Henry Cavill will be leaving The Witcher after season 3, replaced by Liam Hemsworth

umbala

Posts: 797   +1,598
This reminds me of Altered Carbon. First season was great, then they replaced the main character with a wooden actor and that was that. Same thing will happen here. You can pretty much expect this series to be canceled after the 4th season when ratings and viewership will plummet because of the replacement. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,827   +983
I only watched first season. It seems they took it a different direction after it, way way different.
And if what I am hearing is true, it aint worth watching this show.
 

toooooot

Posts: 1,827   +983
This reminds me of Altered Carbon. First season was great, then they replaced the main character with a wooden actor and that was that. Same thing will happen here. You can pretty much expect this series to be canceled after the 4th season when ratings and viewership will plummet because of the replacement. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
Agreed. I found first season to be very entertaining. But after few episodes of the second one, I couldn't handle it. Boring, actor I dislike, etc. All I remember about season 2 is how terrible it was.
Also, whenever there is a race swap, it feels like script quality is forsaken. After all, inclusion is all that matters for good movie or TV...
 
This reminds me of Altered Carbon. First season was great, then they replaced the main character with a wooden actor and that was that.
Not commenting on acting quality, but replacing Kovacs with different actors (a'la Doctor Who) fits in perfectly with the Altered Carbon universe. In that universe, interstellar travel is done by transmitting the consciousness between planets (at light speed, no FTL travel here) and downloading into a 'sleeve', a vat-grown body with no mind of its own into which the consciousness is placed. In the books, each time Kovacs pops up on a new planet, his sleeve is different. It's even a thing rich people do when they get bored of their current appearance or their sleeve develops problems, like getting too old, grow a new sleeve to their requirements and transfer into that sleeve. Replacing sleeves whenever they want and can afford to either reproductions of their 'real' self, or a custom sleeve that might be totally different (possibly even gender) then their original (or even their previous) body.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,320   +2,149
You've met thousands of gay people in your life but based on your posts I assume most of them figured you out in about 10 seconds.
I only met 3 or 4 in my entire life. The rest was possible hidden because most people dislike them in my native country. I dislike them too but I can be tolerant if required. Currently I have to deal with one and no problems at all. But yes, I like traditional family better. I am too old to change and besides I don't want.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,257   +4,397
GoT started at $6m per episode and ended at $15m per episode which is reportedly what the house of dragons cost this year. Ring of power is an anomaly as Bezos and Amazon tossed an absurd amount of money at it but wheel of time costs $10m per episode, no clue where they spend it but not on CGI, actors or script in my opinion.

Netflix spends $30m per episode of stranger things (started out at $6), $13m per on the crown and have spent $6m plus per episode on four other series (not including witcher or other mentioned). Witcher comes in at $10m per episode so obviously they do have a budget for shows and do spend it including on the witcher.

I can partially concede that Netflix can spend comparable money on production costs however, what's the marketing and PR budget Netflix can spend on Witcher vs HBO spending on GoT?

Fact remains that save very rare exceptions, Netflix picks properties that are already somewhat popular to begin with even if it's among a subset of a large demographic a.k.a. a narrow demographic: Run away success shows dont become so because they spent so much money on marketing them but because exited fans of niche followings push them forward quite a bit: It's why they have these unlikely success stories like a Korean show, a truecrime spin off that goes full on mainstream, a mostly-known-by-videogame-people show, etc.

Or to put it on other terms: there's a chance a gamer knows someone who likes the witcher and might mention the show but that's a big difference between that and your boomer uncle knowing about Game of Trones as he saw it on late night TV and the news: it still counts, quite a bit. And cost money, quite a bit too.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 826   +1,126
I can partially concede that Netflix can spend comparable money on production costs however, what's the marketing and PR budget Netflix can spend on Witcher vs HBO spending on GoT?
That would impact ratings/viewers not production value. Also Netflix has 220m million paid global subscribers to HBO's (including cable & stream) 150m. HBO makes up some of that with splitting airing and production cost with other networks like the BBC.

The major difference between the two is (or was prior to discovery buy out) Netflix focuses more on quantity (and has because of their world) where HBO comes from the old cable TV appointment viewing world and looks at quality first (both companies succeed to varying degrees).

Both naturally want the best of both worlds (quantity and quality) but simply focus more on one over the other in their respective areas which is also why HBO drops airings once a week opposed to Netflix who dumps all the shows at once for binge watching. Not saying one plan is better than the other as both make sense for them individually.

You can argue all day over which is better. FYI, I worked in cable TV marketing for a decade for Newscorp and other companies. I knew the old HBO people in the 00's.

Getting back to the witcher my point is simply, they had money to do better and choose a specific direction that was against the grain of what many people expected and I believe what Cavill expected. They don't owe anyone a specific direction, they purchased the rights and can do a witcher musical if they want to. They also have to sleep in the bed they make.
 
Well that sucks. To me the show had a balance of story and action with character development mixed in. People saying it's because Henry wanted more money aren't thinking thoroughly. Hemsworth isn't a cheap actor either, so that makes no sense. Once again, writers want their way or everyone gets thrown under the bus
 
Henry isn't a great actor either. He acts like himself always, whether he be Superman, Geralt or the U.N.C.L.E. Man. He is handsome only. Great actors like De Niro, Al Pacino, Morgan Freeman, Anthony Hopkins, etc. play on a different league.

Umm... De Zero and Pacino play the same character in 80% of their movies. They are barebones quality. Freeman is neutral. Hopkins is the only one in a "different league". Pleeeeaaasseee...
 

TempleOrion

Posts: 98   +83
Henry was bored with the 2 main ladies. Hell even I was bored the moment I saw them. Netflix should cast a universal pretty for once. Their diverse, LGBTQ propagandist crap is leading towards downfall.
WTF is a "universal pretty"?!

Yeah sure, if they just had only cis white males (and presumably cloned "universal pretty" white females) in everything, profits would explode. I'd honestly like some right leaning 'creative' to launch such a streaming channel; would certainly be interesting to see the results LOL.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 826   +1,126
De Zero and Pacino play the same character in 80% of their movies.
That's true but not necessarily their fault. De Nero, Pacino, Hopkins, Freeman, you can add guys like Jack Nicholson and Dustin Hoffman to the list; once they reach a certain age and certain level of notoriety are basically hired to play themselves in movies. Screenwriters put in a "Robert De Nero Type" character and producers simply hire him to play that character since he isn't getting too many high offers to play other characters. Even great actors like Gene Hackman started playing himself towards the end of his career, before he had enough and decided to become an author. Hopkins has avoided that type casting some but still play "Anthony Hopkins type" characters.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,356   +4,362
If I met 4 gays in my entire life (almost 60) is too much. Anyway, on the movies they are everywhere. Really, they need to stop with it. I was watching the movie of Leonardo Da Vinci and he was what... gay! Even if that is true, that wasn't the most important thing in his life, you know.
You've met far more than four but you just had no idea that they were gay. You've also met many psychopaths in your life but had no idea that they were psychopaths.
 

Geralt

Posts: 1,320   +2,149
You've met far more than four but you just had no idea that they were gay. You've also met many psychopaths in your life but had no idea that they were psychopaths.
By "met" I meant that I got acquainted enough to develop some friendship. My point was that they are a minority but on movies they are everywhere. The same with black people. They are 10% in US but on the movies they are 90%... even the British queen is black now. They have to stop that unreality.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 3,356   +4,362
By "met" I meant that I got acquainted enough to develop some friendship. My point was that they are a minority but on movies they are everywhere. The same with black people. They are 10% in US but on the movies they are 90%... even the British queen is black now. They have to stop that unreality.
I really don't understand why you'd care but, sure, ok. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to normalise it in the eyes of people because it is normal. Sure, it's not common, but it's still normal and for the longest time, people weren't treating it as such. If people get used to the idea through the media, maybe they won't be as reviled as people like you who didn't see it at all when you were growing up.

The more familiar you are with something, the more you understand it and the less likely you are to have a visceral reaction to it. If their ploy works, I think that it's worth it. It will succeed in making the world a better place and if you have a problem with it, you're in the minority. Normalisation will occur in popular culture (it's already halfway there) and there's nothing that anyone can do to stop it. Having seen the hell that homosexuals have been put through, I'm glad that their persecution will end in the West (for the most part anyway).

I have no problem with inclusion, but I do have a problem with demonisation and right now, the "demons du jour" are men, specifically white men. Demonising anybody is wrong no matter who it is. Apparently the writers in Hollywood don't know this which is why Captain Marvel flopped, Batwoman was cancelled and She-Hulk probably won't see a third season. Most people see through it and don't like it regardless of their demographic.

I don't believe in marginalising anyone but there's nothing wrong with promoting a group that has been marginalised or worse for centuries.