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.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, and I think it's an important point to make, considering that a lot of people seem to be willing to believe what WotC's saying for no other reason than because WotC's saying it.

I.

Except that’s not true. I’m willing to believe what WotC is saying because it lines up with what everyone has been saying for thirty years or so.

That you seem to think this is a line data point is truly bizarre. This is a perrenial issue in fandom that has been dissected for decades.

And every data point says the same thing- the largest contingent of gamers are the 16-25 age bracket.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes, and I think it's an important point to make, considering that a lot of people seem to be willing to believe what WotC's saying for no other reason than because WotC's saying it.

I'd wager that's because you do the next best thing, which is receiving verification from numerous independent sources. Which is possible because the data is put out there into the public, for everyone to look at, analyze, discuss, and review. That's not quite as good as doing it for yourself, but consensus from multiple third-parties who have no dog in a particular fight (and can show their work) is better than from one entity with skin in the proverbial game (i.e. has a partisan interest in what the data says) and who doesn't show their work.

Which is fine, but is not in and of itself a rational basis for objecting to someone else's withholding judgment.

The data might be incomplete but it doesn't undermine the original claim that most of D&Ds players are adults. Whatever the number of players over 46 are it actually reinforces that basic premise.

Ginger back a bit further no one was claiming D&D should go R16 or R18 but such a product could be commercially viable.

Gane of Thrones and BG3 also offer some proof of concept. Such a product may not appeal to you and that's fine as well.

 

[Alzrius]

Evidence of the general age of gamers. Polls in Dragon Magazine, demographic numbers from Gen Cons past, numbers from DnD Beyond are all a Google search away.

It’s not like this is a new issue. People have been trying to claim that gamers are older for decades now.

Leaving aside the issue of the specifics involved (e.g. WotC having a chart of the ages of D&D players, Gen Con presumably having a chart of the ages of attendees, etc. all being different things), the idea that "other people have shown their work, so why should these guys have to bother?" isn't a helpful stance, even when their results happen to fall broadly in line with what other people have said. As a general rule, if you're justifying being less rigorous, then you're not making a positive contribution.

Except that’s not true.

I'm afraid it is; see below.

I’m willing to believe what WotC is saying because it lines up with what everyone has been saying for thirty years or so.

You keep saying this, and keep missing the point in doing so. As I said in my previous post, if you can't show how you got your results, then the fact that your results are broadly in line with other people's results doesn't make them any more credible. It's why Hitchens's razor is a thing (and why it also applies to repeated instances of someone saying "but all this other data proves them right!" and then failing to supply the other data in question).

That you seem to think this is a line data point is truly bizarre.

Not nearly as bizarre as you fixating on the example, and not the actual point under discussion. So I'll say again, even if WotC happens to be right, that's besides the point: skepticism is the proper response when someone posts results, especially about themselves, without showing their work.

But apparently, that's a controversial position now.

This is a perrenial issue in fandom that has been dissected for decades.

That companies will make statements without showing how they reached them, and games will eat it up despite those same companies having track records of making mistakes and even sometimes being less than completely forthright about things? I completely agree.

And every data point says the same thing- the largest contingent of gamers are the 16-25 age bracket.

And yet you keep being notably unable to cite these data points that you place so much faith in.

 

[Alzrius]

The data might be incomplete but it doesn't undermine the original claim that most of D&Ds players are adults.

I'm not suggesting that anything is "undermined," so it seems like you're responding to a point I never made. I'm saying that I'm skeptical of what WotC posted simply because they haven't shown us how they reached the conclusions that they did. That's all.

Whatever the number of players over 46 are it actually reinforces that basic premise.

That's not the premise, or at least not my premise. My premise is that WotC's infographics have nothing that helps us figure out how they reached the numbers that they did.

Ginger back a bit further no one was claiming D&D should go R16 or R18 but such a product could be commercially viable.

Gane of Thrones and BG3 also offer some proof of concept. Such a product may not appeal to you and that's fine as well.

I can only presume you meant to direct this part of your post to someone else, because it has nothing to do with what I've been saying.

 

[Hussar]

.

And yet you keep being notably unable to cite these data points that you place so much faith in.

Your lack of knowledge on the issue is not my problem. All of this is a Google search away.

In other words I don’t really feel the need to do your research for you.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not suggesting that anything is "undermined," so it seems like you're responding to a point I never made. I'm saying that I'm skeptical of what WotC posted simply because they haven't shown us how they reached the conclusions that they did. That's all.

That's not the premise, or at least not my premise. My premise is that WotC's infographics have nothing that helps us figure out how they reached the numbers that they did.

I can only presume you meant to direct this part of your post to someone else, because it has nothing to do with what I've been saying.

I'm just saying using the data we have the majority of D&D players are adults.

I assume you don't have any data yourself. Since no one can really prove anything it's fairly pointless going down that track. We know WotC does surveys how they interpret them we don't know.

They do put a lot of spin on how well D&D is doing but they don't provide concrete numbers.

So I don't really see any incentive to fudge the numbers when it comes to ages of the players. I'm aware I'm in a small minority though. ENworlds not remotely representative we skew older and are often veterans of several editions.

It's probably not a big shock that most players are probably college aged or a bit older probably middle class or upper middle class. I would be more shocked if the data showed something else.

 

[mamba]

Yes, and I think it's an important point to make, considering that a lot of people seem to be willing to believe what WotC's saying for no other reason than because WotC's saying it.

I disagree on this one. It would be a good reason if you had a case you can make, but all you have is general mistrust.

Which is fine, but is not in and of itself a rational basis for objecting to someone else's withholding judgment

agreed. I was not objecting to you withholding judgement, I was objecting to you badmouthing the data and asking us to discard it because WotC did not provide enough details for you (or anyone) to verify their results.

If you have more accurate data, show it, otherwise I’ll use what we have as the best approximation to reality available to us

 

[Alzrius]

Your lack of knowledge on the issue is not my problem.

If you can't cite the data that you introduced into the conversation, then you've failed to meet the burden of proof, and so get cut down by Hitchens's razor.

All of this is a Google search away.

Then you should have no trouble citing it, since you were the one who introduced it in the first place, claiming that it proved your point.

In other words I don’t really feel the need to do your research for you.

Or your own research, apparently. How convenient for you, since it means you can say that everything proves you right, and then not have to bother to produce this magical evidence which confirms everything you say.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm just saying using the data we have the majority of D&D players are adults.

And I'm just saying that a conclusion, presented without any mention of how it was reached, is something of which we should be skeptical purely as a matter of principle.

I assume you don't have any data yourself.

I'm not making any assertions which require evidence to back up.

Since no one can really prove anything it's fairly pointless going down that track.

Which also means that it's fairly pointless to put any faith in the infographic WotC put out.

We know WotC does surveys how they interpret them we don't know.

And I'm saying that makes the results of those surveys suspect, and while I'd like to allay those suspicions by looking at the data that went into them, not being able to do that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands in the air and say that we should accept what we're being told.

They do put a lot of spin on how well D&D is doing but they don't provide concrete numbers.

Which, I hope, explains why skepticism should be the default stance.

So I don't really see any incentive to fudge the numbers when it comes to ages of the players.

Just because your or I don't see something doesn't mean it isn't there; that requires actually making an inquiry, which itself requires data. Not to mention that overlooks the possibility of an error on their part, such as the one they already admit they made, something which everyone overlooks for some reason.

I'm aware I'm in a small minority though. ENworlds not remotely representative we skew older and are often veterans of several editions.

And EN World members are a completely different data set anyway.

It's probably not a big shock that most players are probably college aged or a bit older probably middle class or upper middle class. I would be more shocked if the data showed something else.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like we'll know, because apparently even suggesting that WotC's lack of explaining how they got their conclusions seems to ruffle quite a few feathers here.

 

[Alzrius]

I disagree on this one. It would be a good reason if you had a case you can make, but all you have is general mistrust.

I shouldn't have to explain that skepticism is not "mistrust" per se. Ditto for having to remind you that starting from that position until there's a good reason to abandon it is a principled stance.

agreed. I was not objecting to you withholding judgement, I was objecting to you badmouthing the data and asking us to discard it because WotC did not provide enough details for you (or anyone) to verify their results.

You literally just described the same thing two different ways. Pointing out that WotC hasn't provided the data necessary to make an informed judgment (which isn't "badmouthing" them; neither is pointing out that they've already made at least one error), is reason enough why judgment should be withheld, even if that wasn't already the default presumption. Hence, we should look skeptically on the results we're being spoonfed.

If you have more accurate data, show it, otherwise I’ll use what we have as the best approximation to reality available to us

I'd like for there to be more accurate data, but the people who presumably have it (i.e. WotC) don't seem to want to share it. In that regard, we can't judge whether or not what they're offering us is the "best approximation" or not. Saying "anything is better than nothing" is likewise not a stance I put any faith in, because that leads to potentially putting faith in bad conclusions, which is worse that simply noting that we don't have any good conclusions to rely on.