🍿 2022-11-05 19:11:16 – Paris/France.
It was the news that no one expected. On Saturday, Netflix announced that it would be renewing the hit fantasy series The witcher for a fourth season. So far, so good. But there is a problem: Henry Cavill will leave the main role to be replaced by the star of The hunger Games, Liam Hemsworth. Cavill had played gray-haired demon slayer Geralt of Rivia for two seasons (and a third, which will be released soon) to a warm reception from fans. For book fans The witcher, or adaptations of video games to success, Geralt is of the utmost importance, and Cavill had thrown himself into the role with enthusiasm and due reverence. Unsurprisingly, reactions to the news were bitter, ranging from fatalistic predictions of creative decline to threats of a boycott. But is it really justified?
After all, The witcher This isn't the first TV series to replace a character's actor. The Fresh Prince of Bel Air replaced Janet Hubert as "Aunt Viv" after season three, with Daphne Maxwell Reid taking over. A lot of series have done it, whether it's sitcoms (Development stopped Yes family guy) or prestige dramas (Mad Men, game of thrones Yes You better call Saul). If it is more rare for a television series to replace its only main role, it is far from unheard of. In 2021, Ruby Rose stepped down as leader of bat from the CW after just one season; Javicia Leslie was quickly embraced by fans as her successor.
Some TV and film franchises have even turned the logistical need to change a lead actor into a key selling point – think Doctor Who or James Bond. This passing of the torch presents the whole effort as an opportunity, something people can say, "Ooh, I'd like to see consist of role interpretation. Just last week, the prospect of a new cast member (Ncuti Gatwa) being handed the keys to the TARDIS caused a stir. Doctor Who. How would it be? How will it compare? The same goes for Bond. Everyone has their favorite; Just because Daniel Craig took on the role doesn't mean the Brosnan years are going away.
Of course, I sympathize with those upset over the expectation that Cavill would star in seven seasons of The witcher. Some roles should never and will never be replaced. Imagine if James Gandolfini was gone The Sopranos and would have been replaced by Paul Giamatti. Or if Bryan Cranston was gone Breaking Bad. and Woody Harrelson would have taken his place. It's impossible to imagine. I guess, for some reason, we're often more accepting of drastic cast changes in genre films than in "realistic" 3D dramas. Perhaps the most powerful material encourages actors to stay. Who knows if Geralt isn't also that kind of untouchable, irreplaceable role for Cavill?
Not before long: Henry Cavill in 'The Witcher'
(Netflix)
It's also true that Liam Hemsworth is a lesser star than Cavill, but not necessarily less. Cavill's performance as Geralt was praised by many fans of the show, but failed to make waves in the wider critical sphere. From his time playing the Superman of Steel manCavill has always had a reputation for being a bland actor, and The witcher does little to remove this impression. Meanwhile, for Hemsworth, Geralt offers the opportunity for a breakthrough into mainstream culture, as a former star of neighbors he has yet to enjoy the kind of profile his older brother Chris has achieved.
In announcing Cavill's departure, Netflix shared friendly and brand-consistent statements from both actors, sending a clear message that the service will continue as usual. It makes sense that this is a facade: there is nothing normal about replacing the main actor of a multimillion-dollar television series. But maybe it's better that way. Sometimes the most exciting thing is not knowing what's going to happen next.
SOURCE: Reviews News
Do not hesitate to share our article on social networks to give us a solid boost. 👓