D&D Movie/TV Paramount+ Will Not Proceed with Dungeons & Dragons Live-Action TV Show

Deadline reports that the live-action Dungeons & Dragons television series will not continue at Paramount+. The show was originally announced in January 2023 as Paramount+ placed an eight episode straight-to-series order. Normally that’s the best you can hope for in terms of a guarantee of the show happening as the show would produce the entire first season instead of needing to make a pilot to be approved.

Two big corporate changes happened since then, however. First, Hasbro sold the show’s co-producer Entertainment One to Lionsgate in December 2023 and shifted the production to Hasbro Entertainment. Currently, Paramount is searching for a buyer for the company with the current front runner according to reports being Sony Pictures, who have partnered with private equity firms to place a rumored $26 billion offer for the studio.

Little was announced about the plot other than it would be character-focused and involve the Underdark. These tidbits plus the fact that the character of Xenk from the 2023 film Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves was originally intended to be Drizzt Do'Urden but changed during pre-production led to speculation that the series would be an adaptation of the Drizzt novels, particularly the origin story novel Homeland.

Creator Rawson Marshall Thurber (Red Notice, Easy A, Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story) and showrunner Drew Crevello (The Grudge 2, WeCrashed) are still attached to the project. Hasbro will repackage and update the pitch for the show and stop it around to other distributors.

 

[payn]

It does seem like Fantasy is fading a bit.

For the last couple of years all the business folk have been focused with an idea "Make the Next Game of Thrones". Thought they only want to make a "random fantasy show that people will obsessively watch and that will make tons of money."

And how many Fantasy shows have come and gone under this idea.....and none have been the "Next Game of Thrones". It seems you can't just toss out a random fantasy show and "make it" the "next Game of Thrones".

So...do they really want to toss out yet another fantasy show...and yet again have the show "not be the next Game of Thrones"?

I think there is a difference in putting out fantasy shows, which are common, and expecting water cooler level of success. GoT did it because the writing was good and the execution mostly good. Everybody saw what happened when the writing ran out.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, but where do you cut budget? Fantasy relies heavily on visuals. And good visuals cost money.

Godzilla Minus One has good visuals and $15M total budget.

Hollywood needs to stop taking the easy path of just throwing money at visuals. It's not necessary.

Good actors also cost money.

There are thousands of superb actors who don't charge Clooney money. Hollywood needs to stop depending on actor name recognition as part of their marketing budget. It's not working anymore.

On the other hand, animated series is around 300k per episode. And you can go all out with monsters, spells, scenography, over the top action. Plus, voice actors are cheaper. With cheaper product, you can take more risks. You can go with R rated content. Make anthologies. You can do lot of different things.

And eliminate most of your potential audience.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm definitely not of the "f*ck WotC/Hasbro" camp but I can't help but feel that all their inept bumbling of fan goodwill over the last couple years killed a very real and intangible resource of fan enthusiasm which could have helped push these sorts of projects over the finishline.

I think they're aware, now.

 

[Mistwell]

People talking about box office these days don't seem to acknowledge how radically the entertainment industry has changed on the consumer end.

In America at least, movie tickets cost anywhere from $8 to $16 each, then a bucket of popcorn and soda is another $20, then there's the costs of gas driving to the theater, possible parking costs, time investment of an extra hour or more than the movie's runtime to be sure you're there on time plus the trailers/ads plus total commute time.

It's worse. In Los Angeles in certain test areas AMC has raised prices for opening weekend. Furiosa was $20.50 per ticket at an ordinary theater. Not IMAX, just their regular theater. That exact same theater was $12.50 per ticket 4 months ago (I checked - still have it in my app). That crossed the line for us into "cannot do it" territory.

If they judge it worked, they will roll that pricing scheme out over the nation. It will still be lower in areas with lower costs of living, but it will definitely go way up.

 

[Parmandur]

It's worse. In Los Angeles in certain test areas AMC has raised prices for opening weekend. Furiosa was $20.50 per ticket at an ordinary theater. Not IMAX, just their regular theater. That exact same theater was $12.50 per ticket 4 months ago (I checked - still have it in my app). That crossed the line for us into "cannot do it" territory.

If they judge it worked, they will roll that pricing scheme out over the nation. It will still be lower in areas with lower costs of living, but it will definitely go way up.

Yeah, it's a death spiral at this point.

 

[timbannock]

Good actors also cost money.

There are thousands of superb actors who don't charge Clooney money. Hollywood needs to stop depending on actor name recognition as part of their marketing budget. It's not working anymore.

Exactly this. Some of the most consistently good, nuanced and believable acting I've seen has been in short-form horror movies over on YouTube and Shudder by people with like 75 credits that are all "Guy In Convenience Store #3".

On top of that, there are plenty of name actors that will basically do any movie for like $15 and a cheeseburger at some point in their career. I mean, Nic Cage and Chris Walken were each in 85 movies a year for about 24 years straight, few of them big budget flicks.

 

[Oofta]

"He was in Menzoberranzan with my mom when she was worshipping spiders right before she died."

Being dwarves, we had always been looked down upon, never really fitting in...

 

[Abstruse]

It does seem like Fantasy is fading a bit.

For the last couple of years all the business folk have been focused with an idea "Make the Next Game of Thrones". Thought they only want to make a "random fantasy show that people will obsessively watch and that will make tons of money."

And how many Fantasy shows have come and gone under this idea.....and none have been the "Next Game of Thrones". It seems you can't just toss out a random fantasy show and "make it" the "next Game of Thrones".

So...do they really want to toss out yet another fantasy show...and yet again have the show "not be the next Game of Thrones"?

They did the same thing in the 00s looking for the next "Lord of the Rings" and turned Narnia into a massive epic. When that failed, they licensed every YA book they could get their hands on looking for the "next Harry Potter". We're likely at the end of looking for the "next MCU" as most attempts at making a shared universe have faceplanted. And you can work backward too. The mid-late 90s had Twister as a big hit and a slew of disaster movies came out. The early 90s had the Reservoir Dogs/El Mariachi/Clerks/Slackers/etc. indie boom. The late 80s and early 90s were back-to-back buddy cop action movies. The late 70s/early 80s wanted to be the Next Star Wars. The early-mid 70s wanted gritty westerns. The 1950s flopped between the cleaner, white-hat-black-hat westerns and big musicals. And there's dozens of other trends that bounced around.

This is because there's an entire class in Hollywood whose job is to come up with ways to objectively prove what art will be profitable. Even though it's impossible to be objective about art because art, by its very nature, is subjective. But these middle managers justify their own existence in the film industry by pointing at charts and spreadsheets about how this is the "next big thing" or this is "on its way out". Which frankly just isn't how it works. Some movies are good and make money, some movies are bad and don't. Some movies are bad and make money at first because of strong marketing but are immediately forgotten, some movies are good but don't make money because of bad marketing but find audiences later on and make a lot of money over the years.

You notice how every year like clockwork, one superhero film bombs and every trade has their "Is the superhero trend over?" and then the next one comes out and does well and they never correct themselves? It's people trying to follow this same formula of "trends" like it means anything.

 

[DarkCrisis]

They did the same thing in the 00s looking for the next "Lord of the Rings" and turned Narnia into a massive epic. When that failed, they licensed every YA book they could get their hands on looking for the "next Harry Potter". We're likely at the end of looking for the "next MCU" as most attempts at making a shared universe have faceplanted. And you can work backward too. The mid-late 90s had Twister as a big hit and a slew of disaster movies came out. The early 90s had the Reservoir Dogs/El Mariachi/Clerks/Slackers/etc. indie boom. The late 80s and early 90s were back-to-back buddy cop action movies. The late 70s/early 80s wanted to be the Next Star Wars. The early-mid 70s wanted gritty westerns. The 1950s flopped between the cleaner, white-hat-black-hat westerns and big musicals. And there's dozens of other trends that bounced around.

This is because there's an entire class in Hollywood whose job is to come up with ways to objectively prove what art will be profitable. Even though it's impossible to be objective about art because art, by its very nature, is subjective. But these middle managers justify their own existence in the film industry by pointing at charts and spreadsheets about how this is the "next big thing" or this is "on its way out". Which frankly just isn't how it works. Some movies are good and make money, some movies are bad and don't. Some movies are bad and make money at first because of strong marketing but are immediately forgotten, some movies are good but don't make money because of bad marketing but find audiences later on and make a lot of money over the years.

You notice how every year like clockwork, one superhero film bombs and every trade has their "Is the superhero trend over?" and then the next one comes out and does well and they never correct themselves? It's people trying to follow this same formula of "trends" like it means anything.

By the by, I can't wait to see Deadpool 3 absolutely make bank in theaters.

 

[LordEntrails]

I don't think live action D&D has to be the level of quality and expense of GoT or Witcher. And probably shouldn't.

Look at what groups like Viva La Dirt do on a shoestring. It's obviously fantasy. It's fun. It's immersive. Sure, when they do special F/X they suck, but you could spend your money on a few flashy spells and keep most of the episodes with character interaction and role play. You know, that thing we say D&D is about?

Fantasy sets don't have to be that expensive anymore. So many decent fantasy sets already exist you don't have to build Hobbiton or King's Landing. Costumes don't have to be Dune level expense. Look at all the stuff people use at Renn Faires and Cons.

Don't shoot for the stars, keep the budget reasonable and the profit expectations reasonable. Don't promise the moon and consumers can enjoy something less.