Overexploited Fantasy IP (Shannara, Dragonlance, Sword of Truth, Drizzt, Elric of Melnibone, and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser)

The phenomena of overexploiting an IP is common enough (from the comic book boom of the 1990s to the Dune books to the Die Hard sequels). What I wanted to focus on here is fantasy book series--IP that used to be popular, but has gradually fallen out of public awareness due to overexploitation (ergo, the material is still around, but fewer and fewer are aware of it). In all the cases that follow I've dipped my toe into the source material (mostly when I was younger). As we watch Game of Thrones knocking on the door of that oblivion with House of the Dragon, let's tackle them one at a time.

Dragonlance

I wanted to start with Dragonlance because it could theoretically get a shot in the arm from the upcoming 5e D&D book along with the first novel based in the setting in roughly a decade. How likely is this to kickstart interest? The odds are low--5e did nothing to lift Eberron out of the cult status when it's 5e iteration came out in 2019 (as evidenced by the limited number of related products that followed and its low level of play on platforms like Roll20--granted, Keith Baker's insistence on never evolving the setting is a major problem for it), while writers Weis and Hickman have long been in decline as authors (as evidenced by virtually disappearing from bookstore shelves).

The franchise began with the original trilogy in 1983-85, which was followed by multiple books a year (from a variety of authors) through 2009; then just two in 2010 and one in 2011 (there's close to 200 books for the IP when including other authors). In the midst of the lengthy hiatus there was a lawsuit between the authors and WOTC (settled quietly). D&D-related RPG products had ended in 1993, but products in other RPG systems run until 2008. That year, 2008, also saw a direct-to-video animated film released via Paramount (which I've seen and it's quite awful; Kiefer Sutherland's Raistlin is the only occasional good part).

My personal experience with the franchise consists of the original trilogy, the Time of the Twins trilogy, Kaz the Minotaur, and Weasel's Luck; I read the books in my early teens, re-reading the original in my mid-20s. I don't recall what directed me to the series, but most likely its connection to D&D. Re-reading it as an adult was mostly painful, as other than the opening chapters of Dragons of Autumn Twilight, the series is lacking. I recall as a kid being vaguely disappointed in the follow-up series, while only reading Kaz because it had minotaurs and Weasel Luck's because I liked Sturm Brightblade (I have not attempted to re-read either, but at the time both were disappointing).

Summarizing the entirety of Dragonlance isn't my intent, but the basic story that made it famous is quite simple. In the world of Krynn a plucky group of adventurers get caught up in a war whose fate they ultimately decide. The world of Krynn, at least in the early days of its conception, is interesting and despite our heroes being a mixed bag, has distinct enough elements to be engaging. The execution of the story, particularly as it goes on, is not great, but broad strokes there's potential and that's what kept the IP going all this time. Granted, the iconic characters are 'problematically' white and mostly male, a sentiment their creators now agree with, so any adaptation would go down the road of The Witcher, The Wheel of Time, Rings of Power, and so on.

There remains some value in the IP (in many ways Dragons of Autumn Twilight is the quintessential D&D story, a bit like how Critical Role campaign one is), even as it has slid into obscurity. Its flaws as literature don't necessarily impair it from success. If detached from modern political derangement the original trilogy has the potential to be a good story.

Drizzt

R. A. Salvatore's famous Drow hero (a Drow is a Dark Elf in D&D--originally an evil race of Elves) is something of an enigma. Unlike Dragonlance above, the author has consistently pumped out novels to solid (if diminishing) sales (39 books!), but can't get beyond niche popularity (current 35th anniversary efforts notwithstanding).

The original trilogy that introduced him arrived in 1989-90 and Salvatore has, with very few pauses,  continued it well beyond the point of inanity. The character has had sporadic appearances in games, but never a starring role.

My personal experience was similar to Dragonlance above: I read both early trilogies roughly when they came out, along with The Legacy and Starless Night (mid to late teens; I re-read the bulk of the first two trilogies in 2016). I was drawn to them both because of the D&D connection and because I liked Drow--I actually read the original trilogies in reverse publication order (so The Dark Elf Trilogy first). I remember being disappointed with the later additions (which is why I went no further than Starless Night). In re-reading the trilogies as an adult I found The Icewind Dale trilogy too poor to finish, while The Dark Elf trilogy had enough interesting elements that I was able to slog through it, even if it was ultimately underwhelming.

Drizzt is firmly set in the Forgotten Realms, Ed Greenwood's tedious setting that has been the default world for 5e D&D. That world is a crowded, inchoate mess and when looked at as a whole makes no sense whatsoever. The more restricted origin story of The Dark Elf Trilogy or Icewind Dale could work in an adaptation, although their tones and cast are vastly different. I think how Salvatore handles the intricacies of the former is mostly poor, but I think there's potential in it.

Just like with Dragonlance, I don't think the lack of literary punch matters--there could be some value in adapting the IP, but Salvatore's issue is that his cast is largely white and his Drow matriarchy is evil, two things the industry can't handle right now. If it was ever adapted, The Dark Elf series has the most potential. Is there a market for the IP? Not right now, although a good writer/director could make it work, but that would be more on them than the source material.

Shannara

The fantasy series widely believed to be deliberate pastiche of The Lord of the Rings by Terry Brooks (growing up I'd read he was contracted to write it as such, but that story has never been confirmed). Much like Salvatore above, nothing has stopped the Shannara train from running, even if (in the same vein) the return has eroded away (there are 43 books).

The original trilogy came out from 1977 to 1985 and, after a pause, endless production ever since, with the latest effort in 2020. Brooks has, I think, realized this is his bread and butter and he can't abandon it (a problem Salvatore and Goodkind both share). He is trapped by his own creation, which is one reason why he's fiddled with it so much.

My personal experience with it was reading the original trilogy as an early teen (I believe via my brother who read them first), along with the follow-up four books dubbed The Heritage of Shannara as a teen--I recall being thoroughly unimpressed with the latter (along with the former when I re-read them at the time).

In the beginning Brooks' world was heavily dependent on Middle-earth and his story is so point-by-point The Lord of the Rings that it makes your eyes bleed. There's virtually nothing in those early conceptions that's distinctive (ideas or characters), such that you'd have to press on to his less popular science fiction inserts to make it standout.

Brooks is not a very good writer (I tried his Magic Kingdom series and couldn't get through the second book). That's no inhibitor to adaptation and he was able to get the IP onto TV (MTV then Spike TV), with two seasons of the unwatchable The Shannara Chronicles (2016-17). Despite having people like Jon Favreau involved, the show made no impact at all (the Wheel of Time of that era). Part of the problem with the IP is how similar it is to The Lord of the Rings (risking getting sued). Could anything be done with it now? It's possible I suppose, but as something inherently derivative, I think there's more bang for your buck in making something original.

Elric of Melnibone

Creator Michael Moorcock is still with us and I can only imagine the ignorance of not just his character but himself has to sting, as he used to be considered a top fantasy author. It's difficult, now, to understand how big this guy was in the 1970s.

Elric first appeared in Science Fantasy magazine in 1961 and 1962. After that came sporadic publication until the present (there are 11 novels with another coming), but in other media the IP is more or less dead (an RPG in 2007, a film effort that never went into production, and an announced TV series for New Republic that's not on their slate of releases through 2025). I think the days of subverting expectations has come and gone and Moorcock won't be around to see that trend return (when popcorn films like The Last Jedi are doing it, it's reached the bottom of the barrel).

My personal experience with the IP is limited, as other than the Elric at the End of Time graphic novel (read when I was young, where it did not impress), I've no other experience with it. I recall thinking the story was as a bit self-important and obvious. As I grew older and learned the thrust of what Moorcock was attempting, I lost interest.

Moorcock's universe isn't particularly interesting (thus failing to work as a game), so the only avenue into the IP is through its lead (the common trend in modern fantasy as well). I suspect Elric is, in part, an inspiration for Patrick Rothfuss' Kvothe from the Kingkiller series.

A sidenote: I think we can blame Moorcock for the (apparently) unavoidable 'subversive' approach to Elves that's ubiquitous throughout fantasy (indeed, doing the opposite would be subversive at this point, but writing Tolkien-styled Elves is much more challenging, so authors don't do it).

Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser

This is the most arguable inclusion on this list, but I included it because I think the characters are just as iconic as the rest, even if they have ceased to be part of the mental furniture of fantasy fandom.

They first appeared in print in 1939, with the bulk of collections appearing in the 1970s and the final addition in 1988. Other than a continued (if marginal) existence in RPG form, the IP is completely dead. Leiber collectively wrote less about his characters than the rest of the authors here, but I'd still argue he wrote more than he needed to and arguably kept writing them because there was profit in it (it tallies 7 collections/novels).

My personal experience is limited, as I've only read the Swords and Deviltry collection (in my mid-20s), diving into it due to Leiber and the series' reputation. I was broadly unimpressed (I saw the potential, but only the potential), so I never pursued it further. Despite my impression, overall this is the best of the various books I've read among these authors.

The world of Lankhmar is somewhat interesting and distinct (which is probably the only reason the IP is still floating around). I think the characters themselves are (now) far too generic to resonate, but it's a classic duo who aren't truly heroes, but not evil either, with a heavy splash of comedy and sex. The Gray Mouser clearly inspired Gary Gygax's Gord the Rogue (among others; arguably the Wulfgar/Drizzt combo in Salvatore's first series).

I think you could use the raw ingredients of the IP for a show or film, perhaps first showing the viability via a video game about Lankhmar, but the cache is so limited I fear it's destined to simply become a footnote in fantasy history.

The Sword of Truth

I didn't realize Terry Goodkind was still grinding out this series (22 books!) until I started doing research. The first book was published in 1994 and Goodkind has pumped out sequels continually (either every year or every other year), with the most recent in 2020.

My personal experience was trying to read Wizard's First Rule when the book came out in my late teens, but I couldn't get through it as I found it poorly written and boring.

I'm not an expert on the world or characters of the series, but my exposure to it made virtually no impression and at the time it was almost unheard of me to stop reading a book just because I wasn't enjoying it. The lead is meant to carry the interest on his broad shoulders (very much the standard in most modern fantasy writing) and he seemed like a riff on the Conan archetype in the most simplistic way imaginable.

Astonishingly there was a TV adaptation via Disney in 2008 (something I was completely unaware of) and, like Shannara above, it lasted two seasons before oblivion. Also like that show, it had a 'name' attached, in this case Sam Raimi. I highly doubt anyone else will tackle the IP, as Goodkind's series (more than the other authors here) is 'problematic' by today's standards.

Conclusion

If I've missed other book fantasy IP let me know (or if you can think of exceptions). In general an IP cannot thrive if its creator/s overexploit the same characters--the quality of the material wears down, gets tired, and gets old, and I think it's demonstrable that restraint ultimately pays more dividends (expanding to other formats--games etc--is fine, of course). We're also in an unfortunate era where adaptations make no effort to faithfully follow what made their source material popular, instead giving us generic shows dressed-up like fantasy.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Fantasy and Science Fiction TV/Movie News Commentary

Amazon has been busy attempting spin for The Rings of Power, whose positive market penetration has been underwhelming (see below). In the early days, the show's advertising heavily suggested adherence to the source material and Peter Jackson's approach (something that continued even after Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey's firing, as reflected in my original coverage). Once marketing began (February), however, we got the generic messaging that the story needs to be "updated" to address modern issues (Tolkien's tackling universal issues was, apparently, of lesser value). This updated message was consistent for months (all the way through SDCC). Amazon clearly thought this approach would work, as it has to some degree for Star Wars and the MCU (with Paramount's Star Trek and the WB's DCEU following suit without success)--in essence, Tolkien was just another brand they could use that approach with.

Tolkien fans aren't like everyone else, being more numerous than the other brands and existing longer--everyone, from book purists to Jackson fans, hated the generic commercial direction. Because of that, now the showrunners are sending the opposite message (contradicting things said earlier ala their Entertainment Weekly exclusive). They claim the show won't be impacted by modern issues. This sudden shift is so out of sync the actors have continued with their talking points (British actress Sophia Nomvete's unending rambling comments along these lines have turned her into a meme). Clearly someone at Amazon told the showrunners the usual approach was not working (when Stephen Colbert can accidentally expose you in a puff interview, you have problems), so asked them to change course. Thus far, none of the marketing has worked, as can be seen by the trends here and here and here and here). Given how close it is to release (September 2nd), it seems unlikely they can overcome the indifference of the normies, who are the only audience left for it (even commentators who go with the flow are starting to hesitate). Stores like this (whose substance is less salacious than the headline), are signs that the industry is cutting bait as they see which way the wind blows.

If the first season is catastrophic, I can't help but wonder if Amazon will cut bait, paying off what's owed to the lunatics now running the Tolkien Estate. While I think a second season is inevitable, we may be saved from five seasons of this nonsense. The plot established in the first season (yes it has leaked) is so poorly constructed and ruins so many iconic characters that there's no way to write their way out of trouble. It will be interesting to see what happens, as The Witcher is also a poorly written enterprise, but worked (for a time) with the normies (it's comeuppance is season three I believe).

As part of Discovery's reshuffling of WB, the Batgirl movie (nearly complete) has been permanently shelved. Rumour has it that it has been deleted because of how poorly it tested (the spin after that is that it's part of a re-branding plan, but I don't believe a 100-million film that's essentially finished would be shelved just for that reason). I wonder if part of why it's being cancelled is because DC is switching from Michael Keaton as Old Man Batman to Ben Affleck (a switch that seems confirmed by the latter's upcoming appearance in Aquaman 2, where he's replacing Keaton's scenes--undoubtedly Zaslav understands Keaton could only done the cowl so many more times). This, perhaps, lays the groundwork for shelving The Flash (where both Keaton and this version of Batgirl appear), but more about that below.

It's assumed the yet-to-be-produced Supergirl has also been cancelled, meaning there's a chance we could get a comic-accurate version of her and Barbara Gordon (unless DC erases yet another redhead). DC has a golden opportunity to do what the MCU has stopped doing--write good stories that are faithful to the source material. The old WB regime (headed by Ann Sarnoff) were playing the same identity politics game that Disney and others are, such that nothing differentiated the two brands (that's one plus for the Snyderverse: while Snyder's films are terrible, the tone & look are distinct). Could we could see DC flip the switch and turn themselves into Phase One Marvel and find success? It seems unlikely, but it is at least a possibility.

It's worth pointing out--and I haven't seen anyone tackle the why of this yet--that Zaslav has hired former Disney chairman Alan Horn to help with DC. This is the same Horn who infamously fired James Gunn from Disney--Gunn, who was scooped up by the prior DC regime, cannot be pleased to see him back. The Horn-Gunn dynamic is unlikely to impact Peacemaker, but it suggests to me that Gunn may not feel as comfortable as he once did at WB (I can't imagine Zaslav is happy that The Suicide Squad bombed, so I don't think he'll get carte blanch ever again on a film again).

Let's briefly look at the relative success of the DCEU regimes to this point (box office noted in millions):

Snyderverse

Man of Steel (2013) - 668

Batman v Superman (2016) - 873

Suicide Squad (2016) - 746

Snyder Cut (2021) - HBO Max

Cyborg (cancelled)

Harley Quinn vs the Joker (cancelled)

The Batman (cancelled)

Hybrid (Snyder/Johns+Berg )

Wonder Woman (2017) - 822

Justice League (2017) - 657

Johns+Berg (May/16)

Aquaman (2018) - 1.148

Shazam! (2019) - 366

Joker (cancelled)

Deathstroke (cancelled)

Hamada (Jan/18; Johns was there until June, but had been moved out of film)

Joker (2019) - 1.074

Birds of Prey (2020) - 205

New Gods (cancelled)

Black Manta film (cancelled)

Sarnoff (June/19; Hamada there, but with less control)

Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) - 169

The Suicide Squad (2021) - 168

The Batman (2022) - 770

Black Adam (2022)

Shazam 2 (2022)

Blue Beetle (2023)

Batgirl (cancelled)

The Wonder Twins (cancelled) 

Supergirl (believed to be cancelled, eg)

Hybrid (Sarnoff/Zaslav)

Aquaman 2 (2023)

The Flash (2023)

Zaslav

Joker 2 (TBD)

The Batman 2 (TBD)

Zaslav is not a creative person, so outside of big 'yes/no' decisions won't be in charge of trying to right the ship (which is why he hired Horn). I don't think the movies set to be released (Black Adam etc) are going to wow anyone (other than The Flash they apparently tested even poorer than Batgirl), nor do I think Matt Reeves is going to fix Pattinson's Batman, but maybe we can get a good film in 2024 or 2025.

You can't speak about DC without discussing Ezra Miller, so let's quickly go over that (see Business Insider for a fairly comprehensive look at the actor and Vulture's timeline). The primary news, outside of Miller's arrest (on a minor burglary charge) was Zaslav saying he was committed to The Flash. As many have pointed out, he did not say he was committed to Ezra Miller and it's difficult to see how the film can be released with Ezra in it. What may happen are extensive reshoots to remove Ezra from the film (which, at least according to the trades, tested well before his Hawaii incidents and other news came out). The other possibility would be Ezra hitting rehab, vaguely admitting to poor judgement, and then going on an apology tour--is their an appetite for that? It's not clear to me. 

It's shocking to me that Thor 4 has actually bombed, just squeaking past 700. This amount is more than The Eternals, Shang-Chi, or Black Widow, but an IP like this should easily make a billion (especially given how well Ragnarok was received). While Doctor Strange 2 had its own issues (and whose impact likely hurt Thor 4), it came close enough to a billion for Marvel to ignore its problems. What should be clear to Feige is that DS2 (and Spider-Man 3) were propped up by memberberries (and, in the latter case, a safe, hero-friendly story). Thor 4 rested only on the popularity of the hero and a trendy director, but the story is pure Phase Four and fans have heartily rejected that. This mass repulsion of the Phase seems to have triggered Feige into summarily ending it with Wakanda Forever and announcing the next two Phases--Avengers anchoring its end (but who the cares about Kang or wants to see the Phase Four heroes as the Avengers?). I suspect Feige is going to pay the original Avengers a fortune to appear in those films to get memberberry returns. There's nothing inherently interesting on the slate for Phase Five and for Phase Six there's simply hope for The Fantastic Four--thankfully the X-Men are off the slate, providing time for sanity to return to the company.

The MCU's battered reputation is hurting all their IPs. Marvel used to rely on the fans seeing all the films to understand what's happening, but now people are skipping many films/shows, making interconnections fail. Ms. Marvel was the worst ratings disaster on Disney+ thus far, as the endlessly terrible shows encourage fewer and fewer people to try them. I see no hope for Marvel to pull its head out of its ass and fix things without external pressure. The brand needs a complete reset, but far too much is already invested and on track for that to happen soon. No one is excited about an X-Men film called The Mutants, nor do they want to see Victoria Alonso's iteration of The Fantastic Four. There aren't a lot of IP bullets left in the Marvel gun and if Phase Five is as bad as Four, the executives responsible for this mess will have to go.

Back in September, 2021, the CW (ergo WB) announced a Babylon 5 reboot. The original series (1993-98) is, in my opinion, the best science fiction show ever, even if creator J. Michael Stracyznski devalued the brand with middling B5-related productions like Crusade afterwards. The CW gave the keys of the IP back to JMS and, despite the purchase of WB by Discovery, the reboot is apparently still on-track (with important caveats--the series has not yet been given a production order).

I think rebooting the franchise is the correct decision, as the various sequels JMS attempted (including the unexpected fifth season of the original show) simply were not as good. What will a new version be like? I haven't the faintest idea. All the themes Babylon 5 dealt with are still worth exploring and I have no idea how he'll handle or change what he did previously. What little we know has the same basic premise (John Sheridan takes command of Babylon 5), but absent Jeffrey Sinclair (whose departure was unplanned) and presumably keeping the proper five-season arc rather than the compressed fourth season. I'm sure feedback over the last few decades has had an impact on JMS, but how much the insane political climate has impacted him I can't guess. Seeing progressives embrace authoritarianism likely surprised him (give up freedoms and privacy for safety), but whether that impacts how he depicts Night Watch and other fascistic elements in the show I can't guess.

In a rare moment of clarity and honesty (or just a desperate attempt to revive his career), Tim Miller admitted Terminator: Dark Fate was a mistake. The director, who happily fought with fans about the film prior to and during release (claiming those not going/enjoying were misogynists), is now admitting what everyone thought about that film--it's a poorly written mess. His comments are not a sop to the fans, but rather a plea to the industry to give him another chance. The Terminator film was put out by Paramount and he had a fairly public falling out with Ryan Reynolds (now Disney, then Fox), so presumably it will be elsewhere he'll have to look.

This is just online drama (and very 'inside baseball'), but with my prior association I thought it worth mentioning. Former (?) Mikey Sutton acolyte Matt Jarbo apparently turned against him (saying he's less interested in truth than appealing to fans). In fairness to Mikey, I think Jarbo is batting 1.000 in fighting people he's been friends with. In looking into this I was told by someone who knows both that they've since patched things up, so why mention it at all? Because this kind of story isn't new for either personality (the substance or the incident). Broadly I think one of the issues with Mikey is he has a unique meaning when he talks about bringing back the Snyderverse--he doesn't mean a return to Snyder running the DCEU, but instead a limited continuance of (some) of his characters and completing his Justice League trilogy. As for me, the contention that made Mikey upset with me was my feeling that some of his scoops were influenced by wish fulfillment--that what he wanted to happen coloured his interpretation of what he was told (just look at how the end of this article is framed; Sutton told me that the Victoria Alonso regime wanted a faithful adaptation of Wolverine and the X-Men--it's hard to credit that). Sutton went nuclear at my suggestion and fair enough, as Mikey suffers from a great deal of online criticism and undoubtedly has a persecution complex. Do I think he has genuine sources and scoops? Absolutely. That fact was never a reason for my (and presumably Jarbo's) reservations.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Upcoming Fantasy IP on Film and Television

Those of you who have read my coverage of Amazon's The Rings of Power and Netflix's The Witcher are aware that I enjoy faithful adaptations. 'Faithful' doesn't necessarily mean text-to-screen in a one-to-one manner, but what it does mean is following the narrative, aesthetic, and lore as much as possible (dependent on how good the source material is). Other than early seasons of Game of Thrones, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and the Harry Potter films (the most successful fantasy adaptations of all time), executives avoid this approach like the plague. What we get instead are things like Eragon (Fox, 2006), Conan the Barbarian (Millennium, 2011), A Wrinkle in Time (Disney, 2018), and The Wheel of Time (Amazon, 2021). No one follows the hyper successful model, despite how much fantasy is being produced (more, I'd argue, then the 1980s fantasy boom). We should be in the Golden Age of fantasy on screen, but instead it's a nightmare as we watch good IP get destroyed. There's still a glimmer of hope, so let's take a look at the fantasy that's upcoming.

Before we start, I want to go over the running theme of what's to follow: politics. I love political content in film, television, and books--all significant classics include social commentary and that's part of what makes them great. With that said, no one seems to know how to write it anymore (comicbook writer Jonathan Hickman discusses it). When you write this material, it cannot be dogmatic (and that includes screaming about it on social media and in your marketing)--that never works--all you do is repulse those with different views and turn off casual viewers who just want entertainment. Politics and social commentary in art is meant to open minds through narrative--dogma doesn't work, thus religious and political dogmatists resort to violence and oppression. That's where I'm coming from when I reference political content--broadly, I love it! How it's being written currently is horrendous and ultimately self-defeating. Let's give a classic example of doing it right: most fans of The Lord of the Rings do not share the ethos of its arch-Catholic writer, yet his themes and ideas were absorbed--Tolkien wasn't writing dogma, so it works.

Premiere: August 21, 2022
Out of the wreckage of Game of Thrones season eight, HBO burned a ton of money on a failed pilot (Bloodmoon) written by Jane Goldman (whose credits do not scream fantasy epic, although I do like Kick-Ass)--something so terrible HBO has refused to release the pilot. On the heels of that failure they approved another prequel, this time Ryan J. Condal's House of the Dragon (he's best known for Colony), which explores a specific era of Targaryen history.

The Targaryen's were among the least interesting parts of GOT (their existence is pivotal, but otherwise not what kept people coming back). Yes, there are Daenerys fans, but that's more about her. The source material itself is not of the same caliber either (Martin's pseudo-history Fire & Blood, 2018, is not a proper narrative)--the book was also written long after George had peaked as an author (I'd argue that both A Feast for Crows (2005) and A Dance with Dragons (2011) are bloated, mediocre novels hindered by poor pacing, plot, character, and in the latter case, editing). George hasn't helped himself by his social media utterances or the absurdities he creates for himself by playing the identity politics game (Rebecca Kuang, cf, is one of many examples--you can have fun going down the rabbit hole of how feminists see the self-described feminist). Culture warriors always eat their own, as George is slowly discovering. A bit of a non-sequitur, but GRRM doesn't even understand LOTR (cf), albeit he hasn't rejected Tolkien ala Stephen King and H. P. Lovecraft.

In the lead-up to release George, Condal, and others involved with the show have decided to follow the marketing strategy of attacking their fanbase (a precedent famously kicked off in 2016's Ghostbusters). As I said above, having political and social commentary in your show or film is excellent if you do it well, but dogma never works. The incredibly simplistic notions tossed out by those involved undercut what they are trying to accomplish--by attacking the audience they can now only depend on those who agree with their position along with whatever casuals are still interested in the IP (which, from what we can tell on Google Trends, isn't many). The original Game of Thrones appealed to everyone.

Writing aside, the aesthetics of the show look terrible. Matt Smith looks beyond goofy--I have no idea what happened to the custom department (he looks ridiculous in the wig). What's the hook for the audience? We know where the story leads--Game of Thrones, something infamously tanked by D. B. Weiss and David Benioff (and, likely, George, if he ever finished it--we did get his ending after all). There's an excellent chance this show tanks just as hard and, if it does, could destroy the IP beyond repair. Despite that, fantasy shows are very expensive, so regardless of reception we'll likely get a second season (ala The Wheel of Time).

Premiere: March 3, 2023

The D&D movie (from Paramount) is the first theatrical release for the IP since the hilariously awful Dungeons & Dragons in 2000. From the trailer the film seems to be aiming for a Guardians of the Galaxy vibe--a difficult thing to get right (James Gunn failed himself with The Suicide Squad), particularly given modern cultural sensitivities (they're still trying to cancel Dave Chapelle). Four different hands worked on the script for the original story (which is not based on a pre-existing D&D property), including (some) of the writers of Spider-Man: Homecoming. The directors have never helmed either a franchise film or a blockbuster before--that doesn't preclude success, but it does mean it's not something they've had previously.

Broadly the costumes look cheap (Chris Pine and Sophia Lillis look alright, but the other characters don't--community theater/LARPer material, sharing the tonal confusion from the first season of The Witcher--why entertainment people can't just make Elves look like Elves I don't know--if you want diverse Elves use Drow instead of whatever Justice Smith is supposed to be). The special effects are tolerable, but given that this is primarily a comedy it's possible for the film to work despite the aesthetic issues. There's no nostalgia tickle for the film--I don't think Critical Role cameos are enough. None of the actors known for their love of the game were cast (Vin Diesel would be the most famous; whether any were approached or not I don't know). Given the tone it's not appealing to either the Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, or Harry Potter audience (which took their settings seriously). What this looks like is a Marvel riff wearing D&D clothing--can that work? In theory I think it can--D&D can be pretty campy--but camp also associates it with the disaster from two decades ago and the trailer hasn't changed my outlook for it. The good thing is, if this film fails it will not hurt the IP.

I should add that I think an original story is the way to go. None of the D&D books are successful enough to guarantee an audience. The best pre-existing option is the original Dragonlance trilogy, but we'd run into the politics of the authors themselves (Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman) and find ourselves in the endless culture war that ruins everything. In terms of settings, Eberron might be fun, but it is a bit outside the D&D norm (very steampunkish).

Season Three Premiere: sometime in 2023

You may have noticed I did not cover the second season of the Witcher. I did watch some of it, but it was so poorly done I couldn't make it all the way through (the poor reaction to it is a sentiment ubiquitous among the major game/book fans of the IP, eg; the public also seems to have struggled with it, echoed by a diminished bump in book sales along with fewer players returning or newly trying the video games). While the second season tweaked the poorly received aesthetic of season one (Elves/costumes), and went for a linear narrative, the story and writing were the same disastrous mess as the first season. At this stage I hope the third season is the final one to mercifully save us from further pain. I think the second season's issues are so obvious I don't have to belabour them, but I will give one example just to make the point. We have a scene where Geralt tells Ciri why the Witchers have to keep the location of Kaer Morhen secret. This is followed by a group of whores being brought to the castle--no idea how they made it through the mountains, what were they fed, how were they clothed, how they would be maintained at the castle, or what the plan for them was after the whoring--would the Witchers murder them to protect their location? The show isn't interested in any of these questions, as the whores are just there to denigrate the Witchers themselves (in general, but Eskel in particular)--Witchers are all men, after all, therefore their organization must be derided until a woman (Ciri) is permitted to join.

As for the IP itself, what I've long hoped for is for the creators of the Witcher video games, CD Project Red (who made the IP popular) to license out an adaptation. I'd only want this to happen with a faithful adaptation (plenty of people at CDPR have the same nonsensical inclinations as Netflix). It's unfortunate that Henry Cavill, a perfect Geralt, has been wasted on the Netflix show. I wouldn't be picky about which game to adapt, although Witcher 3 is the most successful to imitate (working best as several seasons or films). It seems an unlikely thing, however, particularly with the Netflix show still ongoing.

Premiere: November 30, 2022
I have fond memories of the original Willow (1988), from Val Kilmer's Madmartigan to Joanne Whalley's Sorsha. Did the IP need a remake or sequel? Absolutely not, but that didn't stop Disney from giving us one on Disney Plus. The Willow show went through two showrunners (the 'she doesn't look Asian-enough' John M. Chu as well as Jonathan Entwhistle), which is a red flag, and then casting Erin Kellyman (Falcon and the Winter Soldier), who can't act, leads me to believe this will be another unwatchable disaster. If there's a blessing it's that this doesn't sully the original film and, buried as it is on the streaming service, it's easily forgotten. I'm not sure the world of Willow really has the depth for a show, but if it does, we won't see that exploited here.

I mentioned above, fantasy shows are typically so expensive that a second season is guaranteed--I'm less sure here, as I don't know how much Disney has spent on sets, so it may well be one-and-done if it (as I expect) fails. What we may get is something like Netflix's The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, where it has critical acclaim and is the most amazing success...before then being quietly cancelled a year later because no one actually watched it (much like HBO's The Watchmen and Lovecraft Country).

Premiere: September 2, 2022

I haven't talked about Amazon's Lord of the Rings series since March (a long 4,000-word analysis had to be thrown out when I realized the show had no interest in following or respecting the lore--as the now-admitted firing of Tom Shippey illustrates). The advertising campaign is in full swing, so it's worth re-visiting the upcoming train wreck.

Amazon seems to understand it's failed to appeal to the core audience of the books or Jackson films (I think mild criticism from Forbes reflects this, as does its poor reception via Google Trends above), so they are using all the buzz words meant to engage casuals (including a Last Jedi meme in the teaser--kill the past). I can't think of a time where this approach has worked, but that hasn't stopped studios and companies from trying it. The attempt is particularly difficult in this case, since the core fanbase is much larger than for any other fantasy IP.

I was baffled when I discovered the show is based on, not the full Silmarillon or various unfinished tales, but The Appendixes from LOTR (!). This makes it virtually an original story--with the showrunners and executives involved showing no comprehension of the IP whatsoever. There's a very transparent attempt to imitate elements of Game of Thrones in shots we've seen (undoubtedly to appease Jeff Bezos, who wanted a show as successful as it was), but the two IP are tonally different (GOT owes a lot to historical fiction and Michael Moorcock, with the latter being antipodal to LOTR). Making Galadriel and Tar-Miriel warrior women misses the point about both completely (people don't seem to realize that Tolkien, a WWI veteran, had no illusions about the cost of war and conflict), but these days the only way for a female character to be a strong is to commit acts of violence.

For such an expensive show the sets and customs look like the The Wheel of Time (community theater/LARPing). Can it succeed? Popular taste is hard to predict (the success of the current Jurassic Park proves that), but for the sake of the IP I hope not. What this abomination might do is get the WB off their asses to use the rights they have and do something interesting with it. Do I trust WB to do better than Amazon? No, but the potential is there (particularly as Amazon has gone away from faithfulness, providing the impetus for WB to do the opposite). Amazon is committed to five seasons of this, so I don't know what they'll do if the first season flops--how much revision, really, can you do at this point? I don't think its fixable, which suggests to me at some point--after season two or three--they'll take Old Yeller outback and wash their hands of it.

Premiere: unknown

Back in September, 2020, Netflix picked up the rights to a Conan show from Amazon (who gave up on it for being too 'problematic'). Unlike most fantasy IP, the property is owned by someone (Fredrik Malmberg) invested in putting something faithful on-screen (he actually owns all Howard IP other than Red Sonja, see below). There hasn't been much news since September (with the writing of the series ongoing). Netflix stock has been crashing and they're bleeding subscribers (a million gone), but whether a good Conan show is on the menu remains to be seen. Rumour says there's a showrunner attached, but we don't know who that is, so I wouldn't expect anything for another two years or so (if, indeed, we get anything). While flawed, the Arnold Schwarzenegger film (1982) is entertaining and largely holds-up (written to work around Arnold's inability to act; we get a strong female character in Valeria, adapted out of her context in "Red Nails"). What Malmberg and Netflix will do remains to be seen, as we have no clue which Conan story would be tackled (other than when Conan is younger--"The Frost-Giant's Daughter", "The God in the Bowl", "The Tower of the Elephant", the fragment "The Hall of the Dead", and "Rogues in the House").

If Conan flounders this does not prevent other Howard properties, like Kull the Conqueror (the precursor to Conan) getting a treatment elsewhere, but as yet there's nothing official in the works. Personally I'd love to see "The Tower of the Elephant" adapted, but that never seems to come up when discussing Conan adaptations. One element Conan has going for it in our modern climate is diversity and female characters, so the main issue progressives have with him is he's white and traditionally 'masculine' (undoubtedly Howard himself has been 'cancelled' too, although I wonder if that actually matters anymore).

Premiere: unknown

Many do not know that Red Sonja, as we've seen her, is a hybrid character invented at Marvel in 1973 combining three Robert E. Howard characters: Dark Agnes ("Sword Woman" etc), Valeria ("Red Nails"), and Red Sonya herself ("The Shadow of the Vulture"). As such, Red Sonja LLC owns the rights to her and she's firmly divorced from the Conan IP. I watched the 1985 film adaptation at the time and it is terrible (Brigette Nielsen can't act and is paired with bad writing). The character has long been popular in comics, however, so there's plenty of juice left in the IP.

In 2017 Millennium films (who made the botched Jason Momoa Conan) announced an upcoming film with Bryan Singer attached. After Singer's removal a new round of people were put in charge and Hannah John-Kamen (Ant-Man and the Wasp) was brought on to be Sonja (the entertainment industry loves erasing redheads). She and the creatives are now also gone and M. J. Bassett, who directed the 2009 cult film Soloman Kane (also by Howard), is onboard and presumably re-writing the script (cf). Will we get a half-decent Red Sonja film? It seems doubtful, given how badly Millennium botched Conan, but at least creatively it's moving in a better direction.

Second Two Premiere: unknown

The show bombed so badly that even the mainstream press has picked it apart (eg). The second season was already filmed when the first came out, so there's no opportunity for Amazon to fix the problem. What I'd expect is a cut back on advertising to allow the show to quietly die. Given who was involved creatively (Jennifer Salke/Rafe Judkins), this nightmare is not surprising and all I can do is express sympathy for fans of the IP since I don't think you'll ever see WoT on screen again. As a reader I think The Wheel of Time killed itself from book seven onwards, but there was potential to make that story successful in another medium.

Summarizing

The powerful fantasy trend is in evidence (buoyed by things like the early success of Game of Thrones, the Witcher games, and the boom in Dungeons & Dragons), as we have IP coming from Disney, Paramount, Millennium, HBO, Amazon, and Netflix. From what I can tell, nothing that's already been filmed is going to be great (perhaps not even good), although there's a chance the D&D movie will be entertaining. The hope for something better will have to come from Conan and other Howard properties (with a long shot for Red Sonja). Will we finally see better writing and storytelling? We can hope, but that trend hasn't started yet.

This article was written by Peter Levi

A Return to Optimism for Amazon's Lord of the Rings Series

As a lifelong Tolkien fan I've been keeping tabs on the Amazon show ever since it was announced (having written about it twice before: here and here). The Silmarillion, the portions of which take place in the Second Age, always had good potential for adaptation, but I wouldn't have guessed the War of Elves and Sauron would be its focus (as you can see in my first post--I thought it would be the fall of Numenor and its aftermath). Over time, my enthusiasm for the show has been taking a beating due to the fact that most adaptations are terrible (be they well intended like The Hobbit trilogy, or more typically when in the hands of mediocre TV writers like The Witcher). Adding to that concern was the ideological approach of Prime's CEO Jennifer Salke (echoed by your friendly neighbourhood CIA--goose-stepping for the oligarchy never looked so diverse). Fortunately for my sanity, as I've mentioned elsewhere, I stumbled across Tolkien Tube and, while I don't agree with him entirely (he's just realizing his dream of a Celebrimbor-fronted show is doomed), he brought hope back into the picture for me.

Let's briefly elucidate my concerns so you know where I'm coming from. From the beginning I wondered how faithful Amazon would be with Tolkien's material, since despite whatever limited voice the Tolkien Estate has in the production, the true guardian of the canon (Tolkien's son Christopher--think of the more laissez-faire attitude of his son Simon) is no longer with us. The typical result with genre adaptations are poorly written disasters. The examples of this are endless, but just a few: The Witcher, The Shannara Chronicles, all the Dungeons and Dragons films, A Wrinkle in Time, Eragon, and the 2011 Conan the Barbarian. The writer's room for the show seems unremarkable and ill-suited to the task (see below), headed by a pair of rookie showrunners coming from the J. J. Abrams' graveyard known as Bad Robot. In addition, fan site TheOneRing.net and Tolkien scholar Eddie Stanton have been running around combating criticism of the show--something that feels like damage control. Broadly speaking, much of the fan coverage has been doom and gloom (unlike the proliferation of 'wow isn't it awesome?' sycophany for the upcoming Wheel of Time or Dune). Casting announcements for LOTR have been met with a collective 'meh' due to the complete absence of big names, and now both of the Peter Jackson PR connections are gone (John Howe and Tom Shippey)--given all that, why has my attitude changed?

Just like Eorl the Young on the Field of Celebrant, my shifting perspective came unlooked for. I stumbled across this video, where Tolkien Tube addressed Nerdrotic's complaints (the most prominent outrage YTer to talk about the show). It goes without saying that Gary isn't interested in a balanced perspective, he just wants something to generate superchats. This lazy approach typically goes unchallenged, since his normal targets don't require that level of effort (Star Trek and Star Wars), but here his concerns are addressed by TT and within that signs for hope are found (an aside: it's amusing that Gary used an Ursula K. Le Guin quote thinking that it was Tolkien's).

“Hope without guarantees." [The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, #181]

As anyone familiar with me knows, one of the key concerns I have with any literary adaptation is faithfulness to the source material (eg). TT believes that we will get that both because of the cost of the show and the impact of the Tolkien Estate. In terms of cost the first two seasons (they were shot back-to-back) are said to be more than 400 million, although I suspect the price for the IP (250) was squeezed into that total for PR reasons--at 85+ a season it's on par with The Witcher season one and Game of Thrones season eight [This is incorrect: the plan was to film the seasons back-to-back, but that did not occur, so the cost for the season is in the 170+ territory, much more than the aforementioned shows]. As for the Estate, TT might be naïve about what they would approve of--we can't be sure how particular they are now that Christopher Tolkien is gone, nor do we know how vast their powers are. We also don't know what qualifies as 'good' for Amazon--plenty of horrendous shows and films have been approved of by their executives (lest we forget WB exec's standing ovation for Batman v Superman). What these factors suggest, however, is that the approach to the show is distinct from other comparables--if it is received poorly, it's a financial disaster that negatively impacts careers and will be an embarrassment for Amazon. This is the IP, after all, that Jeff Bezos demanded equal Game of Thrones in terms of success. That pressure is a positive for fans, although it raises the question (again) over what Amazon deems as 'good'--we simply don't know.

While I went over the creative team previously, I did so very briefly and it's worth reviewing them more fully because I think it gets ignored far too often.

Showrunners: Patrick McKay and John D. Payne; we know very little about the pair who worked for J. J. Abrams at Bad Robot. The only work they've done that we're aware of is uncredited writing on Star Trek: Beyond (2016; the credited writers are Simon Pegg and Doug Jung), and at some point writing a now discarded script for Disney's animated Flash Gordon (on which the pair also have producer credits, but that's unlikely to include active involvement). While inexperience is scary for fans, what's encouraging is there are no awful inclusions on their resume. Unlike a David Benioff, Alex Kurtzman, Lauren Hissrich, or Damon Lindelof, there's nothing horrendous that the pair were responsible for to look back on. We can't know how good they are, but conversely there isn't a bad track record to worry us. As for why they were hired, my guess is that Kevin Jarzynski (the Amazon exec in charge of the show) hired them based on their mutual experience at Bad Robot.

Producers: ignoring those who are also writers, we have:

• Eugene Kelly (impressive credits including Westworld, Boardwalk Empire, Rome, and Band of Brothers)
• Lindsey Weber (from Bad Robot, who has seemingly moved on to an untitled Star Trek show)
• Callum Greene (has a J. J. Abrams connection, as he EP'd The Rise of Skywalker, as well as a Peter Jackson connection, EPing The Desolation of Smaug)
• Sharon Tal Yguado (who last produced Outcast)
• Bruce Richmond (his first EP credit since 1998's From Earth to the Moon)
• Belen Atienza (I'm not sure how thorough her involvement is, given that she also EP'd The Innocent which came out this year)
• Director J. A. Bayona (I doubt he's much involved beyond those episodes he directed)

Kelly has the most impressive past, albeit outside of Greene none have a background in fantasy (and Greene's is not well-regarded).

Writers (all have varying producer credits unless noted)

• Jason Cahill - Scattered credits going back 25 years, but has barely worked as a writer in the last thirteen (producing Fear the Walking Dead is his latest credit). He has some genre experience from J. J. Abrams Fringe (possibly where McKay/Payne got to know him), but nothing about his work stands out as specifically applicable
• Justin Doble - Got his start with J. J. Abrams' Fringe (yet another connection), but his most recent experience is at Stranger Things (seasons one and two). Like Cahill above, none of his credits stand out (Fringe was an interesting show with problems; Stranger Things is popcorn entertainment--neither have the weight of a Tolkien enterprise)
• Gennifer Hutchison - Her writing career is almost entirely via the Breaking Bad IP, which is excellent, but antipodal to what she's engaged in now; outside of writing, her career goes all the way back to X-Files and related material (quirky, but in the Fringe-vein rather than the gravity of Tolkien)
• Bryan Cogman - His career was launched by Game of Thrones and he wrote some of the better episodes; unfortunately for fans, his primary role was to help set-up the writer's room rather than help shepherd it long term (desired, presumably, because of PR reasons and because none of the other writers had prior fantasy experience). His task done, he's no longer with the show (he just wrote The Sword in the Stone screenplay)
• Helen Shang - Coming off a producer/writer role on the third season of 13 Reasons Why, none of her limited experience screams Tolkien just like the writers listed below, so my guess is her work on Hawaii Five-0 (produced by Alex Kurtzman, ergo Bad Robot) is why she's here
• Stephany Folsam - Has very limited experience that's completely unrelated (Toy Story 4 and Star Wars Resistance--the former, it should be noted, is just a story credit and she's one of eight people with that credit), offering little reason to think she has the chops for this kind of project; she seems to be off the show already, as she's already working on another (Paper Girls) and written a screenplay (This is Jane)
• Glenise Mullins (no producer credit) - This is her first serious writing job, which is odd; her prior experience is as an assistant editor on shows like Kingdom; why she was given the jump to writer from assistant editor, I have no idea, but lack of experience is not a vote of confidence (a guess is that producer Ron Ames is married to or related to Jennifer Ames, who worked with Mullins on Kingdom)

Looking at the resumes of those involved it seems like the heavies are the showrunners themselves, their former colleagues at Bad Robot (Cahill and Doble), Hutchinson, Cogman, and perhaps Shang. Both Folsam and Mullins, given their inexperience, likely have far less impute. Understanding that this group (outside Cogman) has zero relevant writing experience, what they do bring to the table is an understanding of spectacle, drama, and to a lesser extent, comedy. While Breaking Bad has gravitas, nothing in their collective experience is akin to this IP (even via Cogman, as we have to remember that George R. R. Martin, like most modern fantasy writers, have tried very hard to run away from Tolkien's elevated style). The temptation to modernize the material is strong, particularly as The Silmarillion isn't remotely as popular as The Lord of the Rings. However, the moment the show devolves into modern fantasy is the moment you cease adapting faithfully and we're left with generic fantasy filled with Tolkienian features (The Shannara Chronicles come to mind). Can they avoid that temptation? We shall see.

Of the various controversies about the show, the one that's most perplexing is related to Tom Shippey. The noted scholar, who among other things wrote the excellent but dense The Road to Middle-earth, along with the simpler but more readable J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century, was brought in to the show in part for PR reasons (as he was prominent in the extras associated with Peter Jackson's films). He's no longer with the show and we don't know why. Shippey departed production in early 2020 and there's never been a reason given. There were conflicting reports at the time (from it being a planned hiatus to being fired). The timing was roughly when New Zealand began its Covid response, but if Shippey left for health reasons there would be no need for secrecy. If he'd left because his work was complete there would also be no need to keep it quiet. What we do know is that he wasn't fired, but is seemingly no longer involved. The only word we've had comes from a friend of Shippey's who said what happened is 'not as black and white as it seems.' Most people parse this as meaning there was a difference in opinion between Shippey and production over what was or wasn't in the spirit of Tolkien, and so they parted ways. Broadly speaking, fans would side with Shippey, who certainly knows better, but without specifics we can't jump to that conclusion.

According to TheOneRing.net there are other Tolkien experts with the show, but this has never been confirmed so we simply don't know if it's true. Even if there are such people on staff, we have no idea if they would be good advocates or have a "the books are the books, the show is the show" attitude. [This paragraph is corrected from my original post btw, as when I saw this information it wasn't sourced and stated as fact--I only found out later it was from TORn.]

One of the stranger aspects of the casting is the handling of its diversity. For a show unlikely to have many prominent POC characters, the female representation is proportionally higher than the male (the show's main cast is 25% diverse overall, but 33% for women). I'm not sure if there's an intention in that, but it's interesting (30% of the main cast is female). In-lore (for humans explicitly), the most diverse peoples would be ethnically Middle Eastern, North African, and Iranian, but there's no reflection of this. What we have instead is an inchoate collection of POC's that excludes East Asians and seems (if anything) predominantly black. The exclusion of East Asians could hint that there's an intention in who was cast, but without more information it comes across as random and impacted by American attitudes about representation. We also have no idea who might be under prosthetics (playing Dwarves, Orcs, and what not), besides Dylan Smith and presumably Ben Fransham (both of whom are Caucasian).

Adding diversity is a good thing abstractly and that includes in adaptations, but it needs to fit within the lore of the IP. Swaps are almost always a bad idea because it's usually an arbitrary change (as in, it doesn't impact the character or story in a meaningful way). The other problem with swaps is fans have spent years imagining that character as described (or shown), and when it's altered that very intimate relationship suffers (while often framed as a racial issue it really isn't, as can be seen from the hate both Michael Keaton and Hugh Jackman received when picked for the roles as Batman and Wolverine respectively). An example here would be Morfydd Clark (who is Caucasian): if she doesn't have distinctive golden blonde hair as Galadriel, fans will be upset because it's an important part of her character. There is a counter argument to this idea, albeit a poor one. The claim is because it's a different medium, you shouldn't expect it to follow the source material, but that's one of those incomplete statements that is nonsense once you drill down--it certainly doesn't apply carte blanche/willy nilly to casting and as a strategy it rarely works with fans.

What I hope the show is doing is creating original characters that fit within the milieu of the IP. That is what I wish all creators would do rather than the arbitrary swaps. I would be interested in seeing how the Easterlings, Haradrim, folk of Khand, etc interact with Sauron, so hopefully that's what we have rather than the callous checking of boxes.

We had what are supposedly the final additions to the main cast announced:

Charles Edwards (53 in October) - A steady British actor

Will Fletcher (early 20s) - Stage actor fairly new to TV/film

Amelie Child-Villiers (13) - This is her second project

Beau Cassidy (13ish) - Her first project

RDI added two more names (granting these aren't likely main cast members):

Robert Nairne (32) - The British actor who does creature performance and may be involved for that reason

Birdie Sisson (25) - The Kiwi's role is unknown

Tom Budge, who left the show over creative differences, has to be replaced and Fletcher seems to be that person (despite the age difference). It's not clear if the child actors will really be around long term or are simply there for a season or flashbacks. This brings the cast count to 40 (assuming I'm right that Fletcher replaces Budge, otherwise it's 41). It's not easy to slot all the casting calls from the list that's been floating around for a couple of years (keeping in mind that initial casting call may have changed, as there's still no sign of anyone fulfilling the role of 'Asta' from that list--a well-known, older actress of colour).

It's now clear that Budge was originally playing the character dubbed "Loda", as the reported auditions from September must have been held to replace him (with, as we can strongly surmise, Fletcher). We also have had it confirmed that Nazanin Boniadi is indeed playing "Kari". The latter has been my guess for awhile for a number of reasons (the most obvious being that Muhafidin, who plays "Kyrin", her son, can pass for that). I did not get the "Loda" guess right at all, as Budge was under the suggested age range for the character. Incidentally, I'll throw it out there that Benjamin Walker looks like Mark Ferguson, who played Gil-galad in Jackson's films (although he was cut from the prologue). That's probably meaningless, but food for thought (I personally think Ferguson doesn't look remotely elf-like, so it's not a physique I'd want duplicated).

Gauging relative interest in the show is extremely difficult because the advertising cycle has barely begun and there are few obvious parallels (I was looking for as-yet unreleased in-production fantasy series which have also not truly started their promotional sequence). It's important to point out that because of how ubiquitous LOTR is in terms of popularity, dredging Google Trends will give it extra buoyancy, but all the other titles included have (in theory) the same advantage. The first chart gives you an idea of how much bigger things get on release versus the background noise outside of that.

Broadly we can see how much bigger both Stranger Things and the first season of Witcher were vs Loki, but also that LOTR rests atop the other IP (which is no surprise). In the other chart we can see the damage caused to the Game of Thrones franchise by its horrendous ending (with minimal impact for House of the Dragon, despite various attempts by HBO to shed light on it); we can also see that Moon Knight had more excitement when announced than by its casting; the middling quality of unending Neil Gaiman adaptations have tempered excitement over The Sandman (a darling in its day), and that Wheel of Time's push for publicity has had little impact (I think it will bomb out of the gate--Daniel Greene, who leads the charge of positivity for it, seems to have started packaging other material within his WOT videos which smacks of limited interest).

We now arrive at the news that dropped while I was writing this. We have a release date for the show, which is September 2, 2022 (that date perhaps picked because Tolkien died on that day in 1973). Given that filming just completed, the date is far beyond what is needed for post-production work, so re-shoots have likely been booked for it. The image included seems to show the Two Trees of Valinor from the First Age and, if so, is certainly a flashback or prologue. I think the woman in the image is Galadriel (with her hair up in a bun or braided). There's a lot of reasons to believe Galadriel is the focal point of the show: she's connected to the major events in the First and Third Age, narrates the opening of Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring, and is the original strong female character in epic fantasy (something very appealing to Salke and Amazon). She happens to be one of my favourite characters as well, so expectations for how she's portrayed are very high. It's the kind of role that could launch Morfydd Clark into stardom...or not.

The bait from this teaser is interesting: it's showing lore, rather than focusing on a character. That means the marketing is aimed at the existing Tolkien fanbase and not the Peter Jackson fans or casuals. This is interesting, since the number of people who went beyond The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to read the legendarium is proportionally small, but they are the hardest of hardcore fans. I have to wonder if it's partially intended as a distraction from the negative things floating around about the film--to give them something else to chew on. I suspect there's some awareness at Amazon that the reaction to the limited publicity thus far has been muted, so this is one way (however vague) to try and swing Tolkien fans in their favour. Will it work? Thus far I'd say yes.

The odds are the show will ultimately disappoint. Other than the early seasons of Game of Thrones, we simply haven't had a good fantasy show on TV. Success on film has been marginally better, but typically adaptations of the fantasy genre are poorly done. With that said, it's too early for doom and gloom and at least until the trailers hit (probably next spring) there's room for optimism. In the meantime, it's an excuse to pull Tolkien volumes off the shelf and re-immerse yourself in the lore. One other YT channel shoutout before I go: Girl Next Gondor's videos are worth exploring.

This article is written by Peter Levi (@eyeonthesens)