Genre News: MCU, DCEU, Hogwarts Legacy, and The Last of Us

After so much bad entertainment (in the last three years I've seen one show I've liked), it's easy to be cynical and think that there are no consequences for failure--that there's so much money behind this nonsense that financial success has become irrelevant (after all, on an individual level, executives make money either way). However, we've started to see signs that company profits do motivate our corporate overlords. One of the latest signals of this is the MCU slowing down its Phase Five schedule. Let us recall that Phase Five started abruptly due to Phase Four failures. What's happening?

Delays, first reported by THR, are hitting heavily. Of the shows, only Secret Invasion and Loki season two will appear in 2023, with the already completed Ironheart, Echo, and currently filming Agatha Harkness moved to the following year (three shows no one asked for or wants). Don't get too excited, as Feige doesn't have any David Zaslav in him, so these abysmal products are still going to appear. Slow-dripping garbage isn't going to make it taste any better, but it does give Disney+ space to try and produce something that's actually crowd-pleasing.

Speaking of crowd-pleasing, Ant-Man 3 has arrived with the same anemic power of its Phase Four brethren, earning a paltry 367 million thus far and will settle in the doldrums of Shang-Chi/Eternals box office territory. This means casual film fans have given it a pass and even fewer people than expected will have any idea who Kang (the next Thanos in the MCU) is. The only response Feige and Bob Iger have had to failures like this is suggesting they need more jokes, but that's not going to cut it (as the emergency reshoots of Ant-Man 3 demonstrate). While one can argue the good stories in the MCU are relatively simple, that's fine for a comic book film--Iron Man isn't trying to be Citizen Kane. It's clear that the major issue at Marvel is that the creative people involved aren't that talented (there's hilarity in shills like John Campea saying the problem is that Feige needs more control--he's been in complete control throughout Phase Four and beyond!).

Back to the MCU's response to the problem: joining the TV delays is The Marvels (aka Captain Marvel 2) getting moved again. It had been pushed back from February to July, but now has been moved to November. The change provides plenty of time for reshoots (more jokes!), but given Phase Four's inability to fix anything with reshoots, it's not going to improve a film no one wanted in the first place.

The MCU is like the Titanic, except that everyone other than its leaders is aware of the iceberg. This kind of blindness killed the Star Wars IP, but it seems like Iger and Disney are unwilling or unable to identify the problem (the bar for 'good' could not be lower right now--Avatar 2 and Top Gun: Maverick are average films).

I feel fortunate that we got three good Phases out of Marvel--that's a string of quality content unlikely to be replicated--but what an awful fall from grace. It reminds me of the horror of the Star Wars prequels, which turned the IP into Jar Jar's memes and ramblings about sand (never forget). I have no idea why YT outragers heap praise on George Lucas, who saddled us with Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (equally as stupid)--while the sequels are bad, that doesn't magically make the prequels good.

I wonder if Zaslav is already having buyer's remorse about hiring James Gunn, as every time he opens his mouth the DCEU's future looks bleaker. For a guy who supposedly has his finger on the pulse of his audience, he's clueless about what works for DC fans (it's difficult to imagine a worse handling of the Henry Cavill situation). Despite an outpouring of positivity when his involvement was announced (misplaced, in my opinion, but it was there), there's been nothing positive since. Shazam 2 is tracking to bomb even harder than Ant-Man 3, and the other moribund DC properties on the slate are also expected to struggle (as WB goes all-in on Ezra Miller and The Flash--you'd think this would pose problems for the very progressive Gunn, who ought to be outraged by the accusations against Miller, but I guess a fat paycheque overcomes moral objections). That's a terrible lead-in for whatever Gunn is planning and nothing he's announced sounds exciting. I feel think the future slate will change quite a bit (which is nothing new for DC on film).

Let's open this by making it clear that I'm not really a Harry Potter fan--I don't hate it, but it's impact on me is limited. I read the books and watched the films (RIP Richard Harris and Alan Rickman), which were entertaining enough, but one-and-done was enough for me. As for J. K. Rowling, I always found her faintly ridiculous (making comments about Hermione being black with the reflexive, backwards looking virtue signaling people in her class are notorious for). What Rowling has discovered is that no matter how hard you try to keep up with Neo-Liberal attitudes, you cannot cross the Dave Chappelle line. The backlash she's received is loud but ineffectual (no impact financially or on her career and, unlike Chappelle, no one has tried to physically attack her), but what Hogwarts Legacy has shown is we've reached the point where the public no longer cares about the outrage. I don't know where the tipping point was--Chapelle's The Closer (2021) is an indicator, as are things like George R. R. Martin (another virtue signaler), criticizing the movement and bemoaning not being able to call himself a feminist anymore. At some point the cancel crowd lost its fangs. This goes well beyond Rowling's specific controversy, as high profile cases involving Johnny Depp and Marilyn Manson have also gone against the 'believe all' rhetoric of 2018. I think things like the Amber Heard or Kyle Rittenhouse trial played a role in the public's changing attitude (where accusations had to meet a burden of proof and viewers could make their own judgements).

The fact that Hogwarts Legacy has made a fortune doesn't inherently make it a great game. What it does show is that journalists and the elite screaming at people has no impact on public interest. This has been evident in film and TV for years (Ghostbusters, anyone?), but the failed attempt with Hogwarts is so large it can't easily be ignored or forgotten. The movement, if you want to call it that, seems to have forgotten that progress is made by forging alliances (unions aren't formed by a hivemind, after all), not screaming at anyone who isn't already inside the club. While I'm glad to see the insanity starting to simmer down, I wish this kind of energy was being channeled into practical things like helping folks who are living under bridges. On a larger scale, the zeitgeist is changing, but into what remains to be seen.

The hype for HBO's The Last of Us was so loud I was expecting at least Rings of Powers-type Nielsen numbers, but now that they are out, it turns out the hype is bigger than the viewership (a banger show is well over 1,000 in the watched category above). This reality matches the Google Trend data I looked at previously (which was good, but not great)--for some perspective, TLOU's peak was 61% lower than the most recent season of Stranger Things, and 46% lower than Wednesday.  The show's trends are trailing off, with episode five hitting at less than 50% of episode one. It's easy to forget that modern shows rarely impact audiences like they used too--Wednesday lost to reruns of Seinfeld, after all. None of this means we won't get a second season and I'm sure this one will win awards--it would even if no one was watching--but it provides perspective on the hype. The IP is so degraded it's hard to feel the same affection for the original game that I've long had. The trends are awful--a disappointing DLC followed by an awful sequel, a poorly handled remake, and now an adaptation 'made for a modern audience'. Unlike The Witcher, where Netflix's hamfisted treatment leaves room for someone to do better, we won't get another adaptation for The Last of Us.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Genre News: DCU, The Last of Us, Red Sonja, Willow, Blood Origins, The Witcher, Vox Machina

James Gunn's announced DC slate sounds a lot like MCU Phase Four (the first thing the Waller show made me think of was Agatha Harkness--something no one asked for or wants) and not at all like the fresh, clean new slate that was promised. This has created a lot of negative shockwaves among DC fans, who have Guardians of the Galaxy so stuck in their brains they've ignored the warning signs about Gunn. I think the reason Gunn floated the idea of Ezra Miller remaining as the Flash is pure marketing shtick to save The Flash at the box office, but it's a bad look. His garbled and contradictory explanations for firing Henry Cavill just made things worse and put his Superman project under a negative cloud of his own making. I never thought Gunn was the right person to put in charge of DC (or Cosmic MCU when that was the plan), as I think he's highly overrated and lived off the fundamental script work of Nicole Perlman on the first Guardians (as evidenced by the tedium of The Suicide Squad or the bloated Guardians 2). The upcoming dumpster fire might seriously hurt WB, but the core IP will always be available for serious adaptations years down the line. Do I see any hope at all? No, but we can hope that I'm wrong.

The normies have enjoyed HBO's adaptation thus far (4 episodes in), but it hasn't had resonance with the gaming community ala The Witcher when it debuted in December, 2019; in fact, in terms of Google Trends it's only half as impactful as that season. The point of entry for normies into TLOU is almost zero (the genre and characters are far more approachable than a sprawling fantasy IP), so I wonder how much traction the show will actually have. Anecdotally, people I know who've seen it have enjoyed it thus far, but it's worth pointing out the praise is exclusively for Pedro Pascal (unlike the game, where the love for Joel is equaled by the love for Ellie), which echoes The Witcher and Henry Cavill (just to a lesser extent). Whether we'll see a show version of Abby ignominiously beat the race-swapped hero to death with a golf club remains to be seen (I don't think Neil Druckman has the temerity to show a white person beating a POC to death--then again, maybe Abby will be race-swapped too), but we can hope normies get to enjoy that just as much as the gaming community did.

We got another update on Red Sonja, with the Variety article's tone feeling a lot like the Deadline article from August (serving as both marketing and to assuage the politically active entertainment world to chill out about the project)--it's entirely possible both articles were paid for to drum up interest. Let's go through the key points:

• It has a B-movie budget (15-20 million) and still lacks a US-distributor; the former means a reliance on practical effects and that the bar to profit is low
• With M. J. Bassett in charge the film is relatively 'safe' from the usual sorts of attacks (as she represents the most important letter in the alphabet community)
• Bassett's comment about the film dealing with climate change is puzzling--there's context missing unless it's meant as a sop to the media in an effort to sell the film to a distributor (I don't oppose a positive environmental message, but it's an odd thing to place in a Red Sonja property); Andre's theory is that it will reflect the Younger Dryas period--grains of salt on that, but maybe
• As I predicted, the film will skip Roy Thomas' origin story and stick with the updated version from Gail Simone (I have no attachment to the Thomas origin, so that's no big deal)
• The earlier Joey Soloway iteration of the film was described as 'incompetent', which is no surprise (perhaps it would have been the Velma of fantasy)
• This is trivial, but I'd somehow missed that Soloway had been MeToo'd (something quickly forgotten--I don't think any of the women accused of harassing men got cancelled during the movement--hell, Weinstein's assistant Leslye Headland is still making a Star Wars series)

The fear for the film is getting a US-distributor. it might be able to make enough money elsewhere, but there's much more profit (and hype) to be gained in the US. Will it? I have no idea, but my hope is simply that we'll get some competent fantasy after all the garbage of the last few years.

The Willow disaster has come and gone and mercifully there's no serious talk about a second season. While this unfortunately means the IP is dead (the original film was a cult classic rather than a blockbuster), at least the show can be forgotten and the original film left untouched (unlike how Star Wars retconning has actually damaged its original characters). There's not much to say about Willow, as it simply echoes the tendencies of modern fantasy adaptations (Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, The Witcher, etc). Indeed, for those who had never seen the original film, they'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between Willow and any of the other properties. It's a funny thing that execs have missed out on part of what makes fantasy successful: distinctiveness. Modern fantasy adaptations are utterly generic, with casts that reflect modern metropolises filled with cheap generic sets, costumes, and poorly designed Elves. The damage being done to the genre means I don't have any anecdotal stories to tell about Willow, because no one I know watched the show (and I know people who enjoyed Rings of Power as well as Wheel of Time).

Speaking of failure, the gloves were off for Blood Origin as critics were given the greenlight to slaughter the show. Is it meaningfully worse than Willow or Rings of Power etc? No, but Netflix choose not to run the usual interference to get a critical pass. Clearly the execs decided there was no point in trying to save face here, which mercifully saves us from a second season. With that out of the way, we can hope The Witcher season three flops and Netflix gives up on the IP entirely. The other planned spinoff show (Rats) looks to be a similar train wreck, but may be too far along for Netflix to cancel it (I believe it's set to start filming soon). If it does go into production, I won't be surprised to see the episode count cut for Rats just as it was for Blood Origins. Sapkowski says he dislikes the show (cf, which isn't a big deal, as he doesn't like the video games either), which is bad optics for Netflix. Just like with Willow above, no one I know has seen the show, but in this case people were aware of it and simply thought it looked bad.

Season two of Vox Machina slipped through my radar entirely and clearly I'm not the only one, as its Google Trends dropped by a full third compared to season one [it even trails the Dragon Age animated show no one watched in December]. I haven't watched it yet (my reaction to season one can be found here, but in brief its awkwardly paced, histrionic, predictable, but with enough good humour to carry you through it). In talking to people who have seen it, the second season is just like the first (which makes sense, as it's the same creative team). I presume the announced Mighty Nein adaptation will be more of the same in terms of content (will they let Marisha Ray voice a POC?), but if the audience drop continues I'd imagine no second season and no Bells Hells.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Thoughts on The Witcher, Blood Origin, Warhammer 40k, Rings of Power, Willow, and Dragon Age Absolution

In an apparent effort to save interest in Netflix's The Witcher (and its spinoff), the show seemingly leaked information (cf, via the podcast Deux U) to attack Henry Cavill directly. At the time it came out I mentioned that I thought it was poorly conceived damage control that grossly underestimated the good will Cavill has bought over his career. The tactics themselves are by-the-book for how entertainment corporations handle or anticipate criticism (the fan baiting approach I covered back in September). This effort failed so badly (gaining no traction) that the leaker apologized (eg) and deleted their Twitter account and the accusations never surfaced in the trades (although places like Jezebel and click-chasers like The Quartering reported them). It's heartening to see such a quick obliteration of this nonsense, and I hope its a sign we're beginning to turn the corner on the insanity that's consumed the entertainment industry the last six to seven years. But more about Blood Origin below.

Speaking of Cavill, he's now an executive producer for a Warhammer 40k series on Amazon. Thankfully, Amazon is simply the broadcaster and not involved with creative decisions, so there's a chance the IP will be (if nothing else) faithful to the lore. I'm not that familiar with Warhammer, but I know the book series' is quite popular. Fans don't always succeed when given a project like this, but Cavill isn't just an enthusiast so there's a reasonable chance it will do well. What's less clear to me how Jennifer Salke decides what is 'toxic masculinity' and what is not--Conan, as we know, was too toxic for her, and Tolkien's legendarium too masculine, but one wonders if what Salke means is purely down to numbers (white men vs female/diverse characters). I assume Warhammer is diverse, but otherwise on the surface it's not something I would have guessed Salke would approve of.

We've heard enough from those involved with Rings of Power season two that nothing meaningful will change besides superficial elements like more action (and minor aesthetics). This dooms the show to another poorly received season and I really wonder if Amazon will actually swallow the cost to produce the promised third season. I think it's unlikely, but given Bezos' deep pockets and ego, it's not impossible (the unwatchable Star Trek: Discovery has managed to crawl along for five seasons despite abysmal viewership, after all).

One thing I've seen no one consider is why the critical reception of these two shows has been so different. Both have been eviscerated by the audience (RT scores of 12% and 34%), but why was Willow given a pass (85%) and Blood Origin (correctly) criticized (35%)? I think it's down to corporate influence. Disney (Willow) desperately needs a streaming 'win', so ensured they got the usual thumbs-up from critics. Netflix, on the other hand, was already pulling away from Blood Origin (cutting its episode count from six to four), so wasn't investing in a critical pass. I've mentioned ad nauseum that critical praise is meaningless in terms of success, so both shows will be one-and-done, but executives haven't figured this out. Blood Origin's abysmal showing should mean The Witcher season three will mercifully end the Netflix experience. What I'd like is someone to adapt CDPR's iteration of the IP (ala Edgerunners, albeit it needn't be animated).

You'd be forgiven if you had no idea Dragon Age: Absolution had appeared appeared on Netflix (December 9th). The animated show, DA's first venture into animation since early 2012's Dawn of the Seeker, is meant to help lead in to Dragon Age 4 (presumed out in 2024), but has arrived DOA. No one is talking about it, so no one is watching it (a far more muted response than Vox Machina and nowhere near monster performers like Edgerunners). What it means to BioWare is they can't hope fans have watched it, making it as irrelevant as the book and comic tie-ins have to be (& ergo, failing in its purpose to hype the upcoming game). Reviews suggest BioWare's writing remains stuck in the 'made for modern audiences' phase that every other flop from the last few years has copied. It makes me fear the game will receive a similar indifferent reception and possibly even flop Andromeda-style. It's worth noting that Willow (included above) also has had no resonance at all (as is clear in the graph).

Note on Future Articles

While I'm fond of the news digest format I've been doing since 2017, I'm going to switch to topic-based posts. This will mean articles will be more frequent (if, generally, shorter). I'm sure at points it will be worthwhile to post a digest, but for readers I think it makes coming regularly more rewarding and it's simpler to know if the topic at hand is of interest. [Later: this intention didn't quite pan out, although longer single topic articles are in process.]

This article was written by Peter Levi

Fantasy and Science Fiction TV/Movie Thoughts

Genre Entertainment fails continue and the 'why' remains unchanged. The positive of this is maybe, maybe, we'll start getting better written material in the next few years. Let's get to it.

Wakanda Forever apparently had a one-to-one marketing cost (ergo, the film has a base cost of 500 million), but despite the massive marketing has punched well below Disney's expectations. It sits at 769 at the box office and is expected to limp to 800. This tally is a pale shadow of the original and it's not clear if that's even enough for it to break even. This is yet another failure for Disney on top of the ignored Strange Worlds. I've heard it said that the MCU is all-in on Guardians of the Galaxy 3, but even if that film achieves success it can't right the ship (just as Spider-Man 3 did not). As for why the film failed, the key element remains the same: the writing.

Switching to DC, we've mercifully been saved from Patty Jenkins' Wonder Woman 3. Apparently Jenkins quit when asked to make changes to her script, although it's likely she would have been let go regardless (she's supposedly been removed from her Star Wars film Rogue Squadron as well as Gal Gadot's Cleopatra). The film is cancelled and if I were James Gunn I'd jettison Gadot and start fresh (Gadot can't act and at 37 is aging out of the role). This kind of clean sweep is desperately needed at Marvel, but there's no chance of rescue until (maybe) Phase Six, at which point the MCU itself might get a reboot.

I talked about Willow back in July where I opined "[what I've heard] leads me to believe this will be another unwatchable disaster." That prediction has been spot on thus far, as (according to Samba) it's the least watched show on Disney+ to date. I doubt it's actually qualitatively worse than Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, or The Witcher, but that its ratings reflects: 1) audience exhaustion with fantasy 'changed for modern audiences', 2) the limited reach of the IP. As I said months ago, this doesn't hurt the original film any, but it's an unfortunate ending for an IP we'll only see again if it's rebooted.

I discussed Blood Origin last time, a show that makes the same mistake as Willow and the other recent fantasy adaptations. It looks generic and boring (so much so that even Polygon (!) trashed it). What I didn't mention then, because I'd forgotten about it, is that the show was originally meant to be six episodes, but either good fortune or someone with a brain at Netflix cut it back to four. I think this show would have bombed with or without Henry Cavill's decision to leave The Witcher, but given his departure and Beau DeMayo throwing the writers room under the bus, it's going to face Willow-like oblivion. Anecdotally, the normies I know who have enjoy The Witcher were pissed to hear Cavill was leaving and expressed no desire to continue watching the show without him.

The unfolding aftermath of the disaster that was Rings of Power continues (its second season is in production in the UK as we speak). None of this can be found in the very carefully curated Wikipedia page, but here are some key developments:

• Joseph Mawle, one of the biggest 'names' in the cast, left the show (replaced by Sam Hazeldine); clearly Mawle saw which way the wind was blowing
• Seemingly neither the insufferable Ismael Cruz Cordova or Nazanin Boniadi will return, as their superfluous characters have been dropped for the season two storyline (making their inclusion utterly pointless)--if true this presumably also means losing their presumed love child (Tyroe Muhafidin)
• Lenny Henry's character died in the first season, but I suspect his homicidal Hobbit clan will continue to annoy and bore viewers despite that addition by subtraction
• The showrunners talked about the season being more in line with the Tolkien canon, but this is a by-rote approach (Lauren Hissrich said the same about The Witcher season two, which proved even less canonical than season one); the announced new cast members follow the same schizophrenic decisions as the first

The script and casting were locked prior to the reception of the first season and while some changes can be made on the fly, I don't see how Amazon can do anything other than fix some of the aesthetics. The only true 'save' is to scrap the existing elements and start fresh (complete reboot), but I don't think Amazon has the balls to make that decision.

Epic fantasy is interesting because it presents a distinctive reality that doesn't adhere to our own (unlike science fiction or urban fantasy). Modern adaptors have thrown this away by making their fantasy echo their version of 'real/modern world'. This strips away the key conceit of what makes fantasy work. Whether anyone in TV, film, or video games is going to figure this out any time soon is hard to say.

We can also add the familiar chestnut that sticking to the lore is always a win, as seen with Edgerunners: an original story that carefully follows the lore of Cyberpunk 2077.

This article was written by Peter Levi

MCU, DCEU, and Fantasy Entertainment News & Commentary

As expected, neither Black Adam or Wakanda Forever will be released in China. This is by-rote for the MCU at this stage and becoming so for the DCEU--if you aren't going to make your films specifically for the PRC, you aren't getting access to its markets. I don't think Wakanda Forever would have performed particularly well in China regardless, but it could have boosted Black Adam towards breaking even. This, along with losing the much smaller Russian market (due to the war in Ukraine), and some Middle Eastern markets unless LGBTQ content is edited out, means films like this must hit their box office targets elsewhere.

Speaking of the box office for both projects, Black Adam is going to lose money for WB--this is not a big surprise, since its test screenings scored even worse than the cancelled Batgirl. Predictions that Wakanda Forever would bomb also seem true, although it could break even financially (it's only hit 552 through its first two weekends).

It's difficult to fully express the hilarity of Bob Iger returning to Disney to fix Bob Chapek's mess. As most of you know, all the current projects were made under Bob Iger's watch. Whether Chapek was ever going to fix it is an open question, but there was no possibility of him making it worse. Chapek's efforts have never been felt by Marvel, so all Iger can do is reverse his changes to Star Wars and permanently kill the brand (maybe we will get a film from Harvey Weinstein's complicit assistant--yay?). What will Iger do? I have no idea, but it does mean we have to question Kamran Pasha's long contention that Chapek was playing 4D chess and is a Machiavellian mastermind. I have a feeling that, in time (if not already), Pasha will claim it was Susan Arnold who was the master and Chapek just a puppet.

Feige acolyte Nate Moore stated the obvious that the MCU deliberately seeks out creatives who are not familiar with the source material (thus the hilarious behind-the-scenes special for She-Hulk where one of the producers had no idea Daredevil was blind). Moore's cluelessness is not new, but having him admit it publicly is a delightful self-own. These efforts would have occurred after Ike Perlmutter and the Marvel story group was pushed out part way through Phase Three (after Doctor Strange). The wretched state of MCU projects from non-fans has made no impact on Moore, Victoria Alonso, or Feige, whose egos are too large to accept failure. With Iger back in the saddle they are likely safe for a few more years--enough time to completely run the brand into the ground.

The audience the MCU has been chasing hardest with Phase Four is Gen-Z (1995-2015). A huge part of their female-centric/diversity focused brand is targeted at them, but at least through 2021 we know this has completely failed. Halfway through Phase Four only 9% of the audience is into Marvel, a brand that leans heavily on Millennials (which fits my anecdotal experience).

I thought Blood Origin was DOA when it was announced--anything coming from the creative mind of Lauren Hissrich had no chance of succeeding (ahem, Jessica Jones season two). The show's trailer came out about a week ago and understandably got ratioed, looking like a bad Rings of Power ripoff. God love Michelle Yeoh, but she's 60-years old and the market for geriatric sword swingers is non-existent (nor does she have pull as an actor when you look at her films). Naturally nothing from the show resembles the source material (Polish/Slavic culture is irrelevant to the entertainment industry). My hope is it bombs horrendously to speed up the removal of the IP from Netflix's incompetent clutches, although I expect it to review well and Netflix to find a way to trumpet its initial numbers.

One of the reasons I have to look at alternative news sources is because official channels are unreliable (they owe their access to the corporations making these products). A good example of this comes from Indiana Jones 5, a film that has had a long and troubled production history, anchored by the laughable Indiana Jones 4. I like the first two films from the IP, but I'm not a hardcore fan, so I have only passively paid attention to news about it. What brings it to mind is director James Mangold humiliating himself by going full She-Hulk in attacking someone he hates online (oddly, the same one targeted by Jessica Gao, namely YTer Doomcock). In this case Mangold wound up with egg all over his face because he got caught in a lie. The point of this isn't Mangold or a Youtuber, but simply that fan channels do get scoops sometimes and those are often uncomfortable truths about an upcoming project (The Last of Us Part 2 is one of the many examples, where playtesters leaked how awful it was). As for the film itself, I never expected it to do well--the fourth film occurred in a different era and is terrible and the third film, even older, has plenty of issues. Much like The Terminator or Alien, some projects don't need more than one sequel (if that).

Shortly after Twitter fired close to 4,000 people (prompting legal inquiries), Facebook let go 12,000, Disney is planning its own layoffs (Iger may prevent that--we shall see), and Amazon is cutting 10,000 jobs. All of this comes during the current recession, but other than Amazon the reason for these layoffs is quite different (FB's bungling of the Metaverse is at the core of its struggles; Disney because of Iger's unending stupidity; Musk simply cut anyone who either opposed him or didn't serve a direct functional purpose--close to 90% of employees apparently, with no noticeable effect on the platform).

I'd be remise if I didn't mention Twitter's apparent death...or not. It's not long ago I had people telling me it was doomed--everyone was leaving--and instead usage is up and CBS embarrassed itself by leaving and returning in record time. Whatever you think of the platform or its current boss, it's still the only central place for news. Places like Instagram and Tiktok aren't set-up to fulfill that function, FB failed at it years ago, Mastodon doesn't want peasants polluting its safe space (RIP Will Wheaton, cf), and so on. This is a lesson Trump learned when he was booted and created his own version of the platform--it's just another Mastodon with a different political leaning.

I have a bunch of video game news I want to get into (Witcher 4, Dragon Age 4, Mass Effect 4--if it has a 4 in the title we're good apparently), but I'll save that until next time.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Fantasy and Science Fiction TV/Movie News/Commentary

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