Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6559580" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] has reiterated a reason already stated upthread and in other threads: making money from the sale of a new round of core books - especially in an environment where there was known demand, due to the dissatisfaction with 4e among some likely D&D customers. [MENTION=6701829]Trickster Spirit[/MENTION] has given another reason that seems reasonable: "Having the game remain in print is first of all a signal to potential partners that this D&D thing actually does still have people out there willing to spend a lot of money on it."I think a third reason, which [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has mentioned more than once in this or another one of these threads, is re-unification. A few years ago, practically any internet item about D&D had edition wars - ie, attacks on the D&D products that WotC was publishing - breaking out in its comments section. I think getting rid of that hostility is part of a brand strategy.Given that people know that D&D is a game, it also makes sense to have a game in print that they can go and get involved in if they feel inspired to do so by their D&D lunchbox. 4e, for reasons involving the wall of books, the failed Essentials 'on-ramp', the hostility it generated in some quarters, was not that game.The point of a D&D movie isn't to create new D&D players. It's to make money in quantities that can't be made by selling D&D rulebooks!There are Marvel comics fans who complain about their favourite character's storylines and publishing schedules being subordinated to the demands of movie-making. If a D&D movie occurs and is even a little bit successful, we can expect the same sorts of complaints from D&D players!A bad movie might put a dint in their plans, yes, although my (admittedly amateur) view is that the movie-going public is pretty tolerant of even very mediocre films.Frankly, if a D&D film attracts a performer of the calibre of RDJ, and has the success of Iron Man, I think Mearls will be pinching himself to see if he is dreaming.Battleship (34% Rotten Tomatoes) made money - from Wikipedia, it seems to have cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million to make, and had box office returns of $300 millioin.Dragonheart is a pretty awful film from 1996 (with Dennis Quaid and Pete Postlethwaite - bizarrely it gets 50% on Rotte). IMDB tells me that it cost neary $60 million to make, and made returns of nearly twice that.For the plan to work, the film doesn't have to be wonderful. It does have to be better than the original D&D film (IMDB lists $45 million budget, $33 million box office, 10% Rotten Tomatoes) but that is setting a fairly low bar.</blockquote>

Verification