Do you care about what those other things are? Almost certainly not. Why would you? But I'm going to choose to be self-indulgent and write about them anyway. You don't have to read this. Feel free to close this browser tab and go do something more interesting with your life.
So, first of all, Dungeons & Dragons isn't even the only existing intellectual property I'd want to get control of (if, again, I somehow had enough money to spend on buying up other properties, which, again, I don't, and never will). There are a whole lot of other IPs I'd like to get my hands on, all of which would almost certainly be much cheaper to acquire than D&D and some of which haven't been utilized in years by the current rightsholders, who might actually be very willing to sell them for the right price (which, nevertheless, I could never in reality afford).
But all that would still be a fairly low priority; I'd still mostly want to focus on developing and distributing my own IPs. As I said in a previous post, "it's fun sometimes to also play in others' proverbial playgrounds, to build on foundations that others have laid"... but I'd still want to mostly concentrate on my own proverbial playground, and once again I'm not sure a playground is really the right metaphor here, but whatever. I'd like to be able to make my own movies and games using my worlds and characters and concepts, and branch into multiple media, and explore other ways of telling stories and creating immersive experiences. Now, like the idea of buying Wizards of the Coast, these aren't really plans as much as they are pipe dreams of things I would do if I had far more money than I am ever in reality going to have. There is no chance that I will ever be able to make these things happen. Still, if I were rich, these are the things I would spend money on.
(But are they really? I think so, yeah. More than anything, I like to create things, and if I had money I would use it to create more things, and to give myself the ability to create bigger things. That's not to say I wouldn't spend any money on, like, personal luxuries. Sure, if I had millions of dollars, I'd probably buy myself a nice house. I'd do some traveling; there are a lot of places I'd like to visit. I'd buy more books. Maybe a hot tub. (Okay, almost certainly a hot tub.) I'd like to think I'd donate some money to worthy charities, though I may be giving myself too much credit. If I had the money to spare, maybe I'd fund a scientific research institute; as much as I like creating imaginary worlds, I also like learning about our real world. But I'd mostly spend it on the creative pursuits I'm listing here. I wouldn't see the need to buy yachts and huge mansions and lots of fancy cars, or to dine regularly on gourmet delicacies that are expensive mostly for the sake of being expensive. At least, I don't think I would. I mean, I guess it seems most super-rich people do spend their money on that kind of conspicuous consumption; is it arrogant to think I'd be different? Probably; like I said in a previous post, I can be pretty arrogant. But I honestly think I would be different; I honestly think I wouldn't feel the need to pursue a jetsetting goldplated gemstudded lifestyle; but of course I can't prove it and I don't blame you at all if you don't believe me. In any case, again, there is no way I am ever going to be rich, so I guess there will never be any proof one way or the other.)
(I suppose it could be argued that the reason super-rich people spend their money on yachts and other fastuous fandangles is not because anyone would buy those sorts of things if they had the money for it, but rather because the kinds of people who would buy those things are the same kinds of people who possess the ruthlessness and the single-minded focus to do what they have to do for money, and are therefore the kinds of people who become super-rich. But if that's true, it's... really not particularly relevant to this post, so I'm not entirely sure why I'm bringing it up. Or, actually, do most rich people spend their money on decadent luxuries, or is it just that those who do are the ones who make the news? Are there billionaires who fly under the radar living less loudly lavish lives? I don't know. I don't, of course, actually know any rich people.)
Anyway, enough with the perambulating parenthetical paragraphs. Here in no particular order is a list of the things I would want to have if somehow, against all odds, I impossibly had the money to have them:
- Our own streaming service. Yeah, I know right now there seems to be quite an oversaturation of streaming services, and the future of streaming may be in doubt, but I made a whole blog post (partly) about that, and I'm not going to repeat it all here.
- A movie studio. Where I could make movies and programs both for television (that is to say, streaming or whatever replaces streaming) and for theatrical release. Assuming movie theaters continue to be a thing, which has lately also been cast in a bit of doubt.
- This wouldn't be just for our own use (though we would use it), but we'd rent it out as well. And it would have standing sets for various Wongery worlds, and maybe we'd give a discount on rentals for films based on Wongery IP.
- And why not an animation studio as well? In fact, if I had to choose one or the other, I'm not sure I might not rather have an animation studio than a live-action studio. I've been a fan of animation as long as I can remember; as a child I often aspired to be an animator when I grew up. (At other times I wanted to be a paleontologist. I don't think I had a really clear idea of exactly what either an animator or a paleontologist does, however. In any case, I obviously didn't become either.)
- And when I say I've been a fan of animation, I mean I especially love old-fashioned 2D frame-by-frame animation, so that's what I'd like my hypothetical animation studio to mostly focus on. I do also enjoy stop motion, and puppetry, and (perhaps to a lesser degree) 3D computer animation, but it's cel animation for which I think I have the most affection. (Okay, puppetry isn't technically animation, but I think it's animation-adjacent, and it's another deep art form that doesn't get as much respect as it deserves.)
- A theme park with rides themed around Wongery worlds. With a lot of dark rides, because I really like dark rides.
- For those unfamiliar with theme park lingo, I should mention that a dark ride isn't just a ride that's dark; "dark ride" has a specific meaning. Although honestly I also like similar outdoor themed rides even if they're not technically dark rides by the strict definition. (Disneyland's Jungle Cruise is the first ride that comes to my mind fitting this description, though I'm sure there are many others.) I guess I just like heavily themed rides that go slow enough to let you really take in and enjoy the theming.
- I know a lot of people consider it childish and annoying (to the extent that Disney Animation itself included a mean-spirited jab at it in The Lion King), but I admit I even enjoy the Disneyland "it's a small world" ride.
- Although it's been many years since I've ridden it. Or for that matter since I've set foot in Disneyland or any other theme park as a guest. (I have technically been in a local theme park last year, but I was there on a job and didn't get a chance to go on any rides, so that doesn't count.) I guess for someone who claims to love dark rides I sure don't go on them often, but that's because of a lack of time and money; I'd visit theme parks a lot more often if I could afford it.
- I know a lot of people consider it childish and annoying (to the extent that Disney Animation itself included a mean-spirited jab at it in The Lion King), but I admit I even enjoy the Disneyland "it's a small world" ride.
- When I say I really like dark rides, by the way, I mean old-fashioned dark rides, with mostly practical effects and minimal, if any, use of screens. (There's that word again, "old-fashioned". Hm. I mean, I don't think I'm a technophobe? There are just some old things I happen to like.) Well, not completely old-fashioned; it's not that I'm opposed to any new technologies; there are some technological innovations that can enhance the experience, like trackless vehicles; but the screens just aren't the same as actual physical props. And definitely not those "interactive" dark rides where you're supposed to shoot a light gun at targets, or whatever; that works directly counter to what I like about dark rides. (Well... maybe one or two interactive dark rides like that wouldn't hurt for those who do like them, but I wouldn't want most of the rides to be like that.) When I ride a dark ride I like to enjoy the scenery and look around the environment and not have to focus on reacting fast enough to shoot targets.
- Couldn't I go on an interactive dark ride and just... ignore the interactive parts? Just not bother shooting at the targets, if that's not the part I like? Well, sure, in principle, I guess, but I suppose I'm enough of a rules-follower that if there's a way I'm supposed to experience something, I'll obey the instructions, even if I know I'd enjoy it more if I didn't. Does this make sense? Not really, but as I've said before, I am a deeply flawed person.
- Heck, if I'm dreaming anyway, why not wish for a whole international chain of theme parks? I mean, it's not going to happen, but if I'm going to dream, why not dream big?
- For those unfamiliar with theme park lingo, I should mention that a dark ride isn't just a ride that's dark; "dark ride" has a specific meaning. Although honestly I also like similar outdoor themed rides even if they're not technically dark rides by the strict definition. (Disneyland's Jungle Cruise is the first ride that comes to my mind fitting this description, though I'm sure there are many others.) I guess I just like heavily themed rides that go slow enough to let you really take in and enjoy the theming.
- A chain of retail stores that sell games and Wongery-themed merchandise. (Assuming retail stores continue to be a thing, which also seems to have lately been cast in a bit of doubt...) Like the old The Game Keeper stores that later became Wizards of the Coast stores and then, uh, were all closed in 2004. Or the Disney Stores which, uh, have also all closed except for a few dozen locations. Yeah, okay, this may be a bad idea.
- A book publishing company. Assuming printed books continue to be a thing, which, uh, anyway, I like books. ebook just aren't the same; I mean, sure, they have their advantages for searching and highlighting and copying and pasting, but there's still something very appealing and, I don't know, pleasantly tactile and tangible about an actual printed book.
- I am noticing a pattern here where I wish to establish things that are already kind of obsolescent. Am I out of touch? Am I of a bygone generation, doomed to never fit in the current world? Am I an old man, slow to adapt, befuddled by the latest technologies and left behind by modern progress?
- Okay, actually I guess this question has already been answered by my previous posts. (The answer is yes.)
- I am noticing a pattern here where I wish to establish things that are already kind of obsolescent. Am I out of touch? Am I of a bygone generation, doomed to never fit in the current world? Am I an old man, slow to adapt, befuddled by the latest technologies and left behind by modern progress?
- A convention. A big, annual convention dedicated to worldbuilding, encompassing any creative works set in imaginary worlds, including video games, role-playing games, books, movies, board games, comic books, and so on. Yes, although it would be more focused on worldbuilding, this would have a lot of overlap with other conventions like Gen Con, Comic-Con, and E3 (although at the moment it seems up in the air whether E3 is going to continue to be a thing), but then those conventions already have a fair amount of overlap with each other.
- Hm... it occurs to me, though, that the most obvious name for this convention, WongerCon, would be only one letter off from WonderCon, the name of a pretty major convention that already exists. Is that a problem? If it is, maybe we could call it... WongCon? Does that sound stupid? I kind of feel like that sounds stupid. Why am I worrying about this? It's obviously never going to happen.
- Though I suppose this is among the least unrealistic and infeasible of the items on this list, insofar as a big convention, while still far beyond anything I could afford, is at least nowhere near as costly as a theme park or a streaming channel. It's extremely unlikely that I'd ever have the money for this, but—unlike most of the other items on this list—it's not altogether inconceivable. Heck, though, if I'm going to be going for more pie-in-the-sky goals, how about a number of related conventions worldwide under a single umbrella, like how during the early aughts there were auxiliary Gen Cons in Barcelona, London, Anaheim, and Brisbane (though not all in the same year)?)
- Hm... it occurs to me, though, that the most obvious name for this convention, WongerCon, would be only one letter off from WonderCon, the name of a pretty major convention that already exists. Is that a problem? If it is, maybe we could call it... WongCon? Does that sound stupid? I kind of feel like that sounds stupid. Why am I worrying about this? It's obviously never going to happen.
- Wongery-themed shared virtual environments. What exactly do I mean by this? Well, I mean virtual reality representations of various Wongery settings, where multiple people could be (virtually) present at once and explore and interact, and there'd be things to do and—
- Wait... this is basically the Metaverse, isn't it? I wasn't explicitly thinking about the Metaverse, but I'm basically describing the Metaverse. And we all know what a flop that turned out to be. Well... hm. Never mind; I guess this is a bad idea. Although again, it's moot, because none of these things are ever going to happen anyway.
- On second thought, no, I mean, this sort of is the Metaverse, except that "the Metaverse" is sort of a (failed) branding term for something that already existed. I mean, long before the soi-dissant Metaverse there was Second Life, for instance; Meta (as the company that used to be called Facebook is calling itself now; very roughly, Meta:Facebook::X:Twitter, except less so) didn't invent the idea of a shared virtual reality environment (and has done a terrible job with it). Heck, Meta didn't even invent the name "Metaverse" (that would be Neal Stephenson.) So maybe this could still work; maybe a virtual reality environment more engaging than Meta's bland "Horizon Worlds" could be a success. In principle. I'm still never going to have the money to find out.
- Wait... this is basically the Metaverse, isn't it? I wasn't explicitly thinking about the Metaverse, but I'm basically describing the Metaverse. And we all know what a flop that turned out to be. Well... hm. Never mind; I guess this is a bad idea. Although again, it's moot, because none of these things are ever going to happen anyway.
- A chain of live action role-playing game venues. What do I mean by this? Well, I mean themed locations—maybe themed to Wongery settings; maybe more generic themes like "castle" and "space station"—that are specifically designed to be rented out for people to use for live action role-playing games.
- This is something that as far as I know doesn't already exist, and the reason it doesn't already exist may be because it is a very stupid idea. Live action role-playing games just aren't that popular and widely played, and there almost certainly aren't nearly enough LARPers to sustain a business like this. On the other hand, could something like this be used to attract more people to the hobby, and build a customer base? Maybe. But probably not. This is probably a really stupid idea.
- Related to the previous item, I guess in addition to physical locations, it would be possible to create VR LARP venues. Those wouldn't be as good or as immersive as actual physical environments, but they would have much cheaper overhead and maintenance costs. In fact, actually, I guess that's something we could do now. Or we could, if any of us had the time and skills to create them, or the money to pay someone to do it. Which we don't, so never mind.
- A comic book publishing company. Do comic books make any money nowadays? I mean, comic book publishers make money from movies and video games based on their IPs, but do the comic books themselves make any money? I honestly don't know. I don't know much about the business. I don't know much about anything. Still, publishing comic books would be fun? I guess? I am dumb.
- A video game company. I don't get as much time to play video games as I'd like (I don't get as much time for anything as I'd like), but I do enjoy them; I'm not personally a big fan of shooters or RTS games, but I like platformers, adventure games, and CRPGs. And I'd like to be able to make video games based on Wongery properties. I'll never be able to, but I'd like to.