# Dungeons and Dragons Movie Rights go to trial



## Umbran (Sep 12, 2014)

Next week (September 16th, to be precise) the case of who actually holds the movie rights to D&D goes to court.

Interestingly, the case is a bit more interesting than just to fans.  It has the possibility of defining what qualifies as a "sequel", and whether development of a script before you own the rights qualifies as copyright infringement....


_Hasbro contends the TV films don't qualify as true sequels. The plaintiff points to the basic fact that the third D&D movie doesn't have characters and plots that flowed from the prior films. Plus, as one of the company's trial briefs put it, "It is unheard of for the producer to have the right to retroactively extend its theatrical motion production rights by starting production of a television motion picture."

Sweetpea points to evidence supporting the theory that The Book of Vile Darkness is a sequel: the film's $2.5 million budget, more than a typical made-for-TV movie; that it was submitted to the MPAA for a rating in hopes of a theatrical release; that it originally contained TV-unfriendly nudity; that labor agreements classified it to be a "low budget theatrical" film; and most especially, that Hasbro had input and never brought forward its nonsequel argument during the project's production. As Sweetpea and Hasbro fight over how to interpret an ambiguous contract, Warners and Universal await word from their licensors about what they have the authority to do. But the case isn't merely about how to define a "sequel." It's also raised the cutting-edge legal issue about whether film projects in early development can amount to copyright infringement. This is something of interest to Hollywood at large. Universal, for example, is currently in court defending itself over Section 6, a film script about the early days of the U.K.'s spy agency MI-6. MGM and Danjaq, rights-holders of the lucrative James Bond franchise, are suing Universal for allegedly infringing the copyright to their famous spy character, while Universal demands an end to what it sees as a lawsuit over "hypothetical future infringement in works yet to be produced."_

From the Hollywood Reporter:  http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/dungeons-dragons-movie-fight-son-731444


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 12, 2014)

I'm just hoping that the rights to go a company that doesn't like Jeremy Irons.  Or Channing Tatum.  Sorry Mr. Irons.

Seriously though - can we expect a Lord of the Rings-level movie from D&D?  Or does the brand depend too much on its younger fanbase to support a serious movie?

It doesn't need a huge budget.  I watched Dragonslayer a while back and it was much better than I was expecting.  The producers need to spend money on a good screenwriter, not special effects.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Sep 12, 2014)

DMMike said:


> I'm just hoping that the rights to go acompany that doesn't like Jeremy Irons.  Or Channing Tatum.  Sorry Mr. Irons.



I'm hoping the rights go to a company that will make an actual D&D movie. It's pretty stupid to make a D&D movie and then not use anything from D&D. 



> Seriously though - can we expect a Lord of the Rings-level movie from D&D?



No   







> Or does the brand depend too much on its younger fanbase to support a serious movie?



I think that has been part of the problem. The people produing the movies seem to have decided that there is only so much money to be made from what they believ the fanbase it, so they try to keep under budget. The D&D movie with Jeremy Irons had a budget of about 45 million. It made about 15 million. They are probably afraid that there isn't a fanbase to support nig budget movies. They probably blame the epic failure of the first D&D movie on the limited fanbase instead of the abortion they paid to produce. 


> It doesn't need a huge budget.  I watched Dragonslayer a while back and it was much better than I was expecting.



I think the previous movies have lowered your expectations so much that as long as they put in less than minimal effort and make something slightly better than the previous movies, you'll feel it's a good movie.







> The producers need to spend money on a good screenwriter, not special effects.



Yeah, they need someone that knows at least a bit about Dungeons & Dragons. At least more than there are dungeons and dragons in it. They should also spend good money on special effects. It could have the greatest screen play ever written, but if the special effects make it look like some Youtube fan film, it's going to be terrible.


----------



## Quickleaf (Sep 14, 2014)

More D&D litigious shenanigans. Actually what I'm following the most about his case has little to do with D&D and more to do with the precedent that's being established.

The "contributory copyright infringement" ruling in February by US District Judge Dolly Gee has me a bit concerned. Apparently writing the spec script _Chainmail_ "even in the absence of a final script or film" by Warner Brothers constituted an infringement. 

So where do you draw the line? Are all spec scripts now infringement? What about fan fiction?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 14, 2014)

Part of the problem with the movies is that "Dungeons & Dragons" isn't anything.

Lord of the Rings is a story. D&D isn't. It's a game system.

There are elements of WotC's IP - the Dragonlance trilogies, some Drizzt novels, etc. - which could be leveraged in that manner. They don't have 1% of the brand awareness of LotR, but at least they have something to leverage.

Thus Tyranny of Dragons, etc. WotC needs brand-leverageable stories.


----------



## Kramodlog (Sep 14, 2014)

The BoVD ain't a WotC IP? It is fluff and part of the ingame universe, it is not just the name of a splat book, like Bo9S.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Part of the problem with the movies is that "Dungeons & Dragons" isn't anything.




It isn't any specific content, no.  But only a few of the movies out there sell well due to the specific story content (like LotR and the Hunger Games films).  Some sell on the *general* content (like modern superhero movies - largely new stories, but with a recognizable hook for marketing).  And still more just on it being, "Actor X's next flick, in Genre Y, Directed by Z!!!1!"

So, on that basis, having the brand, and a couple decent actors or director are the actual starting basis for a movie that will market well.  Having a specific story you're remaking seems far less important to the success of the film.

I expect the pre-emptive copyright infringement thing should (and will hopefully/probably) fail, unless the draft contained WotC IP in detail.  Copyright protects *specific* expression, not general intents.


----------



## Elven (Sep 15, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Next week (September 16th, to be precise) the case of who actually holds the movie rights to D&D goes to court.
> 
> Interestingly, the case is a bit more interesting than just to fans.  It has the possibility of defining what qualifies as a "sequel", and whether development of a script before you own the rights qualifies as copyright infringement....
> 
> ...




Thats really interesting thanks for the heads up on this,

Of course no one can really comment without knowing the details of that specific agreement,
but it seems an interesting tactic to try to claim development is infringement (which if people are being paid "and making money" off that copyright could be considered "infringement" (which is a stupid one shot trick, no one will fall for again, everything would be project X thereon)

But personal, i would like to see the toy company get it, they can't have made a worse bunch of films (and yes i do have DVDs of the first two, bought the third, watched the third, then threw the third movie away, .......so not my cup of tea......)


----------



## Morrus (Sep 15, 2014)

Umbran said:


> It isn't any specific content, no.  But only a few of the movies out there sell well due to the specific story content (like LotR and the Hunger Games films).  Some sell on the *general* content (like modern superhero movies - largely new stories, but with a recognizable hook for marketing).  And still more just on it being, "Actor X's next flick, in Genre Y, Directed by Z!!!1!"
> 
> So, on that basis, having the brand, and a couple decent actors or director are the actual starting basis for a movie that will market well.  Having a specific story you're remaking seems far less important to the success of the film.




Well, yes. I'm not sure why you opened with the word "no" and then agreed with me for two paragraphs. 

As you say (and I said) it isn't the D&D brand. It might be an actor's branding or a very clever marketing campaign, but it's not "Dungeons & Dragons" that'll sell the tickets.

Maybe one day. But someone will have to turn D&D into such a brand.


----------



## Elven (Sep 15, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Well, yes. I'm not sure why you opened with the word "no" and then agreed with me for two paragraphs.
> 
> As you say (and I said) it isn't the D&D brand. It might be an actor's branding or a very clever marketing campaign, but it's not "Dungeons & Dragons" that'll sell the tickets.
> 
> Maybe one day. But someone will have to turn D&D into such a brand.





To be fair, if you ask the general public to name a rpg, chances are it would be D&D, 
Many people have heard of the game and understand (maybe from the name alone) that its fantasy,

(this is useful to the right holders, as there will be a hole in that genre market for fantasy once the last hobbit is released, in a year or two there is the Warcrft (world of warcraft) movie, (its already finished shooting) 

That does show there is a demand for such, and starting with a known brand is a better start than none,


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Well, yes. I'm not sure why you opened with the word "no" and then agreed with me for two paragraphs.




You say, "X doesn't happen."  A reply of , "No, X doesn't happen," or "X doesn't happen, no," is a pretty common construction for agreement, Morrus.  Maybe you Brits don't use it, but it's day-to-day language here.

Anyway, I agree that it isn't representative of particular content.  But I disagree that this is a "problem", as you asserted.   



> As you say (and I said) it isn't the D&D brand. It might be an actor's branding or a very clever marketing campaign, but it's not "Dungeons & Dragons" that'll sell the tickets.




I think the D&D brand *will* sell tickets.  Having a major actor and/or director will help.  But D&D is a well-recognized brand, well beyond the players.  This is the whole point of WotC's current, "earnings of the brand, not the published rpg, are what matters," philosophy.  This approach makes no sense if the brand is not itself well recognized, and able to sell stuff.


----------



## Elven (Sep 15, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I think the D&D brand *will* sell tickets.  Having a major actor and/or director will help.  But D&D is a well-recognized brand, well beyond the players.  This is the whole point of WotC's current, "earnings of the brand, not the published rpg, are what matters," philosophy.  This approach makes no sense if the brand is not itself well recognized, and able to sell stuff.





Well, I'm sure most people know that James Cameron had shown an interest in directing the first movie,

I doubt he would go near it now due to the mess of the last dvds...


Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda,

Lament for what could have been...and say "no more, this shall not happen again"


(did you know James Mason was chosen to be James Bond first? yeah......yeah)


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 15, 2014)

Just restating the obvious, but what I see is this:  WotC knows it can make better movies than the wretched execrable stuff that Sweetpea has done.  Unfortunately, the film rights to the name of "Dungeons & Dragons" were signed away by WotC's predecessor, TSR, in a most poorly conceived contract.  TSR was never run by the worlds brightest business people (that certainly includes Gygax himself).  Definitely they were NOT smart enough to realize that when they started dealing with "Hollywood" that they were swimming with sharks and they were out of their depth.  Their legal counsel was clearly inadequate and should have drafted a FAR more limited agreement with Sweetpea.  WotC are now trying to wrest control of the NAME of their IP back from Sweetpea, who not surprisingly don't want to give up something so POTENTIALLY valuable, even if they themselves are notably talentless and lack the wherewithal to do anything with it but produce drek.  To accomplish their task WotC are willing to put forth nearly any loophole or legalistic argument that will succeed.  Once it's back under their control they can actually farm it out again to people with talent and money who can actually help them build it into a larger, singular, saleable and reliable brand.  Their only comfort is that Sweetpea's efforts past the first film have been so poor they haven't even made it to theaters.  Filmgoers tend not to notice straight-to-DVD stuff.

I would like to think that the courts will consider that the legal points they base their decision on will have ramifications far beyond this little squabble (and right now, given the value of "Dungeons & Dragons" as an ongoing movie franchise it certainly is pathetically little.)  But, even though judges are supposed to be highly intelligent they make stupid decisions all the time because in the real world LAWFUL really can be stupid.  They can base decisions not on what is sensible or equitable but on strict precedent and legalese, and damn the consequences.  It will be interesting to watch this play out.


----------



## Elven (Sep 15, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Just restating the obvious, but what I see is this:  WotC knows it can make better movies than the wretched execrable stuff that Sweetpea has done.  Unfortunately, the film rights to the name of "Dungeons & Dragons" were signed away by WotC's predecessor, TSR, in a most poorly conceived contract.  TSR was never run by the worlds brightest business people (that certainly includes Gygax himself).  Definitely they were NOT smart enough to realize that when they started dealing with "Hollywood" that they were swimming with sharks and they were out of their depth.  Their legal counsel was clearly inadequate and should have drafted a FAR more limited agreement with Sweetpea.  WotC are now trying to wrest control of the NAME of their IP back from Sweetpea, who not surprisingly don't want to give up something so POTENTIALLY valuable, even if they themselves are notably talentless and lack the wherewithal to do anything with it but produce drek.  To accomplish their task WotC are willing to put forth nearly any loophole or legalistic argument that will succeed.  Once it's back under their control they can actually farm it out again to people with talent and money who can actually help them build it into a larger, singular, saleable and reliable brand.  Their only comfort is that Sweetpea's efforts past the first film have been so poor they haven't even made it to theaters.  Filmgoers tend not to notice straight-to-DVD stuff.
> 
> I would like to think that the courts will consider that the legal points they base their decision on will have ramifications far beyond this little squabble (and right now, given the value of "Dungeons & Dragons" as an ongoing movie franchise it certainly is pathetically little.)  But, even though judges are supposed to be highly intelligent they make stupid decisions all the time because in the real world LAWFUL really can be stupid.  They can base decisions not on what is sensible or equitable but on strict precedent and legalese, and damn the consequences.  It will be interesting to watch this play out.





Sweetpea know this is worth money, best result for everyone is to settle out side of court, (basically return the brand name for a payment) because court feels etc will cost a lot of money,

Btw: its not as damning to look stupid as it is too look guilty, stupid is not always stupid, but malicious,


----------



## Umbran (Sep 15, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> WotC are now trying to wrest control of the NAME of their IP back from Sweetpea...




Small, but important correction - as I understand it, _HASBRO_ is trying to get control back - the suit against Sweetpea is by Hasbro, not WotC.   And Universal and Warner Brothers are now in the mix supporting one side or the other, as each have a stake in making a movie.

This makes it a bit more of a tussle than WotC and Sweetpea would be able to muster on their own.


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 16, 2014)

Elven said:


> To be fair, if you ask the general public to name a rpg, chances are it would be D&D



The general public in the US, yes. Here in Germany, you'd either draw a blank or get the name of one of several other rpgs, e.g. Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Das Schwarze Auge or Warhammer.

As I already mentioned in a different thread, there's now a single, exclusive distributor for the entire European region for D&D 5e. Also, it's no longer translated into any foreign languages - that stopped after the initial three 4e core books. D&D as an rpg is of no importance here and as a trademark most remembered for (old) computer games (Baldur's Gate & Neverwinter Nights) and novels (Drizz't).


----------



## Elven (Sep 16, 2014)

Jhaelen said:


> The general public in the US, yes. Here in Germany, you'd either draw a blank or get the name of one of several other rpgs, e.g. Shadowrun, Pathfinder, Das Schwarze Auge or Warhammer.
> 
> As I already mentioned in a different thread, there's now a single, exclusive distributor for the entire European region for D&D 5e. Also, it's no longer translated into any foreign languages - that stopped after the initial three 4e core books. D&D as an rpg is of no importance here and as a trademark most remembered for (old) computer games (Baldur's Gate & Neverwinter Nights) and novels (Drizz't).





But...its still remembered, and thats whats important, profile,

Look most people never heard of hellboy until the movie, that did not stop it,

I've been giving this legal situation some thought, their claim to infringement is rather shaky at best, 
but it seems to be more of a threat/ pressure point, (if they win on this approach they win big, and i doubt sweetpea will walk away as a company)
Sort of like a weak game of Russian roulette, squeeze the trigger you hear a click, okay, squeeze the trigger and boom game over,

I'm guess that sweetpea has asked for an insane amount of money for the return of this license, (in light of TMNT and Transformers,) and they got turned down, these is the kind of pressure tactic you see when they try to force an out of court option,


----------



## Elven (Sep 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Small, but important correction - as I understand it, _HASBRO_ is trying to get control back - the suit against Sweetpea is by Hasbro, not WotC.   And Universal and Warner Brothers are now in the mix supporting one side or the other, as each have a stake in making a movie.
> 
> This makes it a bit more of a tussle than WotC and Sweetpea would be able to muster on their own.




Sounds like a money grab, everyone wants a chunk of the pie,


----------



## delericho (Sep 16, 2014)

goldomark said:


> The BoVD ain't a WotC IP? It is fluff and part of the ingame universe, it is not just the name of a splat book, like Bo9S.




As I understand it, Sweetpea's license allowed them to use anything that was in a 'generic' D&D/AD&D book, but not anything setting-specific. So, the BoVD was fair game (being in the DMG), where Drizzt wouldn't be.



Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'm hoping the rights go to a company that will make an actual D&D movie.




I'm hoping that the rights go to the legally-correct company, even if that means every D&D movie from here on out is an abomination. Because, as the OP notes, this ruling may well have significant knock-on effects on rights issues generally, so it's important to get the right decision.

That said, the optimum solution is probably an out-of-court settlement - either Hasbro buy the rights back or they buy Sweetpea outright and get them that way.


----------



## Elven (Sep 16, 2014)

DMMike said:


> I'm just hoping that the rights to go a company that doesn't like Jeremy Irons.  Or Channing Tatum.  Sorry Mr. Irons.
> 
> Seriously though - can we expect a Lord of the Rings-level movie from D&D?  Or does the brand depend too much on its younger fanbase to support a serious movie?
> 
> It doesn't need a huge budget.  I watched Dragonslayer a while back and it was much better than I was expecting.  The producers need to spend money on a good screenwriter, not special effects.




I'm guessing a D&D movie would be aimed to be on par with Transformers etc, more family viewing (more booms, less talky)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2014)

Elven said:


> Sounds like a money grab, everyone wants a chunk of the pie,




Part of me hates to be snarky but... well, duh!

Nobody here is under the impression that anyone is interested in using the D&D brand in movies for moral, ethical, or charity reasons.  Of course it is about money!  This is the movie industry we're talking about!

Thing is, Sweetpea is doing a lousy job of making money with the brand.  Their movies have been crap.  Their last one couldn't even make it to the big screen.  They would be well served to hold on just long enough to get a larger settlement, and then get the heck out of the way and let someone else (hopefully, someone better driven and competent) to handle it.


----------



## Elven (Sep 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Part of me hates to be snarky but... well, duh!
> 
> Nobody here is under the impression that anyone is interested in using the D&D brand in movies for moral, ethical, or charity reasons.  Of course it is about money!  This is the movie industry we're talking about!
> 
> Thing is, Sweetpea is doing a lousy job of making money with the brand.  Their movies have been crap.  Their last one couldn't even make it to the big screen.  They would be well served to hold on just long enough to get a larger settlement, and then get the heck out of the way and let someone else (hopefully, someone better driven and competent) to handle it.




Not duh!

Most of those legal participant have no plans to make a movie, 
But they know who does, resistance = money,


----------



## Morrus (Sep 16, 2014)

Jhaelen;6384174

As I already mentioned in a different thread said:
			
		

> I don't think that's true - doesn't Esdevium distribute it in the UK? Or is that the distributor you meant?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2014)

Elven said:


> Most of those legal participant have no plans to make a movie,




There are four basic interested parties:  Sweetpea, Warner Brothers, Hasbro, and Universal.

Warner Brothers has _already paid_ about $5 million to Sweetpea for the rights to make a movie.  So, WB wants to make a movie.  Hasbro and Universal have a deal to make a movie, and gain nothing from entering in the legal battle if they don't make a movie.  So, three of the four do want a movie - which kind of kills your "most have no plans" assertion.

Sweetpea's position is a little more complicated, and depends on the details of the deal with WB.  But the cases where I imagine Sweetpea now doesn't care are still limited - if they sold all their future rights in an agreement so free and clear that they don't have to give money back even if the court rules against them, then Sweetpea doesn't really care any more.  If the deal with WB is not free and clear, or does not cover all future movies, then Sweetpea does still need a movie made, as either that $5 million depends on a movie getting made, or their rights revert to Hasbro if they fail to make a movie.

So, three parties want to make a movie.  The fourth probably does, too.  The only question is who gets to do it, and how much it'll cost them.


----------



## Elven (Sep 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> There are four basic interested parties:  Sweetpea, Warner Brothers, Hasbro, and Universal.
> 
> Warner Brothers has _already paid_ about $5 million to Sweetpea for the rights to make a movie.  So, WB wants to make a movie.  Hasbro and Universal have a deal to make a movie, and gain nothing from entering in the legal battle if they don't make a movie.  So, three of the four do want a movie - which kind of kills your "most have no plans" assertion.
> 
> ...





No, thats not how studios think or act,
To them its is just as important to stop a competitor from making money, as it is making money (its complex, but involves limited customer yearly spending, and timing issues (high earning time slots, that can be make or break a companies income)

The studios are much more cutthroat and tactical (very dirty tactics are common)

Trust me there is more than what is said going on,

its very similar to when an actor sometimes says they don't want to play a certain famous role anymore, its their justification for higher pay....


----------



## Umbran (Sep 16, 2014)

Elven said:


> Trust me there is more than what is said going on,




Without something more than flat assertion that you're correct, why should we trust your assessment?  Give us a documented case where this sort of thing happened between two studios, and maybe we might take that as a basis.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 16, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Without something more than flat assertion that you're correct, why should we trust your assessment?  Give us a documented case where this sort of thing happened between two studios, and maybe we might take that as a basis.




Documented cases?

The best documented case I have of a studio literally spending a million dollars to stop someone else from making a movie is the rarely seen Roger Corman version of Fantastic Four: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantastic_Four_(film)

There's also a good amount of documentation about the controversy surrounding Antz, A Bug's Life, and Prince of Egypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antz#Feud_between_DreamWorks_and_Pixar

Another documented example would be Kevin Costner's discouraging major studios from distributing Tombstone in favor of his movie Wyatt Earp: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyatt_Earp_(film)#Production

Obviously, none of these cases is exactly like the one D+D faces now.  But the underlying facts remain: 1. There is not a large enough market to justify multiple studios all making D+D movies.  2. Studios are not afraid to sit on IP as long as they like, and 3. Studio's can be willing to pay money to make sure no one takes IP even if they aren't currently using it.  So I have to agree with Elven; just because the case is going to court know doesn't guarantee that any D+D movie will be made in the next decade.

There's an old saying that movie executives like to talk, like to plan, and like to do lunch; the one thing they don't like to do is make movies.


----------



## trappedslider (Sep 17, 2014)

Elven said:


> its very similar to when an actor sometimes says they don't want to play a certain famous role anymore, its their justification for higher pay....




And more than likely in a lot of cases it's due to not wanting to be typed cast and just getting bored with the role


----------



## Jhaelen (Sep 17, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I don't think that's true - doesn't Esdevium distribute it in the UK? Or is that the distributor you meant?



No, I was referring to Pegasus Spiele (a German publisher). Here's a link to their news article.

Maybe I misinterpreted something, but they're stating that:
"Die fünfte Edition von Dungeons & Dragons wird veröffentlicht. Als Exklusiv-Distributor in Europa hat Pegasus Spiele die ersten Exemplare des neuen Rollenspiels an die Fachhändler verschickt."

I.e. (roughly translated):

"The fifth edition of D&D has been released. As the exclusive distributor in Europe, Pegasus Spiele has sent the first copies of the new rpg to specialty retailers."


----------



## Elven (Sep 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Without something more than flat assertion that you're correct, why should we trust your assessment?  Give us a documented case where this sort of thing happened between two studios, and maybe we might take that as a basis.




Okay, that ridiculous, (and maybe you need to get out more)
As with anything you read on the interwebs "Readers discretion is advised" 

I have a little more understanding of law, (i have family who work in law, and copyright/contract)  and an interest in the movie industry as a whole,

I could just as easy as say "prove me wrong" right?

And its a lot easier than using my limited time to scrabble around the net, just to give you proof,

I offered my insight, thats all, I didn't volunteer for interrogation,


----------



## Elven (Sep 17, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> And more than likely in a lot of cases it's due to not wanting to be typed cast and just getting bored with the role




Wouldn't say more than likely, but yes it's also common,


----------



## Morrus (Sep 17, 2014)

Jhaelen said:


> No, I was referring to Pegasus Spiele (a German publisher). Here's a link to their news article.
> 
> Maybe I misinterpreted something, but they're stating that:
> "Die fünfte Edition von Dungeons & Dragons wird veröffentlicht. Als Exklusiv-Distributor in Europa hat Pegasus Spiele die ersten Exemplare des neuen Rollenspiels an die Fachhändler verschickt."
> ...




Looks like they're telling porkies, then. Esdevium handles UK distribution.

http://www.esdeviumgames.com/about/distribution/


----------



## Umbran (Sep 17, 2014)

Elven said:


> Okay, that ridiculous, (and maybe you need to get out more)




Dude, you're new here.  Please allow me to give you some advice.  Don't make it personal.  Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  That "need to get out more" crack is kind of insulting.  Now, in other parts of the internet, maybe they let it slide.  But more often, around here, it gets a moderator's attention.

Especially when you're insulting the forum moderator himself, to his face.  Not exactly the smoothest of moves, there.

Not a huge deal this time, but I suggest you avoid that kind of approach, except with your close friends who you *know* aren't going to take offense.  



> I offered my insight, thats all, I didn't volunteer for interrogation,




You posted on an internet _discussion_ board - that includes an implicit invitation to discuss and question.


----------



## Elven (Sep 18, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Dude, you're new here.  Please allow me to give you some advice.  Don't make it personal.  Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  That "need to get out more" crack is kind of insulting.  Now, in other parts of the internet, maybe they let it slide.  But more often, around here, it gets a moderator's attention.
> 
> Especially when you're insulting the forum moderator himself, to his face.  Not exactly the smoothest of moves, there.
> 
> Not a huge deal this time, but I suggest you avoid that kind of approach, except with your close friends who you *know* aren't going to take offense.




And you need to lighten up, it wasn't meant to be an insult, (but that maybe you try being more broad minded,(and giving people the benifit of the doubt) instead of throwing assumptions)

I actual respect you as one of the more logical, and fairer Mods on the net, (true)   




Umbran said:


> You posted on an internet _discussion_ board - that includes an implicit invitation to discuss and question.




Discussion, I welcome it,
Demands, not so much.... (i have better things to do with my limited free time)
Ask, maybe, 
Demand, No


----------



## Umbran (Sep 18, 2014)

Elven said:


> And you need to lighten up, it wasn't meant to be an insult




Your intent is not required for it to be insulting.  Merely your lack of thoughtfulness.

Oh, and this repeated telling folks what they need to do (trust you, get out more, lighten up) - that's what's getting you in trouble.  You're not really in much of a position to know what others need, you know.  If you don't want to listen to my advice, that's fine.  But you'll try this approach with others, get into an argument, and then you won't have my patience on your side.



> Demands, not so much.... (i have better things to do with my limited free time)




Apparently, arguing with a moderator is one of those better things...

Interesting, though, when you look back - nobody made demands of you.  You told us to trust you.  I responded saying that we might do so if you gave some more evidence than your personal assertion.

That completely fails to be interrogation, or a demand.  So, maybe it is you who needs to lighten up, hm?  

In any case, I'm done.  Listen, or don't.  Your call.


----------



## Elven (Sep 18, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Your intent is not required for it to be insulting.  Merely your lack of thoughtfulness.
> 
> Oh, and this repeated telling folks what they need to do (trust you, get out more, lighten up) - that's what's getting you in trouble.  You're not really in much of a position to know what others need, you know.  If you don't want to listen to my advice, that's fine.  But you'll try this approach with others, get into an argument, and then you won't have my patience on your side.




What? LOL, lack of thoughtfulness?
I can not account for others assumptions, I thought that explaining motivation would clarify the misunderstanding, 

As for "You're not really in much of a position to know what others need" really? 
If i had said that to you, what would you think? insult maybe?

Measure yourself by your own standards 

I never made the claim to what "others need" (in fact i always lean towards giving others the benefit of the doubt)
So, saying "Trust me" and "lighten up"  is getting me in to trouble? (i can see the issue in "get out more" but i've already explained that)

If saying "Trust me" and "Lighten up" are instances of trouble making, maybe its not me with the problem? 
(is that not a fair statement?)





Umbran said:


> Apparently, arguing with a moderator is one of those better things...
> 
> Interesting, though, when you look back - nobody made demands of you.  You told us to trust you.  I responded saying that we might do so if you gave some more evidence than your personal assertion.
> 
> ...





Really?



Umbran said:


> Without something more than flat assertion that you're correct, why should we trust your assessment? Give us a documented case where this sort of thing happened between two studios, and maybe we might take that as a basis.




Doesn't that look like "Put up, or shut up"?

And trust me, no wait, Don't trust me, when i say i am always by default "Lightened up" (and no, thats not a drug reference,)
The stuff i do in the real world can be rather grim, posting here is the stuff i do on my free time, for fun,

When you see people here getting up set about trivia it tends to put things in sharp contrast, 
(And i have to admit the pettiness can be sometimes hard to see, maybe if they could see what else is going on in the world they wouldn't feel the need to be so petty, and remember that this is meant to be a fun hobby, we all share, is it worth serious arguing?, if so, maybe you are spoilt...)


I don't expect anyone to believe anything on the net, but I do expect someone to at least consider what I say,
Right now I have little free time, and the thought of jumping through hoops to justify what i say is not my idea of fun, 
So like anything else on the net, take or leave it, but don't try assuming (in this case the lack of validity of my posts) based on ignorance, 

I suspend judgement until i have facts, (not assumptions)
It would be nice if others did likewise,


----------



## Scorpio616 (Sep 19, 2014)

Anything that undoes any of the damage Lorraine Williams did to the D&D brand is a good thing. That  can even make Hasbro's Megacorp lawyers look like heroes.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 19, 2014)

Elven said:


> Measure yourself by your own standards




I do.  Every day. 

At this point, this is severely derailing the thread.  If you want to continue further, please take it to e-mail or PM.


----------



## Elven (Sep 19, 2014)

Scorpio616 said:


> Anything that undoes any of the damage Lorraine Williams did to the D&D brand is a good thing. That  can even make Hasbro's Megacorp lawyers look like heroes.




Thats true, she hated gamers and had little respect for D&D, (in fact it was her unreasonable demands that stopped James Cameron from making the film)

But generally I think Sweetpea did more harm,


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 25, 2014)

Trial is now over.  Here is a short article.   There may not be any decision for a while if judge wants them to try to reach a settlement agreement.  I'm not sure why they would settle now, after they have committed the $ to the trial, when they were unable to reach an agreement in the two months of negotiation before the trial.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2014)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> I'm not sure why they would settle now, after they have committed the $ to the trial, when they were unable to reach an agreement in the two months of negotiation before the trial.




Because now they have their feeling about how the trial went to inform negotiations.  "Settle now, and it might cost you less than what the Judge will do."


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Sep 25, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Because now they have their feeling about how the trial went to inform negotiations.  "Settle now, and it might cost you less than what the Judge will do."



Sure, if you had factual issues in dispute and needed to see if a witness testifies particularly well or poorly.  But here the primary issue is really a legal one of contract interpretation.  Also, the judge might give a clue on how she would rule, but the statement looked neutral.   Of course article can't cover everything from the trial, so there could have been surprises.  Maybe an expert on industry standards for what constitutes a 'sequel' flubbed on cross.  Just seems unlikely in this particular case that the risk calculation would have changed.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2014)

RedShirtNo5.1 said:


> Sure, if you had factual issues in dispute and needed to see if a witness testifies particularly well or poorly.  But here the primary issue is really a legal one of contract interpretation.




The primary *legal* issue is contract interpretation.

The primary real and practical issue for the litigants is who gets to make a movie, and how much does this whole thing cost them?

There is a secondary issue of "does development of the _Chainmail_ script constitute copyright infringement".  A settlement on that issue, even separate from making of movies, would mean the judge does not have to make a ruling on that portion of the case.  And, to be honest, I think the judge would prefer *not* to make a ruling on that.  It has far reaching implications, and unless the judge feels strongly, avoiding a precedent may not seem like a bad idea.


----------



## Jiggawatts (Sep 25, 2014)

I'm torn here, I think I would rather Hasbro have the rights to their IP back, without the copyright infringement precedent being set (I'm also one of the people who wants Marvel to get X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four back from Fox/Sony). But judging purely from a movie perspective I think I would rather watch the Chainmail movie, as from everything I heard it generated quite a positive buzz, so I cant really figure out why Hasbro passed on it. But ultimately Universal and Hasbro do not have my faith that they can make a stellar movie, Battleship was horribly atrociously bad, and I'm afraid that's exactly what a D&D movie by them would be, cheesy and stupid, just with a higher budget than the earlier cheesy and stupid D&D movies.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 26, 2014)

Jiggawatts said:


> I'm torn here, I think I would rather Hasbro have the rights to their IP back, without the copyright infringement precedent being set (I'm also one of the people who wants Marvel to get X-Men, Spider-Man, and Fantastic Four back from Fox/Sony).




I'd prefer they just dodge the copyright infringement precedent. If that has to happen, let it happen on a more clear-cut case, so the precedent has less room for interpretation.

I doubt you're the only one around here who wishes Marvel had the rights to their IP back, simply because for the most part Marvel does a better job with them.



> But judging purely from a movie perspective I think I would rather watch the Chainmail movie, as from everything I heard it generated quite a positive buzz, so I cant really figure out why Hasbro passed on it.




Scuttlebutt is that Hasbro passed on it because they wanted a better deal.  The story goes: Hasbro got into negotiations with one studio, then went to the other and said, "Hey, you know, if you can beat their offer, you can make the movie instead."  Then, having gotten that better deal, they dropped the initial negotiation.  That sent WB heading to Sweetpea...



> But ultimately Universal and Hasbro do not have my faith that they can make a stellar movie




Nobody gets complete faith.  I mean, most movies aren't very good, right?


----------



## qstor (Jul 20, 2015)

I was wondering what happened to this. The the trial ended on 10/24/2014. I know federal courts are backed up. So its just waiting for the judge to enter a decision. I checked on PACER and nothings happened in several months.


----------



## RedShirtNo5.1 (Jul 21, 2015)

qstor said:


> I was wondering what happened to this. The the trial ended on 10/24/2014. I know federal courts are backed up. So its just waiting for the judge to enter a decision. I checked on PACER and nothings happened in several months.



Trial was over at the of September, they just had post-trial motions and filing of transcripts and such.  Unfortunately I can't find any statistics on average time from trial to judgment.  But nine months does seem like a long time.  
I don't think the Judge wants to dodge the issue of whether Chainmail is an infringement; that's application of existing copyright law and standard fare for CD Ca.  My suspicion is that the judge really does not want to make a ruling regarding the "sequel" issue, since it is new law and will be a contentious issue in the industry and likely to go to the 9th circuit  But there's not even joint motion requesting further time for the parties to negotiate.


----------



## MechaPilot (Jul 21, 2015)

Elven said:


> To be fair, if you ask the general public to name a rpg, chances are it would be D&D. . .




I don't think that's the case.  Tabletop rpgs are not nearly as mainstream as video game rpgs.  I think most people when asked to name an rpg would say Final Fantasy, Legend of Zelda, Diablo, or World of Warcraft.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 22, 2015)

"Most" people still probably do not even know what "role-playing game" means. I cannot be sure as to whether D&D or WoW is more broadly known across demographics, but LoZ and Diablo are not even in the same league, and FF's potential spot at that table has more to do with the movies than the games.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 22, 2015)

WarCraft movie coming in 2016


----------



## megamania (Jul 24, 2015)

I want a proper Dragonlance movie or to keep the younger crowd happy an Eberron movie to be done.     Never happen but I'm still hoping.


----------



## Ravenwind (Jul 28, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> They probably blame the epic failure of the first D&D movie on the limited fanbase instead of the abortion they paid to produce.




I always thought that _Krull_ was the first D&D movie, but apparently that's been debunked. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085811/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv 

Proof that even with a large number of Royal Shakespeare company members and a very young Liam Neeson in the cast, you can have a film that people like me ate up as children, and absolutely _can't watch_ as adults. 

More seriously, I think that if the _Warcraft_ movie doesn't suck entirely (or, better yet, is actually _good_), that might open some doors for fantasy in Hollywood post-LoTR.


----------



## Legatus Legionis (Jul 29, 2015)

.


----------



## qstor (Aug 3, 2015)

It settled http://comicbook.com/2015/08/03/dungeons-dragons-movie-officially-announced/


----------

