Henry Cavill is back! Not about the Witcher.

[Henadic Theologian]

The standard for "causing the internet to explode with controversy," is ... people on the internet.

Addressing the actual article-

(1) The Witcher is considered successful at Netflix. Any show that Netflix makes that gets three seasons and is renewed for a fourth is a success.

(2) The showrunner specifically avoided hiring people that were too familiar with the source material- in other words, it was a feature, not a bug. This is not an uncommon approach; famously, Alfonso Cuarón did not read the book Children of Men. But there is always a push-pull when adapting books (or video games) to a new medium; you have both the problem of translating to the new medium as well as (almost always) finding a way to make the material accessible to a broader audience (cue up "fan service").

(3) Henry Cavill has not said anything about this in regard to leaving The Witcher; however, it must be noted that this announcement came at the same time that he announced he was returning in the (big budget, big screen, big time) role as Superman.

He made a business decision- likely a lucrative one. While I didn't like his prior Superman movies, I definitely like Cavill in the role and I am excited to see what he does with a new direction.

No it's bug not a feature.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah that bombshell about Witcher's writers room was huge, caused the internet to explode with controversy.

I think this is a broader problem in the industry.

Poor guy - going from playing Superman in movies directed by someone who doesn't like superhero comics to playing a Witcher written by people who don't like Witcher novels.

The thing is, though, bringing in that outside perspective is not uncommon in the industry, and often works well. Star Trek II was written and directed by people who'd never seen a single episode of the series prior to being hired, and I don't know anyone who considers it a bad Star Trek movie.

 

[billd91]

He made a business decision- likely a lucrative one. While I didn't like his prior Superman movies, I definitely like Cavill in the role and I am excited to see what he does with a new direction.

Depending on the scheduling, doing one doesn't necessarily preclude the other. I'd be stunned if Netflix and DC could not have accommodated his needs he wanted to do both of them.

And I totally agree that Cavill made a decent Superman in sub-par movies. I hope they give him something better to work with.

 

[Eric V]

I think it's likely a combination of things; there's a quote out there from Cavill where he says something along the lines of as long as they write the character (Geralt) well, he'll continue to play it.

 

[billd91]

The thing is, though, bringing in that outside perspective is not uncommon in the industry, and often works well. Star Trek II was written and directed by people who'd never seen a single episode of the series prior to being hired, and I don't know anyone who considers it a bad Star Trek movie.

Harve Bennett may have never seen the show before, but he had seen Star Trek: The Motion Picture (and found it boring, no surprises there). But he also took the step of immersing himself in the series before he wrote the outline for Wrath of Khan. So fresh, but informed, eyes.

 

[Staffan]

The thing is, though, bringing in that outside perspective is not uncommon in the industry, and often works well.

I think it rarely works well with genre things, and particularly not when you're adapting a celebrated character (or team) in general as opposed to a specific story. You need to have someone who loves and understands both the character in specific and the genre in general at the helm. That's when you get masterpieces like Spider-Man, and when you don't you get Green Lantern.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it rarely works well with genre things, and particularly not when you're adapting a celebrated character (or team) in general as opposed to a specific story. You need to have someone who loves and understands both the character in specific and the genre in general at the helm. That's when you get masterpieces like Spider-Man, and when you don't you get Green Lantern.

But .... that doesn't track. Look at Green Lantern.

Ryan Reynolds loves the source material. He was the star. It's not like he's hasn't succeeded before ...

Greg Berlanti ... he has a pretty good track record with DC. He wrote it. And he had co-writers, too! They weren't dreaded Hollywood Hacks looking for a quick buck. Nope- they were bona fide comic book writers.

The director was five years off of doing a somewhat successful genre reboot. You might have heard of Casino Royale?


I think talent and passion matter. But talk to anyone in Hollywood, and you'll know that some things work, and some things don't, and it's not always obvious even to the people working on it. Heck- Rogue One, arguably one of the best Star Wars movies since the original three, was notoriously a problem and required a different director to come in and save it with rewrites and new scenes. Movies are hard.

ETA- I'd even note that sometimes "studio meddling" is the worst thing that can happen to a film, and other times creatives will look back and say, "Thank goodness someone was overlooking the production." If there was one easy answer, then every movie would be financially and critically successful, right?

 

[Tonguez]

Lets just hope WB lets him play Superman and not try to turn him into faux-Jesus

 

[Staffan]

But .... that doesn't track. Look at Green Lantern.

Ryan Reynolds loves the source material. He was the star. It's not like he's hasn't succeeded before ...

Greg Berlanti ... he has a pretty good track record with DC. He wrote it. And he had co-writers, too! They weren't dreaded Hollywood Hacks looking for a quick buck. Nope- they were bona fide comic book writers.

The director was five years off of doing a somewhat successful genre reboot. You might have heard of Casino Royale?

Yes, but the director didn't know comic books and particularly not Green Lantern. This is from the film's Wikipedia page:

While promoting Deadpool (in which Reynolds portrays another famous comic book superhero) in 2016, Reynolds said that filming Green Lantern itself had been frustrating, "You really need a visionary behind a movie like that, but it was the classic studio story: "We have a poster, but we don't have a script or know what we want; let's start shooting!"[60] In an exclusive interview with ScreenRant in 2021, Campbell reflected that he should not have directed the film after all and admitted responsibility for the film "not working out". Comparing to how he saw all James Bond films before directing Casino Royale, Campbell acknowledged that superheroes movies were never his "cup of tea".

So Casino Royale was a success, at least in part because the director took the time to get to know both James Bond the character and the spy film genre, and because the director was predisposed to like the project. Green Lantern was not, because they used a director who didn't consider superheroes "his cup of tea".

Basically, you need to go into a project like that with a clear idea of who the character is and what you want to do with it. You go in and say "I want to make the Spider-Man origin movie, and the chief antagonist is going to be the Green Goblin, and I want to hit these particular notes: Peter Parker's relationship with aunt May, their poverty, his love for MJ, contrast with Osborn's wealth, Osborn's dual personality, the Goblin being hoist by his own petard." You don't go in saying "OK, what movie are we making? Green Lantern? Cool, cool. What do we know of the Green Lantern? Ah, a ring, neat. Given to him by an alien, cool. Alien cop you say? Even better. Anyone else?"

 

[GreyLord]

superman is the most boring and least interesting of all the superheroes.

It's not the Superhero that makes the comic, but the villains.

Edit: To Expand, this isn't to say an actor in a hero role isn't going to be great, but that for comicbooks, what makes a superhero interesting isn't necessarily the superhero themselves, but the challenges they face and how they overcome it.

Superman (silver age and after) is interesting because authors and writers need to come up with villains that can challenge superman and actually stand a chance to beat him. It is the villians that make superman shine.

Ironically, the same applies to Batman...