Damon Lindelof Accusations, Echo in Trouble, Little Mermaid Flops, Charlie Cox on She-Hulk, and the Writer's Strike

J. J. Abrams' acolyte and talentless hack Damon Lindelof has been hit with a long expose that accuses him of racism and sexism during the production of Lost (2004-10), the show that should have ended mystery boxes but instead shoved them into everything else. I have no love for Lindelof, but unfortunately for those making these accusations they come at a time where this is so common my immediate reaction is doubt and suspicion. The stories are dated, so why put them out now? And if Lindelof has these inclinations, where are the accusations from his other productions? Is Vanity Fair claiming sexism and racism are easily sloughed off? I don't think fear of reprisals can be used as an excuse for silence since for the last five years the industry has been very open to them (and Lindelof's career has been on a downward arc during that period). This feels out of place after Lindelof efforts like the laughable Watchman (2019), whose reason d'etre was representation with a female lead (Wizards of the Coast really missed out with Aragorn, who shouldn't just be black, but also female). I believe the reason we're getting this story now is the industry wants to wash their hands of him, but because he has powerful friends they need justification (like the hamfisted excuses Marvel used to dump worthless executive Victoria Alonso, cf). Lindelof has barely produced anything over the last five years and hasn't had a true success since Lost. I have no idea if Lindelof was an actual bully or made racist or sexist comments, but validity aside, if the industry wants him to go away, I'm all for it.

As an aside, there are a lot of thematic similarities between this situation and what happened to Joss Whedon (specifically from Ray Fisher in regards to Justice League). By now it's accepted that Fisher's claims are at best overblown (that doesn't require you to believe the Zack Snyder conspiracy theory, although Zack is petty enough to make it plausible); but even the general accusations aimed at Whedon came long after the events themselves and are still controversial--so few people have come forward and the corroborating evidence is not strong (nor has it been tested in court), very unlike his self-admitted infidelities. This isn't a James Franco situation where the perpetrator admits what they did (Whedon's paramours, unlike Franco, have never accused him of wrong doing).

Credible rumour suggests Disney+ show Echo was such a mess that Marvel was forced to re-shoot most or all of it, and may cut down the episode count (form the original plan of eight, similar to what Netflix did to Witcher: Blood Origin). This fits with D+ changing course by dumping it all in one day (Netflix-style), something they've never done before. This is yet another IP no one asked for (which, like She-Hulk, will also feature Daredevil) and you have to wonder just how many failures like this can happen before Disney oligarch Bob Iger is in trouble. Speaking of Disney....

I don't care about The Little Mermaid one way or another (other than the original fairy tale from Hans Christian Andersen). The animated original is the last Disney film I saw in theaters on my own accord and I thought it was tepid and stupid even as a child (with admittedly catchy songs). I have, however, enjoyed the now typical dance this film has gone through: ESG casting (yet another redhead replaced by a black actor with no respect for the indigenous Danish people whose story this is) mixed with terrible decisions (special effects/writing) gets confronted by people wanting a good adaptation which is responded to with fan-baiting (if you don't like it, you're an -ist!).

That aside, live action remakes of animated Disney films seems like a bad idea--a very expensive way for Disney to try and double dip on a successful IP (unlike their old process of making direct-to-video sequels). These films cost a ton of money and since the only added content is BlackRock social engineering, the result irritates a portion of the audience which then aggravates the social divide. If you took the title away and simply described the events around this film, no one would have any idea which film was being discussed. The fact that none of these adaptations succeed (except Beauty and the Beast) is finally starting to harm the company, but they are so desperate for the ESG cash injection they can't stop themselves from doing it (that's worth emphasizing--the corporation doesn't care about these issues, they just want the money). Disney is suffering so much from doing this they are currently engaged in massive cost-saving measures (layoffs among them), but there's no sign they are making any effort to improve their products. None of this will change until the cost of receiving BlackRock money is less than the damage done to the brand (you'd think we'd have reached that point, but clearly not). As for the film itself, its opening underperformed (slightly lower than Ant-Man 3 when you cut out holiday Monday, while bombing overseas) and no one is expecting Guardians 3-like audience retention.

Charlie Cox, who was briefly in the disaster that was She-Hulk, has said a lot about the show before and after and it's worth looking at:

There are things that you do when you’re playing a superhero. There are scenes that you read, and you go, ‘The fans are going to love this. This is knock-out.’ And then there’s stuff like the walk of shame, where you’re like, ‘I don’t know. This could go two ways. This could be something that the fans really enjoy, and it could be something that feels like it goes against the nature of what they love about the character and the tone of the piece.' The good thing about doing it on something like She-Hulk is, it’s not Daredevil’s show. It was my job as the actor to come onto another person’s show and embrace the tone, whilst staying as true to the character as I possibly could. In this world, Matt’s in LA, and he lets his hair down a little bit. He’s just having fun. He’s killing it in the courtroom. You know, he has a fling with a really beautiful and charismatic lawyer. And then they get to do some superhero stuff. It tonally felt very different from everything I’ve done as that character, but that was also really exciting and new and different and in keeping with the character. If you read the comics, there are a series of Daredevil comics where the tone is much lighter, and he is much more kind of silly and goofy than perhaps we’ve done much of previously with this character. You can’t please all the people all the time. If She-Hulk’s not your thing, then don’t watch it. Watch something else.

And so when She-Hulk came along and I read those scripts, I felt like this is a really good opportunity to try my hand at that tone with this character and see if I can remain true to the character but also find a side of him that is represented in the comics that would be appropriate for that show. Because the problem is if you take the Daredevil that we know from the other series and you put him in She-Hulk, I think he becomes the butt of the joke. He’s the serious one and everyone – so, I didn’t want that. I don’t think he’s that. So I wanted him to match Jennifer Waters a little bit and that experiment for me was really fun. And I think people responded to that. I actually also haven’t seen that episode. I’ve seen the bits from when we do the ADR, which is the voiceover stuff and it seems fun, you know what I mean? But it was a really cool experiment to see if you could take that character and without losing anything – losing what people love about that character, what I love about that character – and still see him in different places. It’s also true to life. There are times in your life when you find it very difficult to find a sense of humor because you’re struggling or because life is hard, and there’s times when life’s running smoothly and it’s sunglasses and roses.

Apparently Cox took his own advice: if She-Hulk is not your thing, don't watch it. I feel for Cox, as he can't overtly say anything negative about the show, but there are plenty of clues that he's well aware of how bad it was (Simon Pegg's video praising it remains a highlight of hilarity). It's telling that Cox compared his character in the show to the forgotten era of Daredevil when he was 'silly' (his unpopular in the 60s and 70s run, prior to the grounded breakthrough that Cox portrayed in the Netflix show). What I think he's saying in a coded way is that he read the horrendous scripts from Jessica Gao and wanted this iteration to be as far removed from his excellent prior work as possible--if you're looking for the Daredevil you loved, don't watch this show, wink-wink. We've had similar comments from Vincent D'Onfrio about Kingpin in Hawkeye--this isn't the Netflix version--no shit.

Writer's Strike

I haven't been commenting on the writer's strike because it's not holding up anything I want to see. One positive that may come from it is various projects no one wants could get cancelled (fingers crossed), with the strike serving as an easy 'out' for the executives who initially approved them. I'm curious to see what sort of meltdown is happening among corporate execs who are watching Bud Light burn up like the Hindenburg. My guess is they'll see it as an isolated example unless Target, Miller, and others suffer a similar fate.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Conan Update: From Show to Film, the State of the IP

With the attempted rekindling of the Conan IP (see below), I wanted to take a look at both the background and its current status. We're at an odd phase culturally, with the ever increasing popularity of fantasy slamming into 'progressive' Orwellian restrictions (a bit like McCarthyism flipped on its head), making Conan front and center in the battle to escape the top-down narrowing of the field into a weird merger of teen novels with banal postmodern subversion.

To start with, I'll point out that much of Conan's popularity is based not just on the original stories by Robert E. Howard (1906-36), but on pastiche novels from various hands afterwards (including Robert Jordan and Karl Edward Wagner), comic adaptations, and the 1982 film with Arnold Schwarzenegger. With the exception of the film, these iterations were initially inspired by the edited iterations from L. Sprague de Camp (beginning in the 1960s and carrying on into the 70s). That aside, the bedrock remains the originals, such that anyone who wants to tackle the IP has to be firmly entrenched in it (we can see the negative results of ignoring source material in things like Rings of Power, The Wheel of Time, etc). In order to make a successful adaptation there needs to be a firm grounding in the chronology of events, something rather tricky with the Howard canon.

Timeline

Howard never formally organized or completed a chronology for the character (it's doubtful he ever intended something that well defined). While Conan's original stories are episodic, they do have throughlines that can be followed. Up through the 1980s the usual timeline used by imitators/adaptors was the Miller/Clark timeline (I won't get into the weeds of that), but this pseudo-canonical version was challenged by Conan scholars in the 1980s and by the early 2000s had transformed into the largely accepted Rippke chronology (which was used for the Dark Horse comic run at the time). Why does this matter? Because it's important to know when and where pivotal events occur to inform the Conan arc. The character has three main epochs: his early days establishing himself as mercenary and experiencing civilization for the first time; his time when he's established as a respected outsider; his rule as king (the latter is loosely the inspiration for George R. R. Martin's character Robert Baratheon, whose first name is a nod to REH himself). These eras impact how he behaves and how people react to him.

What we've been told about the upcoming comic series from Titan is that they are using their own timeline, but it's not vastly different from what's already out there (presumably a slightly adjusted Rippke); there may be legal reasons to change it, or it may simply be to allow more creative freedom in when and how Conan is represented. This new timeline will almost certainly be used for the upcoming film (should it appear, see below), since the rights holder is responsible for both. Below I've listed the Rippke chronology as a rough guideline, highlighting particularly popular stories in green and those published posthumously or turned into pastiches in italics.

Rippke Chronology*

"The Frost-Giant's Daughter" (unpublished in REH's lifetime)

"The God in the Bowl" (unpublished)

"The Tower of the Elephant"

"The Hall of the Dead" (unfinished; De Camp novelette based on it in 1967)
"Rogues in the House"

"The Hand of Nergal"

"Shadows in the Moonlight"

"Black Colossus"

"Queen of the Black Coast"

"The Snout in the Dark" (unfinished; De Camp/Lin Carter story based on it in 1969)

"The Slithering Shadow"/"Xuthal of the Dusk"

"A Witch Shall Be Born"

"The Devil in Iron"

"The People of the Black Circle"

"Shadows in Zamboula"/"The Man-Eaters of Zamboula"

"Drums of Tombalku" (unfinished; De Camp story based on it in 1966)

"The Vale of Lost Women" (unpublished)

"The Pool of the Black One"

"Beyond the Black River"

"The Black Stranger" (unpublished)

"Red Nails"

"Jewels of Gwahlur"/"Servants of Bit-Yakin"

"Wolves Beyond the Border" (unpublished and re-written by REH as a Western that was also not published; Del Rey version in 1953, De Camp version in 1967)

"The Phoenix on the Sword" (originally the King Kull story 'By This Axe I Rule', but re-written by REH for Conan when it didn't sell)

"The Scarlet Citadel"

The Hour of the Dragon**

*There are errors in the Conan Wiki suggesting a slightly different order listed for Rippke than Rippke himself (or the Wiki's own list), transitioning from "Shadows" to "Witch" etc within the specific articles themselves rather than the list page
**For a number of reasons the novel's plot borrows heavily from "Black Colossus", "The Phoenix on the Sword", and especially "The Scarlet Citadel"

In a comic book series you can jump around in the timeline (just as the original stories did in the pulps), but in a film (or TV-series) the onus is to start early and progress forward. What I'd like to see in a show or film is someone adapt "The Tower of the Elephant" as the character's introduction, particularly as its one of the few stories in the source material to feature genuine pathos and the otherworldly elements Howard borrowed from his friend H. P. Lovecraft. According to writer Jim Zub, besides the OG stories, his primary inspiration for the new comic book series are the Savage Sword of Conan by Roy Thomas in the 70s and the Kurt Busiek run at Dark Horse in the early 2000s (both representing the beginning of the IP at each company). The 12-page free teaser for the series is already out and while there's nothing new for someone familiar with the IP, it's a good introduction to the art style and what the character is all about.

Adaptation Issues

One of the problems for Conan is that very few supporting characters survive after their introductory story (most die). While this is a positive in pulp fiction, it doesn't mesh well with modern storytelling. The most formulaic Conan stories devolve into monster/lady-of-the-week (not problematic in pulp or comics, but it is in a TV show or series of films). It's notable that the best of the original stories have more going on in them, so what can you do?

One option is expanding an existing story with surviving characters and carry them forward (like Valeria in "Red Nails"). Newly created characters can be inserted, although it becomes more difficult to make them work when you are sticking to the existing canon (since they will be forced to vanish repeatedly). There's also the option to merge several characters, as Roy Thomas did in creating Red Sonja (cf), but I think that's much less likely given how the current rights operator sees the IP.

What about our modern audience? One of the supposed concerns over the last 6-7 years is the fragile, progressive younger audiences--how can we appeal to them? We know this concern is fake and simply a byproduct of the strings attached to BlackRock investment (who are quite open in pushing social engineering), but since most people are unaware of that, let's take the rhetoric seriously. As we've seen from the numbers, pandering does not work (Gen Z doesn't care and are happily reading manga and watching anime en masse which, if anything, echoes comics of the 1970s). So the answer is, artistically, almost nothing. There are a few things within Howard's work that would need adjusting (these stories were written in the 1930s and designed to appeal to that audience), but those changes are minimal. One element that's not at issue with the IP is diversity, as Conan's stories are stuffed with diverse people (Conan cares about your behaviour, not your ethnicity).

The Future

The Conan IP has been on a long journey ever since Millenium's failed Jason Momoa vehicle in 2011. The faults of that film were not its star, but the terrible writing. Years afterwards, Amazon acquired the rights and approved two seasons under future House of the Dragon team Ryan Condal and Miguel Sapochnik, but this was axed when Jennifer Salke took over, seeing the IP as 'too problematic'. Netflix acquired the series and put it under original Daredevil team Steven S. DeKnight and Kris Henigman. After three years what's rumoured is the duo had a falling out with Netflix (unrelated to Conan) and Rob David, the man responsible for Netflix's disastrous He-Man cartoon, was brought onboard. This made it impossible to make a proper Conan adaptation since David wanted the IP to be made for 'a modern audience' while the rights holder wanted an actual adaptation. The show was thus taken away from Netflix, so what now?

The new plan is for a film. While I think a show is a better fit (as it matches both the original pulp format as well as the successful comic adaptations), this is the next best thing. Despite the problems on screen, Conan properties is not floundering, as it's 2018 MMO (Conan Exiles) is doing well; we've had a new Conan book from S. M. Stirling (Conan: Blood of the Serpent) which hit shelves in December (the first Conan novel since the movie adaptation in 2011 and the first pastiche since Harry Turtledove's Conan of Venarium from 2003); the original stories by REH remain constantly in print; and a new comic series at Titan via Jim Zub is launching this summer (away from the withered and dying Marvel). I'm not a fan of MMO's and would rather see a proper video game RPG, but personal preferences aside, these are all good signs (unlike some other abused and dying IPs). This doesn't guarantee we'll get a good or successful film (Courtney Soloman had the best of intentions with his Dungeons & Dragons film, after all), but what it does mean is the IP still resonates and there's an audience for it. I do wonder about distribution for such a film, as that's currently holding up Millenium's Red Sonja, but given that interest in Conan has never gone away, time is on his side.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Guardians 3, Indiana Jones 5, Blade, Cleopatra, and Conan

I have no idea who was eager for Guardians 3 (the Christmas Special barely made a blip and no one I know has seen it). We had indications of diminished interest when the second film failed to outperform the first (an anomaly in that era of the MCU). The Infinity Saga films helped, but they also created a problem for the finale: there were almost no character arcs left to finish--the second film completed Quill's personal arc; the Infinity films completed the romance along with Gamora and Nebula's arcs; Groot isn't a character, so all that's left is Rocket. I like the racoon, but never felt drawn to his backstory (something that seemed purely functional). I've said before that James Gunn's 'magic' from the first film was a fluke because he's never repeated it (The Suicide Squad was horrendous). In addition, the MCU brand has turned into a broken sewer pipe, dragging down each new product. All of this meant that Guardians 3 was going to have to be a great movie to reach box office expectations. Clearly, it isn't (as we can see above).

Prior to release projections for it were falling, but it managed to open better than Ant-Man 3. Despite the weak opening, it had a strong second weekend, so it won't bomb. That said, it's still on track to be limp, final gasp of the nostalgic holdovers from the first three Phases (it will fall short of Thor 3 numbers, which is a disappointment, but it will at least break even).

This film was the last nostalgia bullet left in the MCU gun (even most of the Netflix nostalgia is exhausted, with only an aged Jessica Jones left to debut). The big names won't come back (although money could change that), and there's nothing in the pipeline for anyone to get excited about (the hilarity continues as the MCU-run Marvel comics has killed Ms. Marvel, which must say something about how that IP has been received). Marvel has admitted internally that their writing is terrible and hurting the product, but the people responsible for that are still in charge and I can't imagine anything can change so long as they continue to aim for ESG/BlackRock funding (which, besides the money itself, is required to win awards, and winning awards often has cash incentives attached to it for creators).

More often than not, critics give expensive films a free pass when they put out their reviews, but the gloves are off for Indian Jones 5 and it's amusing to see (similar to Witcher: Blood Origin, where Netflix allowed critics to dogpile it, cf, unlike the equally awful Willow). This latitude can only come with the tacit permission of the studio, so clearly Bob Iger is aware there's no saving the Kathleen Kennedy spearheaded sequel. Personally, given how awful Indiana Jones 4 is (and how comparatively weak the third film is), this isn't a surprise. Only the short-lived TV adaptation (1992-93) of the IP properly navigated what you could do with it (that show made me aware of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, among other things). This is also the wrong era for pulp adaptations (see Conan below), as that's considered too toxic for the sensibilities of the sensitive public (apparently no one in the 1% has read or viewed manga/anime). In this case, I'm perfectly content putting the IP to bed and it's another welcome embarrassment for Disney (not that I think this will meaningfully improve their future products).

The Blade odyssey continues, as production was halted due to the writer's strike. You have to wonder just what they'll do given that Mahershala Ali was not young when signed and, now at 49, how far you can go with the character whenever it appears? Marvel's initial pan was for Blade to immediately pass the torch to a female successor (ala Kate Bishop/Hawkeye), so his age wasn't an issue when hired, but as Ali has almost certainly demanded having the focus on him, the problem re-emerges. I also wonder what sort of MCU environment Blade could fit into--the brand is in freefall, so will anyone care in 2-3 years when (if) the film comes out?

The Jada Smith Cleopatra controversy has been hilarious to watch. It's one of the few occasions where people on the right and left came together to reject nonsense (The Mary Sue condemned it, when you'd assume they would fully support ESG initiatives irrespective of quality). On the surface the documentary is no different than the broader trend we've seen in entertainment (be it a black Anne Boleyn or Queen Charlotte), but Smith irrationally made the decision to call her historical invention a 'documentary' and this put Netflix in a bind (despite their reputation for being 'creative' with facts). While the usual response of calling any criticism racist was used, it didn't cause the usual reflection in the media since Egyptians were protesting the lunacy on display. The show bombed immediately and if there's a positive beyond that, it's that a few Americans have become educated on the issue (it's amazing how many, including Smith herself, believe Africa is racially homogenized--the star was also unaware, saying "I find it sad that people are either so self-loathing or so threatened by the Blackness that they feel the need to do that, to separate Egypt from the rest of the continent"). For decades I've watched Americans try to claim Egypt as a cultural touchstone for African-Americans and it's a bizarre approach given that there are plenty of genuine options to use. I suspect the appeal is a mix of Egypt's importance in the bible (Christianity remains an important element within the African-American community) and as the most well-known/popular culture in Africa.

We finally got an update on Conan at Netflix, which is to say Conan is no longer at Netflix and is now being pursued as a future film. The IP sat at the streaming service for three years after being given a pass at Amazon (spending two years there). The problem was the same in both places, as neither was willing to make an authentic adaptation. Fortunately for Conan, his rights holder won't cave ala Sapkowski or the Tolkien Estate, so whenever we do see him on-screen, it will be in the proper spirit. Just like with Indiana Jones above, this is a bad era for pulp heroes, since there's no interest in white male leads and the usual story arcs that go with them. That's not to say the public doesn't want them, but rather that executives making creative decisions do not. Culturally we are starting to see this be slightly rolled back and that change could accelerate depending on a number of factors, but at least for Conan none of this is an issue as long as there's a distributor found (a problem the sister IP, Red Sonja, has yet to conquer, cf).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Honor Among Thieves Bombs, More Jonathan Majors Fallout, and Conan Update

As I mentioned last time, the Dungeons & Dragons film has flopped despite positive reviews and the support of D&D personalities. It's only made 180 million worldwide, meaning it will lose money. As disastrous as this is, I don't think it will impact Joe Manganiello's efforts to get a Dragonlance TV-show picked-up (which is not the same show that Paramount+ announced three months ago and whose continued existence we'll keep an eye on), although he'll now have to pitch how this will be different given that it's coming from a similar creative team (which means it will likely share the generic aesthetic of all modern fantasy adaptations).

The difficult question to answer is: why did the film fail? I've seen it twice now and it remains entertaining, so that's not the issue (my review is here). My theory is that it's not distinctive enough--the story lacks depth/weight and it looks like every other recent fantasy adaptation. It's ironic that in an effort to target the general audience it failed to attract it entirely (in fact, economically, it's going to mirror the legendary 2000 bomb from Courtney Soloman). I'll be interested to see how the community reflects on this failure (my guess is they won't; the reasoning from shills is nonsensical, 'it was never going to succeed because of the brand' (!)). Honor's failure is, in the grand scheme of things, less impactful than Shazam 2 or Ant-Man 3, as those films not were meant to promote future franchises. One of the main takeaways we have from genre films and shows of the last 6-7 years is that audiences are not attracted to their generic approach--they want something distinctive (Avatar 2) or nostalgic (Top Gun 2/Mario Brothers).

Speaking of Ant-Man 3, Jonathan Majors has been dropped by his talent manager three weeks after domestic assault charges were laid. When the incident happened, Majors' reps said there was video and text messages that would exonerate him. The former hasn't been released, but texts were and did not help the perception of Majors at all. The signal here is obvious: his management either believes he's guilty or that the public damage can't be assuaged despite his innocence. We still have no idea what really happened--this isn't an Ezra Miller situation where the evidence is out there for the public to judge. Regardless, this makes it an almost certainty that the MCU will have to re-cast Kang. I wouldn't expect any radical departure if they do and losing Majors means nothing (I've seen it jokingly suggested he'll be replaced by a POC woman, which I think is actually plausible)--while the industry has hyped the actor for some time, he has made no impact on box office or TV viewership (the Taylor Kitsch of this generation), and since Ant-Man 3 bombed there's no audience appetite that will be disappointed by his absence.

It has been awhile since we had a Conan update (July), and while news on the Netflix show remains static, the IP has moved forward on the comic side of things. Marvel let the license lapse (presumably because Kevin Feige has the same issues with the IP as Amazon's Jennifer Salke), so it's now self-publishing at Titan comics, which means all the usual censorship from Marvel or Dark House has been removed (essentially: graphic violence and boobs). Jim Zub (who is one of the writers who wrote the character at Marvel and is the only person to write a half-decent Alpha Flight comic in the last ten years) is writing it. How successful it will be among the shrinking market place of comic book buyers I don't know, but for the sake of the IP I hope it does well. If nothing else it will be distinctive from prior iterations while being firmly entrenched in the lore, which bodes well.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Rings of Power Viewership Leaked, Honor of Thieves Disappointing Second Week, Shazam Flops, and More

In the midst of a long article from THR (about the disastrous state of Amazon under the guidance of Jennifer Salke), we got some real Rings of Power numbers leaked by inside sources: 45% of foreign viewers stuck with the series from start to finish, and just 37% in the US. That's abominable and while Amazon has no choice but to publicly support the expensive disaster, even less people will show up for season two and one wonders how long Jeff Bezos will underwrite this nonsense. RoP is not an isolated failure and the article goes through the laundry list of bombs that have plagued Amazon since Salke was put in charge over her MeToo'd predecessor. The positive is there's a good chance that by the time season two airs things will have changed and we won't have a third season inflicted upon us.

It appears as though fears that Honor Among Thieves would disappoint at the box office are true. After a middling opening, the film has been buried by The Super Mario Brothers (Honor's second weekend dropped 63%, from 40 to 14.5 million, even falling behind John Wick, which released a week earlier). I wonder if it can hit 200 million, but whatever the final number is this is a disaster for Paramount and Hasbro. As entertaining as Honor can be, as I said in my review, it's ultimately forgettable and whatever positive word of mouth there was did not generate much new or return traffic (I will be seeing it again with one of my gaming groups, however). What's interesting to me is the personalities in the D&D scene almost universally liked the film, which means their opinions aren't relevant to a general audience (a fascinating if not surprising revelation), and probably not even the general D&D audience. One thing I didn't go over in my review that I now think impacted the film is that aesthetically there's nothing distinctive about it--looking like every other fantasy release from the last few years--one of the things that saved Avatar 2 from its simplistic writing was its distinctive aesthetic (just like the original).

As expected, Shazam 2 has become the biggest DCEU bomb at the box office (it stands at 127 million). This doesn't inherently make it the worst DC film we've had in terms of quality, but it's not good and clearly the public is tired of terrible films from DC (so the framing brand no longer has any pull--the same thing happened at Fox with the X-Men). Will Blue Beetle bomb even harder? It's too early to say, but having the director already fighting with fans over his 'edgy' Batman-line won't help (yet another example of fan-baiting).

There was a time when I wished more shows and films followed the BBC example of hiring actors who looked like everyday people, but now that everything is cast like that, I've realized the problem in doing so. The approach only works in IP requiring that element (Bob from Bob's Burgers is an Everyman, so depicting him as something else wouldn't work). When I see actors who could be my neighbours in a context that make no sense it creates ludonarrative dissonance. One of the reasons traditional myths are stuffed full of extraordinary people is because they fantastic in the first place. The heroes are meant to inspire and entertain, so they become exaggerated--no one can actually be Superman or Beowulf--the point of the stories is to encourage what's seen as good societal behaviour, not to become the mythical person (and no well-adjusted person is literally trying to be what they see on screen). The argument against this tends to lean on representation for body positivity, but this lacks studies to back it up the cause and effect (surely if what's on screen impacts behaviour, America wouldn't be the most obese nation on earth--and if one wants to argue that's a negative result created by what's on screen, you then have to explain why the rest of the world, other than Canada/UK, don't have the same problems).

There are reasons to be concerned about programs like ChatGPT, but I derive some amusement that the first people impacted by this are likely the shills--suddenly thousands of reporters become redundant since computers can easily regurgitate corporate/government talking points. Pushing beyond the news, do you need a John Campea when a computer can do what he does for almost no cost? The problem shills have is they aren't distinctive, which makes them easily replaced by programming. Of course, the serious implications of AI go much further (Amazon--and Starbucks--are looking to replace the bulk of their employees with robots--Bezos currently has about 1.6 million employees, Starbucks 400k), and the implications of sex robots hit at the heart of human relationships, but if you can't laugh about serious things you'll go crazy.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Dragonlance Show, House of the Dragon Season Two, The Last of Us Finale, Witcher Sirius, and Honor Among Thieves Box Bombing?

I said a couple of weeks ago that what Dragonlance needs to revive the IP is a successful adaptation. Apparently an effort to adapt it is being pursued as a show (the news dropped in late February). No one has picked it up yet and we can't say what kind of show it would be. My initial guess is an abomination like Witcher, Wheel of Time, Willow, or Rings of Power, but we can't exclude the possibility it will be something good (or at least adequate). Joe Manganiello is heading the project at the behest of WotC. Does the entertainment I got out of Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves give me hope? No. The flaws in that film that I could overlook would ruin a television show. The writing would have to be much, much better, and the overall caliber of actors would have to improve. I also think an original story is the way to go, because adapting the classic trilogy is guaranteed to turn into the disasters I named above. If Honor loses money (which seems likely, see below), that makes pitching another D&D-based property that much harder, so we'll just have to keep our eyes open and see what happens.

It's interesting to hear that House of the Dragon is getting a reduced episode count for its second season (from 10 to 8) and that season three has not already been given the green light. One can try to find positives in fewer episodes, but the truth is it reflects the financial reality that the show wasn't a hit (it didn't flop, but it wasn't a smash either). HofD was not as loathsome as Rings of Power, but there was no explosion of merchandise or residual interest in Game of Thrones. Trying to succeed with a prequel to a show that failed was never going to be easy to begin with and it gets doubly hard when one of the stars of the first season (Paddy Constantine) isn't going to be in the next.

The Last of Us finale couldn't quite reach it's episode four peak with the finale (1,109 vs 1,011, about 9% lower). It's an increase over the episode six dip (15% over 943), but it couldn't recapture the buzz from the early season (matching in spirit it's Trends decline I went over previously). To provide some perspective, a forgettable teen drama (Outer Banks) crushed TLOU with its opener (2,214, more than double the peak) and plenty of other shows have peaked much, much higher. The hype around it reminds me of both Watchmen (2019) and Lovecraft Country (2020)--each the greatest show ever from HBO, which mysteriously never got second seasons (the latter was announced and then cancelled before going into production). We are getting a second season for TLOU and the showrunners have already announced it's going to be very different from The Last of Us Part II--a reminder of how badly that game flopped. I'm disappointed we won't see live action versions of all the sequel's stupidity--without towels, golf, and other silliness, there's nothing to interest me in what HBO has on offer.

I've had standalone articles on the Witcher 1 remake and Witcher 4 in progress for awhile, but on the snippet side of the news the Witcher project called Sirius has new information attached to it: the company announced it's changing it's original conception and essentially starting fresh. The rumour that's come with this news is that it's going to be a one-off Japanese-inspired take on The Witcher. Via the link above, Neon Knight goes over the rumour whose idea I don't find interesting (Geralt is already like a Samurai and CDPR just spent an entire game swimming in Japanese culture with Cyberpunk 2077). The other part of the rumour, that CDPR decided to scrap the MP part of the game, seems plasubile, but that's the most distinctive part of the project to begin with. I don't see how a move like this would help the game--turning Geralt into a Samurai is the least distinctive thing you could do with him.

For those who missed it, I posted my review of Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves. To sum it up: it's a fun, dumb movie--better than I expected, but with plenty of room for improvement. In terms of the box office, the film is tracking for a better than expected opening weekend (bumping from 30-35 million to 35-40 domestically and hitting 37, 70 worldwide), but that still has it heading towards failure given its bloated 150 million budget. I suspect the fact that it looks like all the recent fantasy abominations (Rings of Power, Wheel of Time, Witcher, etc) has made casual fans skip it. That's the big problem the industry is facing, as the zeitgeist is flipping and the soft, largely imaginary market currently being pursued isn't big enough to support the industry.

Because I've been writing articles about a range of topics for a long time I get to see experts in one area express unrelated political opinions regularly. I don't mean generic expressions, but specific statements. What tends to come out of their mouths boggles the mind. There's an undercurrent of smug arrogance which neatly fits their economic bracket, and the content merely reflects headlines and whatever limited snippets of information they get spoon-fed by cable news.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves Review

[I've updated this after I saw it a second time April 23rd--new comments are noted via long italics]

I saw Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves with low expectations. As someone who saw the original D&D film in theaters ("Snails!"), this wasn't my first rodeo--I can still see Justin Whalin's ridiculous Jimmy Olsen haircut contrasting with literally everything else around him in that film. The 2000 movie is hilariously bad and I knew Honor would be at least competently made. So how was it? It's an entertaining film with plenty of flaws--ones that would normally ruin the experience for me-- but this is a rare case where the pacing and humour were enough to keep me going despite the problems. I'd compare it to Guardians of the Galaxy 2 if you cut most of the bloat. There's a strong Guardians templating in Honor and I'll mention it when it comes up. Let's dive into some specifics (possible spoilers ahead, but I'll do my best to be vague):

The Plot

An iteration of 'save the princess' and on paper this is fine--I approve of it not being a save-the-world scenario--personal stakes is a good choice. Unfortunately, I could not care less about the actual goal because Chloe Coleman (Kira) and the actress who plays Edgin's love interest (I can't remember the character's name) can't act. Coleman gets more screen time and it's painful watching her (the only emotion I felt was irritation). Normally when the goal of the story isn't engaging, a film becomes unwatchable, but I was able to get passed it here.

Performances

We'll go in order of best to worst:
Edgin (Chris Pine) - holds the film together and owns all the scenes he's in; while I didn't care about his wife or daughter, I did want to see Edgin succeed and whenever things shifted to, say, Holga, I wanted to get it over with and return to Edgin; I think the similarities to Peter Quill are minimal--in part because of the different ages--although there is an emotional similarity to Quill's mother's death and the death of Edgin's wife

Forge (Hugh Grant) - delightful and the film would have benefitted from more of him--his attachment to Kira makes little sense (a problem based on her bad acting and the writing), but I couldn't help but cheer for him throughout; he's definitely a riff on Yondu, but funnier with less depth

Doric (Sophia Lillis) - there's so much missed opportunity here, as Lillis is an excellent actress and she's given almost nothing to do; her backstory is as poorly executed as everyone else's, but fortunately the film spends almost no time on it; there's a muted Nebula-vibe to her (her anger and mistrust of humans while being seen as an 'other', but with the sister angle axed); until this film I had no idea how tiny Lillis is (she's 5'0)

Sofina (Daisy Head) - given almost nothing to work with, she exudes the emotions required from the role--more depth would have been nice, but that applies to all the characters; the similarities to Ronan are present (but with less depth--she has all the rage he does, but the motivation is paper thin, 'I'm eeeeeevil!')

Xenk (Rege-Jean Page) - a small role where, other than having the right attitude for a paladin, his combat/abilities don't separate him from any other fighter; were it not for interactions with Edgin, he wouldn't work (his battle against his long-time enemy has no emotional impact and is overly long); he's clearly a riff on Drax (but not nearly as effective)

Holga (Michelle Rodriguez) - she's adequate throughout, but Rodriguez has no acting range and its a strange choice to give her a number of emotional scenes (the one with her ex might be the worst in the film--the FX for halflings is quite bad)--fortunately, none of these moments last long; I believe this is meant to be a Gamora-riff (as she and Edgin have a platonic parental relationship), but Zoe Saldana is a much better actress than Rodriguez, so it doesn't work nearly as well; she also has too much time spent on her fight scenes--in a film like this there's just no reason to show her in multiple sequences (it's just bloat--we know from the initial scene how capable she is). I also could not care less if she lived or died in the film (just as I didn't care about Edgin getting his wife back), muting the emotional beat being sought at the end.

Simon (Justice Smith) - looks like he's twelve years old, which is unendingly distracting; he's adequate in what's meant to be a typical Michael Cera role (awkward); I didn't hate him, but it's easy to imagine another actor doing much more with it; there's no obvious Guardians-parallel that I can see (if anything it echoes Presto from the D&D cartoon); his 'romance' with Doric is paper thin and the two have no chemistry at all--Simon comes across as largely creepy

Character Arcs

Technically the main cast all has them (Edgin, Doric, Holga, and Simon), but none are engaging--I felt no investment whatsoever. The small nods to romance are poorly executed and there's no chemistry in any of them (none are even believable). What saves this from being a complete disaster is so little time is spent on them--they aren't given enough time to become annoying (and, at least with Simon, his journey is punctuated by humour). Of them all Holga's is the least effective, as her side trip to see her ex is overly long and pointless (yes they get the staff by doing so, but that could have been acquired in other ways)--it's simply a jarring pause that fails the emotional beat it's aiming for. Edgin's relationship with his daughter is almost as bad, in part due to the acting and because the daughter is essentially dead weight throughout (her heroic action at the end feels unearned and stapled on).

The Writing

The humour works (without it the film wouldn't), holds up on a second viewing, and the fast pacing holds it together; the pathos completely fails (some of that can be blamed on the acting, but it's largely a writing issue) and the stakes are irrelevant because I didn't care what happened to the characters or the world itself (I just wanted Edgin and Forge to succeed, because I liked both).

The Action

Adequate. The monster fights are fun, but the sword play is simply adequate and tends to drag (it's less about length than about the fights having no real emotional impact). No one is going to see this film again based purely on the action (Xenk and Holga's fight scenes are so similar that there's no distinguishing between the two--something that really hurts Xenk's potential distinctiveness). I'm not sure what was behind ignoring the magical abilities of paladins (Xenk) and bards (Edgin); clerics and healing magic are also largely ignored (presumably to help maintain dramatic tension).

World Building

No effort is made to world build (it's impossible to guess the cultural and social differences between anyone), but the Forgotten Realms is a farrago of nonsense anyway. The problem this creates is that it means what you are watching fails to be distinctive--it could slot into virtually any fantasy milieu, making it far less memorable.

FX

It's a mixed bag--none of it is excellent, but most of it isn't terrible. For me it was fine, especially for a film that leans so heavily into humour. The most jarring effects, oddly enough, were with the halflings.

80s Easter Egg

While I appreciated the nod to the 1980s cartoon, I have no idea why Eric was randomly race-swapped or why they didn't pick an actual redhead to play Shelia instead of a woman with dyed hair. It doesn't matter that much, but given how popular the IP is in Brazil, it's odd not to please that audience with what is only a memberberry. One thing it did do is reaffirm that I'm glad this was an original story rather than an adaptation.

Final thoughts

This is a fun, mindless action/comedy. As such, it fills a niche that's largely unexploited in fantasy (which tends to take itself seriously). The downside is that it also makes the film largely forgettable (no one is going to feel emotionally impacted by it). That lack of distinctiveness seems to be why the film flopped--having cost 150 million to make, it needed to crest 500 million to break even, but barely hit 200. At the end of the day, aiming for a casual audience they missed it entirely.

For those wondering/concerned about the ESG/BlackRock impact on the film: it's suffused with it (that's obvious from the casting), but tame compared to Rings of Power, She-Hulk, etc. It is a little distracting that every single relationship is interracial--you don't need a sledgehammer to pound a nail--but I don't think that impacted the reaction to the film (the irony of BlackRock is its efforts, when they have any impact at all, is the opposite that's intended). I am amused at how different the marketing is for the merchandise, as the focus is so strongly on Chris Pine you'd be forgiven if you didn't know it's an ensemble film.

I will be seeing the film again with one of my gaming group's and when I do I'll note any variation in how I feel after a second helping (now integrated above).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Star Wars, Jonathan Majors, The Last of Us, and Rick and Morty

In the wake of Victoria Alonso's firing (she is not taking it well), there was news from Disney that Damon Lindelof had been released from his Star Wars film (which was going to happen right after Watchman season two...). This cancellation has been expected for some time, but Lindelof kept talking about it as if it would happen (ala Rian Johnson) until recently (cf). This brings to mind Star Wars, which I don't discuss often as I'm not a superfan (I hated the prequels, sequels, and the shows). The bungling IP deserves at least a re-visit because of its impact on Disney (I've enjoyed the cycle of outrage YTers adopting someone--George Lucas, John Favreau, etc--and then rejecting them as their work inevitably falls off a cliff). Let's look at the cancellation slate (which is mostly echoed in the image above):

Michael Arndt's episode seven (2013) - no one knows why he left, but he was replaced by Abrams

Josh Trank's Boba Fett film (2015) - ditched in the wake of the Fan4stic disaster

Gareth Edwards' version of Rogue One (2016) - partially reshot and edited by Tony Gilroy

Colin Trevorrow's episode nine (2017) - he couldn't adjust to Johnson's radial departure from Abrams' storyline

Original version of Solo by Phil Lord and Chris Miller (2017) - film completely reshot by Ron Howard

James Mangold's Boba Fett film (2018) - eventually became the laughable D+ show from Favreau

Stephen Daldry's Kenobi trilogy (2018) - cancelled in the wake of Solo bombing, becoming the horrendous D+ show from Joby Harold

Benioff & Weiss prequel trilogy (2019) - cancelled in the wake of Game of Thrones season eight bombing

Rangers D+ show (2021) - cancelled because it was going to star fired actress Gina Carano

Petty Jenkins Rogue Squadron (2022) - fired as a result of Wonder Woman 1984 bombing (from this and her entire slate of projects)

J. D. Dillard project (2022) - an Abrams acolyte, no one knows what this was

Kevin Feige/Michael Waldron's Star Wars film (2023) - cancelled in the wake of Marvel's disastrous Phase Four

Rian Johnson trilogy (2023) - Johnson's theatrical film career has been essentially dead since his Star Wars effort

Damon Lindelof/Justin Britt-Gibson's film (2023) - Lindelof's nightmarish efforts over the last eight years caught up to him (2012's Prometheus should have ended his career long ago)

The public has missed nothing of value here, but the comical ineptitude at LucasFilm (currently undergoing an audit in light of the lawsuit against The Acolyte--see below) was not echoed by Marvel until we reached Phase Four. Star Wars is a listless, aimless mess with the IP in such a bad state it can't support films and it's D+ efforts went from mediocre to unwatchable. Inexplicably, Taika Waititi's project is still officially ongoing, despite the reaction to Thor 3--it's unclear if Waititi will sleep with one of his actresses for this project too (no MeToo worries for Taika--maybe Tessa Thompson's vacuous acting is related to no one caring).

According to Kamran Pasha, The Acolyte is not truly in production, with the filming that's ongoing being akin to a demo reel to try and get it funded by Iger, something that's very unlikely because of the lawsuit against it.

In an 'uh-oh' moment, the MCU's Kang, Jonathan Majors (Lovecraft Country fame), was arrested for assaulting a woman. We have no idea if it's true or not and we're beyond the public reaction of 'believe all women' (unless it's Justin Roiland--see below), but it puts Marvel in a difficult situation. Kang is the major villain going forward in the MCU (despite Ant-Man 3 bombing), so what do you do? Should the charges be true (or the accusations drag on), Marvel could re-cast and move on, but it would be quite a blow to the plans Feige had in place for his supposed Thanos-replacement. On the plus side, re-casting also means re-introducing him in a film that people might actually watch--that's the glass-half-full way of looking at it. More seriously, let's hope the woman is okay and that the charges aren't true.

It's time to update HBO's The Last of Us. We saw a hike in viewerhip for episode four (cf), but it's declined through episode six (15% down from earlier, still up 12% from its opener). In terms of trends, the finale (Nielsen hasn't reached the finale yet) only brought it up to 60% of the interest when the show debuted. I feel like that's a pretty good representation of the audience that stuck with it. Does it warrant its second season? I think so. Has it become a cultural phenomena like Stranger Things? Absolutely not. Will I watch it? When Pedro Pascal gets introduced to towels and a golf club, yes (which will amusingly mirror his Game of Thrones exit).

I haven't watched Rick & Morty in quite some time, but I did see that Justin Roiland was getting universally dogpiled after domestic abuse allegations came out. He's just been cleared and in response those denouncing him have decided that, well, we can't really know if that clears him, so best to assume he's an abuser anyway. The lessons of Johnny Depp and Amber Heard can be ignored because there are no cameras in a courtroom and that's just sad. I have learned my lesson: I don't know what happened and the charges weren't worthy of court, so as far as I'm concerned, all we have against Roiland is that some people thought he was odd on set (very much like Josh Trank, for those who remember those complaints)--odd behaviour doesn't equate to condemnation for me.

This article was written by Peter Levi