D&D 5E The RPG or the Brand?

[transtemporal]

Hollywood bought the movie rights because of the characters, and the nostalgia attached to them.

"Hollywood" in this case being Hasbro Studios... They made the movies because they needed to raise their profile, Michael Bay was shopping around for a show to feed his self-loathing and the execs at Hasbro whispered "Transformers" in his ear while he was in a coke-induced fugue.

 

[wedgeski]

Let me ask you guys a question: if WotC announced a "Lord Soth" movie and it came out, and was good, and made its numbers, but didn't mention Dungeons & Dragons in any way shape or form, would you still call it a D&D movie?

 

[wedgeski]

"Hollywood" in this case being Hasbro Studios... They made the movies because they needed to raise their profile, Michael Bay was shopping around for a show to feed his self-loathing and the execs at Hasbro whispered "Transformers" in his ear while he was in a coke-induced fugue.

I have no shame or hesitation in stating that the first Transformers was, perhaps except for the last interminable action sequence, brilliant. Unfortunately, the sequels have gobbled up whatever good will Mr. Bay might have mustered in the process of making of it.

 

[Morrus]

Let me ask you guys a question: if WotC announced a "Lord Soth" movie and it came out, and was good, and made its numbers, but didn't mention Dungeons & Dragons in any way shape or form, would you still call it a D&D movie?

Well, a movie that doesn't mention the brand is a spectacularly weak exercise in brand-building.

 

[Mark CMG]

(snip)

You're leaving out a lot of factors in regard to a licensing deal: Tying up the IP for a longer period of time, how that length of time ties to the structure of the deal's payment(s), potential for renewal or going to a different licensee, and other factors figure into potential profitability. There's a lot more to it than just profit or profitability but I was speaking in generalities. And as clever as you think it might be to trot out Paizo as in the same league as WotC, as a subsidiary of Hasbro alone the latter has much more muscle when negotiating licensing deals.

 

[Hussar]

Hasbro could put their not-inconsiderable resources behind the property and Transformerize it.

But I'm not surprised they haven't. DnD is fantasy and any fantasy is up against LotR/Hobbit and GoT and given the DnD fair that has come out in the past (Uwe Boll you talentless hack), its not hard to see why they wouldn't take the risk when they have other successful properties.

Well, there is the slight problem that Hasbro actually can't make a D&D movie until the rights have been sorted out with Sweetpea Entertainment.

 

[wedgeski]

Well, a movie that doesn't mention the brand is a spectacularly weak exercise in brand-building.

I'm asking for a fan's perspective, not a Hasbro licensing exec!

 

[Morrus]

I'm asking for a fan's perspective, not a Hasbro licensing exec!

Dunno then! Do you call the LotR movies D&D movies?

 

[Hussar]

Wouldn't that kind of be like a Transformers movie where they don't ever actually use the word "transform"? Or a TMNT movie where the fact that they are turtles is never actually mentioned? Isn't the point of a D&D movie to leverage the brand? And it would go far beyond the movie itself- you're talking sippy cups at McDonalds with DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS in big honking letters across the cup. That sort of thing.

 

[Gecko85]

Dunno then! Do you call the LotR movies D&D movies?

(Fully realizing this question wasn't posed to me...) Not specifically, but I've used them more than once to explain D&D to people.