I made a comment last time that Henry Cavill returning as Superman likely meant an end to his time with The Witcher. I made that statement not because it's impossible for Cavill to do both, but because I believed he would want out of The Witcher after its disastrous second season (the first isn't great either, but there was hope it could improve)--we now know it was a struggle just to get him back for the third season (cf). My prediction that he'd leave proved correct and it's clear Cavill exited The Witcher months before the official announcement (allowing Netflix time to recast him). While a fourth season was announced (with Liam Hemsworth as Geralt), if season three bombs Netflix can easily walk away. Indeed, as I was predicting long before this news came out, I expect all related Witcher IP to bomb henceforth due to the terrible writing.
The end of the IP on Netflix is the best thing for the franchise. The first season did all it could do by exposing non-gamers to the series, but there's no positive impact left to come from it (there was no meaningful bump from either the animated show or season two). I don't think an end to The Witcher will impact how Netflix approaches IP, other than reinforcing that established actors are required for success, even if they don't guarantee it (ahem, Rings of Power).
I don't understand the unabashed enthusiasm for James Gunn being anointed as the co-runner of the new DCEU regime. As I've said before, I think the praise he receives for the first Guardians is overblown (the story beats come from the original writer), the second Guardians is a mess (still funny, but poorly paced with failed emotional beats), and The Suicide Squad completely bombed (the ultimate fail for a comedy: it was boring). I'm aware that Peacemaker has had some success on streaming, but the reception is muted compared to behemoths like Stranger Things. If Gunn had never been fired from Marvel I don't think he would have saved Phase Four (I hear the opposite hypothesis all the time), which makes me ask what is really changing at WB? That's not to say I don't understand the PR win, since Gunn is personally quite popular. His co-runner, Peter Safran, has unremarkable credits, so while I understand elation in escaping the past regime, the proof of their positive change will be in the pudding.
It has leaked that the MCU is planning for X-Men swaps (of race at least). if true this isn't a shock, given Phase Four, but it is interesting because scooper Mikey Sutton has said for years that we were going to get a faithful adaptation of the IP (cf). In his version, this iteration would heavily feature a (on-paper) male cast. So why make the changes when there are a ton of POC X-Men characters? Because by swapping Marvel doesn't have to pay original creators, and that financial incentive is a big part of why comic adaptations are so swap-happy. Personally, I wouldn't do swaps unless there's an impactful story reason to do so (I think tokenism is pernicious). With that said, I don't think whatever these swaps are (if they happen) will be why the MCU's iteration fails, as abysmal writing is the true root cause. For those who don't know, as a comic reader I was primarily an X-Men fan (cf and cf), so if I see the train wreck coming I won't be watching the film.
One other interesting tidbit that came out of this leak is that, for Disney, they 'count' Latinos as white when considering diversity in projects. This is not done to hurt Latino representation (Victoria Alonso, who is part of that community, is hardly going to work against it), but to reduce the number of white characters.
Speaking of adaptations, I'd be remiss if I didn't briefly discuss one of the major issues Rings of Power and any other adaptors of Tolkien have: the man himself. What I mean by that is showrunners and directors are rarely academics (and even less likely to be among the most esteemed in their field), unlikely to be war veterans (and even when they are, it's not of the kind of war Tolkien fought in or the subsequent one he lived through), unlikely to be religious (as Tolkien deeply was), unlikely to be familiar with the ancient historic material that inspired him, and finally none will be philologists. This puts any creator at a tremendous disadvantage tackling his material, being far more daunting than the much simpler material from most other fantasy authors. One of Tolkien's talents was in creating a narrative that could be enjoyed by those who didn't share his particular set of beliefs. The story also contains challenging philosophical ideas (such as the nature of Evil; cf Tom Shippey's The Road to Middle-earth) that helps the work stick with you. Tackling material like this is far too much to ask of the hacks now writing modern entertainment, but even well-meaning auteurs from an earlier era (like Peter Jackson) struggled with it (and there's some irony in Jackson failing with the much simpler The Hobbit--it's no surprise that the trilogy with fewer changes was more successful).
Dovetailing back to Rings of Power: a rumour from Chris Gore (cf) claims the hapless showrunners will be replaced (perhaps remaining in the writer's room), an action an unnamed source says has to wait until after award season, which seems likely to me (if it happens). Beyond this, Nerdrotic is saying he's heard we're in for a complete reboot of the show. I find this latter claim highly unlikely, since there doesn't seem to be enough time to re-write the scripts, re-cast, and so forth. It's the only approach that could work, but I don't think Amazon would be willing to go that far. Regardless, I think it will be months before we find out just what's truly in store for Rings of Power.
I'm not surprised Black Adam bombed (321 million almost three weeks in). It was a DC character I'd never heard of with a star whose personal popularity isn't enough to create box office success arriving in the face of many DC failures (particularly Shazam, which bombed even harder). Broadly I don't think this matters--the project pre-dates the current regime at WB and its only purpose now is to bring Henry Cavill back as Superman (something that seems to have had no impact on its ticket sales). At 50, Dwayne Johnson is too old to be Black Adam for long. The film coming out is surreal, ala Channing Tatum's Gambit hitting theaters. I have no idea what Johnson was hoping to do back when he became interested in the role in 2007, but I know its not what's in theaters right now.
What's the forecast for Wakanda Forever? Limp marketing hasn't helped, but what are the numbers? Predictions over the last week have dropped 15%, lending some credence to the doubts from toy manufacturers I mentioned last time. You don't have to see the film to know it's going to be stuffed with Mary Sue's; a sympathetic (albeit baffling) antagonist in Namor (whose potentially interesting changes have been wasted--see the link above) and whose alterations lost Submariner fans; it's long (almost three hours); and lacks the lead actor. Phase Four's writing has been universally awful, so it's hard to expect something better from Joe Robert Cole. With that said, it ought to do better than Thor 4, but that's a low bar.
When Pitch Meeting is echoing what's being said by the Fellowship Youtube community, Marvel has reached a tipping point--even the normies are turned off by Phase Four's baffling approach. Good writing let's you get away with a lot of things people normally reject (by report, The House of the Dragon), but bad writing is a poison that kills franchises.
Unfortunately Netflix has renewed Sandman for another season. On the plus side, it took public begging from Neil Gaiman to make it happen, which means there is a bigger hill to climb for it to go beyond that (I can't see what meaningful changes could be made since Gaiman was already involved). This is one of the few big IP where no one I know has seen it or is talking about it (like Apple's Foundation), so I'm not sure what Netflix is hoping to achieve by bringing it back. I suppose the streaming service has to have some new content and one could argue it made a bigger splash than Rings of Power (cf).
In good news, the aforementioned Damon Lindelof Star Wars film is unlikely to ever appear. There are two theories about how the project leaked at all: Lindelof did it himself to diminish the impact of Alan Moore shitting all over his adaptation of Watchmen; or Kathleen Kennedy leaked it as petty rebellion against Disney CEO Bob Chapek telling her to stop announcing film projects that aren't assured production. Both theories are plausible, but not nearly as probable as the project never happening. At this stage I'd rather have Neil Breen make a Star Wars film.
Not long ago CDPR announced a remake of the original The Witcher video game that came out in 2007. Unlike with Naughty Dog and The Last of Us, this is not just a cash grab and from comments CDPR has made they aren't simply updating graphics (ala the Mass Effect remaster) and fixing the combat system. Since very few Witcher fans have ever played the game, a remake is a smart move and while the announcement is recent, I suspect the plan goes back months or years, receiving a sharp push forward when Cyberpunk 2077 initially failed to meet its targets. While Edgerunners has largely saved that IP, with the upcoming Witcher trilogy likely moving away from faithfulness (to meet representation quotas and so forth, meaning CDPR either ignores the lore and repopulates the north or shifts the starting geography, getting away from the setting that made the game popular), the remake is free to remain authentic within its proper Polish context. That means I don't think we'll get Eskel or Vesemir etc re-envisioned, and it's another chance for fans to be Geralt.
What this also means is that if the remake is successful, it will be very easy for CDPR to give Witcher 2 (2011) the same treatment within a couple of years, providing a steady diet of 'new' Geralt adventures and traditional content to go along with their new projects.
Watching the Twitter meltdown when Elon Musk took over has been highly entertaining. I don't share the messianic view that Musk is a genuine champion of free speech, but seeing a few Orwellian lunatics removed from their positions at the company was good for the soul. I know most people don't follow this kind of thing (wtf is BRICS, right?), but the incoherent meltdowns are great fun. I don't personally care if Twitter remains an important platform or not, but any pressure to make such platforms conform to the public square is welcome.
We all remember the Dave Chappelle controversy via the Netflix comedy special The Closer last year, and I was reminded of it when he was announced as hosting SNL recently (a show I think no one has watched since Bill Burr hosted it in 2020). At the time of The Closer a small group of Netflix employees threatened to quit and I was curious if any actually had. The answer is one, four months after the controversy--virtue signaling for the rest.
This article was written by Peter Levi
No comments:
Post a Comment