Wait..... wat? Like I get people not caring, that's just how some people are. But how do they not know? When they walk onto the set or whatever and someone tells them "build this", how is it not...
and some of the people I worked with for weeks didn't even know they were on a Batman movie until
Wait..... wat? Like I get people not caring, that's just how some people are. But how do they not know? When they walk onto the set or whatever and someone tells them "build this", how is it not part of the same sentence to tell them what it's for??
Tbh I don't find that surprising at all, especially for the people who are being contracted out. Like I'd be a little surprised if a big actor just went around not caring about the movie, if only...
Tbh I don't find that surprising at all, especially for the people who are being contracted out. Like I'd be a little surprised if a big actor just went around not caring about the movie, if only because that would be horrible for marketing, but why would the guys in charge of painting a mask care?
For reference I currently work on analyzing some part of the new NASA rocket, in a year or two the parts I'm working on will help fly someone around, and later to, the moon. I guess I'll be vaguely excited about that, and obviously I do understand what the project I'm working on is, but honestly I don't really care.
I guess it's a little different in that people do try to seem excited sometimes, but it feels a little fake, like trying to convince the bosses you'll be a good employee because you care, rather than actually caring.
Because while on paper "analyzing parts for the SLS" sounds cool, in reality the whole rocket was designed about 7 years ago. Since then there have been only minor changes, and many of these...
Just out of curiosity, why don't you care?
Because while on paper "analyzing parts for the SLS" sounds cool, in reality the whole rocket was designed about 7 years ago. Since then there have been only minor changes, and many of these changes make the results better. Plus, the rocket is already built.
So I'm just working my way through a 1600 page report, updating loads and occasionally modeling small parts over again to account for the changes since the last time this was signed off on, and then redoing all of the analysis. As you would expect everything that was ok last time is still ok this time, but NASA is fucking paranoid because of the Shuttle so we have to jump through a billion hoops to make them happy.
So instead the federal government pays a company to pay a company to pay me to alternate between sitting on my phone and verifying that putting less loads on parts that were previously analyzed to survive more loads doesn't suddenly cause them to fail.
Ultimately anything will probably get boring if you spend thousands of hours working on it, it's just a question of how interesting the work itself is.
Disclaimer: I'm friends with a former astronaut. Story Musgrave. He's not well-known, but I would strongly suggest to anyone reading this to absorb his wiki and see what that man has accomplished...
As you would expect everything that was ok last time is still ok this time, but NASA is fucking paranoid because of the Shuttle so we have to jump through a billion hoops to make them happy.
Disclaimer: I'm friends with a former astronaut. Story Musgrave. He's not well-known, but I would strongly suggest to anyone reading this to absorb his wiki and see what that man has accomplished in his life. I happened to meet his son, years ago. We got to talking business, and I ended up drum scanning and color-correcting hundreds of images that Story took while out in space.
Technical/oversight failures created not one, but two national tragedies. The loss of far too many incredibly talented and high-performing people. The ruination of NASA's public image and subsequently the struggle with funding impacted progress for decades. All because of one O-ring and a potential issue that a bunch of people hand-waved. So speaking as someone who was a teenager when the first shuttle was lost and quite clearly remembers both incidents, much less my disclaimer, I'd rather NASA be fastidious across all vectors than not.
I'm sorry that you find this work to be tedious and unnecessary. I hope that every calculation, test result, and data review is indeed as on-point and trustworthy as you believe it to be.
I mean, to be brutally honest, it's just a job. You geek out about stuff you love because you love it. Batman is not intrinsically interesting to everyone. If it helps you understand, you can...
I mean, to be brutally honest, it's just a job. You geek out about stuff you love because you love it. Batman is not intrinsically interesting to everyone. If it helps you understand, you can :s/Batman/topic you find boring
I worked in a theater for years and many movies came in with code names. The only one I still remember was Tiny Dancer for King Kong. But they did this to prevent spoilers coming out early. What I...
I worked in a theater for years and many movies came in with code names. The only one I still remember was Tiny Dancer for King Kong. But they did this to prevent spoilers coming out early. What I found ironic was the name and the movie being 9 reels which is 15-20 minutes each. By comparison, Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer is over 600lbs. that means it is running at 337' per minute. 35mm runs at 90 feet per minute. So to put all of that work in for spoilers to come out before the movie even releases is a giant gut punch.
Fun fact: the only movie I ever had stolen was was Grandma's Boy. Not sure how they played it, but they got a good movie.
I get that the James Bond movies are reboots, but I think a lot of people have adopted "James Bond and Agent 007 are titles and not an actual person" as cannon. I know I have, even though it's not...
I get that the James Bond movies are reboots, but I think a lot of people have adopted "James Bond and Agent 007 are titles and not an actual person" as cannon. I know I have, even though it's not technically true. It's a fun way to tie the universe together. What they're trying to do with The Witcher is the same thing it seems like...Only it's not a 60 year old franchise, it's a 2 season Netflix show.
The Witcher franchise dates back to the 80s. If it was a 2 season netflix original then arguably there would be more scope to make the lore changes needed for this. But it's been a successful book...
The Witcher franchise dates back to the 80s. If it was a 2 season netflix original then arguably there would be more scope to make the lore changes needed for this. But it's been a successful book series since the 80s and a video game franchise since the 10s
Honestly, I think you're reading too much into it. As soon as the news came out that Cavill was being replaced I figure it will be at most a joke from Jaskier about Geralt being different and no...
Honestly, I think you're reading too much into it. As soon as the news came out that Cavill was being replaced I figure it will be at most a joke from Jaskier about Geralt being different and no other comments about it. People that care will care, but the showrunners don't really care what those people think.
Honestly, you summed up my problems with a lot of Hollywood productions in general. The people with the most control over making them don't often have passion for the project, whether it's based...
Honestly, you summed up my problems with a lot of Hollywood productions in general. The people with the most control over making them don't often have passion for the project, whether it's based on an existing IP or is totally original. They just want to make something that can appeal to the masses and make money, and it shows. It's all just so formulaic.
I think that's why the DC animated films are so much better than the live-action ones. Because they're more "niche" and aren't trying to rake in 9-digit profits, they don't have executives meddling as much to try to emphasize mass appeal. They're made by people who enjoy the source material and want to do it justice.
And that's what I've noticed: the more "niche" films, ones NOT made by super-huge studios but more director-driven, tend to be better. One of the best movies I've seen recently is Guillermo del Toro's Pinnochio. I honestly don't even like the Pinocchio story, just went with a friend, and I am so glad I did because I haven't seen a film with that much heart in years. I could feel the love and passion for it, the songs were beautiful and haunting, the animation had so much effort... I was just blown away.
On the other hand, the live-action Disney remake just looks hollow and soulless. All the Disney remakes seem to be flat and hollow, they've lost the heart and soul.
It's just been driving me crazy and cutting my motivation to see new movies. I know it's normal for movies to have workers who are just there for a paycheck, I don't expect every person to have a passion for that specific project. But I'd like if they had someone high-up with creative control who backed the movie because they liked it instead of just wanting to make money. As it stands, most of them just feel bland and overdone because they just don't know what audiences really want, so they try to go for the same tricks every time.
Not being part of the original lore is not really an issue, derivative works can successfully introduce new elements. But they must make sense. That's what they should have done before Cavil"s...
The Witcher has NONE of that unless they add some random plotline that Geralt gets de-aged or switches looks from some potion or magic. But that's not in the books, games, or any Witcher lore. Plus, Henry Cavil embodied the character well enough.
Not being part of the original lore is not really an issue, derivative works can successfully introduce new elements. But they must make sense. That's what they should have done before Cavil"s departure, with some kind of magical deaging or body swapping plot. It would feel tacked on otherwise.
I don't think the Doctor's regeneration was introduced in the first season, was it?
The Doctor's regeneration was actually created in very similar circumstances originally -- three years in, Hartnell's health was deteriorating and the director was finding him difficult to work...
I don't think the Doctor's regeneration was introduced in the first season, was it?
The Doctor's regeneration was actually created in very similar circumstances originally -- three years in, Hartnell's health was deteriorating and the director was finding him difficult to work with and wanted to replace him. The difference is that in Doctor Who's case, a producer reached an agreement with Hartnell that he should leave the show, and they came up with regeneration and included the "transition" to the new actor that way.
I completely agree with you though, this is entirely contingent on the writing being good, and I can't see that working without Cavil taking part. I also think Doctor Who got away with it because of how cheesy it is, especially back in those days. The Witcher's tone is not the same as 1966 Doctor Who by a long shot.
You're right, it was something a producer came up with when the original Doctor actor decided to leave the show (I believe mid-production on series 4, so it was not between series).
You're right, it was something a producer came up with when the original Doctor actor decided to leave the show (I believe mid-production on series 4, so it was not between series).
The fact that you can take out entertainment and apply this to any industry just sucks so hard. It's all about profit profit profit, growth growth growth. It can't just be about making good art...
As someone who comes from the _ industry, one of the reasons I left is due to how big a fan I was and a sudden realization that 80% of the people working in the _ industry don't care or don't know about anything they make.
The fact that you can take out entertainment and apply this to any industry just sucks so hard. It's all about profit profit profit, growth growth growth. It can't just be about making good art for artistic sake.
None of this is surprising at all. Take my job, I work in aerospace and we make parts for aircraft like the F-35 and F-18 (among a hundred others). I’m a plane nerd and it’s the coolest thing in...
None of this is surprising at all. Take my job, I work in aerospace and we make parts for aircraft like the F-35 and F-18 (among a hundred others). I’m a plane nerd and it’s the coolest thing in the world to me but many people at my work dgaf about planes. They’re there to make sales, do accounting, whatever, they don’t know a damn thing about what we’re actually making in the larger scale…just concerned with the small parts we actually make.
That’s normal. That guy is just doing his craft, he doesn’t have to be a Batman fan to make a cool batsuit or whatever if he’s talented at what he does. What helps is to have someone delegate their vision and fandom to the talent. The problem with shows like these are that the people actually making it don’t give a shit.
With Daniel Craig's James Bond run being complete, this is an argument that makes even less sense, because with No Time To Die, they actually wrapped up his entire storyline. Craig's JB run is...
With Daniel Craig's James Bond run being complete, this is an argument that makes even less sense, because with No Time To Die, they actually wrapped up his entire storyline. Craig's JB run is definitely a bit scrappy and not as coherent as it could be, but I think the latest installment improved a lot of the previous movies in post.
Considering the main plot started off with season 2, with a one book per season pace, logically it should've ended at season 6, making this a six year thing. But since the showrunner already has admitted that she gives 0 fucks about the source material and is uninterested in adapting this story for a new medium in a way that respects it, I don't even want to know what her "7 year plan" was.
The Witcher books are near and dear to my heart, they are my favourite stories put into books (even though overall, my favourite author is Terry Pratchett, GNU), and the funny thing is that I even get a lot of the changes that were made. The first Witcher book would be terribly paced show if adapted 1:1. Ciri's part in that entire book would be basically completely in a training montage and the rest is political intrigue far away from the main characters that explain why the fuck the world is going to go to hell. But the show is not great. That spin-off miniseries is terrible. It spoke volumes that episode 1 of season 1 starts off with this great fight and continues to be mediocre basically because Cavill pulled some strings and got his friend stunt coordinator to actually create a good fight this one time, and it shows. I hate all of this.
No, it’s not. Cavill was the closet we’re ever going to get to a real Geralt (passionate about the role to boot) and the entire series is nothing but wasted potential but it’s Netflix so what else...
No, it’s not. Cavill was the closet we’re ever going to get to a real Geralt (passionate about the role to boot) and the entire series is nothing but wasted potential but it’s Netflix so what else is new…
But wasn't this already confirmed by Cavill a while back? Or am I mis-remembering something? Because there was already talks of him being really fucking annoyed with the director and the writers...
Overlooking the rumors that Henry Cavill was unsatisfied with the direction of the series and its lack of adherence to the source material, the comparisons just don’t make sense.
But wasn't this already confirmed by Cavill a while back? Or am I mis-remembering something? Because there was already talks of him being really fucking annoyed with the director and the writers because of the decisions that they were making.
Edit: forgot words. Auto correct sucks
Pretty much, Cavill is a huge nerd, and loves the lore and said it is his favorite games/books and was not happy with the director being a fucking idiot who didn't give a shit about the source...
Pretty much, Cavill is a huge nerd, and loves the lore and said it is his favorite games/books and was not happy with the director being a fucking idiot who didn't give a shit about the source material....aka Hollywood being Hollywood.
If they're replacing him looks like the Witcher is over for me. It's not a reboot or explained in the source material for changing faces....so yea. Witcher dies with Cavill
Part of the reason why I have some hope for the Warhammer series that Cavill is doing over at Amazon, more hope than the Fallout tv show that is coming out. Is because Cavill is such big ass nerd,...
Pretty much, Cavill is a huge nerd,
Part of the reason why I have some hope for the Warhammer series that Cavill is doing over at Amazon, more hope than the Fallout tv show that is coming out. Is because Cavill is such big ass nerd, who actually fucking plays it and paints his armies. And a joke that was told on the meme subreddit, before the shitshow, for Warhammer is that most of the budget went into getting everyone on the show an playable army, mostly because of Cavill.
He is going to be staring and producing it. It seems that Cavill learned the hard way with the Witcher sadly to have a bigger voice, he needed to control the money. Source:...
He is going to be staring and producing it. It seems that Cavill learned the hard way with the Witcher sadly to have a bigger voice, he needed to control the money.
Not even close, especially not with the most boring of Hemsworths. Idgaf about Warhammer, but I’m learning everything about Warhammer before the show because that’s where Cavill’s going.
Not even close, especially not with the most boring of Hemsworths. Idgaf about Warhammer, but I’m learning everything about Warhammer before the show because that’s where Cavill’s going.
That exec is clueless. This is nothing like James Bond, Doctor Who or Spider-Man. Every time they change actors for James Bond or Spider-Man the franchise gets a (soft-)reboot. When the actor who...
That exec is clueless. This is nothing like James Bond, Doctor Who or Spider-Man.
Every time they change actors for James Bond or Spider-Man the franchise gets a (soft-)reboot. When the actor who plays Doctor Who changes there is an in-universe explanation for it (regeneration). None of that applies there. This is just a TV show where the main actor gets changed without any in-universe explanation or reboot.
It would be the same if they made a new Witcher show and then changed the actor...
Not the same at all, but also, I don’t care. I like the show just fine. Henry Cavill has been great. I also like Liam Hemswofth and will withhold judgement until I see it. I do not think Hemsworth...
Not the same at all, but also, I don’t care. I like the show just fine. Henry Cavill has been great. I also like Liam Hemswofth and will withhold judgement until I see it. I do not think Hemsworth will ruin the show or make it unwatchable. This person is silly though. They know damn well that’s some spin doctor BS and I hope they felt dumb saying it.
I agree with this. Most of the comments here are arguing against the executives statement, but far as I'm concerned, this is just PR speech. I don't believe that the executive believes what...
I agree with this. Most of the comments here are arguing against the executives statement, but far as I'm concerned, this is just PR speech. I don't believe that the executive believes what they're saying, I think they're trying to push a narrative. I think they're worried that Cavill leaving actually is going to cause them problems, namely, less viewers.
Although Cavill hasn't really made that much noise about his issues with the show-runner and writers room just straight up disregarding and disparaging the source material, he's made enough vague comments that the internet has figured out the reason he's left. Now, who knows whether the big fans which will care about this make up enough of the audience or have enough influence to actually cause the show to flounder, but that fact that they're making statements like this is either because they feel it's going to, or the entertainment press is starting to smell blood in the water and are asking questions.
Personally, I'm not even a really big fan of "The Witcher," though I have enjoyed what I've seen of it so far across several mediums. I still haven't played most of the games or read the books, though I intend to eventually. However, I do recognize Cavill's passion for the material, and the fact that he's leaving speaks volumes to me about the quality of the show which was, in my opinion, already flagging. As such, with there being so many other things I still haven't watched/read/played, I don't think I'm even going to watch season 3, especially since that was the cause of his departure.
First off it is kinda similar to James Bond, while it has kind of been retconed/fan theory that Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny are code names that are passed on there are plenty of instances where they...
First off it is kinda similar to James Bond, while it has kind of been retconed/fan theory that Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny are code names that are passed on there are plenty of instances where they simply don't acknowledge a change in actor and I don't think there has been a Bond film that has had a full cast change from one film to another.
But either way the point is moot, there are plenty of instances where an actor has been changed out like Edward Norton, and Terrence Howard in the MCU, Dumbledore in Harry Potter, Batman's girlfriend in the Dark Knight trilogy.
Wait..... wat? Like I get people not caring, that's just how some people are. But how do they not know? When they walk onto the set or whatever and someone tells them "build this", how is it not part of the same sentence to tell them what it's for??
Tbh I don't find that surprising at all, especially for the people who are being contracted out. Like I'd be a little surprised if a big actor just went around not caring about the movie, if only because that would be horrible for marketing, but why would the guys in charge of painting a mask care?
For reference I currently work on analyzing some part of the new NASA rocket, in a year or two the parts I'm working on will help fly someone around, and later to, the moon. I guess I'll be vaguely excited about that, and obviously I do understand what the project I'm working on is, but honestly I don't really care.
I guess it's a little different in that people do try to seem excited sometimes, but it feels a little fake, like trying to convince the bosses you'll be a good employee because you care, rather than actually caring.
Because while on paper "analyzing parts for the SLS" sounds cool, in reality the whole rocket was designed about 7 years ago. Since then there have been only minor changes, and many of these changes make the results better. Plus, the rocket is already built.
So I'm just working my way through a 1600 page report, updating loads and occasionally modeling small parts over again to account for the changes since the last time this was signed off on, and then redoing all of the analysis. As you would expect everything that was ok last time is still ok this time, but NASA is fucking paranoid because of the Shuttle so we have to jump through a billion hoops to make them happy.
So instead the federal government pays a company to pay a company to pay me to alternate between sitting on my phone and verifying that putting less loads on parts that were previously analyzed to survive more loads doesn't suddenly cause them to fail.
Ultimately anything will probably get boring if you spend thousands of hours working on it, it's just a question of how interesting the work itself is.
Disclaimer: I'm friends with a former astronaut. Story Musgrave. He's not well-known, but I would strongly suggest to anyone reading this to absorb his wiki and see what that man has accomplished in his life. I happened to meet his son, years ago. We got to talking business, and I ended up drum scanning and color-correcting hundreds of images that Story took while out in space.
Technical/oversight failures created not one, but two national tragedies. The loss of far too many incredibly talented and high-performing people. The ruination of NASA's public image and subsequently the struggle with funding impacted progress for decades. All because of one O-ring and a potential issue that a bunch of people hand-waved. So speaking as someone who was a teenager when the first shuttle was lost and quite clearly remembers both incidents, much less my disclaimer, I'd rather NASA be fastidious across all vectors than not.
I'm sorry that you find this work to be tedious and unnecessary. I hope that every calculation, test result, and data review is indeed as on-point and trustworthy as you believe it to be.
I mean, to be brutally honest, it's just a job. You geek out about stuff you love because you love it. Batman is not intrinsically interesting to everyone. If it helps you understand, you can
:s/Batman/topic you find boringI’m curious, if I may ask, what components are you analyzing?
I worked in a theater for years and many movies came in with code names. The only one I still remember was Tiny Dancer for King Kong. But they did this to prevent spoilers coming out early. What I found ironic was the name and the movie being 9 reels which is 15-20 minutes each. By comparison, Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer is over 600lbs. that means it is running at 337' per minute. 35mm runs at 90 feet per minute. So to put all of that work in for spoilers to come out before the movie even releases is a giant gut punch.
Fun fact: the only movie I ever had stolen was was Grandma's Boy. Not sure how they played it, but they got a good movie.
I get that the James Bond movies are reboots, but I think a lot of people have adopted "James Bond and Agent 007 are titles and not an actual person" as cannon. I know I have, even though it's not technically true. It's a fun way to tie the universe together. What they're trying to do with The Witcher is the same thing it seems like...Only it's not a 60 year old franchise, it's a 2 season Netflix show.
The Witcher franchise dates back to the 80s. If it was a 2 season netflix original then arguably there would be more scope to make the lore changes needed for this. But it's been a successful book series since the 80s and a video game franchise since the 10s
Honestly, I think you're reading too much into it. As soon as the news came out that Cavill was being replaced I figure it will be at most a joke from Jaskier about Geralt being different and no other comments about it. People that care will care, but the showrunners don't really care what those people think.
Honestly, you summed up my problems with a lot of Hollywood productions in general. The people with the most control over making them don't often have passion for the project, whether it's based on an existing IP or is totally original. They just want to make something that can appeal to the masses and make money, and it shows. It's all just so formulaic.
I think that's why the DC animated films are so much better than the live-action ones. Because they're more "niche" and aren't trying to rake in 9-digit profits, they don't have executives meddling as much to try to emphasize mass appeal. They're made by people who enjoy the source material and want to do it justice.
And that's what I've noticed: the more "niche" films, ones NOT made by super-huge studios but more director-driven, tend to be better. One of the best movies I've seen recently is Guillermo del Toro's Pinnochio. I honestly don't even like the Pinocchio story, just went with a friend, and I am so glad I did because I haven't seen a film with that much heart in years. I could feel the love and passion for it, the songs were beautiful and haunting, the animation had so much effort... I was just blown away.
On the other hand, the live-action Disney remake just looks hollow and soulless. All the Disney remakes seem to be flat and hollow, they've lost the heart and soul.
It's just been driving me crazy and cutting my motivation to see new movies. I know it's normal for movies to have workers who are just there for a paycheck, I don't expect every person to have a passion for that specific project. But I'd like if they had someone high-up with creative control who backed the movie because they liked it instead of just wanting to make money. As it stands, most of them just feel bland and overdone because they just don't know what audiences really want, so they try to go for the same tricks every time.
Not being part of the original lore is not really an issue, derivative works can successfully introduce new elements. But they must make sense. That's what they should have done before Cavil"s departure, with some kind of magical deaging or body swapping plot. It would feel tacked on otherwise.
I don't think the Doctor's regeneration was introduced in the first season, was it?
The Doctor's regeneration was actually created in very similar circumstances originally -- three years in, Hartnell's health was deteriorating and the director was finding him difficult to work with and wanted to replace him. The difference is that in Doctor Who's case, a producer reached an agreement with Hartnell that he should leave the show, and they came up with regeneration and included the "transition" to the new actor that way.
I completely agree with you though, this is entirely contingent on the writing being good, and I can't see that working without Cavil taking part. I also think Doctor Who got away with it because of how cheesy it is, especially back in those days. The Witcher's tone is not the same as 1966 Doctor Who by a long shot.
You're right, it was something a producer came up with when the original Doctor actor decided to leave the show (I believe mid-production on series 4, so it was not between series).
They should just do what Solar Opposites is doing.
The fact that you can take out entertainment and apply this to any industry just sucks so hard. It's all about profit profit profit, growth growth growth. It can't just be about making good art for artistic sake.
None of this is surprising at all. Take my job, I work in aerospace and we make parts for aircraft like the F-35 and F-18 (among a hundred others). I’m a plane nerd and it’s the coolest thing in the world to me but many people at my work dgaf about planes. They’re there to make sales, do accounting, whatever, they don’t know a damn thing about what we’re actually making in the larger scale…just concerned with the small parts we actually make.
That’s normal. That guy is just doing his craft, he doesn’t have to be a Batman fan to make a cool batsuit or whatever if he’s talented at what he does. What helps is to have someone delegate their vision and fandom to the talent. The problem with shows like these are that the people actually making it don’t give a shit.
With Daniel Craig's James Bond run being complete, this is an argument that makes even less sense, because with No Time To Die, they actually wrapped up his entire storyline. Craig's JB run is definitely a bit scrappy and not as coherent as it could be, but I think the latest installment improved a lot of the previous movies in post.
Cavill is being replaced in the middle of his run. That man is an absolute bonkers nerd, this is his favourite franchise, and he's gone on record in interviews saying that he'll stick with the Netflix IP as long as the story remains good.
Considering the main plot started off with season 2, with a one book per season pace, logically it should've ended at season 6, making this a six year thing. But since the showrunner already has admitted that she gives 0 fucks about the source material and is uninterested in adapting this story for a new medium in a way that respects it, I don't even want to know what her "7 year plan" was.
The Witcher books are near and dear to my heart, they are my favourite stories put into books (even though overall, my favourite author is Terry Pratchett, GNU), and the funny thing is that I even get a lot of the changes that were made. The first Witcher book would be terribly paced show if adapted 1:1. Ciri's part in that entire book would be basically completely in a training montage and the rest is political intrigue far away from the main characters that explain why the fuck the world is going to go to hell. But the show is not great. That spin-off miniseries is terrible. It spoke volumes that episode 1 of season 1 starts off with this great fight and continues to be mediocre basically because Cavill pulled some strings and got his friend stunt coordinator to actually create a good fight this one time, and it shows. I hate all of this.
No, it’s not. Cavill was the closet we’re ever going to get to a real Geralt (passionate about the role to boot) and the entire series is nothing but wasted potential but it’s Netflix so what else is new…
But wasn't this already confirmed by Cavill a while back? Or am I mis-remembering something? Because there was already talks of him being really fucking annoyed with the director and the writers because of the decisions that they were making.
Edit: forgot words. Auto correct sucks
Pretty much, Cavill is a huge nerd, and loves the lore and said it is his favorite games/books and was not happy with the director being a fucking idiot who didn't give a shit about the source material....aka Hollywood being Hollywood.
If they're replacing him looks like the Witcher is over for me. It's not a reboot or explained in the source material for changing faces....so yea. Witcher dies with Cavill
Part of the reason why I have some hope for the Warhammer series that Cavill is doing over at Amazon, more hope than the Fallout tv show that is coming out. Is because Cavill is such big ass nerd, who actually fucking plays it and paints his armies. And a joke that was told on the meme subreddit, before the shitshow, for Warhammer is that most of the budget went into getting everyone on the show an playable army, mostly because of Cavill.
The WH show will be interesting since there is lore but not really a set story. Is he getting to have any creative input into it?
He is going to be staring and producing it. It seems that Cavill learned the hard way with the Witcher sadly to have a bigger voice, he needed to control the money.
Source: https://www.looper.com/1140923/amazons-warhammer-40k-series-what-we-know-so-far/
That's great news then! There is hope for it, I was worried it was going to be another warcraft movie flop...just a mini series.
Not even close, especially not with the most boring of Hemsworths. Idgaf about Warhammer, but I’m learning everything about Warhammer before the show because that’s where Cavill’s going.
That exec is clueless. This is nothing like James Bond, Doctor Who or Spider-Man.
Every time they change actors for James Bond or Spider-Man the franchise gets a (soft-)reboot. When the actor who plays Doctor Who changes there is an in-universe explanation for it (regeneration). None of that applies there. This is just a TV show where the main actor gets changed without any in-universe explanation or reboot.
It would be the same if they made a new Witcher show and then changed the actor...
Not the same at all, but also, I don’t care. I like the show just fine. Henry Cavill has been great. I also like Liam Hemswofth and will withhold judgement until I see it. I do not think Hemsworth will ruin the show or make it unwatchable. This person is silly though. They know damn well that’s some spin doctor BS and I hope they felt dumb saying it.
I think the exec knows how short-sighted this take is, but they need to spin this as positively as they can.
I agree with this. Most of the comments here are arguing against the executives statement, but far as I'm concerned, this is just PR speech. I don't believe that the executive believes what they're saying, I think they're trying to push a narrative. I think they're worried that Cavill leaving actually is going to cause them problems, namely, less viewers.
Although Cavill hasn't really made that much noise about his issues with the show-runner and writers room just straight up disregarding and disparaging the source material, he's made enough vague comments that the internet has figured out the reason he's left. Now, who knows whether the big fans which will care about this make up enough of the audience or have enough influence to actually cause the show to flounder, but that fact that they're making statements like this is either because they feel it's going to, or the entertainment press is starting to smell blood in the water and are asking questions.
Personally, I'm not even a really big fan of "The Witcher," though I have enjoyed what I've seen of it so far across several mediums. I still haven't played most of the games or read the books, though I intend to eventually. However, I do recognize Cavill's passion for the material, and the fact that he's leaving speaks volumes to me about the quality of the show which was, in my opinion, already flagging. As such, with there being so many other things I still haven't watched/read/played, I don't think I'm even going to watch season 3, especially since that was the cause of his departure.
First off it is kinda similar to James Bond, while it has kind of been retconed/fan theory that Bond, M, Q, Moneypenny are code names that are passed on there are plenty of instances where they simply don't acknowledge a change in actor and I don't think there has been a Bond film that has had a full cast change from one film to another.
But either way the point is moot, there are plenty of instances where an actor has been changed out like Edward Norton, and Terrence Howard in the MCU, Dumbledore in Harry Potter, Batman's girlfriend in the Dark Knight trilogy.