D&D movie announced - is this an area Paizo should target?

[Pan]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I think Paizo should work on a TV show, not a movie. Just my op'. :P

Replace (or supplement in parallel) TV (which is becoming obsolete) with internet-streamed, and this actually sounds liek a good idea. After all, it's apparently working out quite well for Game of Thrones, so why not for Golarion?

AP adaptation is not a bad idea, although unless you have something super-awesome you should at first probably do something other than Curse of the Crimson Throne, Council of Thieves, or Kingmaker (even though these would be awesome), to avoid competing too head-to-head with Game of Thrones. Admittedly, if we're talking about a play, Council of Thieves has The Six Trials of Larazod embedded in it (although for some reason I've got an operatic rather than play vision of this stuck in my head).

I'd skip APs entirely and make the show a series of PFS scenarios. That way they could showcase Golarion.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Also a pretty good idea, which adds the option of showcasing the Pathfinder Society (and in the credits, Pathfinder Society Organized Play -- love it or hate it, you have to admit it's important).

[LazarX]

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think it's the biggest Roleplaying Game Brand. Without any kind of research, I'd put Game of Thrones ahead of it in terms of "fantasy story telling" (whatever that is). I'd only exclude Lord of the Rings as it's no longer current.

It's kind of like saying it's the tallest midget in the room. D+D as a brand is far behind the lowest of any signficant size board game that's selling. It's far behind in branding than any other Hasbro-themed movie ever made.

It's also a fact that every single D+D movie has been a waste of the celluloid that it was made on, even when the brand wasn't owned by Hasbro.

[-lupus-]

Pan wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

I'd skip APs entirely and make the show a series of PFS scenarios. That way they could showcase Golarion.

I actually think this is a great idea. While D&D or Pathfinder is a game we all know and play, making a movie about the game is just plain stupid. Whatever movie is made will not be about gamers playing a game, but the world and characters that populate it.

Making a show about PFS is a great idea. Give the Pathfinder name relevance within the storyline itself, and ties into the game line. And I would love a show which showcases a wide range of tales set throughout Golarion rather than one location.

[Steve Geddes]

LazarX wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think it's the biggest Roleplaying Game Brand. Without any kind of research, I'd put Game of Thrones ahead of it in terms of "fantasy story telling" (whatever that is). I'd only exclude Lord of the Rings as it's no longer current.

It's kind of like saying it's the tallest midget in the room. D+D as a brand is far behind the lowest of any signficant size board game that's selling. It's far behind in branding than any other Hasbro-themed movie ever made.

I'm not so sure (although I still don't have any reliable data). I think there's many people who have heard of D&D and have some, admittedly inaccurate, idea of what it means. Whether they have much attachment or actual engagement with the brand is another matter.

Quote:

It's also a fact that every single D+D movie has been a waste of the celluloid that it was made on, even when the brand wasn't owned by Hasbro.

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

[John Kretzer]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

The first one had a budget and even had a theatrical release...it also in my opinion happened to be the worst of the bunch.

[DragoDorn]

JamZilla wrote:

I would love a 2D RPG game based in Golarion.

This. +1

[Steve Geddes]

John Kretzer wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

The first one had a budget and even had a theatrical release...it also in my opinion happened to be the worst of the bunch.

I'm sure they all had a budget (Have I missed the point?)

What's a "theatrical release" mean?

EDIT: Is the first one the 2000 release? That seems to have had a budget of $40-$50m and a worldwide box office receipts of $33m. The revenue figures are telling - close to half of the U.S. Box office was taken in the first three days.

[John Kretzer]

Steve Geddes wrote:

John Kretzer wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

The first one had a budget and even had a theatrical release...it also in my opinion happened to be the worst of the bunch.

I'm sure they all had a budget (Have I missed the point?)

What's a "theatrical release" mean?

EDIT: Is the first one the 2000 release? That seems to have had a budget of $40-$50m and a worldwide box office receipts of $33m. The revenue figures are telling - close to half of the U.S. Box office was taken in the first three days.

Meaning it had a decent budget(much more than the later two) and decent effects. And it did not help because of the script, directing, editing, acting, etc.

Theatrical Release means it was in movie theaters...unlike the other two that only showed up on TV.

Lets put it this way...if the second one had the first ones budget and cleaned up the directing and script a little it would have done a lot better in the theaters in my opinion than the 1st one did.

[Steve Geddes]

Cheers

[LazarX]

John Kretzer wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

The first one had a budget and even had a theatrical release...it also in my opinion happened to be the worst of the bunch.

It was a very expensively funded C Grade movie.

[LazarX]

Steve Geddes wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

I think it's the biggest Roleplaying Game Brand. Without any kind of research, I'd put Game of Thrones ahead of it in terms of "fantasy story telling" (whatever that is). I'd only exclude Lord of the Rings as it's no longer current.

It's kind of like saying it's the tallest midget in the room. D+D as a brand is far behind the lowest of any signficant size board game that's selling. It's far behind in branding than any other Hasbro-themed movie ever made.

I'm not so sure (although I still don't have any reliable data). I think there's many people who have heard of D&D and have some, admittedly inaccurate, idea of what it means. Whether they have much attachment or actual engagement with the brand is another matter.

Quote:

It's also a fact that every single D+D movie has been a waste of the celluloid that it was made on, even when the brand wasn't owned by Hasbro.

Do you know if any of them were funded at a high level? I don't think I've ever seen them, but my impression was they were very much low budget, B-grade movies - I think that could be a significant difference this time around (if my impression is correct). Hasbro are better placed to produce and market a high budget movie than TSR ever were.

The total budget that consumers spent on roleplaying games last year, this is for EVERY company, Pathfinder, D+D, Buffy/Angel, Storyteller, combined, was estimated to be about $15 million. This is compared to about 21 Billion dollars spent on video games. (not including hardware sales) The entire hobby game market outside of video games is about 700 million dollars. Compared to that, the 15 million budget for all RPG's is simply barely present in the room.

[Steve Geddes]

Yeah, I wasnt comparing RPG budgets with computer game budgets. I was asking about the budgets of previous D&D movies and how they compare to this one. Looks like it was 45m, 12m and 12m. I'll be interested to see if they go for a similarly low budget this time around or if they shoot for something more in line with their big budget movies.

[JamZilla]

The potential issue with the D&D brand is whether it is mainstream enough. Say this 'big-budget' movie is funded to the tune of what, $50 - $75m? Could they reasonably expect to double or triple their money, what would be a measure of success?

There would be so many factors involved in that, not least casting, but the brand itself will certainly play in to it. The majority of my friends are not gamers and yet they are aware of D&D to the tune of it being a bunch of nerds sitting around a table in cloaks putting on funny accents. And that's despite the fact they like other fantasy franchises like LOTR and GOT.

I just wonder if they could get those people off their high horse and into the theatre

[LazarX]

The problem I have with a movie called "Game System Title" was the same that I had with "Battleship". Nothing about the title, nor the trailers impelled me to see the movie, and when I actually did so, I was very glad that I didn't spend 20 bucks doing so. And I've felt the same about all of the "Dungeons and Dragons" movies.

A movie that has "Game System" as a title has nothing to engage me with. A movie based on one of Sutter's novels, and titled appropriately, would have appeal to me, but no one outside of our community would have heard of it.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

The problem I have with a movie called "Game System Title" was the same that I had with "Battleship". Nothing about the title, nor the trailers impelled me to see the movie, and when I actually did so, I was very glad that I didn't spend 20 bucks doing so. And I've felt the same about all of the "Dungeons and Dragons" movies.

A movie that has "Game System" as a title has nothing to engage me with. A movie based on one of Sutter's novels, and titled appropriately, would have appeal to me, but no one outside of our community would have heard of it.

I think "Game System" is a minor plus. Enough to trigger the "I remember that. It's a fantasy thing, right."

The real problem was "Nothing about the ... trailers". D&D is a hook. Not a particularly great one, but it's still a hook. You need an actual good movie to get people in the seats.

[Werthead]

I doubt very much the third D&D movie had $12 million. Even $1.2 million seems high for the production quality they got, especially considering that the third film was almost certainly made for the sole purpose of retaining the film rights for another few years.

If it was $12 million, they must have flushed 90% of it down the toilet. Movies like CENTURION and IRONCLAD had budgets in that region and looked reasonably decent. The most expensive episode of GoT ever made was more like $8-9 million and looked even better.

[bugleyman]

If I were Paizo, I think I'd stay away from movies. Hard to imagine getting much further from core competencies. Also, all three D&D movies were bad. Heck, even Battleship and the Transformers movies were bad.

Just say no. :P

[Turin the Mad]

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

Rise of the Runelords (two films) has iconic-but-different across the board.

Battleship, if you mostly ignore the first 30 minutes, is fun (bad, but fun).

For the most part, big bucks comes from a combination of a fun story, at least vaguely interesting characters, humor intermixed with the drama and a healthy pace.

[Blackvial]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

Rise of the Runelords (two films) has iconic-but-different across the board.

Battleship, if you mostly ignore the first 30 minutes, is fun (bad, but fun).

For the most part, big bucks comes from a combination of a fun story, at least vaguely interesting characters, humor intermixed with the drama and a healthy pace.

Pathfinder could make a series of animated movies based off of the adventure paths using the iconic characters

[LazarX]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

[LazarX]

Turin the Mad wrote:

Rise of the Runelords (two films) has iconic-but-different across the board.

And what, if you got every single Paizo fan who'd heard of it to buy a ticket, that would get you what, an audience of 30,000 who'd heard of the title and would ping any signficance to it?

As opposed to the hundreds of millions who'd respond to a movie title "Lord of the Rings"?

You don't seem to have an idea of just how niche an audience we are.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

Whatever. If Paizo could license the property or some of the content for any decent amount of money, they should go right ahead and do it. Almost no reason not to.

They certainly shouldn't try to do it themselves. Or, frankly put any real effort into it.

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

Whatever. If Paizo could license the property or some of the content for any decent amount of money, they should go right ahead and do it. Almost no reason not to.

They certainly shouldn't try to do it themselves. Or, frankly put any real effort into it.

Paizo could not give away the movie license to it's property, much less try to sell it. There's practically nothing to appeal to a general audience.

[Turin the Mad]

Ah, but they've been sowing those seeds for as long as they've been publishing novels. What're the # of copies of the various titles selling at?

At some point they'll hit a saturation point. ;)

[Turin the Mad]

LazarX wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

Given that (depending on the dollars involved) Vic and Lisa could promptly retire comfortably from such sales of rights ... *shrugs*

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

Whatever. If Paizo could license the property or some of the content for any decent amount of money, they should go right ahead and do it. Almost no reason not to.

They certainly shouldn't try to do it themselves. Or, frankly put any real effort into it.

Paizo could not give away the movie license to its property, much less try to sell it. There's practically nothing to appeal to a general audience.

Yeah, there is that.

OTOH, if anyone was crazy enough to shell out some cash for it, take the money and run. :)

[MMCJawa]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

Paizo's smartest move on this concept would be to NOT title the films Pathfinder (not the least reason being that there is already at least one Pathfinder film out there).

No, Paizo's smartest move would be to duck their heads in buckets of ice water until the notion goes away and sanity returns.

Whatever. If Paizo could license the property or some of the content for any decent amount of money, they should go right ahead and do it. Almost no reason not to.

They certainly shouldn't try to do it themselves. Or, frankly put any real effort into it.

Paizo could not give away the movie license to it's property, much less try to sell it. There's practically nothing to appeal to a general audience.

um...They just this week optioned a movie based around PEZ. I think you vastly underestimate what film studios will option.

[Dracovar]

Is Uwe Boll going to direct? I'm pretty sure the braintrust at Hasbro is just itching to get someone with his talent to bring their 5e brand to mainstream audiences.

Can we start a petition somewhere to get Uwe to direct the next DnD movie?

[bugleyman]

thejeff wrote:

Yeah, there is that.

OTOH, if anyone was crazy enough to shell out some cash for it, take the money and run. :)

There is such a thing as damaging a brand. Why would Paizo want most people's first impression of Pathfinder to be a despised B movie?

[GreyWolfLord]

Well, I actually like the idea of a Golarion TV series...that could be pretty cool. If it was done in the same vein as GoT or Black Sails, that could be awesome.

D&D has the bigger name recognition though. It also has the history (if there are 25 million gamers, most of them lapsed...that's still a LOT of potential customers and a large base).

Of course, it also has the BAD name recognition with it as well (which Pathfinder is missing in the public) where people think of a bunch of guys with glasses sitting around a table doing things people make fun of occasionally.

I do like the idea of a Pathfinder TV show though. With the right marketing I think it could do great!

[UnArcaneElection]

^Suddenly I've got this terrible vision of a Golarion news show with Kitsune hosts . . . .

[Naal]

Thanks, UnArcaneElection. My brain couldn't stop in time, and I fell deeper down the hole. Now I'm in about a Monty Python crossover where a nagaji is substituting for Mr. Cleese and everyone else is a goblin. The nagaji's name is Manfred.

Varying degrees of want, actually. Which means it's time to step away from the keyboard and go out for a while.

[MMCJawa]

I wonder how easy it would be to pull that off. I don't know if the OGL allows the usage of monsters for instance in a movie or show...Hasbro might still have control of that. That might require substantial modification of Golarion.

[Pan]

Honestly, if they make the film/series about society adventures needing to use monsters will be less of an issue. CRB+ARG races mixed with political intrigue, exciting traps, and interesting locales would make everyone forget about monsters. IMO its best to leave monster killing dudes to WoW and D&D the movie. Its a huge opportunity for Pathfinder to differentiate itself from the pack. Just my two plat.

[Kthulhu]

Pan wrote:

Honestly, if they make the film/series about society adventures needing to use monsters will be less of an issue. CRB+ARG races mixed with political intrigue, exciting traps, and interesting locales would make everyone forget about monsters. IMO its best to leave monster killing dudes to WoW and D&D the movie. Its a huge opportunity for Pathfinder to differentiate itself from the pack. Just my two plat.

The thing is, without the monsters, it's not really D&D (or Pathfinder). Monsters are a HUGE part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder what it is.

[Pan]

Kthulhu wrote:

Pan wrote:

Honestly, if they make the film/series about society adventures needing to use monsters will be less of an issue. CRB+ARG races mixed with political intrigue, exciting traps, and interesting locales would make everyone forget about monsters. IMO its best to leave monster killing dudes to WoW and D&D the movie. Its a huge opportunity for Pathfinder to differentiate itself from the pack. Just my two plat.

The thing is, without the monsters, it's not really D&D (or Pathfinder). Monsters are a HUGE part of what makes D&D/Pathfinder what it is.

Time to break apart D&D/Pathfinder with some differentiation. PFS has made Pathfinder feel more about adventure then killing things; IMO. I am not saying don't use monsters, but dont worry about them having to be important. Pathfinder should aim for Fantastical Indiana Jones and let D&D be Fantastical Lord of the rings. My two plat of course.

[UnArcaneElection]

^Wait, I thought Lord of the Rings was Fantastical Lord of the Rings.

[Pan]

Depends who you ask, many folks consider LOTR to be an E6 campaign.

[Black Dougal]

Well, here' s some new developments"

Dungeons & Dragons’ Movie Gets ‘Goosebumps’ Director

http://movieweb.com/dungeons-dragons-movie-director-rob-letterman/

Back in August, Warner Bros., Hasbro and Sweetpea Entertainment finally resolved a long-running legal battle swirling around the rights to Dungeons & Dragons, announcing that a live-action theatrical movie is finally moving forward. We haven't heard much about the project since then, but today The Tracking Board reports that the project has brought on Goosebumps director Rob Letterman to take the helm. The filmmaker will be working from a script by David Leslie Johnson (Wrath of the Titans), who was attached when the project was announced last year.

Dungeons & Dragons was created by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson in 1974 as a fantasy roleplaying game and since then has amassed millions of players and fans worldwide. The hugely popular property has also influenced numerous writers, directors, game designers, and other creative professionals throughout its four decades. The game previously spawned the 2000 adaptation Dungeons & Dragons, which famously flopped at the box office, earning just $33.8 million worldwide from a $45 million budget.

The Tracking Board reports that the adaptation will center on a warrior and a group of creatures who embark on a perilous journey to find a legendary treasure. Some of the creatures joining this warrior include a "half-dragon" and a "cunning gnome." It isn't known if any of these roles will be based on specific characters from the original game.

Back in September, Vin Diesel, a longtime D&D player, claimed that the game's late creator E. Gary Gygax wanted the actor to "tell his story," shortly before he died in 2013. It isn't known if this means E. Gary Gygax wanted Vin Diesel involved in a biopic of some sort, but there are reports that the producers want a "Vin Diesel-type" for the lead character. No cast members have been attached at this time, but now that a director has come aboard, we may hear about casting in the near future.

Hasbro's Brian Goldner and Stephen Davis are producing with Courtney Solomon of Sweetpea Entertainment and Vertigo Entertainment's Roy Lee and Stephen Davis. Allan Zeman will executive producer for Sweetpea, with John Powers Middleton executive producing for Vertigo. Rob Letterman most recently directed Goosebumps, and his other credits include Shark Tale, Monsters Vs. Aliens and Gulliver's Travels

[MMCJawa]

3 of his 4 movies all were Jack Black vehicles...um...this does not fill me with confidence.

Although the one that wasn't, Monsters Vs Aliens...actually wasn't too bad

[UnArcaneElection]

^Monsters vs Aliens wasn't so bad if you think of it as inspiration for a really off-beat Iron Gods campaign . . . (Somebody actually did something sort of along these lines for Mummy's Mask, and it wasn't too shabby, but unfortunately the campaign died early.)

[Lemmy]

Considering the old D&D movies... I don't think anyone should attempt D&D movies. :P

[Steve Geddes]

Really looking forward to this.

One day, I'd like to see a Tomb of Horrors movie - I think it would work better as a movie than as a scenario.

[Lorewalker]

Hook it up together with Netflix, make a TV show. Base it around an AP. Have it very well written.
Watch the DnD movies. Do not do what they do.

... except maybe blue lipstick. Gotta love the blue lipstick.

[DM Alistair]

I'm tentatively eager about this. While the first D&D live action wasn't the best, but "Wrath of the Dragon God" wasn't too bad and the "Book of Vile Darkness" was bland but tried to adhere to some of the general lore.

However, if they are trying to make it a movie like "Guardians of the Galaxy" with a romp of unique and funny characters set within the Realms rather than trying to tell some super-epic tale with a low budget, then it might turn into something rather fun!

[GreyWolfLord]

Well, Goosebumps wasn't a terrible movie. Kids enjoyed it. I'm not sure it's entirely memorable, so not the greatest movie ever made, but it wasn't botched.

I think a D&D movie is going to be a hard sell these days.

[MMCJawa]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, Goosebumps wasn't a terrible movie. Kids enjoyed it. I'm not sure it's entirely memorable, so not the greatest movie ever made, but it wasn't botched.

I think a D&D movie is going to be a hard sell these days.

D&D is pretty generic fantasy. It shouldn't be hard to pull off if there is a perceived market for it (and with the commercial success of the Hobbit movies and GoT, there obviously is).

It will be interesting to see what demographic they are aiming for. The director they have picked has pretty much just done kid's movies, a demographic that probably is most likely not to really have any sort of knowledge of what the hell dungeons and dragons really is. So I see issues if the movie is targeting that viewer base, rather than perhaps making a slightly more serious movie that also can appeal to adults.

[Pan]

It will be interesting to see how well Warcraft does. I think that can shed some insight to the market. Even though at this point in time I think Warcraft has more presence than D&D does.

[Jester David]

With the DC franchise looking shaking, their Potter franchise mostly over and being reincarnated, Warner does need a hit. A D&D franchise would make them very happy.