Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

alzee76 t1_j5qiwkz wrote

What's the oniony bit here?

Netflix has metrics for success. They cancel shows that don't meet them, and don't cancel shows that do.

−35

Grizzchops t1_j5qjnik wrote

That's cool Ted. I've never told anyone to watch Netflix because all the shows I like get cancelled. They already know about the 5 popular ones.

234

zwaaa t1_j5qmgnh wrote

I canceled Netflix because they canceled so many unsuccessful shows that I thought were pretty good

183

[deleted] t1_j5qn7co wrote

I assume the metric for success is simply a ratio of operating cost versus viewership. Seems pretty obviously like all other television networks, but what's the ratio?

Does that count too for tentpole or award bait properties, though?

8

Leiryn t1_j5qo53l wrote

I never watch Netflix shows until they have a few seasons

50

JayceSinnes t1_j5qpnq8 wrote

What about Santa Clarita Diet? Disjointed?

61

diiejso t1_j5qpp8j wrote

Mindhunter wasn't canceled. Fincher decided other projects were a higher priority for him and they eventually released everyone from their contracts since he wasn't doing the next season. Fingers crossed he decides to do it and they can get everyone back. I wish they'd have found someone to take over the series instead of letting him end it.

84

shogi_x t1_j5qrdi6 wrote

Can't cancel a successful show if you cancel everything before it has a chance to become one!

228

Nightshade238 t1_j5qrg9m wrote

He's obviously delusional. These idiots don't want just success, they expect all their shows to reach Stranger Things or Squid Game levels of success. What really determines that a show is successful anyway? They should be looking into that instead of just saying bullshit like this.

200

AnimusCorpus t1_j5qt6jh wrote

People really are upset a capitalist enterprise is only interested in quick profits and not necessarily keeping fans happy.

It's not like people have been saying the profit motive is a nightmare for the arts since forever or anything...

9

ash_274 t1_j5qzgnx wrote

MST3K?

Fans funded the whole 13th season on their own after funding a lot of 11 so that Netflix could pick it up, throttle the 12th season, then drop it

23

vlsdo t1_j5r167q wrote

Sure, if you define success as not having been cancelled, his statement is correct

538

ijeanofdreammie t1_j5r1x9t wrote

If Netflix wasn’t free courtesy of Comcast, I’d have cancelled that shiz a long time ago.

4

LurkHereLurkThere t1_j5r6wi9 wrote

This title suggests Ted Sarandos is hopelessly out of touch with the audience and is incapable of equating the cancellation of multiple popular shows with the loss of viewers who are sick of buying into characters and storylines only for the shows to be cancelled after one or two series.

I recently cancelled my 8 year Netflix membership and have no intention of going back despite how many "Lets get back together" and "we've added x TV programmes and films" junk emails they want to send me.

I had brand loyalty and was naively against services like Disney+ who i thought simply wanted a piece of the streaming pie, now given the decline of Netflix I've decided was misplaced and there are many better options.

52

SeaMech267 t1_j5r7thi wrote

Wasn't "I'm not okay with this" cancelled due to difficulty dealing with a large cast during covid. Weren't there other shows that fell under that reason for cancelation? Please tell me if I'm wrong about the reasoning but if I'm not then don't those count as successful cancelations?

6

Lowgarr t1_j5r91us wrote

Shall we start listing them all now, or wait a few minutes?

7

Quanais t1_j5rei2m wrote

Netflix has George Santos energy

28

willpowerpt t1_j5rgt82 wrote

So so so massively incorrect. Seems like they’ve mostly only cancelled successful shows. And didn’t they just let their CEO go?

0

drstu3000 t1_j5riqrf wrote

What's his definition of "successful show"

11

finevcijnenfijn t1_j5riqxz wrote

Ted Sarandos is happy to announce that Ted Sarandos is canceling Ted Sarandos for lack of being a successful show.

3

alzee76 t1_j5rkhfz wrote

> People really are upset a capitalist enterprise is only interested in quick profits and not necessarily keeping fans happy.

Well, yeah. Especially when they're niche fans who in aggregate don't spend nearly enough to keep the cult shows they adore afloat. Them being vocal doesn't grant their position any additional importance.

> It's not like people have been saying the profit motive is a nightmare for the arts since forever or anything

These artists are free to not "sell out" and keep their artistic vision pure. But you know, they're pretty into the profit motive, too.

1

melody_elf t1_j5rkn5u wrote

Their metrics are bad. They focus entirely on short term, rapid growth hits (like Squid Game and Stranger Things) that bring in new users and not on a long-term plan around loyalty and retention. Then they wonder why they can't keep users around.

Their stock has been on a downward slope for a long time now so I think they should listen to their users.

9

alzee76 t1_j5rkn6d wrote

> They should lower their metric, like how your mother had went she made you.

Sick burn, brah! Your little sister help you come up with that one?

FYI you spelled "when" wrong.

−1

alzee76 t1_j5rlotv wrote

> They focus entirely on short term, rapid growth

This is pure speculation on your part. I like how you treat it as a fact.

> Then they wonder why they can't keep users around.

Care to speculate some more, maybe on when and why I canceled my subscription? It'll be funny to see you completely whiff another one.

> Their stock has been on a downward slope for a long time now

No, it hasn't. It had a precipitous fall in the first half of 2022. It's been steadily trending upwards since then.

> so I think they should listen to their users.

You should probably learn what their actual motives are and what their stock is actually doing before forming such opinions.

−12

melody_elf t1_j5rm159 wrote

Of course this is a useless source in a Reddit argument but my friend is an engineer at Netflix and I'm mostly echoing her takes. Ofc she can be wrong but I'm not completely speculating. I don't really care why you cancelled your netflix subscription.

7

alzee76 t1_j5rmeu4 wrote

> Ofc she can be wrong but I'm not completely speculating.

Unless she's routinely invited to board meetings or she's peeping at people's emails, she is. I was an engineer at Paypal and I can tell you exactly 0% about how top management came to their decisions. Same with every other Fortune 500 company I've worked for, and there are a handful.

−1

melody_elf t1_j5rmrx6 wrote

That's fair. I feel like I usually understand what's going on strategically at the companies I work for, but also all the businesses I've worked for have had less than 200 employees or so, so it's not that hard. I imagine the level of transparency is not high at a Fortune 500.

4

aloofman75 t1_j5rnpdg wrote

I mean, once you cancel it it’s no longer successful, so he’s right!

16

trijkdguy t1_j5rvz7c wrote

Didn’t they cancel Dark Crystal literally hours after it won an Emmy?

27

TechFiend72 t1_j5rxget wrote

I think they are using some metrics a lot of us wouldn’t agree with.

5

pingveno t1_j5s19pt wrote

I never really appreciated the episode per week format until someone pointed out the benefits. It lets viewers form a community that discusses each episode, speculates on new developments, and savors it over time.

From the platform's standpoint, that means fewer people subscribing just to binge a show or two. Hence Disney can trickle out Mandalorian episodes that retains subscribers, but Netflix drops Stranger Things in one or two batches every year or more that might get fewer sustaining subscribers.

43

pseudopad t1_j5s268f wrote

I completely agree. Binge watching is a short term "pleasure" but I think it's detrimental to the long term impact of shows. Either you binge everything asap, or you get the show spoiled on next Mondays lunch break.

It turns the entire thing into a solitary experience. You never really feel like there's a point in talking to acquaintances about the shows, because the odds of you being at the same point in the show are so low.

24

charleswj t1_j5s2u1u wrote

Binging was a great strategy when they were growing so quickly. They should have long switched to weekly releases. There are shows I literally miss because I haven't logged in for a while and it's no longer even promoting it to me

26

Iceland260 t1_j5s3adi wrote

Whatever internal benchmarks a show of a given budget needs to meet for Netflix to continue it.

Thus his statement is absolutely true, but also almost tautological to the point of being useless.

18

Christovir t1_j5s3bgn wrote

Great application of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2

marklondon66 t1_j5s6rnz wrote

So much ignorance on this thread about how shows get made and how the streaming business works.

Luckily Netflix gives few shits about Redditors, unless they are gifting millions in free positive publicity for a show. It will not preserve that show for you, but appreciate the pub!

0

notevaluatedbyFDA t1_j5s7f9u wrote

Huh, seems like somebody greenlit a LOT of unsuccessful shows. I wonder who did that, Ted?

7

OwlrageousJones t1_j5s8izc wrote

This is some 'the front fell off' levels of bullshit, really.

"We're cancelling your show because it's not successful."

"How do you know it's not successful?"

"Well, we're cancelling it for starters. That doesn't happen when it's successful."

7

Graega t1_j5sdrnq wrote

This is actually it. Netflix looks at completion ratio - how many people started the series or season, and how many finished it? But when Netflix was new and binge was the thing, that worked. Now? Most people I know watch an episode, or a few, each week. They don't binge the entire series in a sitting anymore. Netflix is canceling shows while people are still actively watching them and are being tallied in the non-complete demographic. They're impatient, and it's leading people not to start series until they've been picked up for the next season at all.

20

Informal_Cress9800 t1_j5sfw27 wrote

You stupid fucks are confusing successful for “show I like” Why the fuck would Netflix cancel shows that make money? Nah Teds probably right. They probably only canceled shows that lose or aren’t making enough money. And that’s how they measure success

3

Chariots487 t1_j5sgswm wrote

Netflix has cancelled more shit than Twitter.

3

Gwiny t1_j5siqbf wrote

They most likely define success as views and retention. I haven't seen the metrics, but my guess would be that most shows are "a small group of people really likes it but it doesn't draw the larger audience and as such doesn't pay for itself". Yes, a show does need to have a large audience to exist, otherwise it's a waste of money. No, the fact that you personally really really liked it doesn't make it "successful"

18

jooes t1_j5skjoc wrote

> Shows are only successful if everyone binges them in the first week

Which is dumb because streaming was supposed to be different than regular TV.

I might've tuned in every Wednesday to watch this week's episode of Lost 15 years ago

But I love the convenience of streaming. I can take my time and get around to something at MY pace...

But they're not giving people enough time to actually do that. That first week or two goes by, and BAM, cancelled... Like, could you not? Could you give me a minute?

I'm sure they ran the numbers, I'm sure that this is what's "financially best" for Netflix... But I really think it's going to bite them in the ass in the long run. It was already annoying as fuck starting shows and having them pulled off Netflix before you got a chance to finish. It's doubly annoying to have them cancelled before you even have a chance to catch up. I've still never watched the second season of Sense8 because I just don't see the point.

8

Gschu54 t1_j5sm2ib wrote

>Shows are only successful if everyone binges them in the first week.

That's because you don't have to pay residuals in the first 90 days.

So a show that everyone watches in the first 3 days is cheaper than the one people watch slowly.

0

blackjackm99 t1_j5sm49d wrote

Just like all things statistics, meaning is derived by how you view the numbers. A show can be successful in terms of overall viewership and still be deemed a failure due to stable numbers. In most scenarios stable is good, but to TV execs and venture capitalists anything less than constant growth is a failure. You shouldn’t be so quick to throw shade at fans for the defense of their fandom.

15

JConRed t1_j5sn68f wrote

Best for Netflix is small budget large audience...

But don't tell them that.

2

Cahootie t1_j5spf08 wrote

Arcane did it in an interesting way. They had nine episodes with three distinct story arcs, and they split it up into three drops of three episodes. You pretty much got a trilogy of movies dropping once a week, and it became a good trade-off. You got your binge moment while also allowing hype to build over the course of the release which turned out extremely successful.

11

TheMaskedImp t1_j5spfb1 wrote

Say you only watch the most popular shows without saying you only watch the most popular shows

3

Nightmare_Springbear t1_j5sqil2 wrote

I actually watched it on Adult Swim, stumbled upon it looking for something as background noise while I did dishes, saw Final Space aaaaand.. Dishes weren't done that night. God I was so upset when I saw it was cancelled (ON YOUTUBE.).

3

ricnilotra t1_j5sqy2m wrote

absolute lier. they cancelled inside job for a tax wright off.

−1

pingveno t1_j5st13n wrote

Wheel of Time, for all its flaws, made another interesting choice. They started out by dropping three episodes, then switched to one per week. That got people started with the story (which starts a little slow), but then trickled in with the rest. Then again, WoT has a different fan dynamic because the book series has been finished for ten years already. There's not much guessing to be done.

7

Screamingholt t1_j5svlmn wrote

I feel the need to Chime in with The Expanse. It was popular enough with fans that NF picked it up for season 2 but then decided to drop it. Where Amazon picked it up and ran with it for another 2.5 seasons. Sooo tell me how this was an "unsuccessful show" as I suspect there may be a difference of opinion there

4

CloakerJosh t1_j5sweul wrote

A lot of people seem to be taking that headline at face value with some bad hot takes, in my opinion.

The full quote is this:

> We have never canceled a successful show. A lot of these shows were well-intended but talk to a very small audience on a very big budget. The key to it is you have to be able to talk to a small audience on a small budget and a large audience at a large budget. If you do that well, you can do that forever.

I don't have the data to know for sure whether he's speaking truth, but why wouldn't he? Be critical in your assessment of that. What could he possibly gain by being misleading about that?

2

Familiar_Pea_9345 t1_j5sxdlo wrote

Oh yeah? It’s not like the writing hasn’t been on the walls for years. The joke used to be that they were so desperate for content that they’d greenlight anything. Now their quantity over quality strategy is backfiring and they’re known for canceling anything before it has a chance to become popular. The executives at Netflix are misunderstanding their customers’ behaviors, which is obvious if you’ve ever read through any posts about shows that are canceled. Who wants to invest in watching a show when it might be canceled before it’s conclusion? Sometimes they don’t even adequately market shows. How can a show become “popular” when too few people know it exists?

−1

Jjex22 t1_j5sxkwv wrote

What got me most about that was it was so good but it also felt like it’s natural conclusion was just 1 or 2 seasons away anyway, they literally robbed us of a proper ending

6

CloakerJosh t1_j5syqnj wrote

I don't have the stats, obviously. Nor do I know directly how Netflix measure "success".

But, if I were to hazard a guess, I reckon it'd look something like this:

  • Netflix knows how much a series cost them to make and/or license/distribute
  • Netflix knows the overall produced runtime of these shows
  • Netflix knows how much of the show was watched, and by how many unique users

Based on these types of stats (and many others), they'd basically be able to boil down the "success" of a show by creating a measure that expressed Dollars Spent Per Minutes Watched.

Suppose that when you look at the economics of some of these brilliant shows (I loved The Expanse), you find out that the Dollars Spent Per Minutes Watched puts it in the top 10%. Suppose they decide this means this show is "Unsuccessful".

I'm just a random internet dickhead, but I figure it is basically an advanced application of this or something similar.

3

CloakerJosh t1_j5syydb wrote

Gonna ignore some of the obvious here and just say:

I promise you that if they determined they'd make more money by keeping it on than the supposed tax write-off they'd get to benefit from by cancelling it - they wouldn't have cancelled it.

0

CloakerJosh t1_j5t0q4i wrote

Right, of course. Sorry.

It's because they hate money, right? How stupid of me.

Has nothing at all to do with the luke-warm test audience reception, or the fact that they determined based on their analysis that they'd get a better fiscal gain by writing it off than the money it would have made them by them releasing it commercially.

I'm the moron. Everyone is wrong except you, you see The Matrix. Share some red pills with the rest of us so we can be as enlightened, please.

1

Gwiny t1_j5t5g3z wrote

And you shouldn't be quick to throw shade on people whose entire job is to manage their business. Finance department people who do nothing but calculate which metrics exactly the show needs to hit in order to be worth it. I mean, I'm not gonna say that the business doesn't make mistakes. Businesses make lots of mistakes, and sometimes quite stupid ones. But yes, unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary, my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs they were employed to do, and that the decisions they make are sensible

−12

Screamingholt t1_j5t7umd wrote

Sadly I can totally agree with that. It probably is exactly that sorta cold blooded math. I mean they are a business entity seeking profit after all. Further to that I wonder if people signing up and immediately watch show X would be a boost to said show.

Perhaps that is why Amazon stuck with as they weighted such a metric differently.

2

SuDragon2k3 t1_j5tgodi wrote

Blazing Saddles. a Mell Brooks tour de force absurdist deconstruction of the western genre. Warner Brothers wanted to hold on to the IP rights, which reverted to Brooks six months after release unless something was made of them.

So WB made Black Bart, a TV pilot continuing the adventures from the movie. It was shown on TV, once. A not unusual story of the time (1974) which appeared to conclude in a usual manner, pilot then shrug and move on when it doesn't gain traction.

​

What is unusual is the that they apparently filmed the rest of the season, put it in the cans (1974. Filming was done on film, edited on film then converted for broadcast) and then locked away. According to some sources they made four seasons of it. (Some old concept called syndication I believe.)

​

Nobody outside 70's Warner Brothers has ever seen it.

Was this cheaper than getting the lawyers to fix the contract with Brooks?

Was someone getting the really good cocaine to keep it going?

What the actual f*** was going on in Hollywood at the time they could keep an entire production team making this when they knew it wasn't going to be released?

What if it was actually a decent comic-western?

2

PJJefferson t1_j5tm3up wrote

Do people really think he’s going around canceling all the best and most profitable shows, and he’s doing it just to punish you, personally, knowing it’s going to hurt the Netflix bottom line, because you’re all quitting the service?

Reading these comments, the answer seems to be “yes”.

2

Skavau t1_j5tn9q1 wrote

This may be literally true, but a detail missing is that Netflix clearly throws too much money, and thus expectations, at a show that is just not likely to meet it. It was obvious that Cowboy Bebop, and Resident Evil were doomed to be cancelled when they released. They were too high-budget, too risky and even a relatively positive reception wasn't likely to translate to enough watchers.

They set shows up to fail too often by doing this.

4

Skavau t1_j5tnesb wrote

A detail missing is that Netflix clearly throws too much money, and thus expectations, at a show that is just not likely to meet it. It was obvious that Cowboy Bebop, and Resident Evil were doomed to be cancelled when they released. They were too high-budget, too risky and even a relatively positive reception wasn't likely to translate to enough watchers.

They set shows up to fail too often by doing this.

4

KhaosElement t1_j5tps1b wrote

You know, I watched that 90s show. Not the best thing ever, but I enjoyed it enough.

Been googling "That 90s Show cancelled" once a day ever since - just know it's coming.

3

vlsdo t1_j5tsix2 wrote

Funny thing about viewership metrics though, it turns out people aren't very willing to engage with shows that will likely be cancelled after one season. I believe Netflix is doing this to themselves to a degree and they might not even realize it.

25

gyroidatansin t1_j5tv1p8 wrote

One word. Firefly. The show was very successful after it was cancelled. Initial views and retention only define success of you choose that definition. If you are the one defining it, then you are always right. But if you listen to those small groups of fans, they can become large groups of fans. If you cancel a show and never redefine success, then it’s self fulfilling prophecy.

10

Gwiny t1_j5twkwt wrote

Small groups of fans can become large groups of fans. They also can remain small groups, or even diminish. And the general principle of everything is that successes are much more rare than failures, and the majority of media that didn't catch immediate attention will... just die unknown.

If you gave a chance to every movie that might become popular, you'd be throwing huge piles of money on nothing. Which is not the best business strategy

0

willstr1 t1_j5tyn12 wrote

Absolutely. If someone doesn't change something I see an imminent death spiral. People won't watch new shows out of fear of a cancelation with a cliffhanger, causing Netflix to cancel pretty much every show after their first season. Eventually leading to people leaving Netflix as long as the other streaming services do a better job at telling complete stories.

One possible change would be if Netflix shows were self contained stories each season, no cliffhangers or dangling threads. So that way when they get canceled it will still suck but won't make the shows complete wastes of time

6

ConfidentHope t1_j5u6rbp wrote

I don’t think they realize how many of their subscribers are around because they like the niche content. Now that it’s clear they don’t renew unique (non-blockbuster) shows their subscribers will drop and drop as those people lose interest.

I support the concept of shows like Stranger Things, but it’s not my cup of tea. I like Nick Kroll, but Big Mouth and its spin-offs are too crass for me. I’ll watch a click-bait-y doc here and there, but even those are losing their charm because they feel more and more like poorly researched YouTube videos.

I used to love getting surprised by interesting television on Netflix. The OA is a masterpiece. I’m still thinking about 1899 even now. I Think You Should Leave is one of the funniest sketch shows I’ve ever seen (thankfully not canceled yet). Heartstopper is a heartbreaker.

But those are the exceptions, not the rule.

14

Delini t1_j5uc8c4 wrote

>... unless I see some kind of evidence of the contrary

That's easy. Watch Netflix.

>... my default assumption is that these people are competent at the jobs.

Have you met people? Personally, I look at low odds of getting a group of competent ones together at the same place, and use the default assumption that at one point they were less incompetent than their competitors and that momentum can keep things going for a long time after that is no longer true.

4

EagleFalconn t1_j5udrs0 wrote

I don't understand why the author of the piece is shocked that someone would say out loud that a cheap series doesn't have to make as much money as an expensive series. Do people not generally get that? Just because a fan base is vocal or highly concentrated in a subreddit doesn't mean it's actually popular.

6

LukeSparow t1_j5ugsxi wrote

I am still upset about this. That season was amazing and had me grafted to the screen.

All the big investments were done, the building of the sets, the characters etc.

All Netflix had to do was let things play out and once the show was complete vieuws would have probably skyrocketed.

5

jacob4408 t1_j5ulw9z wrote

This. I've been a netflix member since 2008 and I just cancelled my membership after finding out that netflix cancelled 1899. With a cliffhanger ending. It's simply not worth taking a chance on any of their new shows anymore.

7

jacob4408 t1_j5undsk wrote

Dude, you're projecting. Just because you need an artificial release schedule to force you into a social sharing experience, that doesn't mean others need that mechanism or want that same result. If your social group is going to spoil all your shows on lunch breaks then find a better social circle.

−7

sillyboy42 t1_j5us95y wrote

I finally bought the books on my kindle to fit the hole the cancelled show left behind. I'm enjoying them a lot but since the series followed the books pretty loosely I'm interested in where the show was going next.

2

unskilledplay t1_j5v1r13 wrote

People who have subscribed to Netflix for years will only cancel their Netflix accounts when they think Netflix will not have enough good content in the future.

"Never cancelled a successful show" a fair thing to say when subscriber counts are growing. It's incorrect when subscriber counts fall. A successful show isn't one that gets a lot of viewers. A show is successful when it is the reason people don't cancel their subscription.

I cancelled my Netflix account. If I thought they would continue to put out and support stuff like The OA and Altered Carbon, I would still have a subscription. Instead they decided to acquire a bunch of what would have been considered straight-to-video content in the days of Blockbuster.

1

amfibbius t1_j5v34c7 wrote

In other words, Netflix management is unable to consistently develop successful shows.

3

unskilledplay t1_j5v3r88 wrote

The Expanse was originally a SyFy network show. Netflix just paid for streaming rights. After season 2, SyFy cancelled the show. Amazon picked it up and produced the later seasons. Netflix never "cancelled" the Expanse as they didn't produce the show.

It's fair to assume that Amazon had absolutely no interest in letting Netflix acquire streaming rights for seasons 3, 4 and 5 and Netflix had no interest in putting up only the first 2 seasons when everyone who gets into the show would have to move over to Prime Video to continue watching it.

When a show is cancelled early, rights holders shop it around. It's possible Netflix and others had interest in acquiring the show. If they did, they were outbid by Amazon.

5

Buckeyeguy37 t1_j5v58e5 wrote

Everyone in the thread is like "WRONG" but provide zero examples of a successful show that was cancelled. They list shows they like that not enough people watched to even come close to warranting further production.

0

meatmechdriver t1_j5v8np9 wrote

I mean it’s hard for a show to be successful when it’s not running, so …

2

Screamingholt t1_j5vwg7x wrote

Huh, I think I may be getting things jumbled. I think it was the noise made after season 2, when yeah Syfy dropped it and Prime picked it up I was thinking of. Derp.

I remember something about there being a 30 year gap between where events are in the series, vs the next point in book. Sooo maybe in a couple more years it could pick up again.

1

Spaghetti_Bird t1_j5wbria wrote

As much as I hate that Netflix cancelled MST3K, I'm pretty happy it is back with Joel and the people who love it the most. Tom and Crow are too special to be in the hands of those corporate monsters.

2

rnobgyn t1_j5wc83t wrote

Welcome to todays entertainment world - it’s either a wild viral sensation or it ain’t worth shit. The creative industry these days only cares about the BIGGEST moneymakers, nothing can be “steadily chugging along”

It’s really frustrating because that means everything is going to be forced to fall into the “winning formula” in order for any meaningful distributor to pay attention and promote it making entertainment monotonous and boring

1

SyntheticSlime t1_j5x0g14 wrote

Was inside job really not doing well? It was good and it was getting a lot of positive buzz. I’m surprised it didn’t warrant at least another season.

3

TheHighWarlord t1_j5xrsxa wrote

Not a strong argument when you lead with Daredevil as your example of a successful show. That shit is garbage and its fans should feel bad about liking it.

0

BMCarbaugh t1_j5xswrl wrote

Sure, but they've canceled plenty of shows before they had a chance to become successful. Or made shows that had the potential to be successful and then quietly released them at 4am on a Tuesday with no marketing. Or both.

People forget that a lot of the Golden Age Prestige TV Classics weren't that big when they first started (or, in the case of The Wire, were NEVER all that big, ratings wise).

3

Paranoma t1_j5ylht8 wrote

It’s because they haven’t made any money off their content. Hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. Only thing making money is their stock, by people thinking they’re (Netflix) about to make a load of money. It’s a pyramid scheme.

1

0ut0fBoundsException t1_j5ypsga wrote

HBO Max has been excellent, but it was just bought by Warner/Discovery who promptly started axing things including the previously acclaimed West World as it head into its final season and some other things. West World was even removed from platform and will be exclusive to some ad supported other service if I recall correctly

5

_ChipWhitley_ t1_j5z6cjh wrote

> The key to it is you have to be able to talk to a small audience on a small budget and a large audience at a large budget. If you do that well, you can do that forever.

In other words, “We can see the future and we’ve never made a mistake… Also, here is our ad-supported tier to supplement our mistakes.”

Seriously, fuck this guy. After the next season of The Witcher I’m cancelling. I don’t get into Netflix anymore because I never know which show will leave me hanging for the rest of my life like The OA.

2