D&D 5E The RPG or the Brand?

[transtemporal]

http://deadline.com/2014/09/dungeons-and-dragons-trial-ends-movie-sequels-839985/

You may be right, but Warner Brothers and Universal are spending a lot of money to be arguing about making a direct-to-video release.

Its interesting, but its not like bullying in the courtroom is anything new for corporate america. This looks like business-as-usual to me.

 

[transtemporal]

This fight has been on going for some time now and will likely result in either WB or Universal banging out a D&D movie before too long.

This doesn't necessarily mean that either of them want to make a movie. These are hardcore corporate douchebags. Wrangling over a property is as much about strategy and ego as anything else - you may not want to use the property yourself, but you sure as don't want the other guy using it.

I mean, when they start tossing names like Russel Crowe around for acting, and WB, IIRC, dropped about 5 million on Courtney Solomon already to produce the movie, we're not talking peanunts.

Attaching names to a project means exactly zero. Its a time-honoured hype technique and in this case its meant to give their claim substance i.e. "We're not just sitting on this property to stop the other guy from having it your honor, we're really super serious about it! Look, Russell Crowe's secretaries dog dribbled on this piece of paper, THAT'S how committed Russell is to this project!"

Until I see Russell Crowe announce this on twitter, its pure fantasy.

 

[delericho]

In any case, the fact they didn't make any of those movies in a recognizable setting means Sweetpea probably don't have the rights to the specific settings, e.g. Forgotten Realms which means someone else could make a Drizzt trilogy just fine.

IIRC, Sweetpea have the rights to everything labelled "Dungeons & Dragons" (including 3e and 4e books!) but nothing specific to the settings. So they can't do Dragonlance or FR movies (indeed, someone else did an animated Dragonlance movie; unfortunately it sucked).

And, yeah, the licensing deal with Sweetpea is spectacularly bad. It was done back in the TSR days by people less aware of the value of the brand.

The reason they don't do a Drizzt or Forgotten Realms movie without the D&D name is simply one of brand recognition - Dungeond & Dragons is a spectacularly well-known and valuable brand name; Forgotten Realms (and even Drizzt) just don't have the same value.

 

[wedgeski]

Neither was Guardians of the Galaxy. That was obscure, even among comics fans. And look at that now...

Which absolutely proves that the property DOES NOT MATTER if you have a strong enough script, cast, director, crew to pull it off (along with backers with a lot of patience and risk-appetite).

And the Marvel Cinematic Universe juggernaut behind it! I seriously doubt Guardians (good as it is) would have done half as well without the Iron Man, Avengers, Cap, etc pedigree to trade on. Even with their stellar record, Marvel thought Guardians was a huge risk.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I think it would be difficult for a Drizzt trilogy of movies to not be successful. Blade , Wanted , and Kick-Ass were franchises that had no familiarity from the public (and little familiarity from comic nerds) and did not have the Marvel brand loyalty but did well, nonetheless. The Drizzt novels are light, action-adventure popcorn reads with the same level of sophistication as the light, action-adventure popcorn movies that turn into blockbusters. There's no doubt audiences who flock to summer action blockbusters would also flock to Dungeons and Dragons: The Dark Elf.

------
References:
1. The Icewind Dale trilogy.
2. A half-assed search on Wikipedia.
3. ~0 years of film production experience.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think it would be difficult for a Drizzt trilogy of movies to not be successful. Blade , Wanted , and Kick-Ass were franchises that had no familiarity from the public (and little familiarity from comic nerds) and did not have the Marvel brand loyalty but did well, nonetheless. The Drizzt novels are light, action-adventure popcorn reads with the same level of sophistication as the light, action-adventure popcorn movies that turn into blockbusters. There's no doubt audiences who flock to summer action blockbusters would also flock to Dungeons and Dragons: The Dark Elf.

------
References:
1. The Icewind Dale trilogy.
2. A half-assed search on Wikipedia.
3. ~0 years of film production experience.

Some things surprise us like John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Green Lantern. I really didn't think any one of those could be a failure and the list could be much longer. I'm not sure what the answer is for how to make a successful D&D movie but it seems there are as many negatives as positives for each setting and known character in the D&D stable, not the least of which if you do one many folks are upset you skipped their favorite. It's a divided audience before you even put pen to paper, and that's your 'base' audience, the ones you would hope were already in your corner.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Some things surprise us like John Carter, The Lone Ranger, and Green Lantern. I really didn't think any one of those could be a failure and the list could be much longer.

Great point. I guess to be more accurate I should say that I think it has all that it needs to potentially be a successful franchise. A poor script, terrible dialogue, or some unforeseen trouble could certainly make it fail.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And the Marvel Cinematic Universe juggernaut behind it! I seriously doubt Guardians (good as it is) would have done half as well without the Iron Man, Avengers, Cap, etc pedigree to trade on. Even with their stellar record, Marvel thought Guardians was a huge risk.

There's no way to test that theory though. All I can say is that the majority of the people that I saw GotG with (on four(?) different occasions) were not comic book movie fans and don't really care about Marvel, and so to me GotG looked like a breakout movie. But maybe my experiences are atypical.

 

[weldon]

Marketing doesn't always ensure success. There have been just as many failures from marketing as successes.

When it comes to luck, that's basically acknowledging that somethings catch on while others don't. Harry Potter became an absolute successes on a scale that was almost crazy. What made Harry Potter so popular? Wasn't marketing for sure. There really is no answer as to why this product became such a success. Same for Twlight and 50 shades.

It is a bit of luck.

I disagree in that Harry Potter as a brand was absolutely grown through marketing. All the movies, toys, lego, etc. is marketing, not luck.

I think where luck might play a part is in determining which of the many good ideas get a chance. Why did Christopher Little pick up Harry Potter from his slush pile? I'll give that to luck. Everything after that is about the product quality, timing, market fit, promotion, etc.

D&D is past the luck stage. I think it needs good marketing to build the characters for a big brand. Then it needs mass market media (TV, Movies, etc.) with great original storylines that borrow from the D&D canon.

 

[weldon]

Absolutely. My post was more to point out that Hasbro didn't have to sell Transformers to Hollywood - they already had a entire studio dedicated to making movies from their properties. They could easily do the same for DnD if there was a sufficiently passionate champion at Hasbro and a gap in the market.

I think you have the sequence of events turned around. Hasbro licensed Transformers to Dreamworks and Spielberg ran it. Dreamworks hired the writers and the director. Hasbro Studios was created a couple years later, financed in part from the success of the Transformers franchise. The new self-financing arm is called AllSpark productions. It was only after the first Transformers movie from Dreamworks that they went and reacquired the TV rights so they could produce new cartoons in house.

I think Hasbro has enough money in feature films now to self-finance and develop a D&D movie, but they have already agreed (at least in principle) to sell the license to Universal.