Dragonlance Show Cancelled, MCU Daredevil Changes, Star Wars Rey Film, and Netflix Viewing Numbers

Joe Manganiello's attempt to get Dragonlance on TV screens has been cancelled by WotC:

"Due to Hasbro's sale of the eOne studio [to Lionsgate in August] and the poor performance of a Dragonlance D&D adventure [Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen] and board game in 2022 [Dragonlance: Warriors of Krynn], as reasons why the project was not proceeding."

Manganiello has talked about how much people in the industry liked his script and I believe that's true, but Margaret Weis & Tracy Hickman also liked the script and both haven't written anything worth reading in decades (their new Dragonlance trilogy bombed just like everything else), so who knows how good his script was (it would absolutely follow the ESG/DEI approaches of Disney et al). Manganiello attempted to buy the IP, but after a WotC lawsuit to get it back from the authors they (or Hasbro) wasn't interested. A key point, and one I raised in 2022, is that WotC has been going backwards in terms of quality of products for years--low sales haven't just come from Dragonlance, as (rather like the MCU) these stretch back to 2019 (Radiant Citadel bombed particularly badly). Attempted tie-ins with Eberron, MAGIC: The Gathering, and Critical Role have failed to land unlike the initial updated versions of classics (Curse of Strahd etc). All this background is to say that Manganiello's project failed due to external factors from Hasbro and WotC themselves--I do think there's value in the IP, but not from its creators nor from nor IP owners at this point. Manganiello is in the wrong era to do this right.

It's worth adding that Hasbro is struggling financially and WotC isn't immune to this expecting a 3-5% decline this year (showing how detached Baldur's Gate 3's success has been). The hobby is fine, but WotC is struggling.

Starting with a rumour from Jeff Sneider (who has a good track record), we now know that Deborah Ann Woll (Karen Page) and Elden Henson (Foggy) will be brought back for the MCU's Daredevil series. This represents a complete about face from almost a year ago when THR made it clear the duo would not be returning. Before fans get excited, let's be clear about a few things.
1. This does not mean they have an important role in the show

2. Karen's story had already been botched by Netflix in season three (and I'd argue her love story in season two was also badly handled by the impact of the failed Elecktra plotline)

3. Season three in general distorted and broke Netflix Daredevil continuity, making it very hard to utilize it in a meaningful way (cf)

4. Given that the show will feature Kingpin, he's already been degraded by two terrible D+ shows (Hawkeye and Echo); fortunately, no one watched either of them, so there's room to ignore that continuity (D+ has been notorious for that, such as undercutting the entire Nick Fury arc in Secret Invasion)

5. There are signs the MCU is aware it has problems, but no sign it is addressing them meaningfully

I'm happy that Woll and Henson will get paycheques, but I am not expecting a return to form from the original season of Daredevil. Instead, I think these will be glorified cameos intended before making space for new, diverse & inclusive costars--this seems especially likely given that the show is trying to salvage as much as possible from the six episodes shot before the creative overall.

In other good news, it's clear there will be no season two for She-Hulk. It's also unclear where Tatiana Maslany's She-Hulk will appear next in the MCU (the next opportunity is Avengers 5, but whether she's on that team is unknown--speaking of that film, given the re-casting of Warlock for very different reasons, I'd expect Kang to remain the villain of the film and as-is).

The Rey movie, announced last April, was put on indefinite delay (at minimum post-2026). This came on the heels of some tone deaf comments from director Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy being circulated--these were not new comments, but ones that emerged with new attention coming to the film. Star Wars is in an even bigger mess than the MCU such that it's difficult to know what will happen with it. No live action film is currently filming, although The Mandalorian & Grogu still has a release date. The TV shows have all bombed, although there will be an Andor season two (a very cheap show to shoot so easier to push forward with). I think MCU fans can look at Star Wars and see the future unless something fundamentally changes at Disney (which is unlikely).

Netflix did something it rarely does last year, which is release it's streaming numbers (for the first half of 2023, January to June). As someone who hasn't watched anything on the platform in over a year the results (given buzz) include many surprises. Let's start with the top-five (keeping in mind that, unlike with broadcast TV, first seasons are often the most watched among shows on Netflix):

• The Night Agent (first season) 812k [FBI agent/spy thriller; Gabriel Basso starring]
• Ginny & Georgia (second season) 665k [family comedy/drama; Brianne Howey starring]
• The Glory (first season) 622k [South Korean revenge drama; Song Hye-kyo starring]
• Wednesday (first season) 507k [Addams Family IP/teen drama; Jenna Ortega starring]
• Queen Charlotte (Bridgerton) (first/only season with that lead) 503k [romance/sequel IP; Shonda Rhimes starring]

Four of the five are firsts and I'd never heard of the top three shows (although the first is based on a novel by Matthew Quirk). Night Agent is also unusual in that it's an original Netflix production whose viewership remained strong for a long time (whereas most shows start with a bang and fade off). The fifth entry is our first obvious ESG/DEI selection, although the Rhimes iteration was less successful than the original (625; 20% lower) or it's second season (656; 24% lower); that show trends heavily female (76% for season two, for instance). Keep in mind Wednesday debuted in November, so these are good holdover numbers for the teen drama.

Putting the top-viewed aside, let's look at some other interesting results:

• The Witcher: Blood Origin 65k [spinoff after season two]
• Cleopatra 35k ['documentary' from Jada Smith]
• Witcher (season three) 33k

In fairness to Witcher, it released at the end of June, so towards the end of the data set, however, the initial drop should be huge and instead it's a massive flop. Blood Origin's numbers are horrible, but the stink of the series hadn't achieved complete potency at that time (it's failure, combined with Henry Cavill's announced departure, clearly destroyed whatever viewership was left--no one I know watched either). There's not much left to be said about the horrendous Cleopatra (cf), but we can take heart in how badly it failed.

One story I missed that relates to the Bud Light controversy: yet another big company backpeddled on self-described woke marketing. Victoria Secret announced it was giving up on a 'woke' strategy due to loses, returning to what had worked before (this is exactly what Bud Light has done, but with initial public resistance). This is particularly amusing to me because its market is the exact opposite of the beer company--a predominantly working class male group on the one hand versus a middle/upper class female market on the other. In both cases the DEI/ESG approach did not work, even if I suspect VS customers would at least verbally support it.

This article was written by Peter Levi

The Worst Year in Movie/Television History?

Have we hit rock bottom? I can't remember a year more bereft of quality entertainment. The high points are middling fair that, ten years ago, would be utterly forgettable. Most of the casual viewers I know have turned off new releases and are indulging in offerings of the past (something backed by streaming numbers), and who can blame them? There are so many excremental failures that top-five and top-ten lists of them are littered with honorable mentions. This is the year Rotten Tomatoes got exposed for fudging the numbers, various companies were busted for bot-farming social media, and on and on. Let's take a look and we'll include a few late December, 2022 offerings. Let's also keep in mind the joke from South Park: put a chick in it and make her (gay/diverse) lame--every film and show that fits that criteria is going to be marked in red (I detailed this for film in case it's unclear, but it's obvious for TV). The Disney chart below, via Dan Murrell, is on the conservative side of loss estimates.

Film (organized by box office)

• Little Mermaid (Disney) - 569/297
• Before people pop the champagne comparing this to what's below, the film did not break even and it appears as though Disney is quietly retreating from the race swapping for future endeavors (cf). South Park fit: race-swapped lead.
• Mission Impossible 7 (Paramount) - 567/291
• Illustrating that star power remains useless, Tom Cruise's franchise is on life support as this lost money, so how will you bring people to its Part Two?
• Elemental (Disney) - 496/200
• Another poorly thought out effort that failed to land with fans and lost money
• Ant-Man 3 (Disney) - 476/200
• In terms of harming the MCU overall, this is the worst film of the year, even if The Marvels performed much worse financially--the IP (Ant-Man) is completely dead. SP fit: race-swapped villain; race-swapped Jentorra (an odd one, as a Moroccan became Asian)
• Transformers 7 (Paramount) - 438/200
• No idea why they are still making films for this franchise, or spending this much money on them; SP: leads are all DEI
• Indiana Jones 5 (Disney) - 383/300
• This film is so dumb it's painful; a last ditch effort to make Phoebe Waller-Bridge appeal to a mass audience--she can return to small films and shows better suited to her (limited) female audience; SP: Waller-Bridge inserted
• The Hunger Games (Lionsgate) - 318/100
• The toxic Rachel Zegler managed to turn off the female audience intended for this very late addition to the franchise (the books have completely fallen off the map for its original teenage audience--an audience author Suzanne Collins has clearly lost touch with); SP: Zegler as the lead
• The Flash (WB) - 270/220
• WB decided to push hard with the felon lead (whom, in the aftermath of career destruction, has given up his pronouns); SP: besides Miller himself (they/them at the time), race-swapped Supergirl
• Aquaman 2 (WB) - 258/215 (still in theaters)
• Box office is still ongoing, but this film is suffering purely as a product of how bad prior DC and Marvel efforts have been--the prior film was just as goofy & nonsensical as this one
• Dungeons & Dragons (Paramount) - 208/150
• This occasionally entertaining DEI-infused Guardians ripoff cost far too much money and simply didn't do anything interesting enough to bring people in; Baldur's Gate 3 (the video game) used the same restrictions and made something massively successful--good writing and ambition can push through the nonsense. SP: filled with diversity
• The Marvels (Disney) - 205/275
• Originally Captain Marvel 2, Bris Larson is so toxic she couldn't be trusted to carry the film and no one watched Ms. Marvel or cares about Monica Rambeau, so this bombed harder than any other MCU film in history (carrying the usual nonsensical plot, horrific characterization, etc)--only people with no expectations might have enjoyed it. The most amusing thing is the film was made for women, but they avoided it far more than the male audience (old diverse men showed up); SP: the Carol Danvers-Valkyrie romance was filmed, but cut, so we have Tom Hiddleston's fiancé Zawe Ashton (because nepotism is a thing) in for extra ESG points
• Napoleon (Sony) - 201/200
• Director Ridley Scott happily spit in the faces of people who wanted something more historical accurate and received one of the worst bombs of his career as a result--at his age, I don't think he learned anything from the experience
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (Paramount) - 180/70
• It has been a long time since Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg had their finger on the pulse of the audience, so I'm not sure why Paramount thought they could 'figure out' TMNT. SP: April is race swapped
• Wish (Disney) - 148/200
• Yes, the same basic concept that turned Wonder Woman into a rapist was employed again--ESG splattered all over the screen on an animated film that has cost Disney millions. We have a diverse lead (Ariana DeBose).
• Shazam 2 (WB) - 133/125
• Barely anyone saw the first family-friendly drama and the results here prove that whatever numbers it gained on video/TV are meaningless. SP: several race swaps, as well as the standard switch of the original (or prior) iteration being black (as seen in Doctor Who, The Witcher, and so on)
• Blue Beetle (WB) - 129/120
• A character no one had ever heard of, the DEI version was picked and the utterly bizarre Latino family drama/comedy that ensued appealed to no one. SP: it's all DEI.

Every superhero release this year except Guardians 3 makes the list and that movie disappointed as well (continuing the downward trend for James Gunn films). The commonality isn't even the pernicious and restrictive ESG/DEI overlay, it's the atrocious writing. Plots are incoherent, characters are one-dimensional and either bland, annoying, or unintentionally creepy. All of these films lack ambition and don't address anything relevant to people's lives (philosophically or tangibly). Even films intended to be mindless entertainment (like Mission Impossible) could not make the grade. The stupidity that's seeped into the industry is so saturated it's difficult to see how it can change (it certainly won't in 2024, as all the films slated for release were made before this embarrassing crash).

Television/Streaming

• Velma (HBO Max)
• This embarrassing, unfunny, oddly vindictive effort from Mindy Kaling was the She-Hulk of the year and deservedly laughed at just as much as Jessica Gao's moronic effort. It was so bad that, despite appearing early in the year, it's made everyone's list of worst shows.
• Witcher season 3 (Netflix)
• From my point of view all seasons of Witcher have been bad, but it is by degrees and we have finally reached rock bottom. I knew, back before we ever got the show, that showrunner Lauren Hissrich was awful because I'd seen her work before (Jessica Jones season two), but this was the final straw for the few remaining fans. Not only has Henry Cavill departed, but now author Sapkowski is shitting all over it. Very few people covered the season and it vanished from the public eye like a fart in the wind.
• Witcher: Blood Origins (Netflix)
• You couldn't ask for a more overt ESG/DEI show backed with horrendous writing (Declan de Barra as well as Hissrich); it screened so poorly for executives that it was re-edited and shortened prior to release, but that still didn't help
• The Wheel of Time season 2 (Amazon)
• The first season was an incoherent mess and this one was actually worse--so much so virtually no one watched or reviewed it. While being one of the worst shows of the year, somehow it's not the worst fantasy effort.
• Secret Invasion (Disney)
• Yet another D+ show no one watched; Nick Fury is unrecognizable as a grumpy old man (almost identical to Indiana Jones above), as the show's nonsensical and stupid plot goes on to ruin MCU continuity and then largely be ignored in subsequent projects
• Cleopatra (Netflix)
• The second (and certainly last) season of Jada Pinkett Smith's 'documentary' series African Queens; when you piss off the nation you're supposedly representing (Egypt), maybe you should reconsider--then again, Netflix is doing the exact same thing with Hannibal, so nothing was learned
• Rings of Power (Amazon)
• The DEI/ESG-infused nightmare hit audiences flaccidly and despite an enormously expensive advertising campaign failed so miserably they have to pretend (just like Witcher did) that they'll stick closer to the lore (a lie and something impossible to do at this point anyway)
• Willow (Disney)
• This was so poorly received that it's been pulled--the show is gone, removed--better to be shelved forever as a tax write-off than continue to irritate and disappoint audiences
• Loki season 2 (Disney)
• I didn't cover season two as barely anyone watched it--the show continued the handoff to the (obviously better) female version and killed off Loki himself (following in the footsteps of Hawkeye, She-Hulk, etc)
• Mandalorian season 3 (Disney)
• I disliked the prior seasons, but they were successful; the show suffered mightily from the bad lead-in that was Boba Fett, and it's now clear casual fans have given up on Star Wars
• Ahsoka (Disney)
• Dull, boring, pointless; cookie cutout imitation of most of what's above, but exhaustion has set-in for the IP
• Gotham Knights (WB)
• Another lazy, dumb, CW-style show that decided a Gotham show needed to start with a dead Batman
• National Treasure: Edge of History (Disney/ABC)
• Yes, this show existed. Lauded for great numbers, it was mysteriously cancelled--very Lovecraft Country/Watchmen of them
• Robyn Hood (Global TV)
• You're forgiven if you've never heard of this, but it's a hilariously awful DEI/ESG effort out of Canada that's exactly what you'd expect it to be--this one might be bad enough to enjoy as unintentionally funny

This list could be a mile long, but I've highlighted the ones I'm most aware of (all of which had IP or historical precedents to assist in their marketing). Unlike with film, all of these choices fulfilled their DEI/ESG ambitions (and who doesn't like the ruling elite, am I right? Bill Gates wants what's best for me, I'm sure of it). Above incoherence and terrible writing, the worst part of most of these shows is that they are boring. A Neil Breen film has the first two elements, but you can at least be entertained by the magnificent stupidity of Double Down. There is none of that here. The amount of money spent on this is obscene and all the shows failed to accomplish both their financial and ideological goals.

While we know ESG is going away, the companies who propped it up will continue to funding those goals, so what's going to happen? The SAG strike will cut back some DEI hiring in terms of showrunners/writers, but the goalposts won't change. What needs to happen is big companies, like Disney, need financial disaster--to be forced to actually appeal to the audience rather than do the bidding of trillion dollar companies. Will we get that in the future? One can hope, but it's unlikely to happen next year.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Box Office Struggles Continue; Zegler Damage Control; Captain America 4 in Trouble; James Gunn Hypocrisy; Lack of Leslye Headland Backlash; and the ESG/DEI Success Story

Box Office Disaster Continues

The worst American Thanksgiving box office in history saw the cratering of the latest Disney/MCU films. When this kind of failure is covered by the mainstream you know it's catastrophic. This reality comes as a shock to the few people still riding the MCU train (I've run into disbelief and bafflement over The Marvels failure, for instance). Let's briefly look at their performance:

• The Marvels - 202 (domestic weekend drops: -78%, -37%, -60%, -46%)
• Wish - 106 (domestic weekend drop: -61%, -31%)

Both films suffered from negative word of mouth and both are complete financial failures--The Marvels might not limp past the Dungeons & Dragons bomb (208) and has no hope of reaching Ezra Miller's The Flash (270; losing out to an alleged kidnapper and abuser has to sting). Even the shills are talking about the failure and expressing that the lead characters in The Marvels (Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, and Monica Rambeau) may be cut going forward--hints of the former were occurring weeks before release from Brie Larson in particular. The incredibly expensive Wish is yet another flop on Disney's animated side (cf), who haven't had a hit since Toy Story 4 (2019) and Frozen 2 (2019). This echoes the MCU's only success after Phase Three, which was also a sequel (Spider-Man 3 in 2021). The belief is the two films are going to collectively cost Disney 500 million dollars, which is incredible.

Related in terms of box office, the Hunger Games prequel has had very mild weekly drops (-35%, -51%, -34%), but started so poorly it could still lose money for Lions Gate (currently at 260 worldwide). Irrespective of where it ends up, it hasn't met projections (the last franchise film, in 2015, made 653, which is 849 in today's dollars).

Speaking of the Rachel Zegler vehicle, I speculated that she had been told to stop making inflammatory comments recently and this theory is backed by recent comments where she now claims to love classic Disney IP, despite saying the opposite just months earlier. The new comments are clearly public relations with her true feelings laid out in the multiple interviews previously. The negative reaction to her has become so large that it threatens the box office of her future projects and Disney is attempting whatever damage control it can before the next release (just as the WB silenced and hid Ezra Miller in the lead-up to The Flash in the hopes of saving it).

As someone who suffered through Falcon and the Winter Soldier (my review) it comes as no surprise that Captain America 4 has tested even lower than The Marvels. Apparently the plot was meant to be a January 6th parallel (pre-lawsuits/footage release, clearly). This included Falcon repeating his nonsensical 'do better' speech from D+, but I suspect thw plot has little to do with the poor response. The film is now going through emergency reshoots, but as these haven't been helping the modern day MCU, they are most likely a waste of time and money.

The unintended disaster that has been James Gunn's public statements as DCEU clown-in-chief continue (cf). Recently he declared cameo porn as one of the worst elements in recent super hero films. This comment comes after his lavish praise for The Flash, which is completely dependent on cameo porn. In his short tenure Gunn has said so many contradictory things it feels like we have to ignore what he says and focus on what he does instead.

The unwanted Star Wars D+ show is filmed and will be inflicted on audiences in 2024. I bring it up not because of the lack of quality (which won't be any worse than the other SW series), but because its creator, Leslye Headland, has somehow avoided any fallout whatsoever from being Harvey Weinstein's personal assistant. In that position she was well aware (despite her denials) of what he was up to (an open secret in Hollywood, as we now know) and pointedly did not go into that in her 'tell-all' play in 2012. How she's completely skated from that scandal is unclear, although she ticks three boxes for an ESG score (female, Jew, and a lesbian) so perhaps that is enough. Regardless, the show had a difficult production and some insiders (cf) claimed it was never coming out. How will it do? Given that Ahsoka just crashed and burned without the same drawbacks, I'd have to think horribly.

Speaking of ESG/DEI, while the former (as a label) seems is going away, the people behind it haven't changed so the efforts continue. How can you push an agenda if the public rejects it? BlackRock has talked repeatedly about forcing behaviour through its funding, but thus far that investment has only made limited inroads among the wealthy elite (screaming at the lower classes has never been the way to change minds--apparently Larry Fink never read 1984 or, if he did, didn't understand it). The route they should have followed is what Larian Games has successfully done with Baldur's Gate 3. That game is suffused with ESG nonsense (echoing the failed Dungeons & Dragons movie), however, it handled it as well as can be. How did they do it? The politics are largely background and it mostly avoids demeaning and screaming at its opponents. Larian also made a choice that's very out of step with modern games (and TV/film) by having a largely non-ESG cast, ergo its DEI placements are mostly secondary characters. One of the primary signs of how well BG3's approach has worked is that the tiny minority who hated the game come from both sides of the political spectrum. There are plenty of things within the game that are absurd, but they can be ignored because everything else is excellent. I don't see any evidence that larger companies are smart enough to follow this approach--we're on course for more screaming and virtue signaling.

This is just an observation. One of the stranger things I run into when discussing the relative success of something is the unwillingness of those who like (or dislike) them to accept financial reality. This has nothing to do with the quality of a product (that's a separate discussion), but there's stubborn resistance in accepting failure (something encouraged by shills, although they can't completely ignore it, cf). These tend to be the kind of people who think putting a BLM sticker on their car tangibly improves race relations, or that a Ukrainian flag on their Twitter bio helps the war effort; etc (look at me, look how good my intentions are). Whether I like something or not, how the public receives it (short-term and long-term) is interesting: it says something about the tastes of the general audience and the culture at large. For example, even though I think the Star Wars prequels are terrible films, it remains true that many younger people who grew up with them enjoyed them then and still do. That's interesting and worth exploring. I don't see any value (except rhetorically) in simply rejecting that fact (and I can at least credit how most prequel fans admit they are flawed).

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU Fallout Continues; He-Man/She-Ra Sold; Hunger Games Flops; Netflix's Hannibal

After the release of Shang-Chi (the second Phase Four bomb after Black Widow), featuring the irritating Simu Liu, a sequel was expected via the talentless Cretton (cf) returning to write and direct (those with good memories will recall Cretton claimed Shang-Chi would be like The Matrix--not so much!). Since then there has been radio silence (just a vague promise it would appear after Avengers: The Kang Dynasty, now set to appear in 2026). Given the lack of appetite for the character, I never believed we'd get a sequel (just Shang-Chi shoehorned into a hero group, presumably The Avengers), and now we've learned that Cretton has been booted from the aforementioned Avengers film (probably due to the new SAG agreement), but in theory is still in charge of the hypothetical Shang-Chi sequel and Wonderman show that's likely never going to appear (passim; it's rumoured the actors from that show have been told to move on). Cretton, just like Nia DaCosta (The Marvels), Chloe Zhao (The Eternals), etc, were hired because of what he is, not who he is (ticking a representation box for ESG). With the strike agreement in place it's impossible to continue the MCU's approach of ghost directors handling action/FX-heavy scenes while leaving the talking to ESG picks. Marvel is now forced to have actual showrunners and directors and none of the aforementioned (nor D+ folks) have shown any ability to do that successfully with comicbook material.

In the same theme as Shang-Chi above, there was talk of an Eternals sequel when released, with comments from Feige that the characters would be appearing subsequently. However, not only has a sequel not been announced, none of the characters have reappeared and the expected attachment of Kamala Khan to the franchise was removed entirely. It's not that Eternals bombed much harder than Shang-Chi (402 vs 432), but the film was seen as so horrendous by the industry (even shills) that they gave up on it immediately (the leak prior to its release, something virtually unprecedented for the MCU, seems like a sign of how little faith they had in it).

Grace Randolph, the more successful female version of John Campea, is stating the obvious: the MCU (a brand built to sell toys to boys, but happened to appeal to girls as well) is struggling to switch that appeal to a larger female/diverse audience. None of the efforts have worked (I know people it does work for, but that number has shrank to just a few). The most amusing thing about The Marvels flop is that women did not show up (35% of the audience); it's less surprising that Caucasians skipped it (just 36%; Marvel constantly attacking that audience is paying dividends). The only thing the MCU's approach has achieved is to mildly appeal to older diverse men, but in numbers too small to support the franchise. This reality isn't something Disney or Marvel can accept (or its few remaining fans, in my experience) so we aren't going to see a change in approach until the brand completely implodes. Until then, most MCU fans have (just like graphic novel fans) migrated to Anime/Manga where there's no ESG in sight.

Speaking of the future, Andre has a theory that Loki season two (which no one is watching; not in the top-10 streaming shows and only 5th among originals) has opened the door to replacing the very troubled Jonathan Majors (Kang; his legal situation isn't as bad as Tenoch Huerta (Namor)--as the fired Victoria Alonso would remind us, you have to role the 'R' with Huerta, "Rrrrrrrape"). Tom Hiddleston has said he's done with Marvel (I wouldn't put much stock in that comment, but it is amusing to see someone as 'progressive' as Hiddleston get fed-up with the direction of his character--just like his buddy Thor, Chris Hemsworth). Loki would be an excellent Memberberry to include in the next Avengers film (repeating his appearance as their original villain). Marvel could get away with that since most of its audience has no idea what's been happening in Phase Four and Five. That would be the perfect recipe for a reboot, but it's difficult to imagine that happening or, if it did, it improving while an unfettered Kevin Feige is in charge (bringing back Robert Downey Jr.'s Iron Man is a desperate act and you have to wonder if they will John Krasinski-him in the process).

Netflix's She-Ra (2018-20) and He-Man (2021-22) have been sold off to Amazon. If it's difficult to parse this reality with the media narrative about how successful the shows were, that's tells you something about corporate media. The IP is meant to sell toys and when it doesn't and struggles with ratings that's not a success. Regardless, it's extremely unlikely Amazon will do anything useful with the IP (more Rings of Power volcanoes to the face), but it's a suitably botched ending for Netflix's hilarious fumbling of the franchise.

The pampered lunatic known as Rachal Zegler (the upcoming Snow White, passim) has seen her Hunger Games film open lower than megabomb The Marvels (44 vs 46). There's a context in that The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes cost less (80 million), so there's a chance it could avoid losing money. Whether treading water is enough for more films to be made is hard to say (probably), but you have to think Zegler won't be a part of that future. What's funny is this is exactly the fanbase that The Marvels was pursuing, but neither has worked (albeit I assume the female demographic of the audience is much higher).

You would have thought after the Cleopatra disaster a lesson might have been learned by Netflix about race swapping popular historical figures, but clearly that's not the case as Denzel Washington has been tapped to play Hannibal of Carthage (I'm sure someone's mother also dreamed about him being black). For those who don't know, the descendants of the Phoenicians are the Lebanese, an underrepresented minority group (just like Egyptians) who are not sub-Saharan Africans (and thus don't seem to 'count' as meaningful in America--along with North Africans, Turks, and so on). I don't know what audience they think they are targeting--Bridgerton? Washington is a fantastic actor, but he's far too old for the part (68; Hannibal was 29 at the start of the Second Punic War), not to mention it's a cultural insult to both the historical person and the culture he was part of (it's both cultural imperialism and appropriation, but we'll have to see if the Neo-Liberal left (ala The Mary Sue) oppose it here like they did with Cleopatra). What this choice tells me is Netflix is still receiving ESG money (or some equivalent), as none of this vapid virtue signaling actually appeals to the general audience. My guess is execs wanted the hero (Hannibal) to be played by a minority in order to fight the evil white (Roman) enemies.

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU Troubles Continue, RT Exposed, Snow White Drama, and Abrams' Constantine Cancelled

Marvel/Disney's issues are piling up and the hilarious, on-target South Park "Panderverse" (ostensibly pointed at moribund Star Wars head Kathleen Kennedy) hits all things Disney--is there a project that doesn't fit the mocking narrative? One of the primary signs that this specific approach is disappearing is that the gigantic corporations funding it (BlackRock, Vanguard, etc) are actively withdrawing from ESG. This means ESG will cease financially dictating these decisions and, while it's likely to be replaced by something similar, it could mean a pause as the industry tries to recover from the damage following it has caused.

Vulture has exposed that RT reviews are rigged (cf). This isn't a surprise to those who follow this issue, but having it confirmed means the numbers can be ignored. IMDB has similar issues (owned/controlled as it is by Amazon), so ultimately we are left with box office, Nielsen ratings, toy sales, etc to measure success/impact.

This story paired nicely with the discovery (via Rolling Stone) that HBO created fake social media accounts to attack those who criticized their shows. This approach is less impactful than the RT manipulation, but illustrates just how petty entertainment giants are when it comes to criticism of their products.

Changes at Disney continue--not only did they sell off ESPN (to add liquidity given their money problems), but a number of D+ shows have been cancelled or released for their creators to try and find a home/financing:

• Doogie Kamealoha (riffing off the 80s hit Doogie Howswer) after two seasons; no, I'd never heard of it either
• The Spiderwick Chronicles (based on the popular children's books, 03-09) - filming of the show is complete (it's apparently a fairly straightforward adaptation) and its makers found a home on Roku; the IP already had a film made in 2008 (Nickelodoen, which bombed)
• Nautilus (based on the Jules Verne novel 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) - filming of the show was complete (made via the usual 're-imagined' modern adaptation), and it was picked up by AMC

This was accompanied by two rounds of MCU shuffling (second round), some of which is related to the ongoing strike in Hollywood:

• Echo - the unwanted spinoff of Hawkeye has moved from November to January; filming is complete, so I can only assume this change was made to make room for What If? (which gets the better release slot because Echo is apparently a disaster and much of it had to be re-shot, with the episode count dropped from eight to five and debuting Netflix-style--all at once--which is not normal for D+)
• X-Men 97 (animated) - shifted from fall 2023 to early 2024; filming is complete so this is either a change due to lack of confidence or it's meant to be a palate-cleanser after Echo
• Agatha - the unwanted spinoff of WandaVision from winter 2023 to fall 2024; filming is complete and I suspect this is going to get the Echo-treatment of a Netflix-style one-day dump whenever it appears (no word about episode cuts as-yet, but it has been renamed three times)
• Ironheart - has been pulled from the schedule entirely (THR says filming is complete, but it's impacted by the strike, which is hard to accept when a date swap could have covered that (as it has for other shows)--for those unaware, this is the Miles Moralesing of Iron Man (the same creator created both)
• Daredevil - filming interrupted by the strike and it being completely retooled (see below)
• Wonder Man - filming interrupted by the strike and it may be cancelled entirely (at the moment it's on an indefinite hiatus)
• Other planned shows are also rumoured to be scrapped (link above), but none have been named (those announced: a Wakanda-based show; two animated Spider-Man shows; Marvel Zombies; a Nova series; Vision Quest; and a third season of What If?; I suspect the animated efforts are safe)
• Deadpool 3 - from May/24 to July/24 (great slot to an okay one; the small shift is likely strike-related); this is the only film approved/made by Bob Chapek prior to being ousted
• Captain America 4 - from July/24 to Feb/25 (okay slot to a bad one); filming was complete, but emergency reshoots are occurring now as apparently the original plot was calqued on January 6th
• Thunderbolts - from Dec/24 to July/25 (bad slot to an okay one); yet to be filmed and thus could easily shelved or jettisoned in the future
• Blade (again!) - from Feb/25 to Nov/25 (bad slot to an okay one); it's not clear if this film has a script yet (after discarding four already)

Marvel is scrapping the eight episodes they've filmed of the new Daredevil-series and completely retooling it. From reports, what was completed was a bland court drama with ESG casting, and while I expect the latter to remain unchanged, the belief is more action will be inserted (whether Daredevil will need a smarter, more talented female character to save him and defeat the villain remains to be seen, but that would be on-brand). What I don't think we'll get is the kind of frenetic, meaningful action from Daredevil season one on Netflix (and to a lesser degree in its other two seasons).

The Marvels is projected to bomb hard, with projections putting it behind Ant-Man 3 and it has opened on Thursday lower than Ezra Miller's Flash. This is a film with a ton of baggage, from Brie Larson fighting with fans (to the point of losing top billing, as this was originally Captain Marvel 2), to no one watching Ms. Marvel (whose video game also bombed), to Monica Rambeau having the least interesting origin of all time (walking through a force field?) and then absolving Wanda of torturing an entire town because she felt a little sad. Guardians 3's modest success has provided no lift for the film and no one knows (or cares) what's going on in Phase Five. As a reminder for context, here are the superhero film performances from this year (I've included the official budgets after the slash, but many of these are actually higher; broadly speaking a film needs to more than double its budget to turn a profit):

• Guardians 3 (May) - 845/250; with inflation this is 251 million less than Guardians 2
• Miles Morales 2 (June) - 690/90; with inflation this is 217 more than its first film
• Ant-Man 3 (February) - 476/200; with inflation this is 290 million less than Ant-Man 2
• The Flash (June) - 270/220
• Shazam 2 (March) - 133/125; with inflation this is 308 million less than Shazam
• Blue Beetle (August) - 129/104

The DC movies faired worse (as they always have as the DCEU), but the MCU films got killed other than Guardians. I'm lost on the appeal of Miles Morales, but in context that's a low end performance vs just four years ago (and dwarfed by Peter Parker's 1.9 billion), so it's only in comparison to the disasters around it that Sony can feel good (I see very little merch impact from that film). Back to The Marvels, whose reported budget is 275 million and has no hope to achieve Captain Marvel's box office. It will lose money, but the question is how much. It's widely rumoured that Brie Larson will step away from the MCU after this, which is a fittingly botched ending for the character (the modern, re-imagined Kelly Sue DeConnick iteration of Captain Marvel), lest we forget she was intended to be the new leader of The Avengers. What will the MCU do? If Nelson Peltz and Ike Perlmutter take over Disney's board (a realistic possibility that's currently in progress), I'd expect massive changes whose impact will be seen in theaters in 2-3 years. If not, I don't think Bob Iger will fundamentally change anything other than budgets and the MCU will ultimately implode (assuming it's not sold off).

We have to talk about Disney's attempted damage control with their live action Snow White (a film I'd have no interest in irrespective of circumstances). Star Rachel Zegler has inflamed fans with various silly comments (nothing unexpected--watch Rings of Powers interviews and its rinse and repeat; she has been quiet lately, so clearly she has been told to shut-up), which in part had the film's release date bumped (March, 2024, to March, 2025). This was explained as being due to the strikes, but we know that's not the only reason as the filmmakers have replaced their diverse group of Dwarves with a non-diverse group of creepy CGI Dwarves. In many ways this is exactly like so many other recent films, but as I said prior to all this happening, I don't think there's any appetite for this regardless (I'm still lost on who believes Gal Gadot would feel jealous of Zegler). Time will tell.

Speaking of race swaps, J. J. Abrams' planned (2021) Constantine series is dead. Sope Dirisu was apparently up for the role, but the series (along with another race-swapped property) could not find a home (on HBO or elsewhere). I wonder if Abrams' ability to get paid to do nothing has finally run out (he hasn't had a film in theaters since Star Wars in 2019 or a show since 2014-15). In terms of the IP, Keanu Reeves may come back to reprise the role, but at his age (59) it's difficult to see that being more than a one-off. We seem to be at the tipping point of maximum pandering, but given production schedules, it will take some time before any change will be seen in theaters or the small screen.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Blue Beetle Bombs, James Gunn's Struggles Continue, MCU Changes, Executive States the Obvious, Baldur's Gate 'Controversy', and a Silly Barbie Theory

As expected, Blue Beetle has bombed, falling short of even Shazam 2's anemic opener (25 vs 30). As I went through back in March, the film is the last from the Ann Sarnoff regime that was left untouched when Discovery bought WB. While I can imagine an iteration of this character that works (a smaller budget and based on the 80s version of the IP), Sarnoff saddled us with a family drama with all the baggage of the current superhero era. It's only hope was to hit it big with American Latinos (the targeted audience), but the pandering hasn't worked (unlike with Disney's bomb Encanto). Are there any lessons learned by the current James Gunn regime? It doesn't look like it, as we'll get into below.

The disaster of James Gunn's tenure as the head of DC continues (the guy has to be more careful with what he says to the media). After revealing in December that he wasn't bringing back Henry Cavill because of his age, he began to change the narrative in January and now says he's not writing a film for a younger Superman. Why put yourself in this position? Why lie at the outset and have to walk it back? This comes off the heels of 'is he or is he not' bringing back Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman which followed endless praising of Ezra Miller despite the The Mad Goose Wizard's innumerable issues (cf). My belief is Gunn has no plan. Nothing definitive, just ideas. I thought he was a poor pick as an executive (that includes when he was going to helm 'Cosmic Marvel' for Kevin Feige) and there's no evidence that he understands or could create a good Superman story. Most people's impression of him is the first Guardians film, a story written by someone else and whose success he can't replicate. His 'true form', as it were, is The Suicide Squad, a boring bomb that's less memorable than David Ayer's mess years earlier (I'll take a bad B-movie over an unfunny comedy any day).

Flipping over to the MCU, rumours about dumping terrible writers are floating around. One comes from the reputable Jeff Sneider, which is that Ant-Man 3 writer Jeff Loveness had been dumped from co-writing the next Avengers films. More interestingly, if on less solid ground, K. C. Walsh (who is a friend of scoopers rather than a scooper himself) claims the laughable Michael Waldron (Loki/Doctor Strange 2) has also been dumped from that project. Both writers are terrible, so if true their departures are a blessing, but it's highly probable Kevin Feige (if given the freedom) will find folks equally as awful to fill their shoes.

One Piece EP Marty Adelstein just realized that 1+1=2 saying, in light of Cowboy Bebop bombing (cf), "we learned is the fans are expecting you to be true to the source material." No shit Sherlock. Apparently Adelstein never looked at the box office for The Lord of the Rings (2001-03) or the Harry Potter films (2001-11). In fairness to Adelstein, he's hamstrung by ESG obligations, but it's still funny to hear comments like this from people in power.

I've been playing Baldur's Gate 3 most of this month and thoroughly enjoying it--the game feels like Dragon Age prior to their safe approach in Inquisition (2014). I bring it up here because of comments from former DA writer David Gaider who said (in reference to the character Lae'zel):

"The Dragon Age fandom consistently gave WAY more latitude and forgiveness to male as opposed to female characters, in every game. ... Fandom has always treated male characters with more forgiveness - full stop."

Gaider makes no effort to justify his position because, in his mind, none is needed. The opinion has been handed down to him from on high and questioning it is a sign that you are ignorant and an ideological enemy. His comment (even if you agree with it) is worthless because it doesn't actually address the issue which is why this specific character doesn't resonate with (some) fans? The notion that the problem is tied to gender is absurd on its face. The worthwhile exploration would be digging into the specifics of the character (my two cents is that all the BG3 characters are fairly thin 'types' and, lacking depth, so are judged on their dominant characteristics). This kind of rhetorical shorthand by privileged people like Gaider is dismissive, divisive and unhelpful.

Speaking of divisive, I wanted to look at something that Randall Park said, not because I'm interested in Park (who is an unremarkable character actor), but because it neatly encapsulates an underlying belief shared in Hollywood (and to a lesser extent some in the public):

"I feel like, just in general, this industry is taking the wrong lessons. For example, Barbie is this massive blockbuster, and the idea is: Make more movies about toys! No. Make more movies by and about women!" and "Asians folks have some of the worst representation in Hollywood by the numbers, and it’s never made sense to me because studios are courting the Asian box office, which is almost as big as the North American box office. But it feels like Asians aren’t really allowed to complain about that because of the whole ‘model minority’ thing"

Let's quickly go over Park's assumptions:

• The entertainment industry is underrepresented by films made by and about women. This is a quantitative argument, with the idea being if 50% (or more) films fit that paradigm lives (or at least women's lives) would be measurably better. This is a false equivalency (if just having representation made things better, we'd already be living in a better society--how many people are watching the WNBA?--instead the aggressive application of this approach has lead to further divisiveness). There's an underlying sexism and racism in Park's comment as he implies only women can write for women and that women can only relate to a character if she's from her own ethnic group--this has never been true (ask the Japanese about Anne of Green Gables). It's a sign of how little critical thinking Park is engaged in when talking like this
• Representation can be assessed by volume (the higher the density of diverse group X, the better): as I said above, forced diversity seems to make race relations worse; Park is also part of a minority group that's near the top of the economic pyramid (cf; for those unaware, Indian-Americans (not to be confused with Natives) are at the top in the US, UK, and Canada). Park is using 'Asian' to mean East and Southeast Asians (not West, South, or the forgotten North Asians--I doubt Park is concerned with the Russian representation from North Asia). How has diverse casting helped the African-American community (the most commonly inserted group)? Not at all (see the economic list). This problem is unrelated to skin colour (as should be already be obvious), as many Caribbean and African populations in the US do better than white Americans (as, indeed, do all the Asians in Park's sense of the term)
• Courting the Asian box office means you should cast more Asians (in the 'Asian' sense of the above, although I can assure you none of those varied groups see themselves as interchangeable): we have to read between the lines, but given Park's understanding of 'Asian' he means the Chinese box office and he's missing the point that they don't need 'Asians' in them to be popular--what audiences want are entertaining films (this seems obvious, but Park clearly doesn't understand the qualitative difference between Ant-Man 3 and The Avengers)
• Asians can't complain: this isn't true at all, as there are innumerable Asians (including Park himself) who complain. The problem is, Park's ethnic group (Korean) is doing extremely well in the entertainment industry and he's in the fortunate position where his culture is broadly popular and has an extremely successful entertainment industry (as do Japan, China, and India for that matter). Korea doesn't need to be pandered too--they export their culture--and I highly doubt Park is demanding Korean films to be more diverse (however amusing it would be to have Jada Pinkett Smith do a Psy biopic where he's a black woman)

Why is Park complaining? I think it's twofold. 1) Park himself isn't being offered the roles he believes he should be, 2) These ideas are what he hears repeatedly from his colleagues and peer group--Park is repeating talking points without thinking critically about them.

This article was written by Peter Levi

DCEU Chaos Continues; TMNT Avoids a Bud Light-Style Boycott; Mission Impossible Bombs; More DEI Fallout

I've felt like James Gunn's plans for DC have been haphazard and poorly thought out from the beginning (cf and cf), and bringing back Gal Gadot (the Synderverse's Wonder Woman) fits that perfectly. The character is coming off an embarrassing second film where she rapes a man (an incident DC has ignored since, passively going with Patty Jenkins after-the-fact justification), with the sequel not matching her prior continuity (cf). Gadot is getting older (38) and can't act, so why bring her back? My assumption is Gadot is being set-up for a Indiana Jones/Hulk situation, preparing to hand things off to a younger, more diverse iteration. I believe Gadot was kept over the other two Snyder trilogy characters because Ben Affleck can't return as Batman (age being problematic (51), as well as the complications of the Matt Reeves iteration), while Henry Cavill won't come back after WB has systematically screwed him over and rejected him. We know Gadot doesn't have much audience pull because of The Flash box office, so I don't think the memberberry is going to perform the task Gunn has set out for her. It's just another boondoggle for DC which has been at sea since the third Nolan Batman movie in 2012.

I don't really care about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles one way or another (I enjoyed the original RPG, but that's it), but I have been amused that Paramount appears to have been caught doing a little pre-emptive damage control for the upcoming film. Apparently the film was originally going to feature an orientation swapping, with Splinter switched from straight to gay. This was caught out in an early screening and a poster that was up for a month. However, someone at the company has made all that disappear and the director has disavowed the whole thing. The speculation, which seems reasonable, is that they are terrified of a Bud Light-scenario where the film gets boycotted, so with some VO work and editing that element has been removed. I wouldn't be seeing this movie anyway, but as someone who wants adaptations to respect the source material, I'm glad they've backed off on the ESG nonsense.

There were a lot of people on the right komming over Top Gun: Maverick's success as it was seen as bucking the BlackRock trends to massive success. For whatever reason they put a lot of faith in Tom Cruise as someone who could succeed without leaning on that apparatus and assumed his next Mission Impossible would achieve success. My only thought about Cruise is his ridiculous Oprah appearance (2005) and South Park putting him in the closet for most of an episode (2005). That aside, Mission Impossible has bombed (just 451 on a budget of nearly 300 million). To reiterate what many people have been saying for years: movie stars don't matter. A popular actor appearing in something has no influence on box office. Memberberries (popular characters) can help, but by themselves aren't enough. The trick in modern cinema seems to be: 1) spectacle (Avatar 2) a sense of fun or action (Maverick/Barbie), 3) relatively inoffensive (simplistic messaging for the targeted market that doesn't overwhelm the story). This hasn't produce anything good (I haven't seen anything I really enjoyed in five years), but it works enough for the popular audience.

The fallout of Disney's legal battle with Florida continues, as the state has eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion programs (or DEI). These likely would have been struck down anyway via the Supreme Court's Affirmative Action decision, but could have taken years as lawsuits worked their way through the courts. This only impacts Disney's parks and associated business ventures in the state and does not preclude informal approaches along those lines. Effectively it eliminate a few positions and means Disney will have to be more creative if it wants to maintain the approach (as it must to continue receiving BlackRock funding).

This article was written by Peter Levi