Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6299363" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Industry trade Variety, if I recall &quot;Building a Cinematic Universe&quot; correctly.I daresay Iron Man was a lesser known IP than Dungeons &amp; Dragons.&nbsp; Sure comics fans knew of it, but precious few non-fans.&quot;Billionaire playboy gadgeteer superhero&quot; has been done lots of times.Seriously?&nbsp; So, since James Bond was a huge hit, Jason Bourne didn't stand a chance.Speaking of vampires, after the huge Anne Rice craze, Coppola's Dracula, and the long-running Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and Angel!), vampires were so played out that Twilight was horrendous failure.&nbsp; Oh, wait...After the 1998 Godzilla, Cloverfield, and Pacific Rim, why make another Godzilla film?Speaking of superheroes, whatever gave Marvel the idea they could successfully produce superhero films after the market was saturated by Blade 1, 2, and 3, the X-Men 1, 2 and 3, Spider-man 1, 2 and 3, the Fantastic Four 1 and 2, two versions of the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and Hulk?&nbsp; That's not even counting Superman Returns and Batman Begins!Speaking of Lord of the Rings, what made splatter-movie director Peter Jackson even think it could ever be successful?&nbsp; Ron Howard had already made the definitive Little People fantasy movie with Willow, and the absolute crash and burn of the Dungeons &amp; Dragons movie should have showed him that people just aren't interested in fantasy.But having done all that, what does he have to offer with the Hobbit films that people didn't get with LotR?&nbsp; A dragon?&nbsp; Been there, done that: Dragonheart, Reign of Fire, Eragon, How to Train Your Dragon.Heck, after the big medieval battle spectacle that was LotR, Hollywood brought forth &quot;Troy&quot; followed quickly by &quot;Alexander&quot;.&nbsp; Then &quot;Kingdom of Heaven&quot; year later.&nbsp; That same year, &quot;Rome&quot; debuted on HBO.&nbsp; Two years later, &quot;300&quot;.&nbsp; And even now more of the same with &quot;300: Rise of an Empire&quot;.I mean, is it really your contention that Hollywood is only interested in original content, and not at all in remakes, reboots, spin-offs, copies, and other material derivative of successful productions?I stand by my position that the viability of any cross-media D&amp;D IP ventures, be that movies, TV shows, cartoons, video games, boardgames, smartphone games/applications, or whatever, will depend almost entirely with how good that particular creation is, and very little on how original elements of the setting are.&nbsp; As a matter of fact, I'd say the fact that the general public is pretty comfortable and familiar with fantasy, dragons, wizards, elves, etc. etc., works in their favor.&nbsp; They can concentrate on having good stories and performances without overly relying on spectacle.Continuing in the superhero theme, it was a mere 6 years between the release of Batman &amp; Robin and when Nolan and Goyer were given the go-ahead on Batman Begins.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6299363, member: 6680772"] Industry trade [i]Variety[/i], if I recall "Building a Cinematic Universe" correctly. I daresay Iron Man [i]was[/i] a lesser known IP than Dungeons & Dragons. Sure [i]comics[/i] fans knew of it, but precious few non-fans. "Billionaire playboy gadgeteer superhero" has been done [i]lots[/i] of times. Seriously? So, since James Bond was a huge hit, Jason Bourne didn't stand a chance. Speaking of vampires, after the huge Anne Rice craze, Coppola's Dracula, [i]and[/i] the long-running Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and Angel!), vampires were so played out that Twilight was horrendous failure. Oh, wait... After the 1998 Godzilla, Cloverfield, and Pacific Rim, why make another Godzilla film? Speaking of superheroes, whatever gave Marvel the idea they could successfully produce superhero films after the market was saturated by Blade 1, 2, and 3, the X-Men 1, 2 and 3, Spider-man 1, 2 and 3, the Fantastic Four 1 and 2, two versions of the Punisher, Ghost Rider, and Hulk? That's not even counting Superman Returns and Batman Begins! Speaking of Lord of the Rings, what made splatter-movie director Peter Jackson even think it could ever be successful? Ron Howard had already made the definitive Little People fantasy movie with Willow, and the absolute crash and burn of the Dungeons & Dragons movie should have showed him that people just aren't interested in fantasy. But having done all that, what does he have to offer with the Hobbit films that people didn't get with LotR? A dragon? Been there, done that: Dragonheart, Reign of Fire, Eragon, How to Train Your Dragon. Heck, after the big medieval battle spectacle that was LotR, Hollywood brought forth "Troy" followed quickly by "Alexander". Then "Kingdom of Heaven" year later. That same year, "Rome" debuted on HBO. Two years later, "300". And even now more of the same with "300: Rise of an Empire". I mean, is it really your contention that Hollywood is only interested in original content, and not at all in remakes, reboots, spin-offs, copies, and other material derivative of successful productions? I stand by my position that the viability of any cross-media D&D IP ventures, be that movies, TV shows, cartoons, video games, boardgames, smartphone games/applications, or whatever, will depend almost entirely with how good that particular creation is, and very little on how original elements of the setting are. As a matter of fact, I'd say the fact that the general public is pretty comfortable and familiar with fantasy, dragons, wizards, elves, etc. etc., works in their favor. They can concentrate on having good stories and performances without overly relying on spectacle. Continuing in the superhero theme, it was a mere 6 years between the release of Batman & Robin and when Nolan and Goyer were given the go-ahead on Batman Begins. [/QUOTE]

Verification