Does this bode ill for the upcoming D&D film?

66 posts / 0 new
Last post

MechaPilot wrote:

 

DavidArgall wrote:

Eliminating copyright would help us.

 

No thank you.  Ownership of IP is very important, especially to artists, writers, and filmmakers.

     A monopoly is always "very important" to the monopoly holder, and routinely a drag to the rest of society.  There is no evidence that copyright is an exception here, and considerable that it is not.  Shakespeare prospered in the days before copyright, and stole wholesale from earlier authors.  "Shakespeare was such a complete plagerist that he frequently stole from himself."  Such is the case in many other literary fields.  The great names happened in the days before copyright.  [One can try to blame this on the bias of historians for the older name, but the very fact these names existed challenges any claim copyright was needed.]

     Monopoly is an attempt to limit prodution, which also limits the income of the monopolist.  [You cut production from 10,000 to 5000 books, and so get the income from only 5000 books.]  That can still be a net increase in some cases, but copyright does not seem to be such a case.  For example, German copyright laws before 1848 were quite ineffective, while England had much stronger laws.  But German authors were paid far more than English.  [The most famous case is the English author of Frankenstein got less money for that than the German writer of a reference work.]   Other claims of the dangers to the artist's income are equally unsupported, or rejected, by any facts.

DavidArgall wrote:

 

MechaPilot wrote:

 

DavidArgall wrote:

Eliminating copyright would help us.

 

No thank you.  Ownership of IP is very important, especially to artists, writers, and filmmakers.

 

     A monopoly is always "very important" to the monopoly holder, and routinely a drag to the rest of society.  There is no evidence that copyright is an exception here, and considerable that it is not.  Shakespeare prospered in the days before copyright, and stole wholesale from earlier authors.  "Shakespeare was such a complete plagerist that he frequently stole from himself."  Such is the case in many other literary fields.  The great names happened in the days before copyright.  [One can try to blame this on the bias of historians for the older name, but the very fact these names existed challenges any claim copyright was needed.]

     Monopoly is an attempt to limit prodution, which also limits the income of the monopolist.  [You cut production from 10,000 to 5000 books, and so get the income from only 5000 books.]  That can still be a net increase in some cases, but copyright does not seem to be such a case.  For example, German copyright laws before 1848 were quite ineffective, while England had much stronger laws.  But German authors were paid far more than English.  [The most famous case is the English author of Frankenstein got less money for that than the German writer of a reference work.]   Other claims of the dangers to the artist's income are equally unsupported, or rejected, by any facts.

A copryright is not a monopoly.  A copyright has a limited life.  Copyrights also allow for other fair uses, like parodies, etc.  It's not that I disagree that some copyright law is stupid.  Monsanto copyrighting the genes of naturally occuring plants and then demanding farmers to pay them a royalty is asinine.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

MechaPilot wrote:

 

DavidArgall wrote:

 

MechaPilot wrote:

 

DavidArgall wrote:

Eliminating copyright would help us.

 

No thank you.  Ownership of IP is very important, especially to artists, writers, and filmmakers.

 

     A monopoly is always "very important" to the monopoly holder, and routinely a drag to the rest of society.  There is no evidence that copyright is an exception here, and considerable that it is not.  Shakespeare prospered in the days before copyright, and stole wholesale from earlier authors.  "Shakespeare was such a complete plagerist that he frequently stole from himself."  Such is the case in many other literary fields.  The great names happened in the days before copyright.  [One can try to blame this on the bias of historians for the older name, but the very fact these names existed challenges any claim copyright was needed.]

     Monopoly is an attempt to limit prodution, which also limits the income of the monopolist.  [You cut production from 10,000 to 5000 books, and so get the income from only 5000 books.]  That can still be a net increase in some cases, but copyright does not seem to be such a case.  For example, German copyright laws before 1848 were quite ineffective, while England had much stronger laws.  But German authors were paid far more than English.  [The most famous case is the English author of Frankenstein got less money for that than the German writer of a reference work.]   Other claims of the dangers to the artist's income are equally unsupported, or rejected, by any facts.

 

A copryright is not a monopoly.  A copyright has a limited life.  Copyrights also allow for other fair uses, like parodies, etc.  It's not that I disagree that some copyright law is stupid.  Monsanto copyrighting the genes of naturally occuring plants and then demanding farmers to pay them a royalty is asinine.

    A limited monopoly is still a monopoly.  It may not do as much damage for as long, but the basic analysis is the same.  Those who gain the monopoly advantage gain, but only at the expense of others.

      Nor are these limits all that real.  Effectively, no copyright has expired since the 20's, and efforts to extend them further have major political power.  And efforts to limit fair use are also widespread.

DavidArgall wrote:
Monopoly is an attempt to limit prodution, which also limits the income of the monopolist.  [You cut production from 10,000 to 5000 books, and so get the income from only 5000 books.]

Why would you limit the production if you have a monopoly? The answer is "so you can charge a higher price for your goods". If you obtain a monopoly and then actually make less money than you did without the monopoly right, you're doing it wrong.

(Thought experiment: what would happen if you obtained a monopoly, and then kept your prices and production level exactly the same? Unless your monopolized good is such a major user of some sort of raw material that producers exiting the market causes a drastic shift in economies of scale for that material, your revenue should stay the same. So if you change your production practices and end up with less revenue than before, you shouldn't have made that change).

can still be a net increase in some cases, but copyright does not seem to be such a case.  For example, German copyright laws before 1848 were quite ineffective, while England had much stronger laws.  But German authors were paid far more than English.  [The most famous case is the English author of Frankenstein got less money for that than the German writer of a reference work.]   Other claims of the dangers to the artist's income are equally unsupported, or rejected, by any facts.

Just because two things happened at once doesn't mean one of them caused the other. There are lots of reasons that German authors might have been paid more than English contemporaries that have nothing to do with copyright. Can you come up with a reason why copyright would actually hurt the typical author?

A copryright is not a monopoly.  A copyright has a limited life.  Copyrights also allow for other fair uses, like parodies, etc.  It's not that I disagree that some copyright law is stupid.  Monsanto copyrighting the genes of naturally occuring plants and then demanding farmers to pay them a royalty is asinine.

That's actually a patent, not a copyright (which means it  has a much shorter lifetime than a copyright does, by the way). Monsanto doesn't patent genes that occur naturally in food crops though; that's not actually possible since that "technology" has existed for generations and is therefore "obvious" and non-patentable. Monsanto patents seeds for food crops which contain genes from other organisms, which they put into the food crop via genetic engineering. In other words, their patent covers something that they made in their labs (the GMO), not something that existed to begin with (the gene). The patent exists for basically the same reason as copyrights do: to protect the value of labor that is easy to reproduce once produced for the first time (in the modern era, seeds and art/music/literature/etc. are both extremely easy to reproduce if you have a copy of the original, so both need this sort of protection).

Edit: patents and copyrights both give the exclusive right to produce a given work. As long as the state and the holder of the right enforce exclusivity, they are unequivocally monopolies.

Molecule wrote:

 

A copryright is not a monopoly.  A copyright has a limited life.  Copyrights also allow for other fair uses, like parodies, etc.  It's not that I disagree that some copyright law is stupid.  Monsanto copyrighting the genes of naturally occuring plants and then demanding farmers to pay them a royalty is asinine.

That's actually a patent, not a copyright...

Thank you for the correction.  I was mixing up the two.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

There's only one guide you need to follow to make a good D&D movie.

Hawk The Slayer.

Case closed.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

DavidArgall wrote:

  Those who gain the monopoly advantage gain, but only at the expense of others.

False.

 

But this isn't the place for economics discussions.

Ahh, so THIS is where I can add a sig. Remember: Killing an ancient God inside of a pyramid IS a Special Occasion, and thus, ladies should be dipping into their Special Occasions underwear drawer.

Darkwolf_Bloodsbane wrote:

 

DavidArgall wrote:

  Those who gain the monopoly advantage gain, but only at the expense of others.

False.

 

But this isn't the place for economics discussions.

Really?  There is a monoploy that uses its advantage for the good of others?

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

Cable TV.  The idea behind allowing a monolopoly is that having only one company responsible for maintaining lines keeps such lines orderly.  Rather than having every company that provides cable TV to lay their own lines, the state limits it to one company in an area, which is responsible for upkeep of its own lines and system.  In states that have deregulated power, there's still a single company that maintains lines and delivers the power to consumers.  These are two examples of times when the state has determined that a monopoly is in the best interest of the consumer/community.

Copyright isn't at the expense of others.  Copyright belongs to the creator.  The work didn't exist until the creator created it.  There is no expense; it's a wholly new thing that did not exist before.  What copyright does is allow the creator the exclusive right to profit from his creation.  I believe that's a good thing.  Shakespeare did great without copyright, sure.  But Shakespeare didn't live in the modern world.  Shakespeare didn't have an Internet full of people just waiting to record his his plays at the Globe so they could post them online for people to see without paying.  Gutenberg came up with a way to print things quickly, but his press was a far cry from the types of printing presses you see in professional publishers now, and especially from the PDF and various e-book formats that make perfect copies nearly instantly.

I would like to see a new company take the reins of the D&D franchise.  As much as I adore the first and second movies, it's not because they're good movies.  I'm anxious to see how this plays out.  If Sweetpea does indeed have rights in perpetuity, then Hasbro has no case.  But, if their retaining of the rights is based on creating films, and that those films must play in theaters, then I think Hasbro should pull those rights and give them to someone else that can afford to hire decent writers.

Like I said, I enjoyed watching Jeremy Irons chew up sets in the first movie, and the second movie was a pretty decent D&D adventure.  But there's no excuse for Book of Vile Darkness.  I'd like to see someone else's take on the franchise now.

Chinese law allows break the copyrifht if products are made in their land. A good example the Chinese fakes of Harry Potter books.

Without copyright the companies couldn´t recover the money was spent for R&D (Reseach and development). We aren´t talking about the mockbusters by The Asylum Productions. Do you rebember the 1902 silent French movie "A Trip to the Moon"? (From wikipedia Its director, George Méliès had intended to release the film in the United States for profit, but he was never going to see a penny from the film's distribution. Agents of Thomas Edison had seen the film in London. They bribed the theater owner, took the film into a lab and made copies for Edison. The film was a sensation in America and a fortune was made off its exhibition. None of it went to George Méliès who eventually went bankrupt as a result. 

Without copyright most of new singers and group music couldn´t broad a second disck because people only would buy it from the "Top manta" (Spanish expresion for selling of pirate copies in the streets. The illegal copies are on a blancket, if police appear the seller, usually inmigrants, get the blancket fastly and run away). Think about bankrupt videogames companies because gamers only downloaded pirate copies. Even there is a comic strip by Dork Tower about Warhammster about it (the game production was cancelled, and the other charactes said they had downloaed and photocopied the games instead to buy the original game).   

---

The logo of D&D is Hasbro Copyright. I guess a sequel, with characters of previous movies could be possible, but without the D&D TM. Don´t forget Bioware left Newerwinter Nights and created its own IP, Dragon Age. 

The most important is a good work, "Batman & Robin" or "Batman: the Dark Knight" are good exaples, a known name isn´t enought. 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Copyright, at least in the USA, has gradualy expanded from "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.", which was initially 14 or 28 years, to life of author + 70 years.

All you need to know about US copyright law, is that it's extended about twenty years every time the copyright for Steamboat Willie is about to expire.

You guys should watch the new Riddick movie, it's like a D&D movie, but in space.

Stop the H4TE

thewok wrote:

Cable TV.  The idea behind allowing a monolopoly is that having only one company responsible for maintaining lines keeps such lines orderly.  Rather than having every company that provides cable TV to lay their own lines, the state limits it to one company in an area,

     You are thinking here of the idea of "natural monopoly", but the very concept says that government does not need to act to protect such a monopoly.  There simply is not room for two companies, and so 2nd parties don't exist and no lawsuit is needed.  But the claim of natural monopoly is easy to make, and used as a propaganda tool to eliminate competitors, who would not exist if there actually was a natural monopoly.  The most noted case of this was the phone company which used the argument for a century to hamper competition, some of which survived despite the government.

 

 

thewok wrote:
  ... times when the state has determined that a monopoly is in the best interest of the consumer/community.

      When the state has determined...  But the state is not made up of economists or others skilled in detecting naturaly monopoly  Rather, it is made up of politicians skilled in getting re-elected.  And that means granting monopolies to those who give them political advantage, not to those who might somehow benefit the general interest.  Not surprisingly, the best interest of the community gets the short end of the stick all too often.

 

thewok wrote:
Copyright isn't at the expense of others.  Copyright belongs to the creator.  The work didn't exist until the creator created it.  There is no expense; it's a wholly new thing that did not exist before.  What copyright does is allow the creator the exclusive right to profit from his creation.

     There are several problems with this.  Copyright only in theory requires any originality at all.  More commonly, There is no wholly new thing.  A given work may be new in some respects, but it copies from a host of earlier works in whole or part.  And the costs of copyright are quite real.  The fact that Sam did something first does not mean that Joe will not do it next week without any reliance on Sam at all.  [And the more valuable the idea, the more chance he will.]

thewok wrote:
     Shakespeare did great without copyright, sure.  But Shakespeare didn't live in the modern world. 

    Ah, the enternal cry of the young who want to repeat the mistakes of their elders.  We have changed the scenery a little, but no, times are not much different now.

thewok wrote:

Shakespeare didn't have an Internet full of people just waiting to record his his plays at the Globe so they could post them online for people to see without paying.

    Members of his audience were actors or employees of other theaters who were memorizing/copying the whole thing, to be used and sold by competitors.  Same thing.

 

 

 

Here is the Court document (including original irrevocable license agreement) of Sweatpea Entertainment vs Hasbro/WotC over D&D film

 

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/05/ddans.pdf

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

DavidArgall wrote:
thewok wrote:
Copyright isn't at the expense of others.  Copyright belongs to the creator.  The work didn't exist until the creator created it.  There is no expense; it's a wholly new thing that did not exist before.  What copyright does is allow the creator the exclusive right to profit from his creation.

     There are several problems with this.  Copyright only in theory requires any originality at all.  More commonly, There is no wholly new thing.  A given work may be new in some respects, but it copies from a host of earlier works in whole or part.  And the costs of copyright are quite real.  The fact that Sam did something first does not mean that Joe will not do it next week without any reliance on Sam at all.  [And the more valuable the idea, the more chance he will.]

Copyright doesn't protect ideas.  It protects the presentation of ideas.

If Sam creates a story about aliens attacking the Earth and abducting the President and copyrights it, then next week Joe also can write a story about aliens attacking the Earth and abducting the President.  What Joe cannot do is reprint what Sam has copyrighted.

In the same way, Rachael Ray can write a book about quick recipes using summer squash, and so, too, can Guy Fieri; both books have similar content and may even have very similar recipes, but both can be copyrighted.  Leonard Nimoy and Walter Koenig can both write books about experiences on the set of Star Trek, and both can be copyrighted.

Authors rely on each other for ideas and information all the time.  Biographers read other biographies and reuse their information in their own works.  Book-writing chefs borrow recipes from others and put their own spins on them.  Fiction writers read the works of other fiction writers and borrow ideas from them for their own stories.

Copyright doesn't require originality of ideas.  Copyright requires originality of structure.

I read through quite a bit of the suit/counter suit material and it has made me decide 100% without a doubt that I will from this day forward 100% boycott Sweetpea Entertainment. This is no great loss. None of their work was any good anyways, IMO.

Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?

TheLyons wrote:

I read through quite a bit of the suit/counter suit material and it has made me decide 100% without a doubt that I will from this day forward 100% boycott Sweetpea Entertainment. This is no great loss. None of their work was any good anyways, IMO.

Aside from crappy D&D movies, what else have they done (or are they currently doing)?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Luis_Carlos wrote:

Without copyright the companies couldn´t recover the money was spent for R&D (Reseach and development). We aren´t talking about the mockbusters by The Asylum Productions. Do you rebember the 1902 silent French movie "A Trip to the Moon"? (From wikipedia Its director, George Méliès had intended to release the film in the United States for profit, but he was never going to see a penny from the film's distribution. Agents of Thomas Edison had seen the film in London. They bribed the theater owner, took the film into a lab and made copies for Edison. The film was a sensation in America and a fortune was made off its exhibition. None of it went to George Méliès who eventually went bankrupt as a result.

      Melies went bankrupt in 1913, a full decade after A Trip to the Moon, which was quite profitable despite the piracy.  The piracy didn't help him of course, but it is not unusual for early innovators in a field to wind up broke.  Melies also indulged in piracy himself,

Luis_Carlos wrote:

Without copyright most of new singers and group music couldn´t broad a second disck because people only would buy it from the "Top manta" (Spanish expresion for selling of pirate copies in the streets.

      Street copies are noted for being of low quality, which means the buyer does not want to pay for better.  That means the buyer was not a customer for legal copies whether or not the street copies were sold.  The group, on average, loses nothing.  [Some actually benefit.  The customer buys the street copy to find out if the work actually interests him.  The satisfied customer then buys legal copies and the group gets an additional sale.]

Luis_Carlos wrote:

Think about bankrupt videogames companies because gamers only downloaded pirate copies. Even there is a comic strip by Dork Tower about Warhammster about it (the game production was cancelled, and the other charactes said they had downloaed and photocopied the games instead to buy the original game).   

     You want to quote a comic as serious analysis?  Those whose product bombed are of course willing to blame piracy, but we still have loads of games on the market.  It wasn't piracy that caused these products to fail.

I recall many years ago (about the time Xena and Hercules went off the air - late '90s?) it was announced that a New Zeland production company was seeking the option to make a Drizz't TV series to replace them.  Unfortunately, nothing ever came of that....

 

 

Carl

There was a project to create a TV serie of "Urban Arcana", the settin of 20 Modern.

 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Luis_Carlos wrote:

There was a project to create a TV serie of "Urban Arcana", the settin of 20 Modern.

 

I think we already had that.  It was called Special Unit 2.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

thewok wrote:

Cable TV.  The idea behind allowing a monolopoly is that having only one company responsible for maintaining lines keeps such lines orderly.  Rather than having every company that provides cable TV to lay their own lines, the state limits it to one company in an area, which is responsible for upkeep of its own lines and system.  In states that have deregulated power, there's still a single company that maintains lines and delivers the power to consumers.  These are two examples of times when the state has determined that a monopoly is in the best interest of the consumer/community.

You would still be able to have a cheaper rate for your cable if you had two or more companies competing with each other - so a cable monopoly does not ultimately benefit the end user.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours

MechaPilot wrote:

 

TheLyons wrote:

I read through quite a bit of the suit/counter suit material and it has made me decide 100% without a doubt that I will from this day forward 100% boycott Sweetpea Entertainment. This is no great loss. None of their work was any good anyways, IMO.

 

Aside from crappy D&D movies, what else have they done (or are they currently doing)?

Not much. Here is their IMDB page

Their Dungeons and Dragons released in 2000 has a Metacritic score of 14 out of 100. Gigli has a score of 18, and Toy Story has a score of 92, for comparison. From what I can tell, the movie they have with the highest Metacritic score is "An American Haunting" with a score of 38. It's also their only non-D&D work I can find.

Looking at these results, it sheds light on why I hated the original Dungeons and Dragons so much. This just doesn't appear to be a good production company and they certainly haven't made any good work that I am aware of. And the wording of their suit shows that they are trying to hold on to this property forever even though the company they originally licensed it from (TSR) has changed hands and also wanting to hold on to it even though their only attempts have been almost universally disliked.

Hell, I am an easy sell for a D&D movie. I really am. It would be pretty easy for a good production company to make a movie that I would love. I would imagine Warner Bros could pull this off. In fact, at this point I don't care who gets the license I just don't want it to be Sweetpea. If you are going to have rights to something so many hold sacred, don't screw it up multiple times then still expect to hold on to it like it's yours. I feel Sweetpea has disrespected D&D and is attempting to continue to do so just to make money, regardless of how the true fans of the IP feel about their work.

 

Edit: I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one on the internet. However, I am curious if Hasbro could countersue Sweetpea for damages for making such terrible D&D films? Regardless of that idea's reality, it's an entertaining thought for sure!

Do you have an opinion on what campaign settings should be printed in D&D Next? If so, please cast your votes in this poll! Poll: What campaign settings do you want to see printed in D&D Next?

TheLyons wrote:

 

MechaPilot wrote:

 

TheLyons wrote:

I read through quite a bit of the suit/counter suit material and it has made me decide 100% without a doubt that I will from this day forward 100% boycott Sweetpea Entertainment. This is no great loss. None of their work was any good anyways, IMO.

 

Aside from crappy D&D movies, what else have they done (or are they currently doing)?

 

Not much. Here is their IMDB page

Their Dungeons and Dragons released in 2000 has a Metacritic score of 14 out of 100. Gigli has a score of 18, and Toy Story has a score of 92, for comparison. From what I can tell, the movie they have with the highest Metacritic score is "An American Haunting" with a score of 38. It's also their only non-D&D work I can find.

Looking at these results, it sheds light on why I hated the original Dungeons and Dragons so much. This just doesn't appear to be a good production company and they certainly haven't made any good work that I am aware of. And the wording of their suit shows that they are trying to hold on to this property forever even though the company they originally licensed it from (TSR) has changed hands and also wanting to hold on to it even though their only attempts have been almost universally disliked.

Hell, I am an easy sell for a D&D movie. I really am. It would be pretty easy for a good production company to make a movie that I would love. I would imagine Warner Bros could pull this off. In fact, at this point I don't care who gets the license I just don't want it to be Sweetpea. If you are going to have rights to something so many hold sacred, don't screw it up multiple times then still expect to hold on to it like it's yours. I feel Sweetpea has disrespected D&D and is attempting to continue to do so just to make money, regardless of how the true fans of the IP feel about their work.

 

Edit: I am not a lawyer and don't pretend to be one on the internet. However, I am curious if Hasbro could countersue Sweetpea for damages for making such terrible D&D films? Regardless of that idea's reality, it's an entertaining thought for sure!

Thank you for clarifying about all that.  I do agree that sweetpea seems to be a bad production company.

As for a countersuit by Hasbro, who knows?  If they could in some way prove that Sweetpea's horrible movies was damaging to the value of the brand, they might have legal leeway to do it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Howdy folks,

I have moved this thread to the Off-Topic Tavern where it is more on topic.

Thanks.

All around helpful simian