More Troubles for Netflix Witcher; George R. R. Martin's HBO Deal on Hold; Barbenheimer Stays Strong at the Box Office; and More

The embarrassing mess that is Netflix's The Witcher (see below) has been given a welcome reprieve as production of season four (originally planned for September) is on hold until 2024. As RDI speculates, this is probably due to the writer and actor strikes, but it serves as a welcome pause which could allow Netflix to just let it die. No one is excited about the Netflix show anymore and with Cavill leaving, there's nothing to retain the casuals who have survived the incoherence to this point.

George R. R. Martin's HBO deal (2021) has been suspended. I think most of the projects proposed would never see the light of day anyway, but this suspension is unrelated to that and more about the strike. What I don't believe is that he's working on book six of Game of Thrones (cf on his general bullshitting on that account)--I've long thought Martin gave up on finishing the series, which he hopelessly complicated and derailed with the fourth and fifth books. He's allowed himself to become a fanboy of his own content, hopelessly lost in the imagined histories about events whose outcomes are already known.

Barbie and Oppenheimer have had soft drops for their second weekends, meaning they are both smash hits in terms of box office (helped, to be fair, by having almost no competition). Barbie will catch Guardians 3 for second place this year (I don't think it can reach Super Mario's number), while Oppenheimer could roll past Little Mermaid to 6th this year (yes, that's how dismal the box office has been). Oppenheimer's success doesn't mean much of anything beyond more blank cheques for Christopher Nolan. The Barbie result is more interesting to me, because (some) conservatives attempted to Bud Light the film because of how they saw its messaging, but 'won't someone think of the children!' has only ever had a Streisand Effect so I'm curious what lessons, if any, they learn from this (the same goes for the industry, which has been trying films and shows like this for years but with little to no success).

Angry Joe is about as milquetoast of a critic as you could get for film and TV (cf). However, he, like parts of the mainstream media, has either hit a breaking point or (more likely) seen enough backlash that he's finally put the breaks on praising all of it. Joe has dunked on Witcher season three as well as the unwatchable Secret Invasion. Your reaction might be, hey, they were just bad shows, but that doesn't normally stop Joe, as he went to bat for She-Hulk among other thing. This is only interesting as a barometer of a cultural shift I've been seeing for awhile--one that hasn't impacted what's being made, but is killing much of what is.

A little over a year ago there were rumours that Kamala Khan creator Sana Amanat was going to be quietly removed from Marvel due to MeToo allegations. That clearly has not happened, which suggests any consequences Amanat faced (if any) did not impact her career. I don't know if these accusations are true (they were never tried in court), but as with sexual assault it's uncommon for women to face the same kind of penalties as men (even when their victims are also women, ala Joey Soloman, cf, or the better known Amber Heard situation).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Barbenheimer Takes Theatres Off Life Support, Snow White Adaptation in Trouble, and Affirmative Action Fallout Continues

After two mega bombs in Indiana Jones 5 (June 30, 335; cf) and The Flash (June 16, 267; cf) allowed Discount Spiderman 2 (June 2) and Little Mermaid (May 26) to eek out a bit more box office (675/556 respectively), Mission Impossible: Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise (July 12) cleared the slate despite a weak opening (short of 55 million its opening weekend) and is on target to disappoint vs expectations. What's arrived now is Barbie and another bloated, overrated Christopher Nolan film (Oppenheimer). Both are having genuinely big opening weekends (estimates are 155/80) assisted by excellent marketing (no fan-baiting; somehow I missed the entire campaign), but it remains to be seen if they have legs (are they like Batman v Superman or Black Panther 2, where word-of-mouth killed them after a big opener?). On the plus side, they face no meaningful competition. Putting the openers in perspective, if the estimates are correct Barbie beat Super Mario for the biggest opener of 2023, although it trails 2022's Doctor Strange 2 and Black Panther 2 among recent films (releases that occurred before fans realized the MCU had become utter shit). It's important to remember that because of ticket price inflation there's about half as many people in theaters as there were 20 years ago, so while in comparison to recent films it's a great opener, it's unremarkable historically. What's interesting to me is if it can hold audience interest. I've seen a lot of pushback from conservatives over Barbie's messaging, but whether general audiences care remains to be seen (I don't think The Sound of Freedom is a good comparison for people on the right, as the Neo-Liberal backlash to that film seems to be what boosted it--complaining about a true story about human trafficking created a Streisand effect).

I had no idea there was a live action Snow White film in the works (to be inflicted on the world in 2024), but it looks just as clueless as Little Mermaid and I have no idea why you'd pose Gal Gadot as being jealous of Rachel Zegler--it causes ludonarrative dissonance and no one seeing that believes it. People can wish beauty standards were different, but that can't be meaningfully changed (there's some historical and cultural variation in body shape, but facial beauty is related to symmetry and both are tied to underlying signs of health--that's never going to change). That aside, Snow White is yet another girl boss--oh boy, that's a fresh take! I'm curious to see how much of the target audience (girls/women) will show up (my expectation is it will do better in the US than internationally, but flop regardless). Much like Barbie above, this film wasn't made for me, but I am curious about audience trends and what does (or doesn't) work for the public.

Diversity

My prior surmise that the recent Supreme Court decision about Affirmative Action would impact Hollywood has been confirmed. This doesn't mean efforts to cast diversely will stop (people will certainly continue to push for it, even in historic biopics like Oppenheimer), just like BlackRock moving away from the ESG name won't alter their funding of such efforts. What it does mean is the executives who were hired for such tasks are being jettisoned. As The Wall Street Journal says:

New analysis from employment data provider Live Data Technologies shows that chief diversity officers have been more vulnerable to layoffs than their human resources counterparts, experiencing 40% higher turnover. Their job searches are also taking longer. ... The number of CDO searches is down 75% in the past year, says Jason Hanold, chief executive of Hanold Associates Executive Search, which works with Fortune 100 companies to recruit HR and DEI executives, among other roles. Demand is the lowest he has seen in his 30 years of recruiting. [my emphasis] ... “They’re telling us, the only way I want to go into another role with DEI is if it includes something else,” he says of the requests for broader titles that offer more responsibilities and resources. He estimates that 60% of diversity roles he is currently filling combine the title with another position, such as chief human resources officer, up from about 10% five years ago. ... Since the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action in June, companies are anticipating spillover legal action could have an impact on them [my emphasis]

What people should take away from this is that corporations don't care about causes (something I would have assumed everyone knew, but apparently that's not the case). BlackRock does have an underlying reason for funding this (largely as a distraction from its unethical practices), so as long as they do, others will play that game. However, the people being funded are only interested in the money, so the moment that disappears, so does everything else (for those who think this only applies to Target or Walmart or other giant companies, don't fool yourself--if progressive Critical Role couldn't make money promoting the agenda, they wouldn't promote it--it's a business, not a charity). There's also been a complete failure to spread this approach elsewhere. Russia and China are going in the opposite direction (ultraconservative, with Russia at that point and China following suit) and there are indications many African and Eastern European nations are going the same way, while the Middle East never embraced the agenda. You have to ask yourself: what has this approach achieved? The populations in the West are now heavily divided over something they felt positively about just ten years ago (the 2013 legalization of same-sex marriage in the US serving as a kind of capstone)--the autocratic, preachy, top down approach not only doesn't help but has created a backlash that's becoming increasingly virulent. It's worth asking why corporate entities (and their government drones) continue the confrontational approach when the prior tactic of bottom-up, hey we just want the same rights as everyone else, worked so well (oddly enough, screaming at someone does not turn them into an ally).

This article was written by Peter Levi

Indiana Jones 5 and Witcher Season Three Bomb along with more Echo Troubles

To the surprise of no one Indiana Jones 5 has bombed in spectacular fashion, as it echoed The Flash's anemic opener. The film wasn't helped by how bad Indy 4 is and that, unlike Star Wars, other than the original film, there's no universal acclaim for the prior entries (both Temple of Doom and Last Crusade had their critics--as a kid I preferred the former to the latter, but neither were as good as the first film). That said, there was still plenty of affection for the IP and, unlike The Flash, the impact of its failure is far more limited--Disney knew the film was bad before release and the IP has been largely inert since Indy 4. I've seen it argued (1:38:42-1:39:34/2:42:27-2:42:42) that the Affirmative Action decision in the US will impact how ESG functions at the company (if the approach can be legally challenged, companies will have to search for a workaround). This pair of big budget failures has helped discount Spider-Man continue to limp forward into 'meh' box office territory (Spider-Man 3 made 1.9 billion, Miles Morales has reached 647 million). To dovetail back into the Indiana Jones IP: I don't think either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg ever understood the IP, not just because of the abominable fourth film, but from the various problems that occurred in the sequels. I mentioned previously that only the TV-show came close to capturing the right spirit, but it also failed and I think we're in for an unfortunate reboot in the future.

More rumours about the poor quality of Echo have leaked, with a long time Marvel stuntman saying he's been told that the show was originally going to be scrapped (Batgirl-style), but Disney was desperate for content because of the (still ongoing) writer's strike so decided to air it. This echoes (heh) comments from insider Jeff Sneider who said in May the show was so bad it had to be completely reshot with a shorter episode count. All of this seems highly plausible and I expect Willow-levels of awfulness. The only question is: does it kill Echo as an IP and further damage Daredevil and Kingpin? Time will tell, but I think for the former the answer is definitively 'yes'.

While it's much too late, Bud Light finally fired Marketing VP Alissa Heinerscheid for the campaign that has lost them around 28 billion at this point. The marketing began (appropriately enough) on April 1st, but many (myself included) did not think Bud would ever fire the person responsible. Billions of value lost later and on June 27th, she was terminated. While Heinerscheid did not get the same gush of media support that Disney's Victoria Alonso received months ago, the press did their best to shame any and all who participated in the backlash, but to no effect--the people who drink cheap, crappy beer hated the media long before this. I'm curious what impact, if any, this has on the entertainment industry (many of their viewers also drink cheap beer). Is this why the hammer has started to fall diversity heads? I suspect there's another cause, but I'll get into that below.

I'm not sure there's a point in covering Witcher season three, as I have no plans to watch it (even the overly generous xLetalis says he won't watch after this season--his poorly thought out pseudo-apology video for his reaction seems to be an effort to play nice with both sides). There are people enjoying the season, but for the first time I don't know any personally. To me there was never any hope for the show after its botched first season. What we can hope for is that there is no fourth season and that the push for botched adaptations disappears with Rings of Power (Jeff Bezos is finally asking what Amazon Prime is doing to bleed so much money, but Bezos is an ESG supporter, so I wouldn't expect any meaningful changes to their products).

Diversity Heads fired

I mentioned last time that Diversity Chief Latondra Newton was fired from Disney, but as it turns out she is one of four who have been terminated recently (Verna Myers at Netflix and Karen Horne and Jeanell English at WB--they are all women, of course, because men are inherently problematic--except for people like Elliott Page, presumably). There are reasons to think these moves are connected to the Supreme Court decision referenced above, although all three of these companies are bleeding money and cutting expensive sinecures helps. The reality is meaningful diversity doesn't require a manager (creating departments to govern behaviour is Orwellian, after all). It's not clear that this will result in any meaningful changes in the quality of entertainment produced, as there are no signs of positive developments as box office hits historic lows. For those few who find firings like this alarming, there are plenty of safe places to go, from Mastodon to Critical Role and so forth. While BlackRock has talked about moving away from the name ESG, it continues to fund its goals so I'm expecting plenty more Witcher: Blood Origins, She-Hulks, The Woman Kings, and so on.

It's been interesting watching Andy Signore's career evolve after beating the MeToo charges that got him fired from Screen Rant (cf; a channel that seems dead outside of Pitch Meeting). At first Signore attached himself to Fandom Wire, then jumped back into the YT game as an entertainment commentator/scooper. This effort did not work, as he had generic, Campea-like opinions and often got into fights with other people in the community. He jumped on the Johnny Depp trial and has ridden that success into being a celebrity gossip channel for court cases--it's a successful niche and a redemption story. I have no investment in Signore (his content isn't to my taste), but it's interesting to see that some people are able to find a way out of a losing career path.

This article was written by Peter Levi

The Flash Bombs while the MCU and Disney Continue to Struggle

It's no surprise that The Flash has bombed, although how badly it's failed is a surprise (losing to discount Spider-Man is pretty sad). Flash will still speed past a few benchmarks, as it has cleared Sony bomb Morbius as well as DC bomb Shazam 2. Will it make Dungeons & Dragons money (208)? I think so, but it's still going to be one of the biggest bombs of all time because of its ludicrous budget (officially 220, but believed to 300) and save us from Ezra Miller in the future (who also serves as a convenient scapegoat for the film, but is not the only problem). If there's a specific lesson to be learned it's that memberberries don't work without a strong foundation (either of prior success or the film itself)--while the MCU is busy destroying itself, it still has three Phases of success to reflect on (consider how long it took Star Wars to die when that franchise hasn't had a great film since 1981). The only positive for DC going forward is the film has no relevance to whatever James Gunn is planning, but it does mean Blue Beetle will likely get pulverized Shazam-style when it comes out (Aquaman 2 should do better, despite Amber Heard's inclusion).

Since Bob Iger's return, Disney has been firing people (7,000 jobs, cf) and those cuts have included several prominent folks (Susan Arnold, CFO Christine McCarthy, etc), the biggest being the firing Victoria Alonso (despite triple protection: female, Latina, and a lesbian--a win for equality as she too can get fired for incompetence). We've now had another 'name' of sorts receive similar treatment, as Chief Diversity Officer Latondra Newton (who also checks three boxes) was fired (she's supposedly behind the race swaps in The Little Mermaid and others, although I doubt Newton is the true cause of that). None of this implies a major creative shift at Disney because BlackRock is still their biggest shareholder (although others do see a change; [it is amusing to see BlackRock CEO Larry Fink giving up the label ESG now that the public is aware of it--so not the policies it advocates, but the label]). My belief is that these sacrifices are being made to point the blame at someone other than Bob Iger.

Speaking more broadly, let's take a look at recent Disney Films (estimated losses noted below are via Deadline; brackets compare it to its predecessor factoring inflation; the slash is domestic/foreign)

2022

• May - MCU Doctor Strange 2 955 (411/544) < 2016 film 826 (+129) - budget c.200
• June - Lightyear 226 (118/108) < 2019 film 1.228 (-1.002) - lost c.105 million
• July - MCU Thor 4 760 (343/417) < 2017 film 1.02 (-260) - budget c.250
• Nov - MCU Black Panther 2 859 (453/405) < 2018 film 1.573 (-714) - budget c.250
• Nov - Strange World 73 (37/35) - lost c.200 million

2023

• Feb - MCU Ant-Man 3 476 (214/261) < 2018 film 725 (-249) - budget c.200
• May - MCU Guardians 3 824 (347/476) < 2017 film 1.052 (-228) - budget c.250
• May - Little Mermaid 477 (264/213) < 1989 film 518 (-41) - budget c.250
• June - Elemental 68 (52/16) - budget c.200

None of this includes after market numbers (DVD/streaming) or toy sales, all of whose modern iterations are dwarfed by their prior predecessor (Frozen seems to be the only recent IP that still pushes merch).

As for the box office MCU trends: 955-760-859-476-822; all the films are sequels and have varying degrees of memberberries; two (Strange and Ant-Man) were heavily connected to Disney+ shows (clearly of no importance); at least three of the five MCU films were subject to emergency re-shoots (Strange, Black Panther, and Ant-Man). From these IP virtually none of the classic characters are coming back: no Guardians (or James Gunn), no Thor, etc. Of those that remain, Hulk and Hawkeye have already passed the torch to irrelevant or disliked spinoff characters. There's no positives to derive from any of this and no sign of anything good forthcoming (very much like where DC has been since 2008's The Dark Knight).

As for the non-Marvel stuff, it's been god awful. Pixar and Disney animation are completely lost, having lost an atrocious amount of money (Onward 142, Soul 121, Luca 50, and Turning Red 20, were all abysmal failures, as were Raya 130 and Encanto 256). The formula in all of them has been the much like the MCU: terrible writing with combative marketing--a rainbow coloured shit sandwich. The major difference between these projects and the MCU above (given that the quality and approach is similar), is because of its continuity, the MCU has a lot of goodwill to carryover from prior efforts, whereas these fresh IP have to stand on their own. The corporate media has finally started to say 'no' to some of this, but in a very limited, tepid way (they gave Willow a free pass), looking for technical excuses rather than the turgid base of this garbage. I don't see how Disney can change at this point, but I do think they will make things cheaper.

Back to Marvel, Namor star Tenoch Huerta has now been accused of sexual assault. This hasn't gone to court, so we don't know what's happened. However, unlike with Kang, this isn't a big deal for the MCU, as Black Panther 2 disappointed and no one was clamouring for more Namor anyway. They can easily recast the character (they probably should have regardless) and move on.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Concerns about Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty DLC

I haven't posted anything about Cyberpunk 2077 since December, 2020 (other than referencing it's highly successful animated spinoff, Cyberpunk: Edgerunners, which I enjoyed and wasn't crippled by ESG restrictions, as we'll discuss below). That doesn't mean I haven't written about it, but that I never got around to finishing my review (whose inchoate state is nowhere near my Last of Us Part II review). As for the experience, I really enjoyed the game at launch (you can watch that playthrough here) and I've re-played the game many times. As good as it is (the best RPG of the last few years), it's not as good as Witcher 3 (which I first played in 2016; I have a playthrough of it from two years ago posted).  When comparing the two I'm primarily talking about its story, since that's what matters to me most. Now that we're near the release of the game's one and only DLC (September 26) I'm interested to see what we're getting from CDPR beyond simply a gameplay overhaul. On the surface there are reasons to be concerned that no one seems to be discussing, so let's go over it.

Modern storytelling (film, TV, etc) has fallen into a political mire making it predictable and boring. CDPR accepts ESG scores because they want the funding associated with it (cf), so have restrictions imposed on how they want to make their games (if unfamiliar, this and this gives you some perspective--in essence, it's a soulless corporation using virtue signaling to deflect from how it makes its money). Now that we know our entertainment is tainted by ESG, the old chestnut about 'creative decisions' and 'looking for a new audience' is exposed as a lie: they have no choice, so there's nothing creative about it. The signs of this in Phantom Liberty are painfully obvious, even if the veneer is easier to disguise in this setting than something like the Witcher:

• Girl Boss (the president and presumably Songbird)
• Evil White Man (the leader of the evil faction)
• POC bad ass (Idris Elba and presumably Songbird)

If this was ten years ago these elements could have occurred organically and would be much less cliche, but we now know the marching orders CDPR gets by participating in ESG, so that's the 'why' of these choices (this is also clear in the base game). The absurdity of using this straightjacket can be seen in real world examples: OceanGate (of the missing submarine) didn’t want to hire any experienced “50 year old white guys” because they weren’t “inspirational”. Video games are less serious than subs, but it's still a ridiculous way to operate (is writer Pawel Sasko in danger of not being 'inspirational'?). On the creative side, the problem with adhering to this approach is there's no mystery or intrigue because good and bad are dictated by ethnicity, gender, and orientation. Can you make a palatable story with these restrictions?

The simple answer is 'yes, but', since Cyberpunk 2077 is a good game, but not a great game (with those flaws less obviously impacted by ESG). On the surface (the preview etc) the warning signs aren't as glaring as The Last of Us Part II or Rings of Power or She-Hulk. Some of that is helped because V isn't a pre-determined character (although clearly they used female-V for ESG reasons, albeit they've tweaked how they've shown her vs 2020--I still prefer the original version). Because V is the player, the majority of the player base (white men) aren't automatically denigrated and emasculated simply for existing--all that hatred can be safely directed towards the enemy faction (Woodman and Fingers are the most despicable characters in the base game, lest we forget, and the least sympathetic gang--Maelstrom--are anomalously white).

That aside, my guess is the writers of the DLC will make things ambiguous (otherwise their story has no weight). White man bad, yes, but there will be some sort of qualification (maybe he had an absent or violent father--which is very ESG--just like Jackie); Girl Boss is a bad ass, but there will be moral ambiguity (maybe she's unethical, like Elizabeth Peralez); POC bad ass is awesome, but he has issues (like Saul); and so on. That approach would match what we sometimes see in the base game (like with Claire). This is the only way to successfully navigate ESG restrictions and make it appealing to players. If I'm wrong about this ambiguity, the DLC will be a massive disappointment in terms of story.

Would I rather CDPR not involve themselves in this nonsense and just make creative decisions like they did in the Witcher franchise? Of course, but like the good capitalists they are, money matters more than ethics. One hopes the financial disasters that have afflicted Disney and others will encourage the company to change, but I have my doubts. BlackRock's Faustian bargain is simply too tempting not to take, whatever the risk (we know how they'd resolve Hearts of Stone, clearly). What I'm interested to see is how CDPR navigates this with the Witcher IP (both sequels and remakes)--I don't think they can make it work and clearly ignored those elements from the Netflix show in their update. In the meantime, let's hope the DLC is well done despite the restrictions.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Qualifying the Success of Guardians 3 and Into the Spider-Verse 2, Plus MCU Delays

I call things out when I'm right and when I'm wrong and we have an example of each to go over. Let's start where I was wrong: Guardians 3 looked like it would fall well short of Thor 3 (760 million) after an anemic opening, but it currently stands at 808 million, putting it ahead of both Thor 3 and the first film of the series (in 2023 dollars the original Guardians made 989.8 million, just for perspective). The third installment won't catch Guardians 2 (869, or 1.078 in 2023 dollars), so while the film is not a failure, it underperformed. Like all MCU films from Phase Four onward, it held fairly well domestically, but unlike most others it hasn't failed internationally (Fast X is the opposite of the MCU, doing extremely well internationally, but failing domestically). What success the MCU (and Sony) have had relies on memberberries, albeit that doesn't help anything going forward because those elements won't be returning.

As for where I was right, that's The Little Mermaid (currently at 422 million). It's strongest domestically (where the appetite for this approach is strongest), but the overall take is unimpressive (it has no hope of catching the anemic Ant-Man 3). There's limited appetite for this kind of film and even domestically it's nowhere near something like 2017's Frozen 2. Overall, less people are going to see these films, so the industry trails far behind pre-pandemic numbers. You'd think this kind of failure would involve some soul searching and a change in approach, but there's no sign of that. Perhaps the situations of Bud Light, Target, etc (even court cases like this) will make an impact and help the industry turn away from toxic ESG approaches (eg). If the MCU brand gets attacked, Disney would be in even greater financial trouble than it already is.

A reminder for this discussion: quality is not what makes a film successful. I saw the latest Jurassic Park last year and it was terrible, but it made a ton of money (just over a billion--spectacle can win out). What's turning people off isn't strictly the quality of the film, but the obvious and toxic marketing and messaging.

I was curious how Into the Spider-Verse 2 would do (As I've said repeatedly over the years, the hype for the first isn't backed by numbers--just 384 at the time, or 464 in today's dollars), so I wondered what would happen five years later after an endless sea of positive coverage. The expectation that the domestic audience would show up has largely proven true (240), but thus far the foreign gross has been awful (88; it echoes Cocaine Bear's domestic/foreign percentages). I have no interest in Miles Morales (sequel characters whose raison d'etre is inclusivity are derivative--what creators should do is create an engaging original character or IP), but I'm curious about popular taste. The film saw a sharp drop last Friday (68%), but had a Guardians-like hold on the weekend proper (43-44%). I don't think the appetite for the IP is strong (it hasn't had any serious competition at the box office yet). The big question is: can it make an impact internationally and, if not, is the domestic market enough? This was not a cheap movie to make so I don't think so. Right now there's a lot of talk of a sequel and spinoffs, but the latter never happened after the first film because of the weak box office, so I think we're on a similar trajectory here (cf Sony's trend of announcing and then deleting projects--announcements are free and pre-production is cheap, but making a film costs money).

The Titanic now known as the MCU has announced a number of date changes for upcoming projects (related, at least in theory, with the writer's strike) and I want to focus on those that are significant:

• Thunderbolts - July to December 2024; yet another IP no one asked for or wants (filled with characters no one likes except, perhaps, John Walker, cf); the change gives it more time for reshoots (aka: add a few jokes)
• Blade - September, 2024 to February, 2025; an expected delay given all the script problems; I'm still expecting it to be a handoff of the moniker to a younger, female character
• Fantastic Four - February to May 2025; creates more time to make it palatable (jokes!), but I'm not expecting any meaningful difference from the steaming pile of Phase Four
• Avengers 5 & 6 - to May, 2026 and May, 2027; as above (re-casting Kang if need-be, cf)

Deadpool 3 was moved up six months in 2024, giving it a better release slot (May), something easier to do since the film is less effects heavy and more self-contained. I'm not expecting much from it, as I thought Deadpool 2 was substantially worse than the original and that trend is likely to continue given the horrendous state of the MCU (cf). Ryan Reynolds signed a five-film deal with Marvel and that clock is ticking, but clearly they want his film to debut before he pops up elsewhere. One wonders if Reynolds' appearances will drag on into irrelevancy like Ben Affleck's in the DCEU.

Like most sane people I don't pay much attention to John Campea (despite his long presence within the community as a commentator). Because of that, it's only now that I've learned he gave up on his public talk show (putting it behind a paywall and firing his two co-hosts; this happened about two months ago) and is mostly posting shorter content. He justified the change because he's losing money (which in a ranting video claims he doesn't need--pick a lane John (cf; he's deleted the original so we're stuck with those that comment on it). His video views have dropped well below that of his competitors. This downward trend is a result of him being a soulless corporate cheerleader--a job anyone, including ChatGPT, can easily do (cf), and not content anyone struggles to find. Campea is on the fast train to obsolescence, but I doubt he'll disappear entirely (many of his less popular friends are still hanging on at the margins of YT; hell, even Matt Jarbo is still around and that's after being exposed for mass flagging other channels). As I mentioned about a year and a half ago, the cultural pendulum is swinging away from Campea and while that doesn't mean similar people won't enjoy a level of success, it does mean there's a ceiling on their popularity.

There was a lot of reader interest in my previous Robert E. Howard IP article, for which I'm thankful (more than the Conan article that preceded it). No doubt the fact no one else was talking about it helps.

This article was written by Peter Levi

Developments with Robert E. Howard IP other than Conan (Solomon Kane, Dark Agnes, Kull, Valeria, etc)

In the free preview of Titan's upcoming Conan comic there's an illustration of Robert E. Howard IP (above) that indicates an underlying hope to see them receive similar treatment (as, indeed, was attempted at Marvel a few years ago). I wanted to look at what's presented and think about what has potential to succeed. I am a fan of Howard's, but I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of his voluminous writings. What I'm familiar with are his Conan stories (which I've re-read recently), his horror stories (read long ago), the author himself, and a small smattering of things outside of that (mostly read long ago). I have not read the lauded 70s comics (before my time), so my exposure in that format is only via Marvel's recent output (mostly mediocre). I've seen both the 80s films featuring Conan (as well as the terrible Red Sonya movie), but not in a long time.

It's interesting to see who is in this image, because many Howard characters are not. Here's the list in order from the illustration (Note: Howard's Picts are his own synthesis of Native Americans and a now-debunked view of the aboriginal peoples of Scotland; the colour coding: green=currently being published (book/comic) and pushed as a film/show; pink= published/produced after the Howard boom; orange=published during the Howard boom in the 70s/early 80s; red=only published during REH's lifetime or as part of the general publishing of all his unpublished work):

• Ace Jessel (1929; boxing) - There are just two stories and the sub-genre is so specific I'm lost on why he's included (REH had more popular boxing characters, see below)
• Valeria (1935; fantasy/Conan) - from the Conan story "Red Nails"; Marvel (2019) attempted a series by Meredith Finch (wife of the more notable David Finch), which is tedious and bland despite good art
• Grom (1934; fantasy/side character) - from "The Valley of the Worm"; the Pictish Grom interacts with the lead of that story (Niord); it's not clear why he's on this list and Niord is not (representation, perhaps?)
• Bran Mak Morn (1930; historical, Dark Ages) - A Pictish king facing off against Romans among other things (he also has a crossover with Kull, below); had a couple of pastiche novels written for him in 1976 and 1981 during the Howard boom, but other than some adaptations from Dark Horse has since been invisible
• Solomon Kane (1928; historical, 16th century) - the Puritan adventurer fighting evil; Dark Horse published a few mini-series' featuring him in the mid-2000s and there was the 2009 (2012 for Americans) film; more recently there was a planned show at Netflix, but that's been abandoned along with the Conan show
• Cormac Mac Art (1920s; historical, Dark Ages) - an Irish pirate whose stories were published posthumously and gave birth to a pastiche sequel series from Andrew Offutt from 1975-82 and one comic adaptation (from Dark Horse in 1990); there's room for pseudo-historical adaptations
• Wulfhere (1920s; historical/Cormac Mac Art) - His fate is tied to the above
• Kull (1929; fantasy) - from REH's fantastical pre-history, but from an earlier epoch than Conan; while a forerunner to the latter, he's not the same character; his last comic book adaptation was from IDW in 2017 via Tom Waltz, but it only lasted 3 issues; there was a 1997 film, but that was intended to be a Conan movie, so while its existence is interesting I wouldn't call it indicative of interest
• Conan (1932; fantasy) - I won't repeat what I've said in my prior article; the most well-known REH character
• Francis Xavier Gordon aka "El Borak" (1934; historical) - an Indiana Jones type character who, as far as I can tell, has had no resonance since; that said, romping adventures like this is a viable route for the future (especially after the Indiana Jones franchise killed itself)
• Wild Bill Clanton (1936; Western) - the lead in 'spicy' stories of the time (so some bare calves may have been shown); Westerns are essentially dead, so I'm not sure what you can do with him
• Esau Cairn (1939; Science Fiction) - the lead in "Almuric", there was a Dark Horse comic for it in 1991; as an Edgar Rice Burroughs-style adventure (its similar to A Princess of Mars, 1912) I think there's potential in it
• Turlogh Dubh O'Brien (1931; historical, 11th century) - Irishman whose stories sometimes have fantastical or horror elements; he's had no resonance since the Howard boom in the 1970s (like so many others, his stories were used as raw material for Conan), but there are some possibilities given that the era is popular
• Sonya of Rogatino (1934; historical, 16th century) - from the story "The Shadow of the Vulture" (she's not the lead character, as that's Gottfried Von Kalmbach); she feels very modern (almost cliche for female protagonists), which could be a good thing
• Sailor Steve Costigan (1929; boxing/historical, 1920s) - sailor and a boxer (this is not the character of the same name from "Skull Face"); more popular than Ace above, but it's difficult to see what could be done with the character
• 'Dark' Agnes de Chastillon (1932/34; historical, 16th century) - posthumously published in the 1970s, her stories are similar to Sonya's above; plenty of fun to be had, although I think there are limits to what you can squeeze from historical adaptations; Marvel tried (2020) with a series by Becky Cloonan, but it only managed two issues with the same floompy writing seen in Belit and Valeria (above)--the Marvel iterations were disappointingly bland and indistinctive
• Breckinridge Elkins (1934; Western) - a humorous character, making the genre even more difficult to do anything with (Blazing Saddles was a long time ago); he was very popular at the time
• Brule (1929; fantasy/Kull) - a Pictish character I suspect is only here as an echo of that IP

Among those not included is the popular Conan character Belit ("Queen of the Black Coast", 1932), likely because the character does not survive her story and therefore is tricky to do anything significant with. Despite that, Poul Anderson's Conan the Rebel (1980) features her and Marvel tried to do something with her in 2019, but writer Tini Howard missed the point and turned her into a generic Girl Boss which (like Valeria above) only lasted five issues. She is hardly the only character not included, as Howard had so many (James Allison, Dennis Dorgan, Pike Bearfield, Cormac Fitzgeoffrey, Lal Singh, Black Vulmea, John Kirowan, Steve Harrison, De Montour the werewolf, and on and on).

Our list includes 18 characters representing 15 different IPs that can be organized by genre (with El Borak covering two of those):

• Historical: 8 (Dark Ages: Bran, Cormac/Wulfhere; 11th: O'Brien; 16th: Solomon, Sonya, Agnes; Early Modern: El Borak, Steve)
• Fantasy: 3 (Conan/Valeria, Kull/Brule, Grom)
• Boxing: 2 (Ace and El Borak)
• Western: 2 (Clanton and Elkins)
• Science Fiction: 1 (Cairn)

Historical fiction has its place and continues to have resonance on screen, but so much of the modern genre has a heavy emphasis on romance (is there any production about English royalty that isn't a romance?), which doesn't suit Howardian IP. What these need to stand out is a supernatural/fantastic element (which some already include, like Solomon Kane). Beyond that is what time periods attract the public. Vikings remain popular (which covers three of the IP), and Agnes' story crosses paths with the always popular Henry VIII; Bran faces off against Romans (also popular). I believe an Indiana Jones-style approach could work, which El Borak could be used for. As for poor Sonya, as modern as she seems, I don't think there's an appetite for the once popular Muslim Ottoman vs Christian Europe narrative.

The fantasy IP are all solid as-is, even though I remain puzzled by Grom's inclusion without his lead character and why that specific story was picked. For the other two, while Kull inspired Conan, they are different enough to not cause confusion. Ironically, despite the plethora of modern fantasy shows and films, nothing has worked since the early seasons of Game of Thrones, leaving plenty of room for it to be done right (and action-oriented fantasy hasn't been done properly since the 1980s).

I don't see any room for boxing stories (it's simply too niche) and Westerns are functionally dead (one-offs aren't impossible). On the flipside, there's an appetite for an SF story like Cairn's, which the poorly made John Carter botched over a decade ago.

What do I think will happen? Some of that depends on how well the Conan comic (and film, should it happen) performs. I'd expect Titan to do what Marvel tried and take shots at some of the other IP, beginning with those with resonance after the Howard boom (and leaving the possibility of some creative wanting to take a stab at something more obscure). Solomon Kane seems to be at the forefront of what's being pushed, which is understandable as it would be very easy to connect him to Dark Agnes and Sonya as they occupy the same eras. Beyond that it's difficult to say. I'd keep an eye out for new pastiches (like the S. M. Stirling Conan novel) and any further comic announcements as clues for what else might be in store. It's too bad streaming services won't make this kind of IP, as I think much of it is well-suited to TV.

This article was written by Peter Levi

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