# 3G: D&D Do-Overs



## Radiating Gnome (May 28, 2013)

Good Article. I saw STiD yesterday and also had a blast with it. 

There are some other examples of fun hollywood remakes that take the material and reshape it while paying homage to the original material. 21 Jump Street was like that -- I loved the show when I was a kid (don't go back and watch it now, though, just cherish the memories). The movie told a very different story, at yet found ways to get all of the original cast into the film (They only managed to get Dustin Nguyen on a TV screen, not in person, but everyone else shows up). The movie didn't take itself too seriously, had a lot of fun, and while it told a very different story, there were plenty of touchstones for the folks who came to the movie because they liked the show. 

-rg


----------



## delericho (May 28, 2013)

> I think it’s the same reason that Hollywood recycles movies…there’s a new audience.




Sadly, I don't think that's why Hollywood recycles movies. Making movies is so expensive that they simply can't afford to have a flop, and that means they're necessarily risk-averse. So we get endless sequels, or remakes, or star vehicles for Tom Cruise or Will Smith, or the latest film by some big-name director, or films based on best-selling novels (or comics)... or remakes.

I should note that I can't blame the studios for doing this. Apparently, a film can do well if it can be made for $70,000; if not then you need $200,000,000 to have a chance against the big boys. And $200M is a heck of a risk to make, with little guarantee of success. (And it's also important to note that I've made no comment about quality. "Prometheus" and "The Avengers" amply demonstrate that a big commercial film can be done well, or it can be done badly.)

I suspect much the same is at least true of D&D adventures. These are already niche products within the tiny niche that is RPG sales, and a product has to sell enough units to justify the print run. Attaching a name that people will know must no doubt increase those sales, and might be enough to take a product from "not worth bothering with" to "barely worthwhile".

(Of course, the subscription model used by Paizo for selling their adventures, and also by WotC with eDungeon, significantly changes that equation. If you've got 20k subscribers, that pretty much guarantees that doing the print run is justified, and allows you to take some risks. But subscription models is another discussion for another thread...)


----------



## Radiating Gnome (May 28, 2013)

delericho said:


> But subscription models is another discussion for another thread...)



Nah, that sounds dull.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2013)

delericho said:


> Sadly, I don't think that's why Hollywood recycles movies. Making movies is so expensive that they simply can't afford to have a flop, and that means they're necessarily risk-averse. So we get endless sequels, or remakes, or star vehicles for Tom Cruise or Will Smith, or the latest film by some big-name director, or films based on best-selling novels (or comics)... or remakes.




It is a lot more complex, I'm sure. If it were true, the *only* things the studios would put out are remakes and formulaic star vehicles. That may dominate some times of the year (particularly the summer blockbuster season), but we do actually get a lot more diversity than that. They just don't make as much money and get coverage for dominating the weekly box office competition.

I think there actually is some merit in the OP's suggestion that remakes are made to bring the story to a new generation because I think it's true in at least some instances. It may also be more of a case of telling the story with a new generation of techniques or technologies. Ben Hur, adapted from a novel in the first place, has been made several times since 1907 - each time using new technologies. There may also be filmmakers inspired by the original, burning to put their own stamp on the same story. King Kong remakes, particularly the remake by Peter Jackson, suggest this to me. The studio may be persuaded because King Kong is a fan favorite, bound to bring in the viewers, but they may also be persuaded by the star power of a director or actor signed on to the project - and that's one reason I think the situation is more complex than the atmosphere you describe.


----------

