D&D General Lorraine Williams: Is it Time for a Reevaluation?

darjr

I crit!
I dunno. As close as things were I think the debtors might have taken the failure to sell to wotc as a bad sign and come callling. But of coarse that’s a guess.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I remember looking briefly at those. And not finding anything noteworthy. But I would be happy to re-evaluate if you could point me to the parts that you feel are the most significant and lack the obvious sexism and such.

Significant parts:

  • Williams controlled the D&D movie license.
  • She couldn't reach an agreement with a major studio because she wanted to keep more control than any of the bigger companies would agree to.
  • She sold the rights to a no-name company/person with little experience.
  • The contract she agreed to had no time limit; it was essentially the rights "in perpetuity".
  • The D&D movie that was eventually made was a version of the script that Williams had personally signed off on, and directed by the person she sold the rights to.

The background parts to this discussion are:

  • The 2000 D&D movie was bad.
  • It was not a financial success.
  • The movie was, overall, bad for the D&D brand in both short and long terms (no significant merch, no other movie for decades, Dragonlance, etc).

Each of these points could be discussed in much more detail, without sexism being the most significant factor. IMNSHO, the thesis here is that Williams did a bad job of managing the D&D movie license, and the game as a whole suffered as a result.
 
Last edited:

the thesis here is that Williams did a bad job of managing the D&D movie license, and the game as a whole suffered as a result.
Thanks. Yea, I don't think anyone is arguing those aspects at all are they? I'm not. I think what people are arguing is that Solomon does not appear to be a reliable or unbiased source. And that the demeaning he does of Williams is... distasteful.
 








Remove ads

Top