Comics, Fantasy, & Sci-Fi Film/TV News

It might seem cruel at this point to discuss the problems with Rings of Power, but Amazon's insufferable self-promotion and endless excuses eliminate any sense of pity. Despite the money and hype the show couldn't even beat Sandman's meagre social media impact which, while higher than the moribund She-Hulk (see below), is pathetic. RoP performed so poorly that even pro-corporate publications like Forbes have taken it to task. With the second season already filming there's no opportunity to change course, such that my prediction of superficial Witcher-like changes seems on-target (purely aesthetic; in many ways the shows are very similar, except one has Henry Cavill). In the aftermath the showrunners are pitching more action and more characters from the lore, but given how bad the action was in the current season and how horribly characters from the lore have been portrayed, that can't allay anyone's fears.

What does the show bombing mean? Publicly Amazon has denied it flopped, but the budget for season two has been slashed and we can assume internally Jeff Bezos wants someone's head to roll--many are hoping for Jennifer Salke (whose mess this is), but I think she's too well connected for that to happen. Changing showrunners is the only meaningful public change to make (which would be framed as wanting to spend more time with their family or pursue other interests), but that seems unlikely at this point. For now it seems like Bezos has chosen to eat the loss and push forward, presumably due to ego. [Right after I posted this, I saw rumours of a shadow showrunner being brought in.]

A bit of trivia: producer Lindsey Weber is married to Mike Weber, one of Wheel of Time's producers, perhaps explaining some of the similarities between the terrible fantasy shows (cheap costumes, awful writing, etc). We also know that the Finrod scenes were part of reshoots because Tom Budge was the original Finrod and these feature his replacement (Will Fletcher). Whether any of Fletcher's scenes were entirely new is less clear, but Budge did his career a favour by leaving.

Finally: I do know people who like the show (albeit not very many). These are broadly fantasy fans (which is to say, not book fans) who are unbothered by, for example, the terrible writing in The Witcher or The Wheel of Time. Their standard for genre fair seems to be: if it looks like fantasy, yay! Unfortunately for Amazon, such fans are few and far between and they are mostly outside the key demographic, instead appealing to older fans who, in small numbers, gravitate towards it (which mirrors the Phase Four audience for the MCU).

Speaking of Phase Four (whose nickname, Phase Bore, needs some work), Black Panther 2's box office is projected along the same path as the rest--a big opening followed by a sharp drop (estimated to earn half or less the original's gross). There's agitation from toy producers about losing a cash cow for boys with the absence of Black Panther (cf), as they don't believe the female leads answer that requirement or make up for it elsewhere (referencing the horrific sales of Phase Four merch other than Spider-Man).

Black Panther is ‘a very specific character’ whose ‘appeal is very ‘male’, even more than usual.’ This seems especially true with black men. Black men have the strongest relationship with the character, with an interesting, strong pop on the father/son dynamic. Black men identify with the Black King, strong male figure. Word association: noble strength. How the character holds himself. They admire that in the hero; inspiring to them. …seeing the movies was a great bonding [experience] for many black men and their sons. … Black men are even less likely to buy female-IP driven merch for either themselves or their sons.

Apparently Disney is pitching Storm as a way of ultimately solving that problem, but understandably the manufacturers don't agree (the binary of gendered toy sales, despite attempts to eliminate it, has not meaningfully changed).

She-Hulk is finally over (it's irrelevance with the public is dramatically illustrated by the Trends graph above, although critics continue to praise it unlike Rings of Power). There's not much left to say about the show, as the unfunny mess won't get a second season, allowing other writers to try and salvage the character in other projects (I doubt they can, but at least it's unlikely that Jessica Gao will be involved with her again--so many ex-Rick and Morty writers have shown themselves inept without Dan Harmon fixing their material). One of the funnier things about the show is that it's marketing was focused on guest stars rather than the titular hero, illustrating how little faith Disney had in the product. I also wonder how much it stings Feige and Victoria Alonso that the only Disney+ show getting a second season has a white male showrunner/writer (not that Michael Waldron has any talent) and a white male lead (Loki).

As for the show itself, other than further degrading Daredevil (what exactly he likes about She-Hulk is a mystery the show doesn't attempt to resolve--her desire for him seems to be all that matters--very Wonder Woman 84), I think the future for Matt Murdock will lean on his solo series (his role in Echo, which I expect to perform even more poorly than She-Hulk, won't matter). It's worth noting She-Hulk was written three years ago in a very different environment. Our present is in the midst of war, hyper inflation, an energy crisis, and political upheaval, such that a tale of She-Hulk's First World struggles of relationships and internet trolls doesn't cut it (the writers don't even understand bullying, which impacts the powerless, not invulnerable alcoholics). Whether this is the canary in the coal mine for Feige or not is difficult to say--if he learned nothing from The Eternals he's likely beyond the point of changing.

The Deadpool 3 announcement is a late, desperate decision echoing D23's sudden jettisoning of Phase Four for a Phase Five no one cares about either. Feige finally pulled the trigger on Hugh Jackman to reprise Wolverine, likely also caving into whatever demands Ryan Reynolds had that were preventing the film from hitting production. I don't think this guarantees Deadpool 3 will be good, as Deadpool 2 (which Reynolds controlled) was a poor sequel to Deadpool. Despite that, I think fans will show-up for Jackman, as the power of the memberberry is strong (that seems to be the one thing Feige took away from Far From Home--more memberberries!--albeit it did not work in Doctor Strange 2).

More broadly, MCU delays continue as the troubled Blade shifted over a year (Sept/23 to Nov/24), which is insane; Secret Wars moved back six months (Nov/25 to May/26), and Deadpool 3 (just announced) and Fantastic Four also moved a few months. Shuffling the schedule isn't new to Marvel, but has been particularly bad since Phase Four began (She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel are classic examples, as they swapped places then failed spectacularly). The changes represent the chaos going on internally. I think the reality of Phase Four's failure is dawning on them. The fly in the ointment for Marvel is that since Feige has had full control, the writing at Marvel has turned to utter shit, but I don't think there's awareness of that (Michael Waldron is still employed, after all).

My guess is that Mahershala Ali is trying to force Blade into being something other than a disaster--I think he's the reason why Stacey Amma Osei-Kuffour's moribund script was tossed (it wouldn't surprise me if he had it leaked). That said, replacing her with Beau DeMayo is not necessarily encouraging (Witcher and Moon Knight credits are worrying ahead of the animated X-Men '97, granting I was not a fan of the animated show it's borne from).

Speaking of DeMayo, the former Witcher writer happily threw his colleagues under the bus, proclaiming "Some of the writers were not or actively disliked the books and games (even actively mocking the source material). It’s a recipe for disaster and bad morale. Fandom as a litmus test checks egos, and makes all the long nights worth it. You have to respect the work before you’re allowed to add to its legacy." This is great to hear, but DeMayo's own episodes from the show is awful (especially "Kaer Morhen"), illustrating no respect for the source material, so we'll need him to put words into action before crediting him with sanity. That aside, Witcher has always been a disaster due to the writing (via the incompetent showrunner) and I firmly believe season three will be the end--Henry Cavill returning as Superman implies he's not putting aside time for the Netflix show.

It has been months since I wrote about Conan, but not that long for Red Sonja. Marketing for the latter has continued with on-set shots of the lead being released. Other than Matilda Lutz having red hair, there's nothing to be drawn from them (albeit for modern entertainment that in and of itself is a minor miracle). As for Conan, the news is confirmation that there is a showrunner for the Netflix project (why their identity is being kept under wraps, I have no idea, but presumably reflects a state of early pre-production). It's worth repeating that these two projects are completely unrelated due to the rights situation, so it's all but impossible for the two characters to meet on-screen.

I've heard Apple's adaptation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series is a train wreck, but like most people I haven't seen it (no one is discussing it either). I read the original trilogy as a teenager and enjoyed it, but Apple hasn't made something people want to watch. Because of where it aired and its lack of impact, I don't think the result hurts the IP (unlike Amazon killing the Wheel of Time).

I haven't discussed Ezra Miller in awhile. The Flash star has pled not guilty to burglary charges and because Miller is both wealthy and has industry support (going to jail would jeopardize hundreds of millions of WB's money), I don't foresee jail time. I still think writing the actor out of the WB is in the cards, since who wants the headache, but until that happens the support will remain. Those rumours from the summer (cf) that Miller would not be returning as the Flash have popped up again--the substance is the same (insiders at WB say Miller is done), but presumably have reemerged due to the court proceedings.

I jumped off the Star Wars train a long time ago (Force Awakens was the final nail, with the prequels providing the rest), but it's interesting to see Andor suffering from the weight of prior failures. No one is watching the show, to the point that even the shills are discussing that reality. A prequel to a prequel for a franchise that hasn't done anything worth watching since 1983 did not appeal to anyone. I don't think this changes anything going forward, except lowering future budgets for whatever else is coming to Disney+. The just announced decision to bring in Damon Lindelof (!) illustrates LucasFilm still doesn't know what it's doing.

One of the reasons anime does so well is that it's not locked into the current Western political paradigm--writers are free to tell a good story. This is clearly seen in disasters like Cowboy Bebop, where American approaches were imposed. You can't make art or entertainment when your primary goal is pushing a message--that's just propaganda and people reject it even if they don't know why. We can see another example of this with The Woman King, which did the classic Hollywood thing of taking historical events and ignoring them for a message. In this case being caught proved disastrous, because Dahomey is a troubling African nation to depict positively. It's easy to imagine a Hollywood producer simply asking for African warrior women (perhaps inspired by the Dora Milaje from Black Panther) and not caring about specifics. Turns out both Africans and African-Americans were well-aware of that history and spoke out against it (including actors like Lupita Nyong'o), meaning the usual strategy of calling criticism racism/sexism couldn't work and the film bombed spectacularly (there's another related example of Latino's rejecting the invented 'Latinex' label). When will fans and creatives be freed from agenda-driven films? I have no idea.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Genre News (House of the Dragon, Sandman, She-Hulk, Rings of Power, Sony Marvel, and Fan-baiting)

Viewership for House of the Dragon has fallen since the premiere (being particularly low in the key 18-49 demographic), but beyond initial airing the numbers are holding up reasonably well (which is to say, people continue to come to the show throughout the week).With that said, the latter numbers are from HBO so have to taken with a grain of salt (the Nielsen numbers aren't remarkable, being well below things like Ozark, Reacher, Cobra Kai, etc), but if true the show has done a solid job of fan retention. I think it's benefiting in part from the ineptness of Rings of Power (see below), although there's still plenty of time for things to take a turn in either direction (particularly with the cast changes that are about to happen--both Milly Alcock and Emily Carey are departing). I've seen the first episode of the show, which I thought was adequate, but nowhere near the level of early GOT seasons and suffering from the preachiness of modern storytelling.

Sandman seems to be on the same path as Watchmen/Lovecraft Country: 'amazing viewership', but no season two. The cancellation rumours are being buoyed by comments from Neil Gaiman himself and we know Netflix inflated its numbers. If it's one-and-done, Sandman will be another example of "fan-baiting" failing (see below), with the fault here largely with Gaiman himself (who went through a similar process with American Gods and Good Omens), which echoes George R. R. Martin doing something similar with House of the Dragon. I have no attachment to the Sandman IP (I own a couple of the graphic novels, but I always thought they, like Gaiman's corpus overall, are highly overrated). If there's no second season that puts Gaiman in a tough spot, as he's running out of IP to adapt. The aforementioned American Gods failed (meaning its Amazon spinoff Anansi Boys can't get a boost from it), Good Omens was lackluster (it's strength coming from deceased co-author Terry Pratchett anyway), and his other IP are either building off someone else's work (often Alan Moore) or properties of limited interest or long since exploited (Neverwhere (96) and Stardust (07)). Sandman is what he's best known for, so if it dies that's his legacy kicked in the face by the audience.

She-Hulk has become the MCU Titanic as even the shills are jumping ship (it has the lowest viewership of any Disney+ show, echoing it's production troubles). Angry Joe, an early defender who made an ill-advised response video to criticism, has switched to hating the show, and even John Campea is admitting it's not very funny (claiming he's laughed five times through six episodes). The show has been accused of depicting catfishing uncritically (shades of Wonder Woman 1984 infamous rape situation), but without much hubbub because no one is watching. Phase Four's continued inability to navigate basic ethics boggles the mind. The negative feedback will likely only impact the showrunner and writers, as I expect plans for She-Hulk to continue forward regardless. While Feige seems incapable of discerning good writing from bad (thus continuing to give Michael Waldron work), failure to get certain numbers does mean oblivion--ergo, those involved with creating The Eternals are long gone.

It's come out that the entertainment industry is suffering from an assumption that core fans of an IP will show up no matter what's done with an IP (see below), such that the emphasis on adaptations is purely on expanding its appeal outside that market. There's some logic behind the idea, but the approach has been so poorly implemented (both in marketing and  execution), that not only are new audiences not showing up, but the existing audience isn't either. This has been exposed specifically at Marvel (and internally they are beginning to re-evaluate their strategy). At the MCU the belief is that memberberries (ala Spider-Man: No Way Home) are enough to placate the traditional audience, but using this approach has already failed with Star Wars (eg Kenobi and Boba Fett), Star Trek (Discovery and Picard), and so on. The insider claims Feige believes he can make it work because he believes in his own abilities, but how long he'll be allowed to flail unchecked is unclear.

Speaking of bad writing, Rings of Power is so bad the press, whose opinions are framed by their corporate masters, are now criticizing it en masse. They can't address everything that's wrong with the show, but feel safe identifying writing as the problem (an issue hardly unique to Rings, as Wheel of Time, Witcher, and most genre shows suffer from the same issue). I believe the writers are the target because that shifts blame away from those truly responsible for this fiasco: the executives in charge. The writers and showrunners (nobodies from Bad Robot), can easily be jettisoned. I think what we'll see in Rings season two is a soft fix ala The Witcher--it will look slightly better (Elves will look like Elves, the armour will improve, they'll hire a proper fight choreographer, etc), but the writing will remain atrociously because Jennifer Salke is a clueless ideologue and can't hire writers based on talent. Speaking of Salke, it's amusing to see the theories that the universally hated Rings version of Galadriel is a Salke self-insert (something I consider likely, but I doubt we'll ever be able to confirm it).

Sony has delayed the release of its two latest Marvel offerings (both of which had completed filming): Kraven and Madame Web. This suggests reshoots are needed, particularly for Kraven, and given how poorly Morbius was received and how underwhelming Venom 2 performed, it's no surprise. Can Sony make a good Marvel film? I highly doubt it, but now would be the time when the MCU is reeling from its terrible Phase Four.

Fan-baiting

While this concept isn't new, an excellent post discussing it came out recently that I wanted to address.

"Fan-baiting” is a form of marketing used by producers, film studios, and actors, with the intent of exciting artificial controversy, garnering publicity, and explaining away the negative reviews of a new and often highly anticipated production. Fan-baiting emerged as a marketing strategy in 2016/17, after fans of beloved franchises such as Ghostbusters and Star Wars objected to what they saw as poor writing choices, sloppy scripts, and cheap alterations to plot lines and characters for the sake of shock value. Along side these critics, there was a small group of bigoted but vociferous commentators who objected to the inclusion of black and female actors in roles traditionally held by white male actors. Some of these individuals began publicly harassing actors. Bigots have always attacked diversity on screen, but in a highly polarized political climate, instances of harassment on garnered disproportionately massive media coverage, which provided production studios with both free publicity and a new defence against actual critics. Studios seized the opportunity to discredit criticism of poor writing & acting, insinuating that these, too, were motivated by bigotry. What used to be accepted as standard critiques were increasingly dismissed as part of the ignorant commentary of a “toxic fandom.” Soon, it became standard practice before release to issue announcements specifying diverse casting choices, coupled with pre-emptive declarations of solidarity with the cast whom they now counted on to receive disparaging and harassing comments. Actors who are women and/or BIPOC became props & shields for craven corporate laziness and opportunism. The studios save money both by avoiding expensive veteran writers as well as by offloading publicity to news outlets and social media covering the artificial controversy. “Fan-baiting” works. It brings in a new sympathetic audience whose endorsement is more about taking a public stance against prejudice than any real interest in the art. “Fan-baiting” also permits studios to cultivate public skepticism over the legitimacy of poor reviews. “Fan-baiting” also compels reviewers to temper their criticism, for fear of becoming associated with the “toxic fandom” and losing their professional credibly, resulting in telling discrepancies between critic and audience review scores. The true nature of “fan-baiting” is never so clear as when a script is well-crafted and audience reviews are accordingly positive, exposing the announcements, declarations of solidarity, & grooming of skepticism for what they really are: cynical corporate marketing tactics. Put another way, media corporations have found a way to monetize the racism that they set their actors up to receive.

It has been pointed out this strategy actually goes back to 2015's Fan4stic, when Fox used it to try to save that film--an effort that failed monumentally. That failure ties into the something the poster does not discuss, which is that this approach almost always fails in terms of box office/viewership (while usually succeeding with official reviews). There are rare cases where a show uses this approach and succeeds (the first season of The Witcher or currently with House of the Dragon), but in both cases the marketing hurt rather than helped and the shows had to overcome the hostility they created to find that success (in The Witcher's case, very fleeting success).

The whole pantomime is getting tired and seems to go hand-in-hand with bad writing. The strategy has never worked on film and is disastrous for the highly profitable secondary market (toys etc, which the hypothetical new audience does not buy--Star Trek is a great example of how clearly this fails, as the toy manufacturers eventually refused to make the merchandise). Fiscally, fan-baiting makes no sense at all, yet it's unclear when (if?) that will dawn on executives and they were change strategies.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Fantasy and Science Fiction TV/Movie News

We have an update on the Red Sonja movie, which has been radio silent for months. M. J. Bassett has completed her script, hired actors, and begun filming. Who are the relevant parties? Let's look:

• Matilda Lutz (They Were Ten) is the new Red Sonja; she's not a redhead (sadly), and a bit off type (she's Italian versus the source's pseudo-Celt), but she's an improvement over Hannah John Kamen
• Wallis Day (Batwoman) is playing her wicked half-sister Annisia (a creation of Gail Simone, so visually represents things Gail hates: pretty, blonde, white)
• Robert Sheehan (Umbrella Academy) is Draygan; possibly a misspelling of Dragan, the Zamoran Emperor and Red Sonja's enemy in the recent (2019) Mark Russell arc, but the actor seems too young for that so either he's an original character or has been changed
• Manal El-Feitury (Hellboy) as Ayala; another Simone invention (2013), who in the source material is an attendant for Red Sonja (El-Feitury seems a bit old for that function, so I'd expect changes--perhaps just being her friend)
• The other announced characters all seem like inventions for the film
• Joey Soloman and Tasha Huo are still listed as writers, but we know both were fired and that Bassett herself (along with her daughter) wrote the film--I suspect there are technical reasons why their names are still attached, but that's my speculation

Deadline (link above) has no idea what the story is and the article seems like a mix of marketing and an effort to avoid industry backlash for the changes (I've seen none of the latter, so in that respect the effort worked).

What could the story be? It's not clear and I won't pretend to be steeped in the lore (I'm familiar with the Robert E. Howard source material and the 1985 film, but that's it). On the surface the casting suggests Barrett is pulling from the recent Dynamite comic runs, but she may have no choice in that matter, as Millennium is likely echoing the MCU approach of avoiding paying rights holders like Red Sonja creator Roy Thomas. Simone is a consultant on the show, but we don't know how much influence she has (authors often have less than imagined--George R. R. Martin was heavily involved with the first four seasons of Game of Thrones, but not the last four, yet his credits didn't really change throughout). The fear about Simone's involvement is her inflammatory public persona and divisive politics--something that would specifically turn off the core audience for the IP. Regardless, if we get an origin story, Simone's is likely since Thomas' involves rape.

Will we get a good show? Given how miserable modern entertainment is that's hard to imagine, but Bassett produced a faithful Soloman Kane film, so the possibility exists. As story details leak and the marketing begins, it will be much easier to judge.

In doing research for this it was interesting to discover that Dynamite Comics experimented with Third Wave writers like Simone and Marguerite Bennett for awhile before returning to financial success with less divisive folk at the helm (earning them multiple spinoffs and so forth).

It's not often a big budget tentpole IP faces real criticism from reviewers, but the atmosphere around Amazon's Rings of Power has been so bad even a few shills have broken ranks to criticize it. The fandom, as expected, loathes the production which echoes the Abrams/Bad Robot approach. The initial episodes mimic Fellowship of the Ring so strongly even critics noticeed, just like A Force Awakens mimicked the original Star Wars; we're also getting a dose of Alex Kurtzman madness from Picard with yet another group of strange warrior nuns (why we need them when the show is already stuffed with female leads I have no idea). The result is an expensive looking CW show that no one wants. I have no idea what Amazon will do with the disastrous reception (something they were warned about by Tom Shippey years ago)--do they go the CBS root with Star Trek and simply continue with no one watching, or is there enough financial pressure that people will be fired (the showrunners are easy targets, and perhaps Lindsey Weber could be seen out too, but the person ultimately responsible, Jennifer Salke, seems safe and thus nothing meaningful can change)? My guess is Amazon will do minor tweaks to the show ala Witcher season two (Elves will go back to looking like Elves, for instance), which wasn't nearly enough. What they should do is disavow the season and start over, but there's no chance that will happen.

In the midst of writing this those involved now claim the show is not for Tolkien fans--that's been clear for quite some time, but then what was the point of buying the rights if you weren't trying to profit of that audience? It's a desperate form of spin.

The shoe finally dropped and we now know the strategy WB is taking with The Flash: the path of least resistance, attempting to salvage the film by salvaging Ezra Miller. As long speculated, Miller has gone the route of apologizing and getting treatment. I suspect facing the prospect of no career as well as legal issues was enough to nudge the troubled actor into these actions and I think the odds of this effort working (in media terms) are quite good barring more incidents. Will fans accept Ezra? That remains to be seen.

She-Hulk is getting eviscerated by fans (it's the most pushback I've seen against an MCU show to date); quality aside, idiotic comments from those involved have hurt (Maslany complaining about how women are sexualized vs men in the MCU was so profoundly dumb she privated her Instagram in the aftermath). The show's horrific writing has lead to terrible numbers on D+ (the second worst opening for the MCU behind Ms. Marvel and declining from there). Fringe critic Chris Gore seems to be the only person actively defending the show.

A fan did some sleuthing and believes the rights to the Hulk and its associated characters will revert to Marvel in 2023 (allowing films to be made by Disney without Universal's involvement). This is based on a 15-year window for Universal to do something with the IP (the last Hulk film was in 2008). I would have been thrilled about this a few years ago, but given the current state of the MCU I'm not.

There was a lot of trumpeting The House of the Dragon's opening for HBO (much like Amazon did for The Wheel of Time's opener), but as has been pointed out, it opened 80% lower than any season eight episode of GOT and got killed in the key demographic (18-49). The marketing (which WB spent 100-million dollars on) from HBO suggests much higher numbers, but they have a long history of exaggerating their views (Watchmen claimed 7 million instead of the actual 1.5). It will be interesting to see how well it can hold its audience--what I've seen in the fandom is mixed response with the general sentiment being: "compared to the usual crap we get, it's not bad". For me the writing isn't good enough and the show fails to maintain verisimilitude. The success it has is largely riding on a mix of nostalgia and Matt Smith (and let me restate that Martin is not at his peak writing powers--he's been in decline since A Storm of Swords).

That aside, the show being renewed for a second season is not surprising. I have said many times that fantasy shows are so expensive to produce there has to be multiple seasons to help amortize the costs (ergo The Wheel of Time continuing when it completely bombed). To that end we can note that many high profile shows do get cancelled after one season despite being 'renewed' during their run as a marketing ploy (ala Watchmen and Lovecraft Country). One interesting change HBO has made during the season is booting executive producer and director Miguel Sapochnik--he and showrunner Ryan Condal have both said dumb things in interviews promoting the show, but Sapochnik has been worse, so replacing him with Alan Taylor is a positive move.

I have to wonder if the penny has dropped for George about the insanity he's been tacitly embracing the last few years. After Salman Rushdie was stabbed he had this to say:

And these days freedom of speech needs defenders, for when I look around, I find it under attack everywhere. Blacklisting, cancel culture, libraries being closed or defunded, classic works of literature being banned or bowdlerized or removed from classrooms, an ever growing list of “toxic” words the mere utterance of which is now forbidden no matter the context or intent, the erosion of civility in discourse. Both the Rabid Right and the Woke Left seem more intent on silencing those whose views they disagree with, rather than besting them in debate. And the consequences for those who dare to say things deemed offensive have been growing ever more dire; jobs lost, careers ended, books cancelled, “deplatforming.”

This is the first attack on the left I've seen George make, but clearly he's right in that extremism on both ends is hurting everyone. How much this will impact his writing is hard to say--probably not at all, but I give him credit to make the comment nonetheless.

I'm curious if Olivia Wilde's current self-inflicted problems (issues with Florence Pugh aside, lying about firing Shia LaBeouf is the case in point) will impact the Sony Marvel film she was hired to direct back in August, 2020 (speculated to be Spider-Woman). There's no sign of that film going into production (a common theme for Sony Marvel), but Wilde lighting herself on fire for no discernible reason does not speak well for her. Will it have an impact? I'm guessing not--in a world where Ezra Miller can skate free on what's happened, Wilde's actions pale in comparison.

In terms of numbers, as best we can tell via Google Trends (we simply don't have good streaming numbers, particularly outside the US), nothing compares with Stranger Things, but in a more apples-to-apples scenario, The Sandman peaked slightly higher than The Boys or Umbrella Academy, but fell off much more quickly than both. She-Hulk barely registers, while House of the Dragon has beat Rings of Power, but lags far behind its monster progenitor (eg, eg, eg, and eg).

This article was written by Peter Levi

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