Henry Cavill is back! Not about the Witcher.

[TwoSix]

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.

Controversy aside, it doesn't seem like "the writers not liking the source material" actively hurt the Netflix adaptation. The adaptation is both fairly faithful to the source AND pretty damn good.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Controversy aside, it doesn't seem like "the writers not liking the source material" actively hurt the Netflix adaptation. The adaptation is both fairly faithful to the source AND pretty damn good.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

When things happen, people cast about for reasons. But usually ...

A lot o' people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch o' unconnected incidents 'n things. They don't realize that there's this, like, lattice o' coincidence that lays on top o' everything. Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a plate o' shrimp. Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

 

[ART!]

I really like him in the role, and on the 10/27/22 Happy Sad Confused podcast he said "I'm so excited to tell a story with an enormously joyful Superman" (emphasis mine). This is music to my ears.

 

[Tonguez]

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...

Batman is interesting despite the villains and thats because he’s is an otherwise normal human existing in extraordinary circumstances who is driven to extremes, he’s a study in psychpathy where the villains both highlight and contrast his own mentality.

Batman is closer to Lex Luthor than he is Superman

Superman however is not really interesting because he is a god and as classically presented a paragon of virtue. We as humans have no way of relating to him except as saviour, Superman villains are required because they represent the forces from which humanity needs saving.
But the. The only interesting Superman villains imho are Lex and Braniac. Lex because he like Bruce is just human given resourc3s and passion, while Brainiac represents the hubris of ‘our’ technology destroying its creator

 

[Blue]

The timing makes it pretty obvious that it was a reaction to the writers room of The Witcher being exposed as having writers that hated The Witcher IP by former Witcher writer and current head writer of X-Men 97'.

It that the timing of the new Superman news?

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Batman is interesting despite the villains and thats because he’s is an otherwise normal human existing in extraordinary circumstances who is driven to extremes, he’s a study in psychpathy where the villains both highlight and contrast his own mentality.

Batman is closer to Lex Luthor than he is Superman

Superman however is not really interesting because he is a god and as classically presented a paragon of virtue. We as humans have no way of relating to him except as saviour, Superman villains are required because they represent the forces from which humanity needs saving.
But the. The only interesting Superman villains imho are Lex and Braniac. Lex because he like Bruce is just human given resourc3s and passion, while Brainiac represents the hubris of ‘our’ technology destroying its creator

Superman have more vulnerabilities then folks realize, it's not just Kryptonite. He's not immune to magic or mind control or doomspores, etc...,

 

[Blue]

Controversy aside, it doesn't seem like "the writers not liking the source material" actively hurt the Netflix adaptation. The adaptation is both fairly faithful to the source AND pretty damn good.

Season 3, which did have Cavill but hasn't aired yet, has bigger adjustments. Such as introducing a new major character who wasn't in the books. Cavill has also come out specifically in favor of the author's original works, by name. We all know how much of a geek he is, like painting his Warhammer minis during quarantine.

 

[TwoSix]

Season 3, which did have Cavill but hasn't aired yet, has bigger adjustments. Such as introducing a new major character who wasn't in the books. Cavill has also come out specifically in favor of the author's original works, by name. We all know how much of a geek he is, like painting his Warhammer minis during quarantine.

Sure. I just don't think that being the better geek necessarily makes one better at writing a TV show based on a geek property.

 

[Blue]

Sure. I just don't think that being the better geek necessarily makes one better at writing a TV show based on a geek property.

I don't think I came across clearly, let me try again.

Cavill is a big geek, and he specifically likes the original vision, both books and game. He's previously said about the multi-season Netflix plans: “As long as we can keep telling great stories which honor [author Andrzej] Sapkowski’s work.”
(Source: Why Henry Cavill Basically Already Is James Bond)

So regardless if they are writing "better" or not, some of the writers getting exposed of having open disdain for the author of the novel series, and deviating in material ways from it in the 3rd (to-be-aired) season, could be a factor in Cavill leaving.

I wish I could find the other interview I was reading, about how Cavill like the Witcher in the books had more facets then have come up in the Netflix series.

 

[ART!]

Superman however is not really interesting because he is a god and as classically presented a paragon of virtue. We as humans have no way of relating to him except as saviour, Superman villains are required because they represent the forces from which humanity needs saving.

Obviously, if you can't relate to the character that's cool, but Siegel and Shuster felt differently, and there are too many Superman stories and too many different takes on the character to say we can only relate to him as a savior. He's interesting to lots of people, for lots of different reasons.