D&D 5E The RPG or the Brand?

[wedgeski]

Given the massive success of their previous movies (especially Avengers), they probably had the money available to take that risk and write it off if necessary. Not that they would want to lose all that money, of course, but it must be nice to have it to lose.

This is probably true. They have practically guaranteed $1billion movies in the shape of Iron Man and Avengers, not to mention the inevitable reboot of the MCU when the current crop of characters has played out, so they can afford to take a risk or two. I hope they don't dilute those risks by sticking too closely to formula. My only real complaint with Guardians is that the finale was yet another "giant thing crashes into ground" spectacle...well, dance-off with the villain not withstanding.

 

[wedgeski]

Brand is a double edged sword.

It can either lead you to victory, or it can lead to your demise. A brand can come with certain expectations that people will be looking for and if they aren't met, can lead to disastrous results.

Not to mention that a brand doesn't necessarily command respect or attract the paying punter. "Dungeons & Dragons" may be recognised the world over, but outside our community, will it lead to enough bums on seats to warrant a $100mil+ investment in an effects-heavy fantasy mash-up?

 

[delericho]

However, I am not sure sure anyone would go after The Silmarillion to make films... Once you get past The Hobbit and LotR, Tolkien's work doesn't hold the same promise of huge returns, The Silmarillion included.

They'd almost certainly brand it as being a "Lord of the Rings" film, subtitled with the individual chapter titles. So, for example, "Lord of the Rings: The Children of Hurin".

What will be interesting is what happens in a few years when they don't get access to Tolkien's other works - do they just leave it, reboot the series, or do they have someone work up a trilogy or sequel films and/or prequels based on Arathorn's adventures (or similar)?

 

[wedgeski]

What will be interesting is what happens in a few years when they don't get access to Tolkien's other works - do they just leave it, reboot the series, or do they have someone work up a trilogy or sequel films and/or prequels based on Arathorn's adventures (or similar)?

I don't think anyone will have the stomach to attempt a new Lord of the Rings for a good long time, but there's a lot of basic history in place that could inspire some excellent movies. Jackson has demonstrated that you can layer new plots and entirely new characters over the top of Tolkien's work and the audience will accept it.

 

[delericho]

I don't think anyone will have the stomach to attempt a new Lord of the Rings for a good long time, but there's a lot of basic history in place that could inspire some excellent movies. Jackson has demonstrated that you can layer new plots and entirely new characters over the top of Tolkien's work and the audience will accept it.

I'm not so sure - the audience will accept (sometimes grudgingly) the addition of new characters and plots to an adaptation of an existing film. But would they accept a whole new film created whole-cloth?

 

[wedgeski]

I'm not so sure - the audience will accept (sometimes grudgingly) the addition of new characters and plots to an adaptation of an existing film. But would they accept a whole new film created whole-cloth?

In a word, yes. Those unfamiliar with Tolkien's work will see an extension of what they loved in the LotR and Hobbit films; those familiar but not authoritative (such as myself) will be happy as long as the film-makers involved have the appropriate respect for the source material; and those obsessively decrying any deviation from Tolkien canon will be incensed and make loads of noise on the internet, as per usual.

 

[Mark CMG]

(. . .) or do they have someone work up a trilogy or sequel films and/or prequels based on Arathorn's adventures (or similar)?

Like Born of Hope?

http://www.bornofhope.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qINwCRM8acM

 

[Parmandur]

They'd almost certainly brand it as being a "Lord of the Rings" film, subtitled with the individual chapter titles. So, for example, "Lord of the Rings: The Children of Hurin".



What will be interesting is what happens in a few years when they don't get access to Tolkien's other works - do they just leave it, reboot the series, or do they have someone work up a trilogy or sequel films and/or prequels based on Arathorn's adventures (or similar)?

Well, they already tapped the limits of the film rights, and we are already talking about their next move: they bought Sweetpeas rights and have gone to court with Hasbro so they can get an evergreen Jacksonian franchise.

 

[transtemporal]

Considering their next offering is bloody Ant Man (now THAT'S scraping the bottom of the barrel), GotG doesn't look like as much of a risk.

Touche!

 

[weldon]

Not to mention that a brand doesn't necessarily command respect or attract the paying punter. "Dungeons & Dragons" may be recognised the world over, but outside our community, will it lead to enough bums on seats to warrant a $100mil+ investment in an effects-heavy fantasy mash-up?

I think the comparison to Lord of the Rings is appropriate. Before the movies, about 100MM copies of the book(s) were sold worldwide (50MM have been sold since). In 2004, WotC estimated that about 20MM people have played D&D. I don't have a good way to figure out how # of books sold equates to people who have read them (I have 4 or 5 copies myself but many people read one copy in a library). But let's call it 1:1. LOTR is known to 5x or 10x more people than D&D, but we're in the same ballpark. A lot of people have heard of D&D.

LOTR sales: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/2007/04/16/tolkien_proves_hes_still_the_king.html
D&D players: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3655627.stm

What made LOTR a good property for creating huge movies (IMO) and using the movies to drive the brand is the characters and the narrative. The movies were a huge success. The popularity of the movies made it possible to grow the brand by selling toys, books, games, etc. A massive effort was put into creating and bringing to market a whole set of products that would feed the demand.

I think it also paved the way for other fantasy properties like Game of Thrones, which has 14MM viewers for each episode on HBO. The books were already bestsellers before they were optioned, but the show has driven the brand (and book sales).

It feels like TV or movies is the best way to grow the brand. But to do a popular TV or movie, you'll do well to have strong characters and narrative which don't come directly from the RPG.

I feel like D&D is stuck in this weird place where they have a lot of the elements to create a great media property, but the heart and soul of the RPG is in conflict with the key pieces that would be needed to grow it into a huge brand.