Viewership for House of the Dragon has fallen since the premiere (being particularly low in the key 18-49 demographic), but beyond initial airing the numbers are holding up reasonably well (which is to say, people continue to come to the show throughout the week).With that said, the latter numbers are from HBO so have to taken with a grain of salt (the Nielsen numbers aren't remarkable, being well below things like Ozark, Reacher, Cobra Kai, etc), but if true the show has done a solid job of fan retention. I think it's benefiting in part from the ineptness of Rings of Power (see below), although there's still plenty of time for things to take a turn in either direction (particularly with the cast changes that are about to happen--both Milly Alcock and Emily Carey are departing). I've seen the first episode of the show, which I thought was adequate, but nowhere near the level of early GOT seasons and suffering from the preachiness of modern storytelling.
Sandman seems to be on the same path as Watchmen/Lovecraft Country: 'amazing viewership', but no season two. The cancellation rumours are being buoyed by comments from Neil Gaiman himself and we know Netflix inflated its numbers. If it's one-and-done, Sandman will be another example of "fan-baiting" failing (see below), with the fault here largely with Gaiman himself (who went through a similar process with American Gods and Good Omens), which echoes George R. R. Martin doing something similar with House of the Dragon. I have no attachment to the Sandman IP (I own a couple of the graphic novels, but I always thought they, like Gaiman's corpus overall, are highly overrated). If there's no second season that puts Gaiman in a tough spot, as he's running out of IP to adapt. The aforementioned American Gods failed (meaning its Amazon spinoff Anansi Boys can't get a boost from it), Good Omens was lackluster (it's strength coming from deceased co-author Terry Pratchett anyway), and his other IP are either building off someone else's work (often Alan Moore) or properties of limited interest or long since exploited (Neverwhere (96) and Stardust (07)). Sandman is what he's best known for, so if it dies that's his legacy kicked in the face by the audience.
She-Hulk has become the MCU Titanic as even the shills are jumping ship (it has the lowest viewership of any Disney+ show, echoing it's production troubles). Angry Joe, an early defender who made an ill-advised response video to criticism, has switched to hating the show, and even John Campea is admitting it's not very funny (claiming he's laughed five times through six episodes). The show has been accused of depicting catfishing uncritically (shades of Wonder Woman 1984 infamous rape situation), but without much hubbub because no one is watching. Phase Four's continued inability to navigate basic ethics boggles the mind. The negative feedback will likely only impact the showrunner and writers, as I expect plans for She-Hulk to continue forward regardless. While Feige seems incapable of discerning good writing from bad (thus continuing to give Michael Waldron work), failure to get certain numbers does mean oblivion--ergo, those involved with creating The Eternals are long gone.
It's come out that the entertainment industry is suffering from an assumption that core fans of an IP will show up no matter what's done with an IP (see below), such that the emphasis on adaptations is purely on expanding its appeal outside that market. There's some logic behind the idea, but the approach has been so poorly implemented (both in marketing and execution), that not only are new audiences not showing up, but the existing audience isn't either. This has been exposed specifically at Marvel (and internally they are beginning to re-evaluate their strategy). At the MCU the belief is that memberberries (ala Spider-Man: No Way Home) are enough to placate the traditional audience, but using this approach has already failed with Star Wars (eg Kenobi and Boba Fett), Star Trek (Discovery and Picard), and so on. The insider claims Feige believes he can make it work because he believes in his own abilities, but how long he'll be allowed to flail unchecked is unclear.
Speaking of bad writing, Rings of Power is so bad the press, whose opinions are framed by their corporate masters, are now criticizing it en masse. They can't address everything that's wrong with the show, but feel safe identifying writing as the problem (an issue hardly unique to Rings, as Wheel of Time, Witcher, and most genre shows suffer from the same issue). I believe the writers are the target because that shifts blame away from those truly responsible for this fiasco: the executives in charge. The writers and showrunners (nobodies from Bad Robot), can easily be jettisoned. I think what we'll see in Rings season two is a soft fix ala The Witcher--it will look slightly better (Elves will look like Elves, the armour will improve, they'll hire a proper fight choreographer, etc), but the writing will remain atrociously because Jennifer Salke is a clueless ideologue and can't hire writers based on talent. Speaking of Salke, it's amusing to see the theories that the universally hated Rings version of Galadriel is a Salke self-insert (something I consider likely, but I doubt we'll ever be able to confirm it).
Sony has delayed the release of its two latest Marvel offerings (both of which had completed filming): Kraven and Madame Web. This suggests reshoots are needed, particularly for Kraven, and given how poorly Morbius was received and how underwhelming Venom 2 performed, it's no surprise. Can Sony make a good Marvel film? I highly doubt it, but now would be the time when the MCU is reeling from its terrible Phase Four.
Fan-baiting
While this concept isn't new, an excellent post discussing it came out recently that I wanted to address.
"Fan-baiting” is a form of marketing used by producers, film studios, and actors, with the intent of exciting artificial controversy, garnering publicity, and explaining away the negative reviews of a new and often highly anticipated production. Fan-baiting emerged as a marketing strategy in 2016/17, after fans of beloved franchises such as Ghostbusters and Star Wars objected to what they saw as poor writing choices, sloppy scripts, and cheap alterations to plot lines and characters for the sake of shock value. Along side these critics, there was a small group of bigoted but vociferous commentators who objected to the inclusion of black and female actors in roles traditionally held by white male actors. Some of these individuals began publicly harassing actors. Bigots have always attacked diversity on screen, but in a highly polarized political climate, instances of harassment on garnered disproportionately massive media coverage, which provided production studios with both free publicity and a new defence against actual critics. Studios seized the opportunity to discredit criticism of poor writing & acting, insinuating that these, too, were motivated by bigotry. What used to be accepted as standard critiques were increasingly dismissed as part of the ignorant commentary of a “toxic fandom.” Soon, it became standard practice before release to issue announcements specifying diverse casting choices, coupled with pre-emptive declarations of solidarity with the cast whom they now counted on to receive disparaging and harassing comments. Actors who are women and/or BIPOC became props & shields for craven corporate laziness and opportunism. The studios save money both by avoiding expensive veteran writers as well as by offloading publicity to news outlets and social media covering the artificial controversy. “Fan-baiting” works. It brings in a new sympathetic audience whose endorsement is more about taking a public stance against prejudice than any real interest in the art. “Fan-baiting” also permits studios to cultivate public skepticism over the legitimacy of poor reviews. “Fan-baiting” also compels reviewers to temper their criticism, for fear of becoming associated with the “toxic fandom” and losing their professional credibly, resulting in telling discrepancies between critic and audience review scores. The true nature of “fan-baiting” is never so clear as when a script is well-crafted and audience reviews are accordingly positive, exposing the announcements, declarations of solidarity, & grooming of skepticism for what they really are: cynical corporate marketing tactics. Put another way, media corporations have found a way to monetize the racism that they set their actors up to receive.
It has been pointed out this strategy actually goes back to 2015's Fan4stic, when Fox used it to try to save that film--an effort that failed monumentally. That failure ties into the something the poster does not discuss, which is that this approach almost always fails in terms of box office/viewership (while usually succeeding with official reviews). There are rare cases where a show uses this approach and succeeds (the first season of The Witcher or currently with House of the Dragon), but in both cases the marketing hurt rather than helped and the shows had to overcome the hostility they created to find that success (in The Witcher's case, very fleeting success).
The whole pantomime is getting tired and seems to go hand-in-hand with bad writing. The strategy has never worked on film and is disastrous for the highly profitable secondary market (toys etc, which the hypothetical new audience does not buy--Star Trek is a great example of how clearly this fails, as the toy manufacturers eventually refused to make the merchandise). Fiscally, fan-baiting makes no sense at all, yet it's unclear when (if?) that will dawn on executives and they were change strategies.
This article was written by Peter Levi
