After the announcement of the upcoming revision, I've been delving into the Zweihander starter box (which I backed long ago on KS). It's really an excellent product.
D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro
Stormonu
Legend
I ended up buying the B&G Eberron box set because it was one of the few WotC/TSR campaign sets that I didn't have a box for, so I'm all for boxed campaign sets.
As others have said, we've seen the 2014 Starter, Essentials and a host of non-WotC RPGs in boxed form in the last few years. I can't imagine that WotC's slipcase + hardcovers would be much different than a boxed set in production price. Heck, board games still come in boxes well under $50, I would think stuffing such a box with a couple softbound books and maps shouldn't be more expensive than the components of a board game with it's chipboard and plastic tokens.
TSR lost money with boxed sets in 2E because they used the format for EVERYTHING, on things that were subsets of subsets instead of curating what really benefitted from being a boxed set (such as "The North" - you'd have to be playing in FR, set in that particular area for a supplement that would have worked as well as a softback, or "Castles Forlorn" - set in Ravenloft, in a specific domain and being an adventure on top of that). If they had stuck to the campaign sets and/or one such set a year, they probably would have and did see a profit on those items.
side note - On Strahd Revamped, I imagine they lost more than a few sales due to the size of the boxed set; I didn't get my copy until I saw it on Amazon for half off because the damn thing wouldn't fit on my bookshelf - and I already had the hardcover to boot! If it had been in a box that would fit on a standard bookshelf, I would have scooped it up a LOT quicker - probably would have preordered it.
As others have said, we've seen the 2014 Starter, Essentials and a host of non-WotC RPGs in boxed form in the last few years. I can't imagine that WotC's slipcase + hardcovers would be much different than a boxed set in production price. Heck, board games still come in boxes well under $50, I would think stuffing such a box with a couple softbound books and maps shouldn't be more expensive than the components of a board game with it's chipboard and plastic tokens.
TSR lost money with boxed sets in 2E because they used the format for EVERYTHING, on things that were subsets of subsets instead of curating what really benefitted from being a boxed set (such as "The North" - you'd have to be playing in FR, set in that particular area for a supplement that would have worked as well as a softback, or "Castles Forlorn" - set in Ravenloft, in a specific domain and being an adventure on top of that). If they had stuck to the campaign sets and/or one such set a year, they probably would have and did see a profit on those items.
side note - On Strahd Revamped, I imagine they lost more than a few sales due to the size of the boxed set; I didn't get my copy until I saw it on Amazon for half off because the damn thing wouldn't fit on my bookshelf - and I already had the hardcover to boot! If it had been in a box that would fit on a standard bookshelf, I would have scooped it up a LOT quicker - probably would have preordered it.
For me, a lot of the TSR 2E-era boxed sets didn't work because they were stuffed to the gills with stuff I'd never use: CDs, spiralbound flip pads, transparency overlays, poorly executed paper minis, battlegrid posters for random fights, cards, etc. This escalated cost but didn't add much value (to me).
I see the same issue with Beadle & Grimm stuff (like, do I need puppets?) and GooeyCube products. To me, it's just stuff you'd find in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.
I see the same issue with Beadle & Grimm stuff (like, do I need puppets?) and GooeyCube products. To me, it's just stuff you'd find in the bottom of a Cracker Jack box.
Rystefn
Explorer
I was directly and explicitly responding to the assertion that the budget of a film determined whether or not it was an independent film. I made no other claims, and would appreciate them not being ascribed to me as if I said something ridiculous, thank you.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
How Star Wars Began: As an Indie Film No Studio Wanted [And how it let George Lucas make the best business deal in Hollywood history.]
ezo
I cast invisibility
Decent article, but still not an indie film...
Once he made the deal with Fox, Star Wars ceased being an indie film. Not to say Lucas didn't treat it like one when making it, however.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
He self-funded the next two movies completely outside the studio system. That IS what an indie film means. I think people are confusing money with indie. An indie film can be more expensive than a studio film. Indie refers to a system the film is made under, not the budget or distributors name.Decent article, but still not an indie film...
Once he made the deal with Fox, Star Wars ceased being an indie film. Not to say Lucas didn't treat it like one when making it, however.
For example, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is one of the most expensive independent movie ever made, with a budget of $177 million. But it was in fact an indie film.
ezo
I cast invisibility
That is not all that indie means. It means you don't use the major studios for distribution, either. If you do, you are, in fact, affiliated with a non-indie company, and your product is no longer indie.
For me, I am not conflating low budget = indie. I know an indie can have a big budget, and major studios also make some low budget films, too.
Clint_L
Hero
To clarify, Lucas did not "have Fox distribute Star Wars." Fox bankrolled the film. He didn't shoot it and then shop it around. Fox owned it. It was not remotely an indie film in the way that term is normally used. Quite the opposite: it was a big budget, major studio production. They were willing to finance it because his previous film, American Grafitti, was the most profitable film ever made to that point in history, in terms of budget versus receipts (I think it held the record until Blair Witch. One of those films has aged much better than the other). I think a lot of folks are unaware of how huge a pop culture phenomenon Graffitti was in its own right.
And headline aside, that's what the Vanity Faire article describes. It talks about Lucas having a kind of indie sensibility in some ways and very much not in others, but in no sense does it allege that Star Wars was actually an indie film. Because it wasn't. Unless you are redefining the word to mean almost the opposite of what it normally connotes.
However, a point made above is also incorrect: being distributed by a major studio does not mean a film was not actually an indie film. In fact, most really good indie films wind up making distribution deals, which is how more than a few folks at festivals are able to see them. In its normal usage, the term indie means that the film was made outside the big studio system, not that it was distributed independently. Which is almost impossible for a release of any significant size.
You could actually argue that the subsequent sequels/prequels were kinda sorta indie films in the traditional sense, though Lucasfilms had enough resources to render the distinction from a major studio pointless.
Last edited:
ezo
I cast invisibility
According to the definition of indie, yes it does.
Similar Threads
