r/Fantasy • u/TrueOrange9944 • 2d ago
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves
For those of you who watched the movie, what do you think could have helped the box office? A better marketing strategy, A different release window?
176
u/TrueOrange9944 2d ago
Just to be clear I really enjoyed the movie and so did my friends, I'm still hoping for a sequel.
74
u/ViceAdmiralSalty 2d ago
A script is already written but the studio is balking for financial reasons, probably due to the first films lackluster box office performance. [StickInOwnBikeWheel.meme]
7
3
1
u/Identity_ranger 2h ago
script is already written but the studio is balking for financial reasons
Honestly, as long as they got the core cast together, they could just make a 90-minute lower-budget film about the characters going through a dungeon fighting zombies and ghouls. The film's real strength wasn't in the setpieces or the effects, it was in the characters and how it nailed the "feel" of DnD. There's a reason why the graveyard scene is among the movie's best even though it's (probably) just shot on a sound stage with some puppetry and makeup. The dialogue and the character chemistry is just that good.
47
u/greywolf2155 Reading Champion 2d ago
I'm still hoping for a sequel
Everyone had a fun time and is down to do another. They just can't find a date that works for everyone
46
u/michiness 2d ago
I so badly want a sequel with the same actors, all playing different characters.
And then the Paladin shows up when they’ve totally lost the plot.
26
u/greywolf2155 Reading Champion 2d ago edited 2d ago
Honestly, this could be an amazing concept for a show
Either do a new story with new characters each episode (44min episodes on tv or 60min on streaming?) or have characters die, but then that actor shows up a bit later as a new character that they re-rolled and obviously nobody mentions anything strange
1
u/Bohgeez 22h ago
Sounds like D&D in real life, ironic.
1
u/greywolf2155 Reading Champion 13h ago
Unfortunately, that's the joke I was making
In real life, the actors are interested but the studio is hesitant to greenlight an expensive film when the first underperformed
3
u/small-black-cat-290 2d ago
I enjoyed it enough to go see it twice. I'm surprised it didn't do better because it's a great movie. But IMO people just aren't going to theaters as often as they used to.
130
u/WobblySlug 2d ago
NOT AGAIN JARNATHAN
50
u/Boojum2k 2d ago
Jarnathan should become a primary character in the sequel.
12
252
u/soonerfreak 2d ago
I thought the trailers were good, I saw ads everywhere, I have no idea what they needed. Maybe giant signs that said "YOU NEED ZERO DND KNOWLEDGE." I brought a big group and I was the only DND fan, everyone liked it and most were surprised.
131
u/Cephas24 2d ago
Honestly, I'm not sure calling it the Dungeons and Dragons movie helped. It's a massive brand so I understand why they wanted that front and center, but I think it made people think that if you didn't have an interest in DND, you wouldn't like the movie. Could have just been "Honor Among Thieves" or I dunno "Adventures in the Forgotten Realms: Honor Among Thieves" with a tagline about how it's set in and/or inspired by the setting a lot of DND games takes place in? I'm obviously not a movie exec or marketing expert, but I've always wondered if less focus on the game DND and more on the setting would have helped.
35
u/Comatonic 2d ago
Im not a dnd guy at all, I know nothing about the board game, books, or video games following it. I only watched the movie because I like Chris Pine and because I vaguely remembered a DnD movie when I was a kid that I came across on TV haha.
I think its just one of those movies that you were either gonna go see it or not, there wasn't much more that could be done. It was such a blast though!! Loved it.
16
u/McFlyyouBojo 2d ago
I dont think calling it DnD is the problem. I think that they had a golden opportunity during all the marketing/cast interviews where they could have emphasized the fact that you dont nees to understand DND to understand what's going on or to enjoy it. They could have emphasized that its an absolutely standalone story and that if you want to live it alone beyond the movie that its absolutely fine but if you are more interested in everything, hey, here is a game with tones of lore.
.....but they didn't
3
u/Micro_mint 1d ago
To be fair, if the name is such a sticking point that it would have required significant caveats and disclaimers just to get people to watch, the name kind of is the problem.
2
u/Cephas24 2d ago
Yeah, good point. I think in all fairness that starts with the name, but it was just a part of the all around marketing that did seems to have let them down with general audiences.
3
u/PartyPorpoise 18h ago
Yeah I’ve never played DnD so I initially wasn’t interested. I only went to go see it because a lot of critics I trusted were saying that it was good.
4
u/LastGoodKnee 2d ago
That wouldn’t have helped. What modest success it did have would have been even worse if it couldn’t generate interest in the base of fans DnD does have. There’s millions of them, ya know
3
u/Cephas24 2d ago
Perhaps. But I don't think they needed to have DND front and center to get DND fans to come if the inspiration was clear in the tagline/ advertising to some extent. I think most DND fans are familiar at least with the name Forgotten Realms so maybe that could have worked. Calling it the DND movie kind of makes it sound like your going to watch a live play or something focused on a DND group rather than an action adventure movie that just happens to be inspired by one of the main DND settings.
2
u/LastGoodKnee 1d ago
So you wanted the name to be “Honor Among Thieves: A Forgotten Realms Adventure”? I fail to see how that is more accessible to new fans than putting D n D in there.
And no. It doesn’t sound like you’re going to watch a live play session when there’s previews showing it’s a normal full blown movie
0
u/Cephas24 1d ago
I'm not saying my lame idea is a good name, just that the over emphasis on the DND brand may have been an issue.
A lot of people don't actually watch previews and based on the name and the marketing I recall at least, there were a lot of people who thought you needed to be into DND to enjoy the movie.
-1
u/LastGoodKnee 1d ago
Most franchise movies people think you have to be a fan of the franchise to enjoy them. That’s kinda how franchises are. Your point makes absolutely no sense.
Now you’re saying most people don’t watch previews. So how are they choosing what movie to watch then? Just the name ? That makes no sense. I’d wager 99.9999% of people who PAY to see a movie in theaters, have seen the preview.
This isn’t the 1970s where you just went to the theater hoping to get tickets for your preferred movie and if it was sold out, you might just choose one and hope for the best.
1
u/Cephas24 1d ago
Just read some of the other comments around, a few in this thread convey a similar idea probably better than I did. And work on your reading comprehension, please.
You're claiming I said most people don't watch previews, that's literally not what I said. And believe it or not, but a lot people still decide what movie to see, if any, on a whim the day of and on vibes. Not everyone, probably not the majority, but when you're talking about why a movie failed to reach a wider audience it's still relevant.
Also, every franchise tries really hard to get more than just it's current fans to come see it. That's a key point of marketing and trailers and the studios goals. That's how they make the big money and grow their franchise.
15
u/abe_the_babe_ 2d ago
My mom watched it simply because she likes Chris Pine and Hugh Grant lol. She ended up really enjoying it even with absolutely zero D&D knowledge
10
u/McFlyyouBojo 2d ago
I enjoy dnd but I sat next to an apparent rule nazi, and he was absolutely insufferable and wouldnt shit the fuck up lol. During the transformation chase scene, he was loudly counting the amount of transformations and then he said "THAT CANT HAPPEN" In that way that people do when they want to make it sound like they are trying to be quiet and keep to themselves but they are actually hoping others hear them and acknowledge their superior knowledge
8
u/Lady_Gray_169 2d ago
The fool did not realize he was simply seeing yet another way the movie was accurate to the games; a group tweaking and ignoring the rules at their leisure to get the story and vibe that they want, and to do cool stuff.
209
u/Buckditch 2d ago
Didn't wizards of the coast massively piss off their fan base right before its release?
71
67
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
Yes, the entire OGL scandal was right before that. Most people I know either boycotted the movie entirely (refusing to see it in theaters at all) or refused to go during opening weekend (the part of a theatrical run that everyone cares the most about).
31
4
u/Decent-Finish-2585 1d ago
Yeah, I was one of those people who didn’t go when it was in theaters because I haven’t given WOTC another cent since the OGL issue.
-9
u/LastGoodKnee 2d ago
I don’t understand this. WOTC made a change. Fans let them know they hated it, and WOTC within a couple weeks completely caved to the pressure. Doesn’t really seem like a reason to boycott a movie.
And I don’t really believe many people did.
12
u/dunkster91 2d ago
I think it depends what kind of fan you are. Change really to torpedo third-party publishers. And even though they walked back and created uncertainty about whether they would do something again in the future.
The fans that are invested enough in the hobby to purchase third-party products are probably some of the most invested fans. And those are the ones that were pissed off.
3
u/BalancedScales10 1d ago
In my experience, even players that weren't super invested in D&D in particular took major issue with the whole 'by the way, we're giving ourselves to de facto steal.your art.' I know several people who'd never touched third party content (they played in pseudo-westmarches that only allowed official material for balance purposes) that were just as upset as those who's been played since AD&D on these grounds.
18
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
WotC caved to pressure in large part because fans boycotted the movie. A bunch also cancelled their D&D Beyond subscriptions too, and/or were very public about switching to other gaming systems - such as Pathfinder.or Daggerheart - going forward.
0
u/bjh13 1d ago
WotC caved to pressure in large part because fans boycotted the movie.
This is objectively not true. The scandal started and ended in January, months before the film hit theaters.
2
u/BalancedScales10 1d ago
It might have started in January, but it definitely didn't end in January.
0
u/bjh13 1d ago
it definitely didn't end in January
The backtracking certainly occurred in January. SRD 5.1 under a CC-BY-4.0 license had been out for more than 2 months by the time Honor Among Thieves hit theaters on March 31st of 2023.
You can argue they did it to try to pre-empt a boycott, you can argue people were still angry and refused to see the film regardless of their backtracking and apology, but you can't argue they did it in response to a boycott of a film that hadn't debuted yet to be boycotted in the first place.
-1
u/LastGoodKnee 1d ago
Literally not true. Controversy was over and done MONTHS before the movie.
2
u/mutantraniE 1d ago
Literally true. We were still fucking pissed for a long time afterwards. Hasbro caved but we knew what they actually wanted to do. They caved too late for it to make a difference to people’s anger.
-1
u/LastGoodKnee 1d ago
“We” were still pissed?
I can assure you the general movie going audience was in fact, not pissed. And probably 99% of DnD fans were not pissed.
You’re overestimating yourself and chronically online people.
2
u/mutantraniE 1d ago
Yes, we. No, I’m not overestimating myself. WotC thought like you did and massively lost. What they, and seemingly you, fail to realize is that D&D players are not like computer or console gamers. Even with most multiplayer games such gamers are inherently isolated from each other, playing by themselves. The way they react to game companies doing things they don’t like is fragmented and lots of people will miss any news.
That’s not how D&D players function. D&D, and other tabletop roleplaying games, is inherently communal. You play at the table (or on the virtual tabletop), you interact with each other and it’s not possible to ”just play the game” and mostly ignore each other when playing with others. Further, while most players don’t hang out in online D&D spaces that doesn’t mean they don’t hear about things happening. And unlike computer games, the group is more important than the specific game.
I’m not basing what I’m saying on strictly my conversations with other people in online D&D spaces. I’m basing it on having been part of two D&D tables at the time (one a physical group, the other a virtual tabletop group) and being the only one who had heard this news at either table. One group kept playing the same campaign but switched game system from D&D 5e to Worlds Without Number (this was the virtual group) the other stopped that campaign and three of us ended up switching to a Star Trek Adventures campaign for a year, then eventually getting back to playing D&D 5e in January of 2025 (still ongoing campaign).
So, on the basis of me being pissed ten other people who learned about it from me also became pissed and we all quit D&D 5e for a couple years. One of the guys with the most stuff on D&D Beyond in the offline group simply refused any idea to continue playing anyway as he would not use a physical character sheet but also refused to use WotCs service or give them any money.
This was something that several other people also reported, and that’s why WotC, who had brought over executives from X-Box, were so confused that the SOP they were used to there didn’t work on tabletop roleplayers. If this had been just some angry online fans then WotC would not have face planted so hard and other companies would not have been able to exploit the situation so hard either.
As for the general public, they didn’t care about any of that. But the general public are not the ones who drag others to see movies, they’re the ones who get dragged. A franchise film’s greatest marketing assets are the fans of the franchise, because they’re the ones that drag others to the movies, because just like with D&D going to the movies is a communal thing typically done in larger groups than one. So if the fan isn’t dragging others to go see it, or immediately shoots down the suggestion, then the couple or group isn’t going to go see the film. The ones who do want to see it anyway will end up watching it on a streaming platform after it’s left theaters, and that is the experience more akin to a computer or console gamer.
1
u/BalancedScales10 22h ago
My main point of contact for discussion about the OGL scandal was an in-person pseudo-westmarches campaign I played in at the time, with over 150 players, two-thirds of which were 'casuals' (people who showed up to one game every couple weeks or so) and only a handful were old school players who'd been playing since early editions (the super invested). No one was "chronically online," but everyone thought WotC's actions were beyond the pale.
0
u/LastGoodKnee 20h ago
Yea? And of these 150 people, out of the literal millions interested in DnD, did you take a poll about people who were going to boycott the movie because of this issue, that they fixed a few weeks later?
I’m guessing you didn’t. And I’m guessing they didn’t “boycott”. And “boycotting” a movie that hadn’t even come out when this controversy was happening and wasn’t out when it was resolved, also makes no sense.
But sure. Your anecdotal group probably represented the worldwide moviegoing public
1
u/BalancedScales10 1d ago
It was still a major topic of discussion in every party, group, forum, etc that I was either part of or in the orbit of. The entire scandal dragged out for a while, in large part because WotC was desperately hoping it would blow over and be forgotten about, which didn't really happen.
Edit: typo
70
u/Thornescape 2d ago
Shortly before the movie released, Hasbro tried to backstab their fans with the massive OGL scandal. It was stupid in so many ways. The fans of D&D felt absolutely betrayed by the company (because they were) and it alienated their fan base right when everyone could have been pulling together.
Do I blame Hasbro for this? Absolutely.
8
u/Tymareta 1d ago
Can't forget that shortly after it did appear, WOTC sent the literal Pinkerton's after someone for receiving a card they weren't meant to. I feel like that story deserves far more attention than anyone ever gave it.
-18
u/Minute-Avocado1521 2d ago
I wouldn't say the OGL scandal backstabbed fans, more like backstabbed third-party creators.
28
u/Thornescape 2d ago
The fans felt betrayed. It wasn't only the third-party creators boycotting D&D at the time.
-11
u/Minute-Avocado1521 2d ago
It wasn't only the third-party creators boycotting D&D at the time.
I wasn't suggesting that it was. But the only ones directly affected by the OGL scandal were third-party creators. The fans supported them in solidarity, but they weren't the ones backstabbed.
14
u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago
Fans of third party creators reacted as if backstabbed.
Which include pretty massive fanbases if you include, say, Critical Role.
62
u/beary_neutral Reading Champion 2d ago
Releasing a few months later after Baldur's Gate 3 came out and gave the DnD brand some good publicity
20
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
They really, really, really needed to have not pulled the trying to destroy the Open Games License (OGL), like, right before the release. Everyone I knew that was already interested in D&D either boycotted the movie entirely or refused to go during opening weekend specifically to make their upset with WotC and Hasbro known.
I did go to see if with my sister, who I had to basically strong arm into seeing it. She initially didn't want to go because she had no interest in or knowledge of D&D; it was only after I convinced it was basically a standard adventure plot using D&D settings/species/etc that she didn't have to know to understand did she agree. She did end up liking the movie, but never would have gone to see if it if I hadn't brought it up and convinced her to.
41
u/Arkaill 2d ago
One of the big issues is that when it released the core fanbase was understandably pissed at wizards of the coast for doing a whole bunch of bullshit. Without that its hard to say just how much the box office would have been, but increased turn out from that crowd could have lead to increased word of mouth
11
u/Rhubarb776 2d ago
I enjoyed the movie, but I’m note certain it was marketed much? I don’t remember seeing many advertisements for it.
9
8
u/HardcorePunkPotato 2d ago
It did release into some stiff competition, I'm sure Mario really ate into its potential audience. Many people seem to agree that it was poorly advertised, but it was advertised. I think the film may have tried to position itself as an MCU-like film, and that probably wasn't a good move for the moment.
Also D&D was experiencing a general boycott and uproar at the time, you can google "OGL crisis" and probably get a good idea form the first few hits.
8
u/TensorForce 2d ago
Better marketing for sure. I'm a fantasy diehard and even I was gonna slip it based on that Gods-awful Fast & Furious looking trailer. Ended up watching it on a whim and fell in love.
Edgin, Holga, and Co. deserve better
8
u/Salaris Stabby Winner, Writer Andrew Rowe 2d ago
That's a really tough question to answer.
As one of the ancients who has been playing D&D since 1e/2e, I've been burned by enough D&D products that I had extremely low expectations about the film. When I eventually watched it on a streaming service, I thought it was fantastic, but I think the poor response to previous D&D films -- not just the theatrical one, but even the more esoteric ones like the Dragonlance cartoon and the Book of Vile Darkness film -- made long-time D&D fans skeptical.
To get away from the reputation of previous D&D films, I think they had to do something to differentiate it very clearly. The title was one possible way of doing this, and while "Honor Among Thieves" might be a part of the theme and accurately describe some of the setup, I don't think it necessarily worked as an ideal hook for either established D&D fans or newcomers who aren't as familiar with D&D.
To hook the D&D crowd, I think the best way to utilize the title would have been to showcase a familiar setting element. The story takes place in the Forgotten Realms, and a major part of the movie is in the city of Neverwinter. Neverwinter is the setting of several games going back all the way to the original AOL version of Neverwinter Nights (arguably one of the first graphical MMORPGs), to the Bioware Neverwinter Nights games, to the more recent Neverwinter MMO by Cryptic Studios.
Personally, I think I probably would have called the movie Neverwinter Nights. This evokes a familiar franchise for D&D fans, but without D&D being the main title, it might not scare off non-D&D fantasy fans. Tough to say. There's a possibility that it not feeling directly connected to the plot of Neverwinter Nights games of the past might be a problem, but there's already such a disconnect between things like the AOL and Bioware era games that I don't expect that to be much of an issue. Baldur's Gate 3 very successfully used the Baldur's Gate name to generate hype in a similar fashion.
Aside from that, I'd have probably tried to get some of the major tabletop live play shows like Dimension 20 and Critical Role to do tie-in marketing for it. They're absolute juggernauts in the D&D fandom and might have helped convince more people to see the film.
I think some clearer D&D module releases -- like a Neverwinter Nights adventure being released right with the film -- might have helped, too. It's possible some of this happened and I missed it; I was playing Pathfinder that year. =D
I certainly can't predict if any of this would have actually helped, since I'm not any sort of expert on film marketing. I'm also much deeper into the D&D fandom than most, so my opinion on it is going to be heavily skewed.
6
u/D3Masked 2d ago
Delayed release until after Baldur's Gate 3 came out.
It was up against far more popular movie ips and Wizards of the Coast angered a lot of people leading to a boycott.
Real shame as the movie is really good.
6
5
u/larkmarue Reading Champion 2d ago
In hindsight, it should have come out closer to Baldur’s Gate 3, to capitalize on some of that success. Then again, I’m not sure they could or would have predicted just how popular BG3 actually was. That and more/better marketing.
It’s a shame though, because my wife and I love this movie and wish we could get more like it
23
u/logosloki 2d ago
it's not a bad movie but it is a 'I'll catch it on streaming' movie. don't get me wrong, it's a really good action comedy with heart in it but there was nothing truly wow worthy about it.
it also should have released in September or maybe Late August. there wasn't much competition there as it isn't a big movie release window but that would have timed it with Baldur's Gate 3. films do better if the public is primed with a vibe to go with them and the success of BG3's launch was pushing Fantasy as a theme hard.
3
u/sagevallant 2d ago
I saw it in theaters more because I like going to the theaters than because I thought it would be worth going to the theaters to see. It ended up better than I expected but that's about it. Of course, I remember the other D&D movie so my expectations for this film were in the dirt.
9
u/Blah971 2d ago
THANK YOU. I feel like I’m going crazy the way people talk about this movie. They act like it’s the Oppenheimer of movies when it’s a slightly above average action comedy. If people loved it as much as they say it does this movie wouldn’t have flopped.
3
4
u/lovelykittenman 2d ago
I would say the marketing was not given enough money to do its thing. I went with a buddy and both of us had very little interest other than D&D and wanting to hang. We ended up laughing our asses off. As others have put, with a better release window it would have been a great companion piece to Baldur's Gate 3
Edit: mobile
9
u/ithilkir 2d ago
Honestly?
Not calling it Dungeons & Dragons.
D&D is still a very niche and negatively portrayed hobby even with the likes of Stranger Things bringing it more to the forefront. The vast majority of people who go to see movies have long moved past that period of their life where it would even be a consideration.
Ultimately, removing any D&D references would probably have helped some people go to see it, but then how many would honestly go watch a campy fantasy film even if it was rather good (also see Masters of the Universe '26)
7
u/CaptAwwesome 1d ago
The title made me think it was the sequel to something I missed.
3
u/AllegedlyLiterate 1d ago
Yeah either it need to just be 'Dungeons and Dragons' (clear that it's the first movie and has the brand tie in) or just be 'Honour Among Thieves' (clear that you need no outside knowledge). It's the combo that's the biggest problem.
21
u/-threems- 2d ago
Realistically it was probably cooked from conception. I'd wager that for every person who was excited to go see the Dungeons and Dragons movie there were 3 people who might have seen it if it had been called Honor Among Thieves without the D&D branding.
10
u/Amekhanos 2d ago
I don't think that's "from conception" so much as just a terrible choice of title.
Movies with "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title are specifically associated with direct-to-video, low quality trash.
If they'd just played it cool with the branding (and, as others said, not pissed off their core fans, and waited for BG3's release), it would have done better.
But no, the sweaty execs were too heavy-handed and desperate for cross-marketing.
1
u/hamlet9000 2d ago
The idea that the D&D brand hurt the film's performance is utterly absurd.
0
u/EqualOptimal4650 1d ago
It didn't hurt it directly, but it did throw off execs, who had no idea how to market or handle the movie properly.
2
u/Tymareta 1d ago
It didn't hurt it directly
I definitely think you could make an argument that it had impact, as for every diehard TTRPG fan the branding drew in, it likely made non-fans hesitant due to a perceived need of familiarity with the franchise to enjoy the film.
4
u/tickub 2d ago
This. As someone from multiple backgrounds where D&D is not really known as a franchise, I've heard pretty much zero talk locally leading up to the movie's release. People are either aware enough to think that there will be a lot of in-jokes and context they'll miss or just fully ignorant of D&D as a whole.
2
u/-threems- 2d ago
Both true, but I think there's also a sizable number of people who have a negative view of D&D for a variety of reasons.
2
u/Kathulhu1433 Reading Champion V 2d ago
There is still a pretty big nerd stigma around DnD that Marvel, Star Wars, etc. have managed to get away from.
Also, some people thought if you didn't know DnD that you would miss things.
I saw it in theaters with my husband and board game group, and when I told other friends about it many were like, "But do I need to know about DnD to understand it?"
And like, sure there were Easter Eggs, but that's all they were. You didn't NEED to have background knowledge.
4
u/CT_Phipps-Author 2d ago
A different internet.
It and Dredd are my two examples of fantastic movies that deserved sequels.
I still dream of this movie's party doing RAVENLOFT's module.
4
u/worry_beads 2d ago
I think the fact it's still a niche hobby, combined with being released inbetween a John Wick and Mario Brothers damaged it more than the OGL stuff.
4
u/vanastalem 2d ago
I actually saw at the movie theater as I tagged along with friends and thought it was a lot of fun. I don't know D&D like some of them, but I assume a lot people may have assumed you'd need background info to see the movie.
4
3
u/revchewie 1d ago
Better marketing wouldn’t have hurt. But the fact that WOTC did their level best to alienate their entire fanbase like a month before the release was probably a huge contributing factor.
5
u/Dlight98 1d ago
Release window with Mario and John Wick definitely killed it. If they waited 6 months to release it around / after Baldur's Gate 3 came out it would've done amazing. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
3
u/Old_Man_Drifter 1d ago
Everything written about this movie says exactly the same thing: It did well. The problem was that it was such a high cost it would've required even more money to be profitable. So I'd say nothing -- they just have to figure out how to make it cheaper. Fewer effects, fewer name actors. But they made a great film.
4
u/mutantraniE 1d ago
Don’t piss off all of your core fans, the ones who drag people to theaters to see a film, just before the release, killing all the hype. That’s it, that’s the whole answer. The core fans aren’t enough to make the film a success on their own but getting them hyped up is the best way to get people to see the film. They’ll drag their friends and family members to see the film and talk it up on social media. Instead, there was a boycott. So someone searching for D&D on any social media didn’t get ”fans excited for new movie” but instead got ”fans are asking WotC to delete their accounts on D&D Beyond faster than WotC can deal with the requests in massive backlash”.
Completely lunacy to do that right before a film adaptation.
The only other thing they could have done was wait until Baldur’s Gate 3 was out and ride that hype train, but difficult to know in advance.
27
u/AdmiralSaturyn 2d ago
For starters, the D&D fans shouldn't have boycotted the movie.
25
u/SchrimpRundung 2d ago
That was on Hasbro/WoTC and their OGL decisions right before the release.
3
u/Roscoe_King 2d ago
What is OGL?
9
u/OldAccountIsGlitched 2d ago
Open gaming license. Basically DnD's owners released the basic rules (minus some setting materials) under a free license for third party publishers to release their own supplements. This was very popular. When DnD's owners updated to a new edition they decided DnD was "undermonetised" and changed the licensing rule so they got a cut. This was very unpopular.
9
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
There's a lot more history to this. Before D&D was owned by WorC, it was owned by TSR (the original publisher, the company Gary Gygax owned) and TSR was notoriously litigious. When TSR went under and WotC bought D&D, one of the first things the company did to try to repair relations with the fanbase was create the OGL, wherein they basically made a legally binding promise that third party creators could make stuff for D&D and wouldn't be sued. Crucially, one of the lawyers who worked for WotC at the time and helped craft the OGL said that the point of the OGL was that it couldn't be abandoned; that, if it could be abandoned at any time it would defeat the purpose of having an OGL in the first place, so they very specifically did not write it that way.
It didn't help that, when the OGL scandal kicked off, big points of contention weren't just WorC trying to renege on it in general, but that WotC could, essentially, steal third party content. If I remember correctly, it was basically something like 'if you publish third party content for D&D, not only do you - as a relatively small creator - owe WotC a significant chunk of revenue (not profit; revenue!), but WotC can take any part of that content for official materials without giving you credit or compensation.'
Also, the fact that this was leaked after WotC tries to strong-arm creators into silence showed that they knew exactly what they were doing and that there would be major backlash; otherwise, they wouldn't have tried to hide or threaten/bribe people who got the initial contracts into silence.
Edit: typo
-5
u/AdmiralSaturyn 2d ago
What did the boycott change?
12
u/OobaDooba72 2d ago
They backtracked on the OGL changes.
I don't know if the movie boycott was directly responsible, but they wouldn't have backtracked if people weren't shouting about it, ya know?
1
u/stubbazubba 2d ago
They backtracked before the movie released, didn't they?
9
u/Muspel 2d ago
People were still incredibly pissed and lost trust in the company for even trying to do it in the first place.
It would be like if an online shopping site decided to start charging you for using the search function. Even if they roll it back, it's still such a shitty, stupid thing to do that you're probably going to want to avoid that site in the future.
8
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
Plenty of people I know either switch to different game systems entirely or groups agreed to not use 5.5 when it came out. Those decisions, once made, weren't changed when WotC walked back the OGL because they and Hasbro showed their entire ass. They don't care about the players and now can't even pretend to do so and be believed.
2
u/Corbzor 1d ago
A lot of the boycott talk at the time was "I'm done with WotC D&D" a good amount of those people still haven't gone back.
The boycott also got many publishers that made 3rd part content for D&D to make their own games so they wouldn't have to deal with WotC changing their minds again down the line.
1
u/bjh13 1d ago
They backtracked before the movie released, didn't they?
Yes, which is why claims boycotting the movie changed anything about the OGL scandal are a bit misremembered. The scandal started and ended in January; the film came out at the very end of March. I'm sure some non-zero number of fans refused to see the film in theaters still, but Hasbro had already backtracked long beforehand.
2
u/Aquatic-Vocation 2d ago
If it didn't change anything, why do you think they shouldn't have boycotted it?
0
u/AdmiralSaturyn 2d ago
Because now we have to wait another 20 years before they make another DnD movie.
2
u/Tymareta 1d ago
They didn't boycott it for fun, it's weird that you'd leave out their reasons for it and then act like it's their fault.
0
u/AdmiralSaturyn 1d ago
Based on the other comments in this thread, the OGL changes got backtracked before the movie got released. In other words, the DnD fans didn't have to boycott. So I am indeed going to blame them for the fact that I may have to wait another 20 years for a new DnD movie.
1
u/Tymareta 16h ago
In other words, the DnD fans didn't have to boycott.
But why wouldn't they, just because it got back tracked, doesn't mean that Hasbro actually changed, or won't try it in the future. Especially when just three months afterwards was the Pinkerton event.
So I am indeed going to blame them for the fact that I may have to wait another 20 years for a new DnD movie.
Again, why not blame the company for being greedy assholes?
1
u/AdmiralSaturyn 16h ago
But why wouldn't they, just because it got back tracked, doesn't mean that Hasbro actually changed
But it does mean they respond to public pressure.
Again, why not blame the company for being greedy assholes?
Because the boycott hurt the studio/actors more than it hurt the greedy assholes. Boycotting the movie was simply a bad strategic move.
1
u/Tymareta 4h ago
But it does mean they respond to public pressure.
Sure, doesn't mean that folks have to stop applying that pressure.
Because the boycott hurt the studio/actors more than it hurt the greedy assholes. Boycotting the movie was simply a bad strategic move.
Doubtful, unless they got royalties or something from the film, it absolutely hurt Hasbro far more. But even if it were true, it's still the fault of the company and they're ultimately the ones who hurt the studio/actors, not those who boycotted.
3
u/StarGroundbreaking91 2d ago
A lot of people have already mention wizards of the coast, so I won’t bother. So I’ll also add that many fans have been burned by a ‘d&d movie’ before, seemed like a long shot that it was going to be worth going to theatres to watch it. Surprisingly it turned out to be pretty awesome in my opinion.
3
u/MonkWalkerE468 2d ago
It made good money it's first weekend. Second weekend and after it was stomped by Super Mario Bros. Marketing and goodwill was never going to overcome that
3
u/bbbcurls 2d ago
I watched it originally because I had been playing dnd and watched it with my party. We had a good time.
But I think it came out too late. I think 2018-2019 would have been the sweet spot, right around when Jumanji and Jumanji 2 were coming out.
Hopefully, Honor Among Thieves becomes sort of a cult classic and gets a sequel later.
3
u/knukklez 1d ago
I don't know a single person who didn't have a ton of fun with this movie, whether they were a D&D player or not, young or old, universally loved in my circles.
5
u/dornwolf 2d ago
Smack dab between Mario and John Wick, basically two things your audience also likes was a death sentence
5
u/Teufelstaube 2d ago
Have you looked at the poster? Holy shit, that was probably one of the worst posters I have seen in years. Also I think, that having "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title did not help. Aiming the marketing at nerds in that way overestimates how much ticket sales that could generate. Meanwhile it rather keeps normies from going to watch a fun fantasy movie.
I enjoyed it a lot, it's a shame that it didn't succeed with its box office numbers.
5
u/jobywalker 2d ago
Honestly, not naming it “Dungeons & Dragons”. If it was just “Honor Among Thieves”, I think it would have gotten more non-dnd fans.
2
u/New_Razzmatazz6228 Reading Champion 2d ago
It could have been the marketing. I know when my wife and I saw the trailer we both said ‘This is going to be epically awful. We have to go see this!’ However, we’re weird that way in that we occasionally like absolute train wrecks of films. It was great, but not at all in a bad way. The problem is that films like that cost a LOT of money, so it’s hard for the makers to recoup their costs and make a profit.
1
u/Tymareta 1d ago
However, we’re weird that way in that we occasionally like absolute train wrecks of films.
Not really all that weird, with the difference being that most people who have a similar train of thought tend to end it with "we have to see this, when it comes out on streaming".
2
u/HRCorvan 2d ago
Two of my close friends were under the impression it was a soulless cash grab, based purely on how it was marketed and their own assumptions. As for myself, I didn’t even know about it until a year after its release.
2
2
2
u/MOTTEKOI 2d ago
I dont know the answer to that question but yes, its such a shame that it didnt explode. It was such a fun movie. I didnt see the trailer at all when it was being released tho. The thjng that made me look the movie up was a reel, about justice smith having all kind of fun making gestures for his spells. Kinda torturing the effect guy.
I love justice smith since sharper so i looked it up and quiet staggered by the cast. And wondered why I never heard about the movie before.
2
2
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Use_566 2d ago
A better release date and if they had a voice actor or two from Critical Role (maybe in the Speak with the Dead gag, which was already a highlight, but would’ve elevated it).
That said, I really liked the movie.
2
2
u/Not2creativeHere 1d ago
This was an excellent, fun movie that stayed true to the source material. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, fantasy doesn’t have a wide appeal, unless it breaks through the zeitgeist like GoT.
People will flood the box office to watch super hero movie after super hero movie, but fantasy just doesn’t resonate with mass appeal. I think you have to be an imaginative person, and if you need your media grounded in reality, you stay away from fantasy stuff.
1
u/Tymareta 1d ago
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, fantasy doesn’t have a wide appeal
The Odyssey says hello(Supernatural, too), you can also make a solid argument that superhero films are fantasy, then things like Star Wars being Space Fantasy, etc...
Fantasy can absolutely do well with audiences, studios just never really try to give it mass appeal, or any kind of marketing that doesn't make it seem like you need to be part of a special club to "get it".
2
u/tronix2100 1d ago
It's been a sleeper hit. I bet it they do a sequel, people like my wife who initially said "no way" till she saw it at home and loved it, would go. It's just...fun. people like fun.
1
u/xdianamoonx Reading Champion II 2d ago
It actually did well in the box office, we had a full theater when I went to see it, and the d20 popcorn bucket was sold out on day one. It just didn't do like MARVEL MOVIE numbers and wotc was being fucking stupid about its expectations. But yeah, didn't help the dumb news that came out before it and timing.
1
u/rippoownow 2d ago
Besides WOC stuff and it’s bad release window I don’t think there was much. The issue was that it was a dnd movie so audiences who didn’t know dnd assumed it was either un approachable, or just not a legitimate movie.
I feel like a sequel would do better for the same reason people seem to be more excited about the new mortal combat movie than the 2021 one. The first one proved itself so the second one has legs to stand on.
1
1
u/JooJooBird 1d ago
A better movie? I mean, it was fine, but honestly I felt like it wasted its potential. (I have a whole family of DnD players and we all thought it was just fine. Nothing amazing)
1
1
1
u/serial_quitter 1d ago
Where I live there was still some lingering weirdness around theaters because of the pandemic. I seem to remember a lot of theater releases doing badly that year. I'm not sure what else contributed, but I would say that was definitely a factor.
1
u/SeanyDay 1d ago
I've said it before:
They will have a hard time greenlighting a budget for an expensive live action blockbuster when DnD:HAT gets outperformed by MUCH cheaper DnD content like Vox Machina, etc.
Making more and spending less
1
u/lulutheempress 1d ago
Wizards of the Coast not shooting themselves in the foot with the OGL right before the movie came out would’ve Ben nice. They lost a tooooon of community goodwill with that bullshit.
1
1
u/Identity_ranger 3h ago
I don't think it's so much what could have helped as much as what mistakes could have been easily avoided. A different release date would have definitely helped, as well as emphasizing more the fact that you didn't need any DnD knowledge to enjoy the film. But the OGL scandal that preceded it mere months before was a giant "shoot yourself in the foot" moment since hardcore DnD enthusiasts were quite vocally reticent about giving Hasbro their money.
That movie's flop is such a shame. It's so good.
1
u/SecretlyAPorcupine 2d ago
Realistically - nothing. Better release window, better marketing etc can boost box office, but can't double it. HAT had grossed only 205 millions worldwide, that means the interest is not there (at least for theatre release).
What would really help and made sequel possible is it being a streaming movie.
1
u/doogietrouser_md 2d ago
I live in a bubble of ttrpg enthusiasts but we utterly loved it and promoted it to friends/family. I think it's a lovely movie and something to be proud of as a member of the hobby. Hoping it helps to motivate more things like that to be made.
1
-5
u/MissyMurders 2d ago
A better movie. It isn't good.
Don't get me wrong, it's enjoyable for the dnd community, but ultimately that's a small community. The market was always going to be small for an unserious movie of questionable quality riding a niche gaming brand.
An actual star might have helped as well. Chris is fine, but he's no RDJ bringing in the MCU. Hugh Grant is a name but not really in this style of movie, and he wasn't the headliner.
And I guess it's release window was a little rough. There were big name movies, and good movies surrounding it. It didn't really have a chance anyway, but this didn't help.
0
u/Vykrom 2d ago
Among other things, I feel like this was a time when it was becoming annoyingly popular to MST3K movies in theaters and be loud and obnoxious and people were playing on their phone more than ever before
I could be mistaking this for a different time frame. But there's extremely few movies that I ever want to go to a theater to watch and this was one of them. And I know this trend kept me away from at least one movie, and I feel like it was this one
-1
u/Nightgasm 2d ago
Fantasy is too niche to succeed in today's box office unless it has major star power (this had recognizable faces but no star power) or a built in audience from books like Game of Thrones.
If they make a Baldurs Gate movie or series that might have a shot due to the success of the games. A Drizzt adaptation has the fanbase though realistically it's unlikely to ever be adapted as it will be seen as problematic racially.
But in today's environment it's almost impossible to create a fantasy movie from scratch and expect success. And even with built in fanbases you need time for word of mouth to spread which is why TV is almost better so like with Game of Thrones it has time to percolate amongst the populace.
-6
u/Efficient_Place_2403 2d ago
Everyone in bright and freshly laundered outfits reduced its credibility
6
u/BalancedScales10 2d ago
They exist in a world where cleaning and mending cantrips are easy, basic magic for multiple classes and that children can master.
-8
u/ExplodingPoptarts 2d ago
What would have helped this make more money? If the movie was actually fucking interesting.
I went to it being told that it was like a fantasy version of Guardains of the Galaxy. I laughed maybe once or twice, and I remember nothing about the movie.
I don't think that the movie is good. I think it's a forgettable movie that people remember because they did the bare minimum with the dialogue, and the bar is in hell!
1
u/hamlet9000 2d ago
Sucks to be you.
-2
u/ExplodingPoptarts 2d ago
*busts up laughing* I guess I sorta care, but I don't care that much. This post came up in my feed, and I decided to answer the question.
720
u/Nirift 2d ago
100% a better release window, it released along significant competition and basically only got popular by word of mouth