Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Joe Manganiello: Dragonlance TV Show No Longer In Development
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9260333" data-attributes="member: 6799660"><p>Okay, I have read through the thread once and here are some initial thoughts--</p><p></p><p>First off, I am disappointed. I had high hopes for this. This clearly was a labor of love for JM and I felt confident that the IP was in good hands. Also, the cost of producing a CGI-heavy show, while still exorbitant, is not so great as to be impossible for a show (I remember Forgotten Realms getting optioned back when D&D 3.0 was released and flat out thinking, "never going to happen").</p><p></p><p>Secondly, I agree that neither <em>Shadow of the Dragon Queen</em> nor the board game are great metrics to gauge interest in the <em>Dragonlance</em> IP in general, but at the same time I don't think it is ridiculous or moronic or however people phrased it that WotC is using them in their judgement on whether to move forward with the project. When making decisions of this magnitude, you use the information you have available, imperfections and all. It's the only recent data for the existing gamer base. It would have been better if the products were good enough that their success/failure could be honestly said to be mostly about whether people were interested in what <em>Dragonlance </em>itself offers (instead of the specific quality of the adventure/board game), but that's not what they ended up getting. Someone mentioned it being better than focus groups or test audiences, and I think that is accurate -- for judging how interested people already playing D&D are/could be in <em>Dragonlance</em>. For that group, checking their interest in a particularly helpful way would entail releasing more trial balloon products (which again may or may not be good quality). That could easily be a case of throwing good money after bad. And they decided (I believe more based on <em>Honor Amongst Thieves</em> performance and maybe some lesson from Balder's Gate 3 than those two sales metrics) that they weren't going to move forward. That, IMO, was the default position anyways -- they spent up to the point where the spending was cheap, but couldn't find anything in the tea leaves that made them want to take a big risk.</p><p></p><p>Third point, although it is important that (current) D&D-players buy into the show to generate buzz, it also has to grab a wider audience to justify the FX we expect from a show about dragons and magic users. I think people have rightly pointed out that the problematic/outdated/simply unusual elements of <em>Dragonlance</em> can be fixed, removed, or de-emphasized; but those are things you already have to do just to get it to the starting line without a handicap. One still needs a hook that brings in a broader audience. Yes, 'a conspiracy of evil dragons opposed by a rag-tag group of adventurers' is not a bad hook, but swap out dragons for some lower FX budget opponents like vampires or fey and that's every Syfy or TNT original program this past decade. From what I can tell, the two things DL has going for it are:</p><p>1) People like us (those who started gaming way before the current boom, particularly those who are still invested in D&D enough to hang out and discuss the game when not actively playing it) have strong positive memories of the primary initial narrative, the characters, and much of the story world (minus whichever parts we don't like or find dated).</p><p>2) A somewhat famous guy (to those outside D&D, I think he's "that guy from <em>True Blood</em> and <em>Magic Mike</em>") is working on it, and clearly loves it.</p><p>Both of those are good things to have, they aren't solid bellwethers as to if something is going to be a widely successful TV show.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now re-reading and responding to others--</p><p></p><p>They might have other reasons for not wanting to sell it to him*. While they are not developing DL now, they might want to do so in the future. They already have Weis and Hickman to deal with when they touch the property (remember the kerfuffle about their latest novels right when <em>Shadow of the Dragon Queen </em>was about to drop?). Also Ed Greenwood with FR and Courtney Solomon with movies. Intrinsically tying your products to some other party means more opportunity for rights battles, public feuds, or the like. It is more interesting if they also weren't interested in licensing DL to Manganiello, but we don't know if that was ever brought up (he might not have an interest in that to begin with).</p><p><em>*Including mere consistency--they also wouldn't sell Mystara to Bruce Heard, and they seem very unlikely to develop that themselves.</em></p><p></p><p>I think that* likely had a lot to do with them closing eOne, which likely was the larger of the reasons for discontinuing this project.</p><p><em>*and BG3 being a huge successful D&D-adjacent associated product they didn't need to develop themselves.</em></p><p></p><p>That's actually a good point for comparison. People have been mentioning that <em>Dragonlance </em>is usable as a TV show concept, but would need 1) to update the race and gender distribution of the characters*, and 2) rebuild or reframe the central narrative. Well, <em>Lord of the Rings</em> just put out a billion-dollar TV series that updated the race and gender distribution and made a new** central narrative, and while we don't know the actual viewership figures, the public impression is that it has bombed spectacularly. If anything, it is a strong indicator that just setting stories in a setting people already love isn't a guarantee for something to be a success.</p><p><em>*that get to do interesting things in-focus, in the case of gender</em></p><p><em>**in this case because the IP purchased didn't include one</em></p><p></p><p>They could do a lot with building up to the draconians (none wholly in frame and in full lighting and interacting with people until episode X, except maybe as a grouped army marching or the like). Same with dragons. However, would people want to watch that? Almost not showing the monster worked well for <em>Jaws</em>, but in so many movies since then they've tried to do the same thing and it failed spectacularly.</p><p></p><p>We are at hints of bristling (by a single dev who is not in charge at this point) in a discussion about the timeline, and using that to extrapolate the companies' general position. I'm not saying that this isn't a data point, but I am saying I think there are a lot of other data points unknown to us that undoubtedly have far greater influence on their thinking on the IP as a whole.</p><p></p><p>In terms of making a show around this, I think it is telling how far we can go into the weeds and new layers still matter in how one views the gods and other actors in the scenario (both in terms of culpability and in terms of having made good decisions). If I were making a (modern, 8-12 episodes/season) show on this world, I'd either lean into 'each person discussing the situation is a biased, unreliable source' or simplify it down to 'overzealous followers of Deific Team Good turn <a href="https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar" target="_blank">Inquisition-mode</a> and break the trust between the people and the gods (for the people-that the gods are actually good; for the gods-that people worshipping them actually helps the world) and the gods leave for a time-out/reset.'</p><p></p><p>People have been focusing on that, but the quote was "<em>not moving forward due to several issues, including Hasbro's sale of the eOne studio and the poor performance of a Dragonlance D&D adventure and board game</em>" which is a very typical 'there are many factors, here are three examples' style of writing that really doesn't tell us how many issues there actually were, nor really how influential those used in the example actually are.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Willie the Duck, post: 9260333, member: 6799660"] Okay, I have read through the thread once and here are some initial thoughts-- First off, I am disappointed. I had high hopes for this. This clearly was a labor of love for JM and I felt confident that the IP was in good hands. Also, the cost of producing a CGI-heavy show, while still exorbitant, is not so great as to be impossible for a show (I remember Forgotten Realms getting optioned back when D&D 3.0 was released and flat out thinking, "never going to happen"). Secondly, I agree that neither [I]Shadow of the Dragon Queen[/I] nor the board game are great metrics to gauge interest in the [I]Dragonlance[/I] IP in general, but at the same time I don't think it is ridiculous or moronic or however people phrased it that WotC is using them in their judgement on whether to move forward with the project. When making decisions of this magnitude, you use the information you have available, imperfections and all. It's the only recent data for the existing gamer base. It would have been better if the products were good enough that their success/failure could be honestly said to be mostly about whether people were interested in what [I]Dragonlance [/I]itself offers (instead of the specific quality of the adventure/board game), but that's not what they ended up getting. Someone mentioned it being better than focus groups or test audiences, and I think that is accurate -- for judging how interested people already playing D&D are/could be in [I]Dragonlance[/I]. For that group, checking their interest in a particularly helpful way would entail releasing more trial balloon products (which again may or may not be good quality). That could easily be a case of throwing good money after bad. And they decided (I believe more based on [I]Honor Amongst Thieves[/I] performance and maybe some lesson from Balder's Gate 3 than those two sales metrics) that they weren't going to move forward. That, IMO, was the default position anyways -- they spent up to the point where the spending was cheap, but couldn't find anything in the tea leaves that made them want to take a big risk. Third point, although it is important that (current) D&D-players buy into the show to generate buzz, it also has to grab a wider audience to justify the FX we expect from a show about dragons and magic users. I think people have rightly pointed out that the problematic/outdated/simply unusual elements of [I]Dragonlance[/I] can be fixed, removed, or de-emphasized; but those are things you already have to do just to get it to the starting line without a handicap. One still needs a hook that brings in a broader audience. Yes, 'a conspiracy of evil dragons opposed by a rag-tag group of adventurers' is not a bad hook, but swap out dragons for some lower FX budget opponents like vampires or fey and that's every Syfy or TNT original program this past decade. From what I can tell, the two things DL has going for it are: 1) People like us (those who started gaming way before the current boom, particularly those who are still invested in D&D enough to hang out and discuss the game when not actively playing it) have strong positive memories of the primary initial narrative, the characters, and much of the story world (minus whichever parts we don't like or find dated). 2) A somewhat famous guy (to those outside D&D, I think he's "that guy from [I]True Blood[/I] and [I]Magic Mike[/I]") is working on it, and clearly loves it. Both of those are good things to have, they aren't solid bellwethers as to if something is going to be a widely successful TV show. Now re-reading and responding to others-- They might have other reasons for not wanting to sell it to him*. While they are not developing DL now, they might want to do so in the future. They already have Weis and Hickman to deal with when they touch the property (remember the kerfuffle about their latest novels right when [I]Shadow of the Dragon Queen [/I]was about to drop?). Also Ed Greenwood with FR and Courtney Solomon with movies. Intrinsically tying your products to some other party means more opportunity for rights battles, public feuds, or the like. It is more interesting if they also weren't interested in licensing DL to Manganiello, but we don't know if that was ever brought up (he might not have an interest in that to begin with). [I]*Including mere consistency--they also wouldn't sell Mystara to Bruce Heard, and they seem very unlikely to develop that themselves.[/I] I think that* likely had a lot to do with them closing eOne, which likely was the larger of the reasons for discontinuing this project. [I]*and BG3 being a huge successful D&D-adjacent associated product they didn't need to develop themselves.[/I] That's actually a good point for comparison. People have been mentioning that [I]Dragonlance [/I]is usable as a TV show concept, but would need 1) to update the race and gender distribution of the characters*, and 2) rebuild or reframe the central narrative. Well, [I]Lord of the Rings[/I] just put out a billion-dollar TV series that updated the race and gender distribution and made a new** central narrative, and while we don't know the actual viewership figures, the public impression is that it has bombed spectacularly. If anything, it is a strong indicator that just setting stories in a setting people already love isn't a guarantee for something to be a success. [I]*that get to do interesting things in-focus, in the case of gender **in this case because the IP purchased didn't include one[/I] They could do a lot with building up to the draconians (none wholly in frame and in full lighting and interacting with people until episode X, except maybe as a grouped army marching or the like). Same with dragons. However, would people want to watch that? Almost not showing the monster worked well for [I]Jaws[/I], but in so many movies since then they've tried to do the same thing and it failed spectacularly. We are at hints of bristling (by a single dev who is not in charge at this point) in a discussion about the timeline, and using that to extrapolate the companies' general position. I'm not saying that this isn't a data point, but I am saying I think there are a lot of other data points unknown to us that undoubtedly have far greater influence on their thinking on the IP as a whole. In terms of making a show around this, I think it is telling how far we can go into the weeds and new layers still matter in how one views the gods and other actors in the scenario (both in terms of culpability and in terms of having made good decisions). If I were making a (modern, 8-12 episodes/season) show on this world, I'd either lean into 'each person discussing the situation is a biased, unreliable source' or simplify it down to 'overzealous followers of Deific Team Good turn [URL='https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar']Inquisition-mode[/URL] and break the trust between the people and the gods (for the people-that the gods are actually good; for the gods-that people worshipping them actually helps the world) and the gods leave for a time-out/reset.' People have been focusing on that, but the quote was "[I]not moving forward due to several issues, including Hasbro's sale of the eOne studio and the poor performance of a Dragonlance D&D adventure and board game[/I]" which is a very typical 'there are many factors, here are three examples' style of writing that really doesn't tell us how many issues there actually were, nor really how influential those used in the example actually are. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Joe Manganiello: Dragonlance TV Show No Longer In Development
Top