Netflix’s Splinter Cell Show Already Doomed? Fans Slam Trailer, Writer, and Ubisoft’s Involvement
Netflix’s latest game-to-screen gamble has backfired before it even launched. The new Splinter Cell trailer sparked backlash as fans accused the show of sidelining Sam Fisher in favor of a “modern replacement.”
Summary
- Netflix’s new Splinter Cell trailer is under fire, fans accuse Ubisoft and the streamer of planning to replace Sam Fisher with a new lead.
- A writer admitted the show would ‘rip the spine out’ of the original games, sparking outrage among longtime Chaos Theory fans.
- YouTube replies are flooded with backlash, critics call it another Netflix bait-and-switch after disasters like The Witcher and Resident Evil.
The Splinter Cell name used to mean something. Stealth, gadgets, night-vision goggles glowing in the dark.
Now it means a Netflix trailer that just got chewed up and spit out by the internet.
Related
Netflix and Ubisoft teamed up for a new animated series, and the first look landed with a dull thud. Instead of excitement, the replies under the trailer look like a war zone.
Fans accuse the show of setting up a bait-and-switch, where Sam Fisher himself gets sidelined in favor of a new character nobody asked for.
If you’ve been following how game adaptations have gone lately, you can probably guess the rest.
Fans Smell a Setup
The trailer doesn’t hide much. We see an older Sam Fisher, gray hair and all, mentoring a fresh recruit named McKenna.
She’s young, she’s clearly positioned as the “future” of the program, and the framing all but screams that Sam is about to be replaced.
Viewers filled the YouTube comments with sarcasm and groans. One person summed it up as “Finally made a Splinter Cell show and it’s an old man plus a new character nobody cares about.” Another wrote that Netflix is pulling the “good old bait and switch” again.
The ratio hasn’t gone full disaster mode yet, but it’s not pretty. Around 170,000 views brought a flood of negative replies.
Fans are basically playing prediction bingo: Sam either gets killed off or quietly retired while McKenna steps up as the new “face” of the franchise.
And judging by the collective sigh in the comments, people have already decided they don’t want to play along.
Déjà Vu for Netflix
This isn’t a brand-new playbook. Netflix has a history of trying to “update” beloved franchises, usually in ways that backfire.
Think Henry Cavill leaving The Witcher because he wanted the show to respect the books, only for Netflix to swap him out for Liam Hemsworth. The backlash was immediate, and fans never really got over it.
Or look at Resident Evil, which Netflix managed to turn into a forgettable mess. Even One Piece, which people actually liked overall, sparked drama after Netflix quietly race-swapped certain characters.
Now throw Ubisoft into the mix, and you’ve got two companies known for creative meddling.
Ubisoft itself just got roasted for Assassin’s Creed Shadows, a Japan-set game that somehow avoided giving players a straightforward Japanese male lead.
Instead, the spotlight went to a female ninja and a Black samurai. Some applauded the twist, but plenty of longtime players rolled their eyes at the company’s obsession with what they see as “checking boxes” instead of honoring the setting.
With both Netflix and Ubisoft calling the shots, it’s not hard to see why fans expect Sam Fisher’s story to get hijacked in favor of a more “modern” lead.
The Writer Didn’t Help
If you thought maybe the fan paranoia was overblown, the creative team behind the show pretty much confirmed it.
In a recent interview, one of the writers bragged that adapting Splinter Cell meant you have to “rip the spine out of the source material” and rebuild it for a new medium.
That phrase alone was enough to set Reddit and YouTube comment sections on fire. Fans read it as, “We’re going to ignore what made this series great and replace it with whatever we feel like.”
And it didn’t stop there.
The team admitted they’re tweaking events from Chaos Theory, a game many fans consider the high point of the entire franchise.
Instead of treating the story as sacred, they described the original lore as “malleable.” That’s corporate-speak for “we’ll change whatever we want, deal with it.”
To longtime players, that’s not adaptation. That’s vandalism.
The Ubisoft Problem
Ubisoft isn’t exactly walking into this with goodwill to spare. The company’s reputation among gamers has tanked over the past decade.
It’s not just the endless sequels and microtransactions. It’s the way they’ve treated their own franchises.
Ghost Recon went from tactical shooter to loot-filled open world slog. Rainbow Six became an esports title stripped of most of its roots.
And Splinter Cell itself? Ubisoft kept Sam Fisher in limbo for years, only trotting him out for cameos in games like Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
Fans begged for a new Splinter Cell game. What they got instead was a Netflix series that looks like a retirement party for Sam.
Comment Section Rage
Scrolling through the YouTube replies is like watching a slow-motion meltdown. Here’s the greatest hits rundown:
- “Sam Fisher, ruined by Netflix. Dante, first time?”
- “The trailer just showed all of Sam’s scenes for the season.”
- “Bait and switch, again. Iconic character sidelined for modern audiences.”
- “Sam deserves a happy ending, not a hand-off to a character nobody cares about.”
Sure, a handful of optimists popped up, saying they’ll give it the “three-episode try.” But most commenters are already writing the obituary.
And when the internet decides it’s over before episode one even airs, that’s usually a bad omen.
The Splinter Cell series has been dormant for too long. Fans hoped this Netflix project would breathe life into the franchise.
But now, it feels more like a corporate Frankenstein experiment.
If Sam Fisher really is just a stepping stone to launch a new lead, then the entire project risks alienating the very people who kept the series relevant.
It’s not hard to imagine a future where McKenna gets the spotlight in multiple seasons, while Sam fades away as a footnote.
Ubisoft might see that as a smart brand refresh. But to longtime fans, it looks like another slap in the face from a company that seems allergic to giving them what they actually want.
The BIGGER Pattern
Netflix and Ubisoft aren’t alone here. Hollywood has a long track record of trying to “modernize” existing IPs by sidelining established leads and inserting replacements.
Sometimes it works, but usually it just feels forced.
The Star Wars sequels made Han, Luke, and Leia background characters in their own saga. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny spent more time setting up Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Helena than honoring Indy himself.
Now Splinter Cell looks like it’s joining that list.
But it’s not just about nostalgia. It’s about respect.
When a studio markets a show using a beloved character and then quietly shuffles them offstage, it feels like a bait-and-switch. And nobody likes being tricked into watching something they didn’t sign up for.
Now What?
The show isn’t out yet. Maybe the creative team will prove everyone wrong and actually give Sam Fisher his due.
Maybe the story will balance old and new, handing McKenna some spotlight without shoving Sam out the door.
But the early signs don’t inspire confidence. The trailer’s lukewarm reception, the writer’s tone-deaf interview, and Ubisoft’s history of frustrating choices all paint the same picture.
If Netflix wanted to win back gamer trust, this wasn’t the way to do it.
The Splinter Cell trailer should have been a slam dunk. But nope, it’s turned into another reminder that Netflix and Ubisoft struggle to understand their own audiences.
Fans didn’t ask for a legacy handoff. They didn’t ask for rewritten lore. They just wanted Sam Fisher back in action, sneaking through the shadows like old times.
What they got instead was a warning sign: expect less Fisher, more filler.
And unless something changes, the only stealth move here will be fans quietly slipping away from the show.
The controversy began when a Sucker Punch employee mocked the Charlie Kirk assassination.
