D&D Movie/TV D&D Movie Hit or Flop?

[Benjamin Olson]

And it would be fairly easy to do a direct sequel like this.

Premise: Edgin and Holga have been captured by the Red Wizards, and it's up to Simon and Doric, along with some new companions, to travel to Thay and rescue their friends.

Without the full star cost of Pine, Rodriguez or Grant, the budget could easily be in the 80-90M range, and with the first film doing so well in streaming, the awareness of a second film would be much higher, keeping marketing costs down.

That was about what I was imagining. It gets bonus points for the fact that Simon and Doric are the characters who have gotten less spotlight time and who seem to have more character growth ahead of them, so the cheaper option also feels narratively justified.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think this threads about 5 months old

 

[Zardnaar]

Out of curiosity, I decided to look for when HAT appeared on Amazon VOD, and came upon Keepa: Keepa.com - Amazon Price Tracker

Using the pricing listed therein, assuming that 75% of that goes to the studios (which I consider high), and assuming an average of 100K views per day at that price:

~ 21 days at $15 per rental to the studios, for 100K views per day, equals ~ $31.5 million
~ 65 days at $4.5 per rental to the studios, for 100K views per day, equals ~ $29.25 million
Totaling to ~ $60.75 million

Adjust views and studios' cut as needed.

No idea how accurate tgat is but if a movie gets around double its budget (well 2.5 is often used) the back end drags it over the line.

 

[Jaeger]

Personally I blame the writing. Looks like creatively bankrupt formulaic movies aren't doing to well.

In my opinion - the movie was about 20 minutes too long.

The writers were given too big of a budget.

The Paladin character was not needed. The whole underdark sequence was not needed. The Barbarian/Halfling subplot didn't need to be there.

They could also have saved a lot of cash by toning down the gonzo nature of the Forgotten realms. Cut the dragon, Cat and Bird people from the film. Tons of money saved. We don't need little CGI raptor herds, sheep are more practical and less expensive.

Just too damn much CGI...

There were some very clever aspects and sequences in the film. There was a good adventure story there.

Lots of fat just needed to be trimmed to get there.

Using the pricing listed therein, assuming that 75% of that goes to the studios

Amazon Content providers receive 50% of net revenue.

Support – Prime Video Direct

videodirect.amazon.com

Most VOD service providers take just as big of a cut as Theaters do.

 

[Ferrousbones]

No idea how accurate tgat is but if a movie gets around double its budget (well 2.5 is often used) the back end drags it over the line.

My numbers have nothing to do with that, just the possible amount that the movie might have accumulated from VOD. Basically, is it likely that the VOD amount surpassed or will surpass the losses from the box office.

Amazon Content providers receive 50% of net revenue.

Most VOD service providers take just as big of a cut as Theaters do.

I assumed this to be the case personally, but decided to be radically generous in my calculations.
Making it 50%, and leaving everything else the same, would make the total ~ $40.5 million; about $65 million less than box office losses.
I have no idea what the views/day should be, so the total could be radically higher or lower, but I figured on guessing 100K views per day.

 

[Mistwell]

After a Decade in Limbo, Brian Robbins Is Giving Paramount a Makeover With ‘Ninja Turtles,’ Tom Cruise and ‘Gladiator 2’



It straight out confirms that Honor Among Thieves lost money and if they do a sequel they need to find a way to make it with a smaller budget.
Given the setting that probably wont be an easy task unless they can get the actors to agree to a smaller salary or do a much smaller scale story.

That is you spinning. Robbins did not confirm that. That's commentary from the author of that article, not Robbins. To see the same quote from a different author, see here.

Robbins, who knows what the total theatrical plus non-theatrical revenue looks like, is saying a sequel remains possible now but he wants to make it for less. Which is the same thing he's saying about all the movies he listed. But he's only naming the ones he thinks have franchise potential - not actual bombs. There are some he regrets, like he names Babylon as breaking his heart. But he doesn't seem to regret Transformers, Mission Impossible, Fast and Furious, and Dungeons and Dragons. Part of what he's saying is that $100M movies were made for $200M instead due to the drastically increased costs from Covid and sudden inflation and that nobody could have done anything about that unexpected happenstance.

Compare this to the people in this very thread who claimed a sequel was never going to happen because the movie was a bomb and lost them tons of money. That is definitely not the tone Robbins is taking and again, he's the guy who knows what it made in total, including both theatrical and non-theatrical revenue. If he planned to write the movie off as some big loss, that's not the language he would be using publicly. In fact he did use that kind of "bomb" language when he talked about Babylon, and him shunting a movie I've never heard of off to streaming ("Under the Boardwalk"). He's talking like they left money on the table with these movies he didn't regret with too high a budget, some of which was out of their control due to Covid and sudden rapid inflation. Same thing pretty much all studios are doing right now in their negotiations with the WGA and SAG/AFTRA.

I also see an implication, and tell me if I am reading things into this or not, where he's kind of hinting that having three A-list actors for D&D was going overboard where perhaps they only needed two (the leads probably) and could have cast a non-A-list actor as the villain (instead of Hugh Grant). He doesn't say that, but he's kind of implying that in some of his discussion of stars, at least in my reading between the lines. I don't know what Hugh Grant was paid for the movie, but if that's what he's saying I agree they could have cast someone else for that role and probably gotten almost as much out of it.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Personally I blame the writing. Looks like creatively bankrupt formulaic movies aren't doing to well.

Barbie did 20 odd million on a Wednesday approaching 500 million in less than a week.

Wait what are you accusing of doing poorly?

 

[Zardnaar]

Wait what are you accusing of doing poorly?

Not Barbie general comment about movies in general.

Think Barbie is trending towards a less than 50% drop off this weekend. Potentially biggest movie of the year if it beats Mario.

 

[MockingBird]

Not Barbie general comment about movies in general.

Think Barbie is trending towards a less than 50% drop off this weekend. Potentially biggest movie of the year if it beats Mario.

Took my daughter to see Barbie...it was weird. It was just an odd fever dream of a movie.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I don't worry too much if there is not an action-live sequel. An animated production could be enough if the plot is good. But the movie is about the group: Edgin, Holga, Simon, Doric, and even Xenk the paladin and Kira (Edgin's daughter).

Even if the movie had been a superhit, the sequel should be a lower budget. And it is not only for Paramount, but this is being a horrible year for all Hollywood.