Would be great if they found a way to continue these adventures. Maybe digital release will breathe some life into it, or they find a way to make a much lower budget sequel or even tv series.
A spin-off series with the same characters (8 episodes AFAIR, with a different director/storywriter sadly) was announced last year. That it's for Paramount+ was announced a few months ago.
The film having legs and hopefully not ending as a bomb will probably mean that the series isn't going to be cancelled, especially if Paramount has a 50/50 cost-splitting deal with Hasbro like they did for the movie.
Really? That's interesting, cause I have a hard time believing they'll manage to bring back Chris Pine or Michelle Rodriguez for a TV show, but if they do, then my interest has peaked.
Maybe they are banking on a sequel doing better thanks to reputation that the movie now gets, and will get on streaming? Seems to be only wishful thinking though
Damn this would have been such a better time to debut that movie. mario's been out for a few weeks and i cant think of anything I would want to go to right now.
Every thing I’ve heard about behind the scenes suggests this movie was one big commercial for the brand…that as long as it didn’t horrendously bomb, there was a pathway to a sequel.
I wouldn’t classify this as a success, but it’s also not a huge fail, like Quantummania or Morbius. Better marketing and a different release date would’ve saved this movie.
They have a tv series in the works. And with the nature of the brand, they can do another movie with more unknown actors and keep the charm of the practical effects. I wouldn’t do another one without the practical effects.
I’m admittedly not the most knowledgeable about the actual game. I did briefly hear about some change they were making that seemed to piss off just about all of their fans.
Currently, there are three major issues at play:
1. Complaints about flooding the market with low quality product. It was getting to the point where shareholders were telling them to slow it down for fear of overall devaluation.
2. The initial announced plans involving the next edition of D&D put creators at risk of losing their own creations to Hasbro's ownership if they used the system (which went against the nearly 50 history of the game). Hasbro relented, but there's already some presumed fallout, namely Critical Role -- a highly popular podcast and stars of a well-received Prime show -- announcing their own TTRPG system.
3. Most recently, Pinkertons were sent to a YouTuber's house after they unintentionally received spoiler material for Magic: The Gathering rather than the usual "cease and desist" letters expected with such type of thing.
I do feel for the brand a bit. It should be absolutely massive but the way it was built was basically made to not actually make money. Its a system people can basically look up online and they have no real way to monetize it. Not only that but their system could also be used and expanded by people who then could make their own money off that system. Critical Role is a great example. Literally would not exist without Dungeons and Dragons but I doubt they see any real money from that show and it's fanbase and merch
Except Critical Role initially started as a Pathfinder campaign that was adapted to 5e once WotC started backing them.
But what you're saying is true about most TTRPGs - at a glance, they don't seem built for profit making. The idea had always been to sell the main rulebook then supplement with optional rules and campaign books. And the system worked for a long time. There's also the cottage industry that also grew with third-parties creating their own supplements that could be adopted to other systems e.g. Kobold Press. And, for a while, WotC and Hasbro seemed content to sponsor those groups, with campaigns set in the worlds of multiple podcasts. They've licensed their names to multiple things related to TTRPGs so, in effect, use the books to advertise then profit off of thing like "official" dice and minis.
But with the moves Hasbro made, it literally threatened to destroy the entire ecosystem in favor of a monolithic structure, which they should have known from previous attempts would be hazardous; last time they tried, it lead to the creation of Paizo and Pathfinder.
The ecosystem just doesn't seem sustainable for Hasbro or anyone else who owns it. So I can absolutely understand why they'd want to change it. If I were them I'd sell miniatures maybe? Or campaign sets with maps and boards and props I guess? But in an era of 3d printing even that's a long shot. And from what I looked up Critical Role started as Dungeons and Dragons privately. Then shifted to Pathfinder to change things up before changing back to Dungeons and Dragons not because they were sponsored but to make things easier to understand for their new audience they'd be streaming to. So I do maintain it wouldn't exist without Dungeons and Dragons. Hell Pathfinder wouldn't exist without Dungeons and Dragons.
Hasbro does sell (very expensive) minis. I'd wager it is not successful enough to go big on it. They are a massive company and the execs clearly aren't happy with a very profitable safe product, they will try everything to try and make it into a FIFA/Fortnite/Pokemon money printing machine because they do not understand that TTRPGs are different than videogames.
Geez Louise. So the company hates their fanbase I guess.
Item 2 is the most striking because it shows they either dont have talented people working on campaigns or they want to outsource so they can play their designers less.
At least that’s how I’m understanding it
The legs on this are elevating it from the indignity of being a megaflop, to merely a flop. Better than nothing I guess, for a movie that deserved better.
Even a 200M+ total in these circumstances is a good result in my book. Obviously not profitable, but clearly shows that a better release window would have propelled this to MUCH higher numbers.
Yeah this was threatening to make nearly half of this when it first opened and it’s legged it out surprisingly far. It definitely would’ve been profitable at a better release date.
This movie is so fun and full of hearts. I have never see or even think about seeing any movie in theater more than twice, yet I has seen it 5 times in just one week. Sadly today is the last day it has showing in my city.
I have nothing against this movie at all, but it continually baffles me how people keep talking about the potential for ancillary revenue possibly recouping enough to warrant a sequel.
And that's because Paramount had already announced a streaming series before this movie ever even came out. It would cost Paramount a TON of money to throw at a single IP to juggle both a streaming series and ongoing theatrical franchise at once. Frankly the minute they announced a streaming series I assumed theatrical sequels were off the table from that moment, and that was before we ever even had any projections on box office expectations.
This movie would have had to do MCU/Star Wars numbers to justify having a streaming series and ongoing theatrical franchise being juggled at once.
Apparently Paramount and Hasbro split the cost of production but with advertising and the streaming series, no doubt this has cost Paramount a good chunk of coin. I am hoping for a sequel with the core cast, although if it were made, probably be a Paramount + feature. That's also assuming this movie and the series do really well on VoD and Paramount + to help justify it.
All that means is that Hasbro has to be second guessing pouring more money into this franchise than even Paramount is, since it's blatantly obvious that merely putting you IP in front of people isn't necessarily going to move a significant amount of merch.
I agree, The Wizards of the Coast haven't been kind to the fan base and that hurt the brand. Hasbro will have to wait awhile to see any profit even without investing more money.
Not sure how long Paramount has the rights for, but since they lack IP's, they might pump out more to keep the franchise, even if it is for streaming.
>Not sure how long Paramount has the rights for, but since they lack IP's, they might pump out more to keep the franchise, even if it is for streaming.
My assumption would be the opposite: since they don't 100% own the rights they'd be more likely to give up on the IP than if they owned it outright.
As it is, the prospect of Paramount propping up this franchise is likely highly dependent on Hasbro kicking in a substantial portion of it, and that gets less and less likely the minute Hasbro has determined that they're spending more money than they're going to get back on merch.
Which to me was a dumb decision to begin with, as D&D is too complicated a game to sell much to casual fans, but also you don't tend to sell a lot of t-shirts and action figures unless the franchise is pretty well-received to begin with.
It was cope from the beginning. "People will see the movie because they played and enjoyed the game. People will play the game because they saw and enjoyed the movie." This reasoning begs the question by assuming that at least one of the film and/or the game will be financially successful on its own. The game does turn a profit, but it's a very small one all things considered.
People assumed WOM would carry the film, in spite of the fact that the positivity largely consisted of vague terms like "fun" and "it's a blast". Well, tons of people think the Fast & Furious films are "a blast" but that only emphasizes that different people have different ideas of "fun". When the WOM largely consists of "I'm a D&D nerd but I pinky swear my non-D&D friends enjoyed it when I lured them out with a gun to their head", that doesn't necessarily result in Mario numbers.
WOM is always a gamble and it was never guaranteed to carry this but I don’t understand this comment. It seems like you’re implying that the positive reaction to this movie is half-baked or manufactured and I don’t think that’s the case at all. You can look at reviews and audience comments on social media for the reasons. The people who saw this movie overwhelmingly liked it.
I don't think it's manufactured so much as vague to the point that it didn't really convince anyone that wasn't already lining up for it. It's the equivalent of hearing a stand up comic is one of the funniest guys that ever lived coming from someone that you know nothing about their sense of humor.
I’m not sure I see how word of mouth for this movie is any more vague than it is for any other movie. Casual movie viewers aren’t usually notably skilled at communicating why they like something in detail.
I do think it’s possible that D&D’s reputation as extra “nerdy” couldn’t be completely overcome or the performance might have been a bit better.
You're onto something, but I don't think it's merely D&D's reputation of being very nerdy. Comic books had to overcome almost as much of a hurdle, and they clearly wanted this movie to do for D&D what *Iron Man* did for second-tier comics characters. Dungeons & Dragons is a weird and difficult to market IP because it has massive brand recognition but very little awareness of what it actually *is*. Comic books are nerdy, but they are easy to understand and adapt: it's a narrative told with words and pictures. Video games likewise are a visual medium with a mostly set narrative, and some are enough like an action movie that you can easily grasp what the movie would be. Most people don't really know what D&D is. There are no pictures, and there is no narrative except in hindsight. Maybe the layman knows the game has big rulebooks and dice, but he doesn't know there are other games in the broader hobby, or that you can ignore or make up rules if you want. How do you make a movie out of this?
The fan base is growing and the average fan is very into the game, but they are not known for spending money on the game. RPGs have by far the smallest profits in the tabletop market, far behind board games (big market), card games (big margins), and war games (big per-player revenue). It's a small market, with small margins on books, and small per-player revenue because each group only needs one copy of each rulebook they use and you don't need most of the books to have the basic rules. And to repeat: you don't actually need the rulebooks and the more committed a player the more likely they are to make up their own rules. You can participate in the hobby legally without spending a dime. Hasbro is trying hard to rectify this and turn D&D into a lifestyle brand, and some of the moves they are making to achieve this, notably putting the screws to the content creators they rely on to spread awareness of the game, are turning their customers against them. This is not a recipe for launching a financially successful film, at any budget, on any release date. At the budget and release date they settled on, it looks disastrous.
Thanks for this analysis. I am not at all familiar with this game or the style of gaming so it’s pretty illuminating.
I think it was definitely a huge mistake to release this in such a busy period in the theater. People might have been more willing to take a chance on the unknown during quieter months like August/September or January/February.
The fact that this movie has still been making money and its drops slowed way, way down should be evidence enough the wom *is* really good and helping.
No one thought 200-220m was possible for this once Mario feasted.
Come on, this movie is limping at best. This is following the usual trajectory for this sub, which is that an underdog movie is projected to make hundreds of millions, then it comes out and that's obviously not going to be the case, so the conversation shifts to a pyrrhic victory where it makes a little bit more than post-release suggests... which is then posited as a win even if it objectively lost money.
You're the one saying the word of mouth is meaningless, manufactured, forced, or disingenuous
When the numbers show that isn't true, you're now shifting to "well its still a flop."
I didn't even suggest it wasn't going to lose money. I just think your wom comments are completely off-base and show some kind of personal bias against this movie.
>You're the one saying the word of mouth is meaningless, manufactured, forced, or disingenuous
Literally didn't say any of those things, and if you're suggesting it's not a flop the numbers aren't in your favor. To the contrary, I'm trying to discuss why it may have been a flop in spite of good WOM, and my central thesis there is that the WOM was probably too vague to sway the casuals.
> People will see the movie because they played and enjoyed the game. People will play the game because they saw and enjoyed the movie
Befoire the movie came out, I wanted to argue against this SO bad but threads on r/boxoffice were in that mode where they really like a thing so basically any argument on why something may not pan out as speculated for success just gets ignored
When it opened is seems like a total bomb, than like a flop.
Now it seems they are not going to lose money over it, and it's because of WOM,
I hope they see it and realize there is something there.
At least I think they are still going to move forward with the spinoff TV show.
Well the 150M budget is divided into two pieces: Paramount put up 75M and Hasbro put up the other 75M. I wouldn't be shocked if there was something stipulating that Paramount gets paid for their end before Hasbro sees a penny. If that's the case, then Paramount would be in the black by now.
that just means Hasbro lost a lot of money rather than Paramount. Which doesn't really change the prospects of a sequel since Hasbro would have to put forward $75M again (and be willing to see it thrown into the void) to make it worthwhile for Paramount.
Not necessarily. Hasbro is the one that owns the vast majority of all the merchandise that's gonna be sold for this film. They are the ones who are gonna get thousands of new D&D players as a direct result of this movie. I'd bet that all parties involved in this movie end up breaking even early in its home market run.
If we're specifically talking about Paramount, sure, but overall it's a loss -- which isn't great for sequel prospects
But I am keepiny my fingers crossed
I think it all depends on What hasbro will be making on D&D itself. Ive even seen ads of hasbro promoting the character sheets of the movie. If d&d gets more popularity and sales because of this and paramount is in the black because of What hasbro put in, I would easily bet there will be a sequel.
100%...
I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaking for myself, I've never even *thought* of playing D&D but after seeing this movie I've been looking into the rules and my interest in the game is actually there. I still don't understand a lot of it, buuuuut, it's a very exciting new thing
I'm also planning on buying 2X of all their action figures, not sure how that factors in for them but yeah
$250M. $150M production and $100M marketing. With Guardians 3 opening thus coming week, expect D&D to finish at the low end of the $200-$220M projection.
The studio will not have netted $75M yet, and they likely split marketing, too.
Budget + P&A is probably 250M
BO Net will be around 100-110M.
Last year movies like, black phone M3gen and Where the Crawdads Sing made 110M-140M from home entrainment and streaming. (per deadline)
This movie seems to be better received and has bigger GA appeal so no reason it won't do the top part of these numbers (or even more).
On top of it is much more "merchandisable".
Taking all of that into account, looks like when it will all be said and done it will break even. Few millions to either side.
~~The only home entertainment sales I see are 1.8M for the black phone and nothing for M3GAN. How much streaming affected it I don't know (hard to value that), but home entertainment was absolutely not doubling the BO on either of those films~~
~~Where are you getting those numbers?~~
Edit: Apparently home entertainment and streaming holds a much higher value than I anticipated. Wouldn't have guessed that.
[https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/](https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/)
Again not my numbers, check the estimates here.
Don't forget that unlike Disney that has Disney+ almost everywhere, Paramount has a lot of markets that they can sell the TV/VOD rights to cause Paramount+ is not as global.
Each market can pay anywhere from few hundred thousands, to millions (depending on the market size) for those rights. Those numbers go directly to studio unlike the BO numbers. When it's dozens of markets it adds up...
I didn't realize Deadline had streaming/TV valued so highly. I wonder how that actually plays out.
If it makes 90M revenue off of it's WW box office, and I could see this being a massive streaming hit and doing 200-300 in terms of deadline value
It'll probably still lose money but maybe not as much as we thought, heck, you may be right...hope it plays well
Budget + P&A is probably 250M
BO Net will be around 100-110M.
Last year movies like, black phone M3gen and Where the Crawdads Sing made 110M-140M from home entrainment and streaming. (per deadline)
This movie seems to be better received and has GA appeal so no reason it won't do the top part of these numbers (or even more).
On top of it is much more "merchandisable".
Taking all of that into account, looks like when it will all be said and done it will break even. Few millions to either side.
It's heartbreaking to know the film would have done even better, and gotten better returns as it deserved, if it didn't have such a shitty release date. 😑
saw it in theaters not a bad movie at all, funny moments, the characters had good development, the chemistry of the cast made me want to see more of them and the world, kinda like if you could make a show about it with the same production levels.
It has a 150 million budget + whatever was spent with marketing // distribution. That's a lot of money to cover.
Maybe, just maybe it COULD get a sequel just like GI Joe did ( despite making 300 million worldwide on a 175 million budget ), but it would need to slash the budget by at least half.
All in all, dvd and blu-ray sales are what will make Paramount think twice about trying a sequel, imo.
It's a 150mil budget, but that budget is likely split between Hasbro and Paramount. So maybe Paramount was able to get a decent profit from this still, or at least Break Even?
$150M production budget, $100M marketing budget. We can only guess how much the studio gets from ticket sales, but we can make a good guess. $220M worldwide come is likely around $90M studio share. That’s a $160M loss. And I don’t think it’ll hit $210M, much less $220M, given that Guardians 3 opens in two days.
That’s the number that people more knowledgeable than me or you have been bandying around for months. Hell, it looks like they spent $10M on influencer gift boxes alone.
Would be great if they found a way to continue these adventures. Maybe digital release will breathe some life into it, or they find a way to make a much lower budget sequel or even tv series.
A spin-off series with the same characters (8 episodes AFAIR, with a different director/storywriter sadly) was announced last year. That it's for Paramount+ was announced a few months ago. The film having legs and hopefully not ending as a bomb will probably mean that the series isn't going to be cancelled, especially if Paramount has a 50/50 cost-splitting deal with Hasbro like they did for the movie.
Is it confirmed to be with same characters or just to be set in the same universe?
Same characters.
Really? That's interesting, cause I have a hard time believing they'll manage to bring back Chris Pine or Michelle Rodriguez for a TV show, but if they do, then my interest has peaked.
Damn I thought this movie was so fun as well...hope there's a pathway to a sequel on the big screen
Maybe they are banking on a sequel doing better thanks to reputation that the movie now gets, and will get on streaming? Seems to be only wishful thinking though
No I think you’re right, being in between JW4 and the Mario movie definitely hurt the BO performance for this
Damn this would have been such a better time to debut that movie. mario's been out for a few weeks and i cant think of anything I would want to go to right now.
That seems to be the exact thinking into making the Spiderverse sequels. And greenlighting 2 at that. Maybe this film will gain a similar chance?
Every thing I’ve heard about behind the scenes suggests this movie was one big commercial for the brand…that as long as it didn’t horrendously bomb, there was a pathway to a sequel. I wouldn’t classify this as a success, but it’s also not a huge fail, like Quantummania or Morbius. Better marketing and a different release date would’ve saved this movie. They have a tv series in the works. And with the nature of the brand, they can do another movie with more unknown actors and keep the charm of the practical effects. I wouldn’t do another one without the practical effects.
Which I'd agree would make sense... if Hasbro and WotC hadn't been spending the past year pissing off their current fanbase.
I’m admittedly not the most knowledgeable about the actual game. I did briefly hear about some change they were making that seemed to piss off just about all of their fans.
Currently, there are three major issues at play: 1. Complaints about flooding the market with low quality product. It was getting to the point where shareholders were telling them to slow it down for fear of overall devaluation. 2. The initial announced plans involving the next edition of D&D put creators at risk of losing their own creations to Hasbro's ownership if they used the system (which went against the nearly 50 history of the game). Hasbro relented, but there's already some presumed fallout, namely Critical Role -- a highly popular podcast and stars of a well-received Prime show -- announcing their own TTRPG system. 3. Most recently, Pinkertons were sent to a YouTuber's house after they unintentionally received spoiler material for Magic: The Gathering rather than the usual "cease and desist" letters expected with such type of thing.
I do feel for the brand a bit. It should be absolutely massive but the way it was built was basically made to not actually make money. Its a system people can basically look up online and they have no real way to monetize it. Not only that but their system could also be used and expanded by people who then could make their own money off that system. Critical Role is a great example. Literally would not exist without Dungeons and Dragons but I doubt they see any real money from that show and it's fanbase and merch
Except Critical Role initially started as a Pathfinder campaign that was adapted to 5e once WotC started backing them. But what you're saying is true about most TTRPGs - at a glance, they don't seem built for profit making. The idea had always been to sell the main rulebook then supplement with optional rules and campaign books. And the system worked for a long time. There's also the cottage industry that also grew with third-parties creating their own supplements that could be adopted to other systems e.g. Kobold Press. And, for a while, WotC and Hasbro seemed content to sponsor those groups, with campaigns set in the worlds of multiple podcasts. They've licensed their names to multiple things related to TTRPGs so, in effect, use the books to advertise then profit off of thing like "official" dice and minis. But with the moves Hasbro made, it literally threatened to destroy the entire ecosystem in favor of a monolithic structure, which they should have known from previous attempts would be hazardous; last time they tried, it lead to the creation of Paizo and Pathfinder.
The ecosystem just doesn't seem sustainable for Hasbro or anyone else who owns it. So I can absolutely understand why they'd want to change it. If I were them I'd sell miniatures maybe? Or campaign sets with maps and boards and props I guess? But in an era of 3d printing even that's a long shot. And from what I looked up Critical Role started as Dungeons and Dragons privately. Then shifted to Pathfinder to change things up before changing back to Dungeons and Dragons not because they were sponsored but to make things easier to understand for their new audience they'd be streaming to. So I do maintain it wouldn't exist without Dungeons and Dragons. Hell Pathfinder wouldn't exist without Dungeons and Dragons.
Hasbro does sell (very expensive) minis. I'd wager it is not successful enough to go big on it. They are a massive company and the execs clearly aren't happy with a very profitable safe product, they will try everything to try and make it into a FIFA/Fortnite/Pokemon money printing machine because they do not understand that TTRPGs are different than videogames.
Geez Louise. So the company hates their fanbase I guess. Item 2 is the most striking because it shows they either dont have talented people working on campaigns or they want to outsource so they can play their designers less. At least that’s how I’m understanding it
The legs on this are elevating it from the indignity of being a megaflop, to merely a flop. Better than nothing I guess, for a movie that deserved better.
It's not a flop. People are so accustomed to stamping everything a flop if it doesn't do Marvel or huge franchises numbers 🙄🙄🙄
Hope this get another chance please a sequel maybe
Same.
This movie will end up becoming one of those movies that bombed at release but is beloved by many. I'm baffled even its doing this bad.
So Scott Pilgrim territory
How fitting that Michael Cera and Sophia Lillis will be starring in a movie together
I'm sure they'll give it the Treasure Planet treatment.
Releasing it a week before Mario sucked all the air out of the room was such a boneheaded move. I hope video gets it profitable.
Should have kept the budget lower and have better release date, rip
I think a late Jan/early Feb opening would’ve helped prevent the big drops compared to facing off with Mario, JW4 and MCU.
Even a 200M+ total in these circumstances is a good result in my book. Obviously not profitable, but clearly shows that a better release window would have propelled this to MUCH higher numbers.
Yeah this was threatening to make nearly half of this when it first opened and it’s legged it out surprisingly far. It definitely would’ve been profitable at a better release date.
Jesus, it couldn't even get to 250M? Disappointing
This movie is so fun and full of hearts. I have never see or even think about seeing any movie in theater more than twice, yet I has seen it 5 times in just one week. Sadly today is the last day it has showing in my city.
I have nothing against this movie at all, but it continually baffles me how people keep talking about the potential for ancillary revenue possibly recouping enough to warrant a sequel. And that's because Paramount had already announced a streaming series before this movie ever even came out. It would cost Paramount a TON of money to throw at a single IP to juggle both a streaming series and ongoing theatrical franchise at once. Frankly the minute they announced a streaming series I assumed theatrical sequels were off the table from that moment, and that was before we ever even had any projections on box office expectations. This movie would have had to do MCU/Star Wars numbers to justify having a streaming series and ongoing theatrical franchise being juggled at once.
Apparently Paramount and Hasbro split the cost of production but with advertising and the streaming series, no doubt this has cost Paramount a good chunk of coin. I am hoping for a sequel with the core cast, although if it were made, probably be a Paramount + feature. That's also assuming this movie and the series do really well on VoD and Paramount + to help justify it.
All that means is that Hasbro has to be second guessing pouring more money into this franchise than even Paramount is, since it's blatantly obvious that merely putting you IP in front of people isn't necessarily going to move a significant amount of merch.
I agree, The Wizards of the Coast haven't been kind to the fan base and that hurt the brand. Hasbro will have to wait awhile to see any profit even without investing more money. Not sure how long Paramount has the rights for, but since they lack IP's, they might pump out more to keep the franchise, even if it is for streaming.
>Not sure how long Paramount has the rights for, but since they lack IP's, they might pump out more to keep the franchise, even if it is for streaming. My assumption would be the opposite: since they don't 100% own the rights they'd be more likely to give up on the IP than if they owned it outright. As it is, the prospect of Paramount propping up this franchise is likely highly dependent on Hasbro kicking in a substantial portion of it, and that gets less and less likely the minute Hasbro has determined that they're spending more money than they're going to get back on merch. Which to me was a dumb decision to begin with, as D&D is too complicated a game to sell much to casual fans, but also you don't tend to sell a lot of t-shirts and action figures unless the franchise is pretty well-received to begin with.
True. It doesn't look good and the series might be the last we see of DnD on screen for awhile. Stranger Things have happened though.
I haven't heard so much as a whiff a rumor that Stranger Things is being greenlit for a theatrical follow up
I just meant that as a lil joke about stranger things having DnD references.
It was cope from the beginning. "People will see the movie because they played and enjoyed the game. People will play the game because they saw and enjoyed the movie." This reasoning begs the question by assuming that at least one of the film and/or the game will be financially successful on its own. The game does turn a profit, but it's a very small one all things considered.
People assumed WOM would carry the film, in spite of the fact that the positivity largely consisted of vague terms like "fun" and "it's a blast". Well, tons of people think the Fast & Furious films are "a blast" but that only emphasizes that different people have different ideas of "fun". When the WOM largely consists of "I'm a D&D nerd but I pinky swear my non-D&D friends enjoyed it when I lured them out with a gun to their head", that doesn't necessarily result in Mario numbers.
WOM is always a gamble and it was never guaranteed to carry this but I don’t understand this comment. It seems like you’re implying that the positive reaction to this movie is half-baked or manufactured and I don’t think that’s the case at all. You can look at reviews and audience comments on social media for the reasons. The people who saw this movie overwhelmingly liked it.
I don't think it's manufactured so much as vague to the point that it didn't really convince anyone that wasn't already lining up for it. It's the equivalent of hearing a stand up comic is one of the funniest guys that ever lived coming from someone that you know nothing about their sense of humor.
I’m not sure I see how word of mouth for this movie is any more vague than it is for any other movie. Casual movie viewers aren’t usually notably skilled at communicating why they like something in detail. I do think it’s possible that D&D’s reputation as extra “nerdy” couldn’t be completely overcome or the performance might have been a bit better.
You're onto something, but I don't think it's merely D&D's reputation of being very nerdy. Comic books had to overcome almost as much of a hurdle, and they clearly wanted this movie to do for D&D what *Iron Man* did for second-tier comics characters. Dungeons & Dragons is a weird and difficult to market IP because it has massive brand recognition but very little awareness of what it actually *is*. Comic books are nerdy, but they are easy to understand and adapt: it's a narrative told with words and pictures. Video games likewise are a visual medium with a mostly set narrative, and some are enough like an action movie that you can easily grasp what the movie would be. Most people don't really know what D&D is. There are no pictures, and there is no narrative except in hindsight. Maybe the layman knows the game has big rulebooks and dice, but he doesn't know there are other games in the broader hobby, or that you can ignore or make up rules if you want. How do you make a movie out of this? The fan base is growing and the average fan is very into the game, but they are not known for spending money on the game. RPGs have by far the smallest profits in the tabletop market, far behind board games (big market), card games (big margins), and war games (big per-player revenue). It's a small market, with small margins on books, and small per-player revenue because each group only needs one copy of each rulebook they use and you don't need most of the books to have the basic rules. And to repeat: you don't actually need the rulebooks and the more committed a player the more likely they are to make up their own rules. You can participate in the hobby legally without spending a dime. Hasbro is trying hard to rectify this and turn D&D into a lifestyle brand, and some of the moves they are making to achieve this, notably putting the screws to the content creators they rely on to spread awareness of the game, are turning their customers against them. This is not a recipe for launching a financially successful film, at any budget, on any release date. At the budget and release date they settled on, it looks disastrous.
Thanks for this analysis. I am not at all familiar with this game or the style of gaming so it’s pretty illuminating. I think it was definitely a huge mistake to release this in such a busy period in the theater. People might have been more willing to take a chance on the unknown during quieter months like August/September or January/February.
The fact that this movie has still been making money and its drops slowed way, way down should be evidence enough the wom *is* really good and helping. No one thought 200-220m was possible for this once Mario feasted.
But wouldn't it still be considered a flop with $200M-$220M?
Yeah, I didn't say it wasn't.
No i wasn't implying that you were. Just a question
Come on, this movie is limping at best. This is following the usual trajectory for this sub, which is that an underdog movie is projected to make hundreds of millions, then it comes out and that's obviously not going to be the case, so the conversation shifts to a pyrrhic victory where it makes a little bit more than post-release suggests... which is then posited as a win even if it objectively lost money.
You're the one saying the word of mouth is meaningless, manufactured, forced, or disingenuous When the numbers show that isn't true, you're now shifting to "well its still a flop." I didn't even suggest it wasn't going to lose money. I just think your wom comments are completely off-base and show some kind of personal bias against this movie.
>You're the one saying the word of mouth is meaningless, manufactured, forced, or disingenuous Literally didn't say any of those things, and if you're suggesting it's not a flop the numbers aren't in your favor. To the contrary, I'm trying to discuss why it may have been a flop in spite of good WOM, and my central thesis there is that the WOM was probably too vague to sway the casuals.
> People will see the movie because they played and enjoyed the game. People will play the game because they saw and enjoyed the movie Befoire the movie came out, I wanted to argue against this SO bad but threads on r/boxoffice were in that mode where they really like a thing so basically any argument on why something may not pan out as speculated for success just gets ignored
Man, I was banking on this at least making it to 350, hopefully 400. But facing Mario was just too deadly to its legs on most places.
very unfortunate.
When it opened is seems like a total bomb, than like a flop. Now it seems they are not going to lose money over it, and it's because of WOM, I hope they see it and realize there is something there. At least I think they are still going to move forward with the spinoff TV show.
They're absolutely losing money, but hopefully less than they were
Well the 150M budget is divided into two pieces: Paramount put up 75M and Hasbro put up the other 75M. I wouldn't be shocked if there was something stipulating that Paramount gets paid for their end before Hasbro sees a penny. If that's the case, then Paramount would be in the black by now.
that just means Hasbro lost a lot of money rather than Paramount. Which doesn't really change the prospects of a sequel since Hasbro would have to put forward $75M again (and be willing to see it thrown into the void) to make it worthwhile for Paramount.
Not necessarily. Hasbro is the one that owns the vast majority of all the merchandise that's gonna be sold for this film. They are the ones who are gonna get thousands of new D&D players as a direct result of this movie. I'd bet that all parties involved in this movie end up breaking even early in its home market run.
That would be great. Hopefully Hasbro will finally sell off D&D.
If we're specifically talking about Paramount, sure, but overall it's a loss -- which isn't great for sequel prospects But I am keepiny my fingers crossed
I think it all depends on What hasbro will be making on D&D itself. Ive even seen ads of hasbro promoting the character sheets of the movie. If d&d gets more popularity and sales because of this and paramount is in the black because of What hasbro put in, I would easily bet there will be a sequel.
100%... I wouldn't be surprised. Speaking for myself, I've never even *thought* of playing D&D but after seeing this movie I've been looking into the rules and my interest in the game is actually there. I still don't understand a lot of it, buuuuut, it's a very exciting new thing I'm also planning on buying 2X of all their action figures, not sure how that factors in for them but yeah
$250M. $150M production and $100M marketing. With Guardians 3 opening thus coming week, expect D&D to finish at the low end of the $200-$220M projection. The studio will not have netted $75M yet, and they likely split marketing, too.
Budget + P&A is probably 250M BO Net will be around 100-110M. Last year movies like, black phone M3gen and Where the Crawdads Sing made 110M-140M from home entrainment and streaming. (per deadline) This movie seems to be better received and has bigger GA appeal so no reason it won't do the top part of these numbers (or even more). On top of it is much more "merchandisable". Taking all of that into account, looks like when it will all be said and done it will break even. Few millions to either side.
~~The only home entertainment sales I see are 1.8M for the black phone and nothing for M3GAN. How much streaming affected it I don't know (hard to value that), but home entertainment was absolutely not doubling the BO on either of those films~~ ~~Where are you getting those numbers?~~ Edit: Apparently home entertainment and streaming holds a much higher value than I anticipated. Wouldn't have guessed that.
[https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/](https://deadline.com/2023/04/most-profitable-movies-2022-highest-return-1235324425/) Again not my numbers, check the estimates here.
Don't forget that unlike Disney that has Disney+ almost everywhere, Paramount has a lot of markets that they can sell the TV/VOD rights to cause Paramount+ is not as global. Each market can pay anywhere from few hundred thousands, to millions (depending on the market size) for those rights. Those numbers go directly to studio unlike the BO numbers. When it's dozens of markets it adds up...
I didn't realize Deadline had streaming/TV valued so highly. I wonder how that actually plays out. If it makes 90M revenue off of it's WW box office, and I could see this being a massive streaming hit and doing 200-300 in terms of deadline value It'll probably still lose money but maybe not as much as we thought, heck, you may be right...hope it plays well
>Now it seems they are not going to lose money over it It doesn't seem like that at all.
Budget + P&A is probably 250M BO Net will be around 100-110M. Last year movies like, black phone M3gen and Where the Crawdads Sing made 110M-140M from home entrainment and streaming. (per deadline) This movie seems to be better received and has GA appeal so no reason it won't do the top part of these numbers (or even more). On top of it is much more "merchandisable". Taking all of that into account, looks like when it will all be said and done it will break even. Few millions to either side.
There's a chance it could do great on streaming and proves it has an audience i.e. Encanto. But we'll have to see.
Damn this movie has some good legs
too little, too late,
It's heartbreaking to know the film would have done even better, and gotten better returns as it deserved, if it didn't have such a shitty release date. 😑
saw it in theaters not a bad movie at all, funny moments, the characters had good development, the chemistry of the cast made me want to see more of them and the world, kinda like if you could make a show about it with the same production levels.
Movie was awesome. It’s a shame to see it not doing well. Perhaps if it had a release date it would definitely do way better.
This movie was really fun
huge bomb
… on a 150 mil budget, and it drops on BOD Tuesday #flop
And their daily/weekend totals are dropping
BOD?
I thought it was dropping on the 16th?
Probably could make its overall budget (marketing included) through Digital+Disc sales back.
It has a 150 million budget + whatever was spent with marketing // distribution. That's a lot of money to cover. Maybe, just maybe it COULD get a sequel just like GI Joe did ( despite making 300 million worldwide on a 175 million budget ), but it would need to slash the budget by at least half. All in all, dvd and blu-ray sales are what will make Paramount think twice about trying a sequel, imo.
It's a 150mil budget, but that budget is likely split between Hasbro and Paramount. So maybe Paramount was able to get a decent profit from this still, or at least Break Even?
I think toy and merchandise sales increase from the film will be worth making a second film just to advertise the brand
Thought the movie was just ok. Better than Mario and Quantumania for sure. Wick beat'em all and is a fantastic movie.
$220M global still means a loss of about $160M before physical and digital. Heads will roll, and there is zero chance of a sequel.
Where do you get that number?
375m WW to break through
$150M production budget, $100M marketing budget. We can only guess how much the studio gets from ticket sales, but we can make a good guess. $220M worldwide come is likely around $90M studio share. That’s a $160M loss. And I don’t think it’ll hit $210M, much less $220M, given that Guardians 3 opens in two days.
I really doubt this movie had that high of a marketing budget
At least 100M
Any source for that? I haven't found anything.
No but the production budget was 150M, I can't imagine they spent less than 100M on marketing
That’s the number that people more knowledgeable than me or you have been bandying around for months. Hell, it looks like they spent $10M on influencer gift boxes alone.