WILLOW: Warwick Davis Finally Responds To Disney's "Embarrassing" Decision To Pull Series From Streaming

WILLOW: Warwick Davis Finally Responds To Disney's "Embarrassing" Decision To Pull Series From Streaming

Earlier this year, Willow was among the shows pulled from Disney+ in a series of cost-cutting measures by the streamer. Now, star Warwick Davis has finally weighed in, calling the decision "embarrassing."

News
By JoshWilding - Oct 18, 2023 05:10 AM EST
Filed Under: Fantasy
Source: SFFGazette.com

Willow star Warwick Davis has finally decided to address the show's cancellation and subsequent removal from Disney+, describing the decision to stop people from being able to watch the 8-episode sequel as "embarrassing."

After a largely muted response to the long-awaited revival from fans and critics alike, the decision was made to cancel plans for future seasons back in March. However, amid a series of cost-cutting measures, the House of Mouse completely removed it from Disney+ just two months later.

"I meet lovely people on a daily basis who are fans of Willow," Davis said on Twitter/X, "who are the reason the [Disney+] Series was made. Please tell me [Disney], what do I say to these subscribers when they ask why they can’t watch the series any more?" He concluded his post with the hashtag, "#Embarrassing."

The series, based on George Lucas and Ron Howard's fantasy-adventure film, began streaming on Disney+ last November, and there was initially a lot of excitement surrounding the long-overdue return to Andowyne. The original movie has become a beloved cult classic since it was released in 1988, and fans were eager to see what became of Davis' Willow Ufgood.

Unfortunately, the story told simply wasn't that compelling; the spotlight shifted to younger cast members (Ellie Bamber's take on Elora Danan was a highlight, though the same couldn't be said for the rest of the ensemble) and Davis' work...well, his stilted performance did little to help the series. 

Still, to pull Willow completely from streaming feels unnecessarily harsh and there's now no way for fans to watch the show. It's yet to find a new home and, with no physical release, the only way to watch is to pirate it (and, given the risks involved there - including the fact it's illegal - we wouldn't recommend it). 

Set in a magical world where brownies, sorcerers, trolls and other mystical creatures flourish, Willow is the story of an unlikely group of heroes who set off on a dangerous quest, facing their inner demons and coming together to save their world.

Willow is bound to show up somewhere down the line but we don't anticipate the story ever continuing. 

GLADIATOR II: Epic New Trailer And Poster Tease A New Legacy...Or Another Rebellion!
Related:

GLADIATOR II: Epic New Trailer And Poster Tease A New Legacy...Or Another Rebellion!
GRENDEL First Look Reveals Creature Design For Jeff Bridges' Take On The Legendary Monster
Recommended For You:

GRENDEL First Look Reveals Creature Design For Jeff Bridges' Take On The Legendary Monster
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
Origame
Origame - 10/18/2023, 5:52 AM
A handful of people doesn't change the fact the show did terribly. According to the writer, disney literally thought it wasn't worth paying the residuals. Does that really sound like a show people are genuinely watching?
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 9:14 AM
@Origame - to which I have to ask: how much would they be paying in residuals?
Are they paying them per view (which would make sense and wouldn’t pose a problem given the low numbers).

Or do they pay out standardised rates? Something I doubt.

Methinks they took the show off of Disney+ to sell the show to other services like Roku later down the line like HBO Max did
Origame
Origame - 10/18/2023, 9:33 AM
@Blergh - either way, it's more of a hassle for them to keep it on their site. Even selling it sounds like a move to recoup costs.
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 9:43 AM
@Origame - maybe, still sounds like an excuse to me from Disneys side to further some goal.
Royalties for crappy non-viewers shows have never been an issue before and now they all of a sudden are as strikes over exactly that are breaking out?
Origame
Origame - 10/18/2023, 9:54 AM
@Blergh - I mean, really don't see why they'd use this for some other goal if it were genuinely successful.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 10/18/2023, 6:42 AM
This show was a lot of fun, and I would have loved to see it continue.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 8:33 AM
@ClintThaHamster - I enjoyed it too, but I don't need to see it continue. The season worked well on it's own imo
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 10/18/2023, 9:19 AM
@bkmeijer1 - Oh, for sure. Not like there were any dangling plot threads that'll keep me up at night. I Just really liked the cast they put together, and I'd like to see more of that ensemble.
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 9:52 AM
@ClintThaHamster - I’m feeling the same with the D&D movie, they built such a great cast in one movie that it’s saddening that they’ll never get to have more screen time.

They built better characters in one movie than Universal did with 10 Fast&Furious movies
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 11:10 AM
@ClintThaHamster - they cast had some good interaction. And now that I think about DnD now that @Blergh brings it up, I could see them in a DnD movie as well.

A DnD movie universe doesn't have to be locked to certains characters, but it can bring in people that have good chemistry. Think that is essential to a successful DnD story.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 10/18/2023, 12:06 PM
@bkmeijer1 - Honestly, a lot of the appeal of Willow for me was that it was pretty much exactly like a DND campaign. A main quest, side quests, different specialties. Great stuff.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 2:27 PM
@ClintThaHamster - didn't look at it that way, but I can see it too
Timerider
Timerider - 10/18/2023, 7:20 AM
They should either do a season 2 or make another film with Val Kilmer appearing very briefly. He could be locked up in a dungeon and injured in the neck from a sword, unable to speak, but have a magical creature or shape shifter be an interpreter. He could speak once using the same technique they used in Top Gun Maverick.

If you bring his character back people might return. He doesn’t have to be in the film or series too long, just a few scenes, the end perhaps. He is either saved or he sacrifices himself to save the hero. I’m all for saving here, seeing as he didn’t make it in the Top Gun sequel.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 8:33 AM
@Timerider - I don't think Kilmer is enough reason for people to come back to this honestly. It would be fun to see him again though
Saintsinnister
Saintsinnister - 10/18/2023, 7:36 AM
Tell them the truth Warwick, the show did so bad they want people to forget it was ever made. He should pretend he doesn’t have a clue what they’re talking about when fans ask him about the show 🤣
Urubrodi
Urubrodi - 10/18/2023, 7:40 AM
I mean... was it was not good imo, but it's their own show, why remove it for no reason? It's not like it was some ancient content that no one was viewing, they had just released it.
Rokhorn
Rokhorn - 10/18/2023, 8:52 AM
@Urubrodi - they didn't remove it for no reason. When a company removes content from a streamer and deletes it, it's done for taxes. Just like WB did with Batgirl if they delete it they can claim it as a lose on their taxes and get a deduction on taxes owed. So not done for no reason, done for a very large tax reduction on an IP that wasn't worth keeping.
Clintthahamster
Clintthahamster - 10/18/2023, 9:25 AM
@Rokhorn @Urubrodi - A tax write-off is why they might decline to release a finished product, a la Batgirl. Once it's out in the world, it's more likely that they believe the show won't drive new subscriptions, and that they can make more money from the property by licensing it to other streamers.
marvel72
marvel72 - 10/18/2023, 8:31 AM
It was crap though and Disney have a problem with hiring Dwarf actors.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 8:31 AM
Removing the series to cut costs sounds like such a weird reason, but then I remember WB cut a full movie for a similar reason. It's probably another write-off.

As for the show itself, I actually quite enjoyed it. Wished it went into a more fantastical setting, but the cast made up for it (and with cast I mean Christian Slater).
JDL
JDL - 10/18/2023, 8:42 AM
@bkmeijer1 - It can't be a tax write-off since it actually was released. But that said it's something in the license fee/residual area.
Rokhorn
Rokhorn - 10/18/2023, 8:54 AM
@JDL - it's taxes, just like WB did with Batgirl. Not worth keeping a show with minimal engagement and basically hated my general audience.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 9:04 AM
@JDL - yeah that makes the most sense. Either way, I do certainly believe it is a way to save money on Disney's part
Timerider
Timerider - 10/18/2023, 9:20 AM
@bkmeijer1 - I think it came down to Willow or Star Wars and they chose Star Wars because of how big the IP is compared to Willow.
JDL
JDL - 10/18/2023, 10:10 AM
@Rokhorn - Sorry, not taxes. In order to write-off the entire cost in one year it must never have opened. Otherwise it gets amortised over 15 years like all the others. I'm an accountant/retired CPA.
bkmeijer1
bkmeijer1 - 10/18/2023, 11:12 AM
@Timerider - yeah, Star Wars is easily more the more popular Lucasfilm IP. Probably because it's the only true franchise they possess.

There are also movies like Labyrinth, but it's just not as franchise-able. And that is what Disney wants I guess. And Star Wars provides that (and maybe Indiana Jones)
theFUZZ008
theFUZZ008 - 10/18/2023, 8:42 AM
Very strange article.
bobevanz
bobevanz - 10/18/2023, 8:55 AM
Fire that idiot at Disney who keeps bringing back properties like this, only to fail miserably
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 9:38 AM
I still hate how D+ hasn’t leaned more into direct-to D+ sequels like did back with direct to DVD sequels.

They produced 8hrs of content while they could (and should) have told smaller stories on a smaller budget.

Instead of shooting on location in the UK or NZ they should have rented out a soundstage or even use a Volume, shoot a nice/small story down in a week and sell it as a “big streaming event” movie to fans.
The short time shooting saves on actors rates (the main reason these shows are so damn expensive), the one-location shoot saves on location cost and the per extension bigger postproduction times and an ultimately smoother process.

Just lower your expectations in production scope, shoot less in shorter times with cheaper actors on cheaper locations (overall cheaper).
JDL
JDL - 10/18/2023, 11:21 AM
@Blergh - "The short time shooting saves on actors rates (the main reason these shows are so damn expensive)"

That never occured to me and it makes so much sense. Thx.
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 11:43 AM
@JDL - actors are a big reason projects these days are so expensive. Multiple leading cast members of FastX took paydays from 15-25Million. That’s not sustainable, could have funded an entire movie based on a single actors income.
It’s not openly talked about though because as soon as fingers are pointed at the stars they use their massive sway and public power against you.

That’s obviously only true for the top-of-the-crop actors and not small/mid level talent.
But especially newcomers are being heavily invested in by studios because they have exclusive contracts with Disney (hence you seeing most of them reappear in various Disney projects).

Instead the conversation is shifted to VFX being expensive…which is laughable.
If your VFX budget only makes 10% of your leads salary it’s not the VFX budget that’s out of control (especially since there are more jobs tied to VFX)
Blergh
Blergh - 10/18/2023, 11:44 AM
@JDL - sorry if I come off as triggered, I’m just tired by actors getting off scott free in the spending issue conversation
JDL
JDL - 10/21/2023, 8:51 PM
@Blergh - I want to add a bit about the short, (TV), vs the long, (limited series), shooting times, Using some examples I'm familiar with. The limited series take about 5 months to shoot 6 'hour' long episodes. On average that's 25 days an ep versus 10 days for TV.

That means crews are going to be around for 250% as long and cost 250% as much. Many of the smaller parts, those that get the minimum will cost more because they are spending much more time waiting. And God help you if you are NOT working on a sound stage in on studio lot. Even local outside shots are going to be much more expensive because of the slowness. The only costs not affected are those people being paid a flat rate. Damn.

The Marvel TV people charged Netlix $136M for the non-teamup shows. That's $2.615M on average. Good grief.
Blergh
Blergh - 10/22/2023, 6:38 AM
@JDL - that's a ridiculous amount of cash, sometimes I'm not sure how anyone thinks it's sustainable to make a ROI on these.
Studios need to be more frugal with their productions.

Not every TV show needs to look like Game of Thrones, sometimes a classic TV or TV movieproduction is fine as well.

Shooting 14 days on a TV movie is regular fare for Hallmark movies and that's fine!
Disney could make tons of money by producing on that scale.
NinnesMBC
NinnesMBC - 10/19/2023, 1:06 AM
Disney+ following Zaslav's steps of tax-writes off or something close to that is awful, no different than Paramount+ when they did the same thing to other original streaming series earlier this year.

They deserve to lose suscribers for that stunt.

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder