Quote from: Mistwell on July 19, 2021, 07:48:16 PM

Quote from: horsesoldier on July 19, 2021, 01:00:06 PM
It says "the brand" -- 5e is the first time we have seen a DnD brand that goes into mediums outside of traditional tabletop and forays into video games.

Also -- "We haven no idea about the numbers of the TSR era, but our are better!"

If 5e is truly the most played edition, I find it appalling the lack of support they're giving all of these new players. Where's the epic 1-20 campaign? What about DM aids, like tiles? Instead they get these theme splatbooks.

Uh, they revised the tiles way back in 2018 and can be found under the title, "D&D DUNGEON TILES REINCARNATED" . There are tons of other accessories too. Have you never been to a Barnes and Noble and looked at their RPG section? And there are tons of epic campaigns. Though a lot of additional support for them is through DMsGuild.

They used to be on the shelves at Books a Million too, but I'm not noticing as much shelf presence now.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 19, 2021, 03:47:11 PM

Quote from: horsesoldier on July 19, 2021, 01:00:06 PM
It says "the brand" -- 5e is the first time we have seen a DnD brand that goes into mediums outside of traditional tabletop and forays into video games.

I still remember a video (since deleted) of a "Secrets of TSR" panel in a PaizoCon with guys like Jeff Grubb, Stan!, Dave Gross, Wolfgang Baur and others.

In one of the segments, they talk about how close D&D was to having a movie produced by James Cameron. The reason it didn't happen? Lorraine, yes the witch herself, antagonized James Cameron when he made it clear he wanted to produce instead of direct, and that he wanted his special effects pal to direct it. His special effects pal? 4-time Oscar winner Stan Winston (if you think the live action dinos in Jurassic Park were great, think about what his dragons might have looked like).

Cameron was so pissed off by how he was treated by Lorraine that he rage quit a meeting, pulled Winston out with him, and never again was D&D close to getting a mainstream director interested in a movie project.

Oh fuck me. That actually makes my soul hurt.

Quote from: Jam The MF on July 19, 2021, 09:07:49 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on July 19, 2021, 07:48:16 PM

Quote from: horsesoldier on July 19, 2021, 01:00:06 PM
It says "the brand" -- 5e is the first time we have seen a DnD brand that goes into mediums outside of traditional tabletop and forays into video games.

Also -- "We haven no idea about the numbers of the TSR era, but our are better!"

If 5e is truly the most played edition, I find it appalling the lack of support they're giving all of these new players. Where's the epic 1-20 campaign? What about DM aids, like tiles? Instead they get these theme splatbooks.

Uh, they revised the tiles way back in 2018 and can be found under the title, "D&D DUNGEON TILES REINCARNATED" . There are tons of other accessories too. Have you never been to a Barnes and Noble and looked at their RPG section? And there are tons of epic campaigns. Though a lot of additional support for them is through DMsGuild.

They used to be on the shelves at Books a Million too, but I'm not noticing as much shelf presence now.

I gotta stop by a bookstore in the next week anyway, I will see if I can take a picture of whatever their RPG section looks like right now at Barnes and Noble (the only bookstore we have out here, aside from a couple remaining used books places).

I went back home to VA on vacay last week, and stopped by a few bookstores- two of them were mainly "second hand" stores.

Both "second hand" stores had LARGE prominent D&D displays with all kinds of game books, dice, figures, collectibles, spellbook type journals, D&D cookbooks,  and other assorted nick nacks both official and otherwise. Most of this material was brand new- with some used items shoved in at certain places. I was pretty floored- especially considering that they are primarily second hand book/dvd/videogame stores.

And these displays were in the very center of the store not far after you walk in- i.e extremely visible to everyone walking in and prior to or along with things like Manga, Marvel/DC Comics,  and Harry Potter displays (all of which were also prominently placed and spilling over with books, toys, collectibles, et al)

B&N had pretty much the same thing, of course, all brand new.  Right at the front, huge display of WOTC materials

I was in my local  B&N a couple weeks ago, and they had moved the D&D stuff from obscurity in the back to prominence as well- though not on the same
scale as the B&N in VA, or those second hand stores.

I noticed that TARGET/WALMART stores back home  had rather prominent gaming displays with D&D front and center.

I did note that the PF materials (new or used) were NOT on these displays, instead most of it was far away along with the video game cluebooks and such where the D&D stuff USED to be.


I'm no fan of WOTC, the 5E product model, or especially the community they have groomed, but no doubt in my mind that 5E is huge and D&D is likely the biggest/Best selling it has ever been- as much as I hate to say it (I'm not a proponent of a large D&D base or large TTRPG " industry", but that's a topic for another day)

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 19, 2021, 03:47:11 PM
In one of the segments, they talk about how close D&D was to having a movie produced by James Cameron. The reason it didn't happen? Lorraine, yes the witch herself, antagonized James Cameron when he made it clear he wanted to produce instead of direct, and that he wanted his special effects pal to direct it. His special effects pal? 4-time Oscar winner Stan Winston (if you think the live action dinos in Jurassic Park were great, think about what his dragons might have looked like).

Stan Winston directed two feature films: Pumpkinhead (1988) and A Gnome Names Gnorm (1990). I haven't seen either, but Pumpkinhead bombed in the box office and Gnorm went straight to video.

It seems to me that while he's a very skilled special effects artist, it seems he isn't a good director (despite having big names pushing him), and his film probably wouldn't have benefited the brand any more than the 2000 movie.

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 03:59:28 PM

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 19, 2021, 03:47:11 PM
In one of the segments, they talk about how close D&D was to having a movie produced by James Cameron. The reason it didn't happen? Lorraine, yes the witch herself, antagonized James Cameron when he made it clear he wanted to produce instead of direct, and that he wanted his special effects pal to direct it. His special effects pal? 4-time Oscar winner Stan Winston (if you think the live action dinos in Jurassic Park were great, think about what his dragons might have looked like).

Stan Winston directed two feature films: Pumpkinhead (1988) and A Gnome Names Gnorm (1990). I haven't seen either, but Pumpkinhead bombed in the box office and Gnorm went straight to video.

It seems to me that while he's a very skilled special effects artist, it seems he isn't a good director (despite having big names pushing him), and his film probably wouldn't have benefited the brand any more than the 2000 movie.

Pumpkinhead is a good horror movie, with a good creepy monster.  There's also a witch, who knows how to summon Pumpkinhead.

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 03:59:28 PM

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 19, 2021, 03:47:11 PM
In one of the segments, they talk about how close D&D was to having a movie produced by James Cameron. The reason it didn't happen? Lorraine, yes the witch herself, antagonized James Cameron when he made it clear he wanted to produce instead of direct, and that he wanted his special effects pal to direct it. His special effects pal? 4-time Oscar winner Stan Winston (if you think the live action dinos in Jurassic Park were great, think about what his dragons might have looked like).

Stan Winston directed two feature films: Pumpkinhead (1988) and A Gnome Names Gnorm (1990). I haven't seen either, but Pumpkinhead bombed in the box office and Gnorm went straight to video.

It seems to me that while he's a very skilled special effects artist, it seems he isn't a good director (despite having big names pushing him), and his film probably wouldn't have benefited the brand any more than the 2000 movie.

   Pumkinhead was pretty good.   I did not see the other movie, but it was likely always intended to go straight to video.  I also think everyone I ever knew at ANY job was much better at it 10 years later.  There is NO WAY he could have made a worse movie than the one in 2000.

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 03:59:28 PM
Stan Winston directed two feature films: Pumpkinhead (1988) and A Gnome Names Gnorm (1990). I haven't seen either, but Pumpkinhead bombed in the box office and Gnorm went straight to video.

It seems to me that while he's a very skilled special effects artist, it seems he isn't a good director (despite having big names pushing him), and his film probably wouldn't have benefited the brand any more than the 2000 movie.

That's a distinct possibility.

The TSR guys in the panel were still adamant this was a major mistake. In fact, IIRC the question asked was along the lines of "If you could undo one thing in TSR while you were there, what would it be?".

The initial answer was "Don't piss off James Cameron.".

Do people really think if Winston had some problem as director, he couldn't fucking go to Cameron and ask for advice? 

Remember, Winston's work on the first Terminator movie really helped put Cameron on the map.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 21, 2021, 08:05:36 AM
Do people really think if Winston had some problem as director, he couldn't fucking go to Cameron and ask for advice? 

Remember, Winston's work on the first Terminator movie really helped put Cameron on the map.

Critically, Cameron's intent was to be the actual producer (i.e. not the producer in name only that happens so often in the industry).

My guess is he would be cooperating with Winston very closely.

It could still suck, but I doubt it would be as bad as the movie we got.

P.S.: And I think what's is being missed here is the most important part, Cameron must've done what everyone that gets pissed off in Hollywood does and blabbed about it to everyone he met. This is likely the reason why no A-list director would even deign to return phone calls from TSR after this whole debacle.

Remember that before all of this happened, there had been an attempt made by Gary himself to get a movie off the ground, and he got James Goldman to write a screenplay (Goldman wrote what I consider the best screenplay of all time for The Lion in Winter).

From a Barnes and Noble in Erie, PA. Not quite relegated to a single shelf in the Science Fiction & Fantasy section.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 21, 2021, 09:42:07 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 21, 2021, 08:05:36 AM
Do people really think if Winston had some problem as director, he couldn't fucking go to Cameron and ask for advice? 

Remember, Winston's work on the first Terminator movie really helped put Cameron on the map.

Critically, Cameron's intent was to be the actual producer (i.e. not the producer in name only that happens so often in the industry).

My guess is he would be cooperating with Winston very closely.

It could still suck, but I doubt it would be as bad as the movie we got.

P.S.: And I think what's is being missed here is the most important part, Cameron must've done what everyone that gets pissed off in Hollywood does and blabbed about it to everyone he met. This is likely the reason why no A-list director would even deign to return phone calls from TSR after this whole debacle.

Remember that before all of this happened, there had been an attempt made by Gary himself to get a movie off the ground, and he got James Goldman to write a screenplay (Goldman wrote what I consider the best screenplay of all time for The Lion in Winter).

Yup. Hollyweird, even then, was a pretty incestuous industry, and they ALL talk to each other.

And mind you, James Cameron is not exactly the easiest person to work for anyways, so if he's rightfully hacked off, well...

Quote from: BronzeDragon on July 21, 2021, 12:34:07 AM

Quote from: jhkim on July 20, 2021, 03:59:28 PM
Stan Winston directed two feature films: Pumpkinhead (1988) and A Gnome Names Gnorm (1990). I haven't seen either, but Pumpkinhead bombed in the box office and Gnorm went straight to video.

It seems to me that while he's a very skilled special effects artist, it seems he isn't a good director (despite having big names pushing him), and his film probably wouldn't have benefited the brand any more than the 2000 movie.

That's a distinct possibility.

The TSR guys in the panel were still adamant this was a major mistake. In fact, IIRC the question asked was along the lines of "If you could undo one thing in TSR while you were there, what would it be?".

The initial answer was "Don't piss off James Cameron.".

OK, I don't know the details of this deal and haven't seen either of Winston's movies. I was expressing skepticism because my best friend from high school works in Hollywood, and he has tons of stories of terrible deals that people fell into. From what I hear, lot of people are naive about Hollywood and think if a big studio or producer offers them something that they get a pot of gold, and far more often they end up screwed over. And a common form of nepotism is the big name saying "Give my buddy a job".

Maybe that's not what was happening here, but overall, I am skeptical that the deal would have done much for D&D. Plenty of 80s and 90s games had deals from popular movies, and while some did reasonably, none of them were that big.

I understand that TSR people in the 80s and 90s were very frustrated. D&D had a huge peak of popularity around 1980, but from what I've read, there were sinking prospects ever after that until the acquisition by WotC. Overall, I don't feel the problem was media exposure. It was the market conditions and building the general gamer scene.

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 12:29:23 PM

I understand that TSR people in the 80s and 90s were very frustrated. D&D had a huge peak of popularity around 1980, but from what I've read, there were sinking prospects ever after that until the acquisition by WotC. Overall, I don't feel the problem was media exposure. It was the market conditions and building the general gamer scene.

No mention of Lorraine's mismanagement?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on July 21, 2021, 01:56:53 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 21, 2021, 12:29:23 PM
I understand that TSR people in the 80s and 90s were very frustrated. D&D had a huge peak of popularity around 1980, but from what I've read, there were sinking prospects ever after that until the acquisition by WotC. Overall, I don't feel the problem was media exposure. It was the market conditions and building the general gamer scene.

No mention of Lorraine's mismanagement?

I've read a lot about the broader RPG market and I know the publication history because I've been interested in general RPG history. I only read a few accounts about the internal fights and finances of TSR, such that I wouldn't care to weigh in on any individuals.

The peak of D&D's popularity in 1980 was huge, but it had already started to fall right after that and declined majorly from 1980 to 1985. I think the decline was mostly cultural, not because of any management decision. There wasn't the social scene to support D&D play the way that it was. Most of the kids who played D&D for a time didn't stick with it. I know my two sisters were in high school in 1980. They and their friends tried it, but didn't stick with it. I was younger and stuck with it, but in my time RPGs were more of a nerdy niche.

Individual issues might contribute - like the quality of the D&D cartoon, or Mazes and Monsters, or the Christian backlash, or TSR management. But I think the decline was broader than a single company. No one knew how to get increase RPG popularity - including other companies. It was cultural. For example, Vampire: the Masquerade worked by tapping into a different cultural niche of the time - goths.