now, then you're wrong.  They plan to put the brand front and center, and they've said that every opportunity they've been given to say it.I am not sure why people are in denial over this concept, but it's odd to me.  For you to be right on this subject, you have to assume a massive conspiracy or mass delusion going on at WOTC right now.Dragonlance, Ebberon, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dark Sun, these are not generic fantasy concepts.  And they exist independent of the RPG itself.Shall we bet on them selling a lot more than that, in the first year?  I am up for it if you are.  You know this how? Again, please, cite your sources.You say that like it's a negative - it's a HUGE positive.  It's hard to do.  Also I strongly disagree with your assessment of that issue.Now we are going in circles.  The first success for Marvel was Blade, not Iron Man, and it was not recognized by most people at all.  The second was Iron Man, and it also was a second tier property that was not well recognized by most, and did not have a good following by fans a the time.  That's the truth.  This "easily recognizable" claim has been disproven multiple times in this thread - and so far nobody has answered it, they just keep repeating the false claim again and again.  It's enough already - if you have evidence showing Blade and Iron Man were more popular than I am claiming, then let's see it already.  Otherwise, deal with the fact that two relatively unknown properties were turned into successes through things like casting, directing, writing, and marketing - and not prior reputation of the properties. What they heck are you talking about? They own their settings.  That was established a long time ago.  Are you under the mistaken belief there isn't clear title to their settings? If so, I hope you have some evidence to support that claim.Fortunately it's not you they have to convince - it's people who approved of Battleship, and Tonka, and Jem, and Candy Land, and Hungry Hungry Hippos, and Monopoly, and Ouija, and Battleship, and My Little Pony.</blockquote>

Verification