rumored leveraged buyout of Hasbro

[malraux]

It's generally easier to chase a long-term opportunity in a private company because the only pressures are internal and not external. And the internal "analysts" are likely to be privy to the same commercially sensitive information that is motivating the long-term play.

That's likely true generally. I'd argue though that HAS' ownership of WotC pretty closely resembles how a private company would work. WotC barely rates a mention in relation to HAS. WotC is an LLC owned by HAS. Its not like public analysts currently have access to WotC's books anyway. WotC has pursed longterm opportunities, as both the buildup to 4e in general and the DDI in specific show.

 

[Umbran]

It's generally easier to chase a long-term opportunity in a private company because the only pressures are internal and not external.

Some EN Worlders are or have been Hasbro stockholders. For a while, at least, they reported on the quarterly stockholders meetings. WotC didn't rate much mention in those meetings, and D&D less so, being less of WotC's balance sheet than we like to think sometimes.

Whatever theory might be, the practical evidence is that D&D is not under much, if any, real external scrutiny.

As for specifically doing a movie deal, I think you'd see less effective action on that with a smaller company. Smaller company typically means fewer connections and less resources to be thrown at the problem. Hasbro has clout - merchandising movies is a major part of their business - Toy Story 3 and Iron Man merch are big things for them this year. They have clear lines for making big profit off a big expenditure. A smaller company would have to license to a bigger one for such - that makes the deal more risky, and thus less likely to succeed in the current movie market.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As for specifically doing a movie deal, I think you'd see less effective action on that with a smaller company. Smaller company typically means fewer connections and less resources to be thrown at the problem.

It's not necessarily the size of the company that owns D&D that would impact a movie... it's how much influence on the creative side that company would demand of the production film company they licensed to (plus the finances of said production company).

Look at it this way... a video game company can give up all creative control to Uwe Bol and his foreign film investors and we can get Bloodrayne, Alone In The Dark, and Postal produced, filmed and into the theaters on the cheap. On the other hand... Blizzard can keep a tight grip on their Warcraft property, sign a director like Sam Raimi, but then still sit on the project for years as the money-people still try to pull things together and they wait on scripts to be written and whatnot. So who knows if/when we'll actually ever see a Warcraft movie? And that's not because of the size of Blizzard (because if size equaled ease, Warcraft should have been shot and in the can already), but because of control. Heck, Uwe Bol tried to gets the rights to make a Warcraft movie, and they told him to f-off... knowing that he'd do nothing but hurt their brand with whatever cheap film he'd put together.

I think we saw with the first Dungeons & Dragons movie that so long as you sign away the rights and demand no hand on creative, you're more likely to see something produced... just not necessarily something actually good.

 

[malraux]

I'd also be surprised if a smaller business could pull the same sort of talent that HAS can. Ridley Scott doing a Monopoly movie for example. Of course, I would say that the experince with the first DnD movie would be enough to turn the business off of it.

 

[Umbran]

I
Look at it this way... a video game company can give up all creative control to Uwe Bol and his foreign film investors and we can get Bloodrayne, Alone In The Dark, and Postal produced, filmed and into the theaters on the cheap. On the other hand... Blizzard can keep a tight grip on their Warcraft property, sign a director like Sam Raimi, but then still sit on the project for years as the money-people still try to pull things together and they wait on scripts to be written and whatnot.

Control does matter, of course. I don't contest that. But there are many impacts, and control is only one of them.

Note the important point you make: the money people pulling things together. Blizzard just this year broke $1 billion in sales, if I recall correctly. Hasbro's sales were over $4 billion last year, and has been multi-billion for a long time. When we are talking movie budgets often over $100 million, the difference matters.

Bigger companies don't have as much trouble pulling money together, and are more likely to be able to shell out ahead of time for quality writers who do good work on schedule. Small companies will naturally have more trouble with this.

Of course, this is predicated on the idea that Hasbro as the parent gets involved. Leaving it to WotC itself makes it still a small-company operation.

 

[Belen]

Anyone know anything about Providence?

Yes. They used to own my company and came close to putting us out of business. It would be a bad thing for Hasbro if Providence purchased them.