by arberavdullahu on 10/14/20, 7:48 AM with 687 comments
by sequoia on 10/14/20, 5:57 PM
So I don't totally get the "cancelled too soon" argument. The OA should have not run to even 2 seasons.
There's a trend of not producing art or even something original, but producing "content." For example someone asked me if The Mandalorian is good. "It's star wars Content" I replied. "If you like star wars, and want Content, you'll like it." Is the plot novel? Is it original or compelling? No, but boy it's fun to see yoda puppet and more Content from the SW universe you've come to know and love!
A lot of these series may have run their creative course & while megafans want more "Content" it's the same thing as something being cancelled too soon, and most people aren't megafans.
by andybak on 10/14/20, 12:27 PM
Yes - not enough people are watching to justify the cost.
But cancellation has a whole raft of hidden costs:
1. Reluctance of viewers to invest time in the next thing that comes along
2. Users defecting to rivals out of anger
3. A negative effect among those demographics that tend to influence others the most
4. Loss of creative talent - edgy directors and actors won't want to risk your platform
I'm sure there are more but they all circle around a common theme. Loss of trust.
by netcan on 10/14/20, 12:43 PM
If you have a new series, all potential viewers are potential viewers. If you have a season 3, the only potential viewers are season 2 watchers. A genuinely huge show like breaking bad or GOT might break this dynamic, as people eventually catch up on old seasons and make the pool bigger. In normal circumstances though, new seasons have limited potential. They also have no upside. Season 4 is not going to be a blockbuster if 1-3 were average.
Maybe it makes sense to shoot single seasons, with multiple seasons being a rare circumstance thing. Just tell a story that fits in 6-12 hours.
Seems like it would be good for creativity, the opposite of cinema's recycling problem. Who says new shows are worse than new seasons. It even seems like a bolder choice to me. No guaranteed audience, but unlimited audience.
by rubyn00bie on 10/14/20, 1:23 PM
First Netflix UI is anti-consumer and regularly hides things or makes them difficult/impossible to find. Worst algorithm driven interface after Amazon. It’s truly awful for discovery as you can’t ever be sure what you’re seeing is all that’s available. I fucking hate it.
This wouldn’t be such a problem if they didn’t grade shows success on their initial views... but they do. So things are hard to discover so I don’t watch them immediately or can’t find them again if I wait a week or two.
I have stopped watching any and all Netflix originals because they will be judiciously cancelled save animated titles because it seems cheap enough for them to produce or something like the Witcher where they hopefully can’t fuck it up so badly it gets canceled before a decent run.
Then again I wait and save the last few episodes shows I really like instead of binging them but that only hurts them more and hastens their cancellations. So then I don’t watch them, this too hastens their cancellations.
So when watching Netflix shows you have two options:
1.) Is the show epically well funded AND staring big name actors from cinema? Okay, maybe won’t be canceled. E.g. the Witcher.
2.) Is the show so cheap to make they’ll do it just because they need to add content? E.g. Castlevania
IMHO, Netflix is willfully creating the rope from which it will hang itself.
by racl101 on 10/14/20, 1:54 PM
This is why, for the most part, I don't start watching streaming service exclusives until their sophomore season is complete and they haven't been cancelled.
Of course there are few exceptions like Cobra Kai or The Mandalorian where it's evident that the concept is pretty solid and that the show is bonafide hit from the first 10 minutes.
But yeah, like for every Netflix hit there's like 10 or more less than promising shows.
It's really becoming a graveyard. And when you realize that you can't even give them a shot because you know that even if they're decent there won't be any resolution or closure in the form of a series ending then it makes you not wanna even start to watch them.
Seriously, they should fund less shows but really make sure they're quality shows. They should act like HBO in short.
by bashtoni on 10/14/20, 9:06 AM
Compare the original UK version of the Office and its American facsimile and I think you'll see it's much better to go out on a high rather than drag on endlessly. If the Simpsons had ended after a couple of seasons it would have been one of the best shows ever, instead the brain dead drivel they churn out for it now just continually diminishes its early greatness.
by crazygringo on 10/14/20, 2:49 PM
Individually, I assume Netflix has the data to back up the fact that each show should have been cancelled -- that no matter how critically acclaimed or how devoted the fanbase, the shows simply didn't have enough fanbase to justify the cost.
But then in aggregate, it adds up to an unintended narrative that could prove to be harmful to the bottom line: that Netflix cancels shows. So people stop watching the first season to see if a show survives into a third... stop recommending Netflix... and it's harmful to the bottom line.
The thing is, there's no obvious answer. If Netflix didn't cancel any of these shows, it would go out of business and/or not have the money to fund future (hopefully successful) ones. It's the same way with Googling canceling products: it's ridiculous and money-losing to keep around every failed product, but individually they add up to a reputation.
It's a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. People love it when companies experiment and launch lots of new products/shows -- that's where innovation comes from. But then they hate it when the unsuccessful ones get cancelled, because every product/show has some set of users/viewers who love it.
But I see no solution, except for companies to continue cancelling unprofitable things, and people to continue complaining about it.
by jedberg on 10/14/20, 4:21 PM
There is no good way to A/B test how cancellations affect signups. You can't release new seasons of a show to just some customers in a region. And if you only release new seasons in some regions, there is no way to know if the effect was because of local cultural reasons.
Until there is a large movement of people who make a lot of noise about not signing up for Netflix specifically because of their reputation for cancellation, this probably won't change.
And until then, ironically, this reputation will only make the problem worse. People will not watch a new show until they know it isn't cancelled, leading to even more cancellations because of low viewership.
by mattlondon on 10/14/20, 1:19 PM
US series are too long.
It is a psychological thing I guess - sitting down and perusing netflix, see something you like but then realise it is 24 hour-long episodes just in the first season. It is a turn off - I can't commit upfront to that amount of time to something entirely unknown to me.
Especially since in a lot of series I've watched, they often lose their way and 99 times out 100 the last 2 or 3 seasons inevitably decay into a "will-they-wont-they" thing about two characters falling in love or whatever, and the rest of the cast and whatever made the series good originally is mostly ignored. Then they're cancelled. So e.g. Lost, US Office, that 70s show and many more all went on way too long while dancing around with romance between two characters etc etc while ignoring what made the first season or two appealing.
Don't get me wrong, I love binge watching something good and I am disappointed when I run out of episodes or whatever, but it is good for people to know when to end a show and leave people with good memories, rather than turning it into a death march where people are relieved to just have finished the show.
Give me 8 to 10 good episodes per season, and please don't string it out for 7, 8, 9 seasons when there is only enough ideas for 2 or maybe rarely 3 seasons's worth of episodes.
by mszcz on 10/14/20, 9:35 AM
My own experience is that recently I just don't want to get into new shows, at all. The story goes - I start to watch a show, I grow to like it, get all emotionally invested, the show gets cancelled halfway and I'm left out in the cold, dick in my hand, no satisfying end to a story arc, nothing. Most recent example is Counterpart which was (imo) phenomenal but got the axe after two seasons.
I'm not expecting the shows to run in perpetuity, just for them to run their course, tell their story. Great shows aren't great because they last a long time.
by pgrote on 10/14/20, 12:38 PM
Unsure what the future holds for netflix as more and more IP silos are popping up and eventually they'll have to resort to their own programming in the USA to carry the load. Will that be enough versus other services having vast libraries?
by shannifin on 10/14/20, 8:56 AM
However, it is possible they're missing out on potential viewership when they cancel too early based only on one season metrics... I rarely watch a show that's only been on for one season because I'm that much more likely to not get story closure. Not sure how common that is, but how many people are watching shows that were cancelled before getting story closure? And how many might watch the back catalog otherwise? I guess not enough to be worth the investment.
On a side note, I do wish more seasons (streaming or not) would actually come to a real stopping point instead of just ending on a cliffhanger and hoping to be renewed.
by op03 on 10/14/20, 9:37 AM
And the toothpaste aisle wars, as the link explains well, usually end with consolidation around 2 players.
Given that Netflix has racked up quite a bit of debt to dominate the aisle, and now serious cash rich competitors like Disney, Apple (and lets throw in Amazon) enter the scene, does it really matters what moves Netflix makes? Is Netflix story done? Do Disney and Amazon end up dominating the aisle in a couple years?
But this story feels slightly different than the tooth paste story. There is that scene in GoT where the knight stands protecting a big secret. Challengers arrive. The knight knows this is going to be a fight to the death, as the secret is that important. And he says, "Now it begins".
And the challenger replies "No now it ends".
What matters is neither the knight or the challenger but the secret.
by klmadfejno on 10/14/20, 12:26 PM
I haven't seen many of these cancelled titles. I do recall some complaints around Altered Carbon being killed this year. If that's representative, I'm going to guess that a lot of these shows are just bad...
by legerdemain on 10/14/20, 9:14 AM
The difference is that I want Photoshop to run forever, but I'm not as sure I want Walter White to get an exotic new cancer every twelve months.
I don't watch shows on my own. I know they satisfy the urge to turn on the TV and just have something on, and I think that urge is mind-rotting. If I have to watch something, why not a movie? If I don't have the energy to pay attention for 90 minutes, why idly kill time watching anything at all?
Or what about short films? That's a whole neglected format. They have Oscars and a dedicated video network for them.
by musicale on 10/14/20, 8:48 AM
I agree that it discourages you from investing time in a show that is likely to be canceled before it finishes any of its story arcs.
It may be more of an issue now that many shows can easily be watched sequentially from episode one independent of the broadcast or release schedule.
by zmk_ on 10/14/20, 12:34 PM
by willchang on 10/14/20, 6:37 PM
Shows are like startups. The payoff is a very skewed distribution, i.e. median and mean are vastly different. After one season, I'd argue you have a pretty good estimate of the earning potential for a show. Maybe you're even off by a factor of two or three, but since the goal is to find a show with 10x or 100x the viewership, you're better off canceling a show with median success.
Actually it's probably a lot easier to predict the payoff for a show after one year, than for a startup. Startups can take multiple years to find product-market fit; shows rarely pivot dramatically.
[Update: I got the facts wrong with the following example, as someone nicely pointed out below! I think the general principle still stands.] Tuca & Bertie, for example, was canceled after one season, but the same people went on to make Bojack Horseman, which was a much bigger hit. Bojack would not have happened if Tuca were renewed, and Tuca would never have gotten as popular as Bojack.
by grenoire on 10/14/20, 8:38 AM
Seems like it generates horrible perverse incentives on what kind of (generic) content is created, though.
by JackFr on 10/14/20, 1:42 PM
Obviously Netflix isn't going to act against their own interest, so they must believe the marginal cost of producing new seasons must be greater than the marginal revenue attributable to these new seasons.
What makes Netflix (and all streamers) different than the traditional networks is that their viewership data is orders of magnitude better. They know who watches, how quickly, where, when, which series are abandoned by viewers, which episodes are abandoned by viewers, how series X performed with people who binged series Y.
I imagine they aren't just saying that series X didn't have a big enough audience, they are figuring based on their machine learning models, series X could not build a large enough audience to justify the production costs.
That the art suffers for the bottom line, while tragic, is nothing new.
by parineum on 10/14/20, 9:02 AM
They hold up 3 shows as an example, Stranger Things, Game of Thrones and Schitt's Creek. The first two were smash hits after season 1. Schitt's Creek was a really good show from the start but it wasn't well known until later seasons. It didn't "hit it's stride" it built up it's audience over time. The quality was always there.
The shows Netflix is cancelling aren't even close in quality.
by Thorrez on 10/14/20, 8:33 AM
Those are nine-figure, not six-figure.
by jarjoura on 10/14/20, 4:30 PM
Instead of they shift to a one-and-done model with room for more seasons, then it wouldn't matter.
Now Netflix has a vast library of content, yay for them, but full of half unfinished stories. Imagine going to the library with the back half of the books missing. Would you want to read the first half of the book?
by mchusma on 10/14/20, 1:54 PM
Creatively, dramas should have a clear story to tell. If that is 1 hour, or 100 hours, that is ok. But stopping unexpectedly halfway through is bad.
An easy way for netflix to help is to say "every story on Netflix has an ending." Which has marketing value and still allows creative freedom, and actually would appeal to creators more.
In practice, this means "you can't tease a next season that has not been approved yet" OR "you can end on a cliffhanger and is show is authorized for a 1 hour wrap up episode of the next season is cancelled".
by rkangel on 10/14/20, 10:54 AM
Cutting TV shows short so they don't get to conclude is obviously a pain for fans, but continually having new interesting TV is no bad thing.
by ThePadawan on 10/14/20, 8:27 AM
Personally, this year Netflix has renewed shows like Carmen Sandiego for another season (despite the current season being cut short due to COVID) and The Dragon Prince for another four (yes, 4.) after only running for 3 so far.
by nobodyandproud on 10/14/20, 2:02 PM
With that in mind, I was sucked into The OA and I was annoyed to find out that it was halted.
ImHo, tell a complete story and then halt. A catalog & graveyard of half-completed shows will be Netflix’s undoing.
Because why would I want to risk getting sucked into a story that won’t ever be completed?
by DrBazza on 10/14/20, 8:42 AM
Netflix don't seem to want to get to that inflection point any more which is a shame. Santa Clarita Diet was a personal favourite (don't hate me), and it had just hit its stride. And Daredevil too.
There's a big after-market in shows too. I've watched many shows on DVD (and now on Netflix/Amazon) long after they aired because I never saw them the first time round.
by hevelvarik on 10/14/20, 12:42 PM
Accordingly, since funds are limited and you can only produce n things concurrently, there is a certain sense in constantly churning out new IP.
I think this theory fits with the report in the article about creators getting 9 figure contracts as their series gets ‘cancelled’
by jpz on 10/14/20, 9:05 AM
by kentlyons on 10/14/20, 3:25 PM
by wodenokoto on 10/14/20, 12:44 PM
In this case I think it takes 2 to tango.
We don't know what happened but either Netflix bought a season with (presumably) a promise of a second season if succesful, or they bought two seasons, with payment in to installations, and decided to bail halfway through.
I think the first setup is the most likely and in that case the producers then decided to try and take the viewers hostage, by producing an unfinished story, in the hopes that the an outcry for more can help demand for a season 2.
by screye on 10/14/20, 4:23 PM
A great example is the Boys. Each season ends with them tying off the main arc, and an expose that sets up for the next season. Season 2's conclusion felt satisfactory, while still keeping me excited for what's to come. The 1st season of Witcher does this really well too.
Netflix's problem is the same one as network TV. It is just far more evident with Netflix because the binge format is central to it. When the entire show is enjoyed in a very small time span, the ending affects your perception of the show more strongly than if the show was enjoyed over years on broadcast TV. A similar phenomenon is visible with movies too, where a bad ending can often come to define the entire movie.
I'm surprised that TV contracts haven't become more sophisticated and diverse with time. How about sign a 3 season contract with no extensions or mandate arc conclusions for shows whose fate is up in the air? Maybe create a final season as a low-budget short, allowing show runners to provide a conclusion when axed.
I'm no expert on the matter, but the complete lack of new ideas in the domain is surprising, given the degree to which Netflix has revolutionized the rest of the distribution business.
by bretthowell on 10/14/20, 6:54 PM
“[Netflix] now routinely ends shows after their second season, even when they’re still popular. Netflix has learned that the first two seasons of a show are key to bringing in subscribers—but the third ... don’t do much...”
^1 https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-slow-death-of-hollywo...
by MattGaiser on 10/14/20, 8:55 AM
It doesn’t matter if a lot of people watch a show. It only matters if that show is a deal maker.
So it basically needs to become a cultural phenomenon or attract a hardcore base of fans. Anything else just wastes bandwidth.
I doubt Netflix can predict with any certainty which show that will be in the same way that VCs can’t pick which of 100 companies will IPO for a billion. So they just invest in 20 of the better ones.
by LanceH on 10/14/20, 2:45 PM
1. New show is popular 2. Gets renewed 3. Season 2 or 3 they decide to slow the story line and just have individual episodes where a problem pops up and is resolved with no advance of the overarching plot. 4. By seasons 4 the actors are now famous and getting too expensive to continue. Some drop out, new people come in. 5. It gets cancelled with many things unresolved.
by dangus on 10/14/20, 2:29 PM
For who exactly?
The whole article assumes that:
1. Viewers give a shit about quality
2. The article authors know more about whether a show is viable than Netfix (with its massively detailed viewership data)
In reality, Netflix only cares about subscriber count, and that incentive is both obvious and intuitive. A show winning an Emmy has nothing to do with whether or not it’s profitable.
I mean, see cable pre-Internet. The delusion that Netflix is something unique beyond what cable was has never been true. The only thing special about it is that there are no ads, which is not universal among the industry (do cheap Hulu, Tubi, and Pluto remind you of anything? Reminds me of cable!)
Critically acclaimed shows like Stranger Things might have been important to gain mindshare, but now everyone knows what Netflix is and those expensive efforts are probably not worth it. Personally, I spend most of my TV time watching House Hunters which (a) will never win critical acclaim and (b) is about the cheapest show to produce that someone can imagine.
But I don’t like watching one hour dramas that are there to be depressing and have expensive actors, sets, and special effects. I just want to veg out and watch some idiots buy the wrong house.
by alan_n on 10/14/20, 7:39 PM
by webmaven on 10/14/20, 6:39 PM
At least now shows are cancelled based on their intrinsic viewership. Short-sighted cancelations are still an unfortunate problem, but this is still a huge improvement over the previous status quo.
A bit more concerning to me is that Netflix's "throw the spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks" approach is starting to lean a bit more in the direction of "same but different" clones of other shows with a twist to the setup, even for shows based on existing properties.
But, so it goes.
[0] eg. Dark Skies
[1] eg. Firefly, where the pilot wasn't broadcast until the end of the season.
by JansjoFromIkea on 10/14/20, 2:21 PM
They haven't managed to make sticky shows like Friends, the Big Bang Theory or even something more recent like Brooklyn Nine Nine that people can mindlessly rewatch over and over and they haven't managed to make top tier prestige stuff (talking Sopranos/Wire level here, they've made plenty a couple of notches below). The whole platform depends on a certain kind of novelty of the algorithm being able to churn up totally new stuff that's okay.
As far as cancelling stuff goes, I get the impression Netflix moreso just doesn't renew? HBO seem to have a formula where a cancelled show will get a special to wrap things up (e.g. Looking, Hello Ladies), always thought that was pretty savvy as it probably costs quite a bit less, makes that one episode into a bit of an event for fans and leaves the overall series a lot more enticing to people in the future.
by squarefoot on 10/15/20, 7:49 AM
How could they solve the problem without leaving watchers with unresolved plots and those awful cliffhangers? To me there are two possible solutions: either produce less series so that they're not competing against themselves, or offer by contract a way to resolve plots by guaranteeing that a certain number of episodes will be produced anyway after the cancellation decision. I don't see why implementing either, or even both, could be detrimental in any way to the business, unless they're counting profits by the cent with total disregard to their customers.
by sohamsankaran on 10/14/20, 1:31 PM
by AQXt on 10/15/20, 10:42 AM
"Netflix is disregarding the smaller but powerful fandoms it's creating, where people are left crying out for show renewals"
"Last summer, 'OA' fans protested outside Netflix's Los Angeles headquarters for days, with one woman even going on a hunger strike."
by echelon on 10/14/20, 4:27 PM
I'm still working out the kinks for our first "film", and I'm going to approach investors once we've released it. I think it's pretty novel and not something these companies will touch before it becomes a threat. But it very much should put fear into them as it changes the business.
Are there any of you that are extremely passionate about film, emotion, story, character, setting, aesthetic? Do you think the current slate of productions by Netflix and Disney mostly suck? Do you like Miyazaki? If that speaks to you we should get in touch at some point. Leave me a comment and I'll reach out when I'm ready.
As "proof" I'm not just blowing steam, my last big project (not a startup): https://vo.codes
by at_a_remove on 10/14/20, 3:14 PM
Back when I used to give a damn about television series, I followed a lot of the inside baseball, including incidents that might lead to a series getting cancelled. Some networks were just more prone to cancellation than others. For a while, Fox was particularly eager to take a sackful of new kittens down to the creek; I recall one series didn't make four shown episodes before cancellation. The Sci-Fi Channel (later SyFy) had a particularly brutal streak for a while.
It's clear that whatever any network promises at the outset, they exist in a huge tension with the actual show creators and runners (and yet more tension with the actors). All negotations should be performed with that in mind. I wonder precisely how hard an "exit clause" would be to wrangle. You know, you cancel the show, we get four or six episodes, at such and such budget, and such and such filming time, to wrap things up.
Since about 2005, my television series selection is what I call the "vulture strategy:" I wait until a series is cancelled before I watched. Then I wait for the hype to die down (the carcass gets more juicy). If it is still appealing after all of that, I stick my beak in. I just cannot get invested in something that might have the lifespan of a carnival guppy that could be flushed down the toilet at the first sign of listlessness.
Netflix in particular has been very clumsy in the execution of its shows lately, even once I filter out the endless annoyance of its dark UI patterns. Very "message-y;" I got a bellyful of that with the Christian types. And that's without them going and retroactively editing their old shows. Netflix is turning into my last pick when I want to look for something random to watch.
by neap24 on 10/14/20, 2:19 PM
There are a few other personal gripes I have that may not be shared in this community (like, I think shows are way oversexed and have far too many grotesque and gritty elements for my taste) which have basically turned me completely off of modern television shows. For the time being, I'm watching "classics" and movies.
I'm not convinced that cancelling TV shows too soon is creating a problem. The bigger problem, for me, are the above features + an over-abundance of volume of content (the ol' "Netflix will produce just about anything" criticism).
by rayrag on 10/14/20, 9:53 AM
by crowf on 10/14/20, 12:41 PM
Maybe that has something to do with it. There is a common meme "manga, anime, Netflix adaption". The first two show the main character looking as designed, and the last show a black woman. It ends up, if you optimize for showing every race and gender rather than entertainment, I can see why the show would be cancelled.
by someonehere on 10/14/20, 1:45 PM
I have Netflix but rarely watch it. My SO is more into Netflix. But for someone like me who’s a bit older, I open Netflix and am overwhelmed with the amount of shows on the screen. It’s way too much for me to figure out what I should watch. Recommendations, trending, etc.. where do I begin watching a show?
I think what I’m getting at is Netflix is just putting original content on their platform to see what sticks, however I don’t know what they want me to watch? How do I decide what to watch because obviously there’s a lot to offer.
This is just how I see it. The app sits idle on my TV for me and I hardly use it.
by nicolas_t on 10/14/20, 2:48 PM
Another thing I've noticed is that I tend to not watch shows when they've just been released, especially when it's the second season of something I like. Instead, I wait until I have the time to enjoy the show but at at that point me viewing it doesn't count in the metrics Netfix uses to decide in favor of continuing the show.
Right now though, I feel ambivalent about starting a new show on netflix because I don't want to be disappointed in the ending.
by CameronNemo on 10/14/20, 3:43 PM
I really wish Flaked had a season 3, but I still enjoy the two seasons we got. I guess we just have to accept what we have sometimes.
by arnvald on 10/14/20, 2:26 PM
So I understand Netflix' situation, they keep losing licensed content so they need to keep making up for it with quantity of new shows, but damn, knowing that a show was cancelled without a proper ending is a big "no" for me when I choose which series to watch.
by me_me_me on 10/14/20, 9:37 AM
I can see why they would have low viewership for OA, its unusual and bit disturbing at times. But Glow??
It was high quality soap opera about low quality wrestling soap opera.
Maybe netflix is not to blame but the people who want Stranger things 3 or 4
by bartread on 10/14/20, 3:12 PM
I'm tired of investing time in shows that Netflix simply drops: The Expanse (though now thankfully picked up by Amazon), Designated Survivor, and Shooter (although that was total crap, especially after season 1) spring immediately to mind, but there have been plenty of others.
I also won't bother starting to watch shows that I know Netflix have cancelled before they've concluded (e.g., Glow), because what's the point? And this is starting to severely erode the value of Netflix's library to me.
Things that have worked incredibly well on Netflix are shows that tell self-contained stories within a single season, like Narcos or Fargo, or shows that tell have a self contained but are able to tell it in a longer form than feature film would allow. The canonical example of the latter for me is Godless, which is one of the best shows on TV, I think. Genuinely fantastic.
And this last point leads on to another, which others have made: US TV series are too long, typically 18 - 24 episodes per season, multiple seasons, often too bloated with filler episodes, and often suffer from ridiculous over-plotting after the first few seasons, which comes off as aimless thrashing around: Prison Break (season 3 onwards: just utter nonsense), 24 (SPOILER ALERT: I mean, seriously, WTF was that Tony Almeida betrayal storyline all about in, I think, the final season - multiple sharks were jumped and I'm still pissed off about it).
On the flipside UK TV series are often too short: 6 half-hour episodes is still quite typical, so you're only really getting into a show and then suddenly the season ends. With that said, for some shows this has been made to work really well: Line of Duty, or the earlier seasons of Luther.
I do feel like, for many shows, a happy medium would be 10 - 12 hour long episodes. You could then afford to make a much more polished product, whilst still probably investing quite a bit less.
by whywhywhywhy on 10/14/20, 12:42 PM
I also don't think the way they make shows is very smart, it's all optimized for trying to cause a binge watch in the realm of 10+ hours. I did watch the first 4 hours of that OA show and honestly the level of content felt about enough for a 90 minute movie just stretched out at a glacial pace and I just couldn't stand the navel gazing required to drag it out into a 10 hour long series.
by intrasight on 10/14/20, 3:14 PM
by dougmwne on 10/14/20, 1:23 PM
A series planning on being on the air forever can start with a clever premise, meander on and on in no rush to get anywhere. It endlessly teases to reveal secrets, change characters, or resolve plot. But the princess is always in another castle.
by fullshark on 10/14/20, 7:13 PM
by bryanlarsen on 10/14/20, 11:52 AM
If the contract doesn't allow it, show creators should make sure subsequent contracts do.
by yepthatsreality on 10/14/20, 4:29 PM
by KingOfCoders on 10/14/20, 1:38 PM
by darkerside on 10/14/20, 1:38 PM
I'd prefer a model where, after one season, a number of seasons is determined with input from executives, writers, cast and crew. Then everybody marches in lockstep towards a satisfying conclusion at that target.
You don't end up with the 8 season long show that drags on, no end in sight. And you don't have a cliffhanger series ending.
Can someone run this up the flag at Netflix please?
by bluedays on 10/14/20, 4:09 PM
Worst news I got from this article was that The Dark Crystal got cancelled. I was looking forward to more shows so I could check it out, guess I never will now.
by ReptileMan on 10/14/20, 9:52 AM
Everything lately is very polished with extremely high production values. We have/d this problem with AAA games in the industry. Art and asset budgets slurping the whole available resources.
If creators want to have long term deals they should probably learn to stretch a dollar a bit more.
by dannykwells on 10/15/20, 2:33 AM
by patagonia on 10/14/20, 3:43 PM
I spend more time watching the first 5 mins of some "Netflix" original and then turning it off because, unsurprisingly it's no good, than I do watching really great films. Because Netflix is just throwing spaghetti at the wall and without content curation or selective and informative promotional material, I give these new titles the benefit of the doubt and watch them. Since I watch past the first 3 mins or whatever Netlix requires for it to be considered "watched" I'm considered "engaged" and those titles go on my "watched" list then influence the algorithm and on and on. Meanwhile a couple hours goes by, more content is created, and the cycle repeats. Netflix 1 - Me 0
by musingsole on 10/14/20, 3:16 PM
by Gys on 10/14/20, 10:07 AM
That is very subjective. I watch netflix and most shows mentioned in this article seem what he/she calls ‘quantity’ to me: from the first moment clear that there will no ending whatsoever
by kazagistar on 10/14/20, 7:19 PM
by tijuco2 on 10/14/20, 6:48 PM
perfect! They a launching a movie per month with a famous actor and shallow stories. I think Netflix and Google make a good parallel. Google is infamous for cancelling products that many people use too, like the beloved Google Reader.
by m3kw9 on 10/14/20, 2:27 PM
by the_other on 10/14/20, 12:19 PM
by projproj on 10/14/20, 2:53 PM
by kelvin0 on 10/14/20, 5:43 PM
How about the cost analysis of loosing current subscribers?
by flerchin on 10/14/20, 2:07 PM
Otherwise all your complaining still got them at least $8.99 a month, and they saved on production costs.
by nogbit on 10/14/20, 2:48 PM
by coryfklein on 10/14/20, 5:03 PM
In the same way that a company will do a single large lay-off all at once rather than several demoralizing smaller ones.
by oregontechninja on 10/14/20, 2:48 PM
by throwaway_dcnt on 10/14/20, 4:16 PM
by simonw on 10/14/20, 4:26 PM
by pier25 on 10/14/20, 2:39 PM
Netflix has all the metrics. I doubt they cancel shows just because they can.
Of course there will always be some disappointed people.
by edm0nd on 10/14/20, 1:45 PM
I thought it was a brilliant revamp and collaboration in between Netflix and the Henson group. It even won an Emmy.
by theonlybutlet on 10/14/20, 11:24 PM
by carabiner on 10/14/20, 7:18 PM
by IshKebab on 10/14/20, 10:57 AM
Uhm, it pretty much was. Season 1 was hugely popular.
by sg47 on 10/14/20, 1:59 PM
by AzzieElbab on 10/14/20, 5:11 PM
by VoxPelli on 10/14/20, 9:01 PM
by Razengan on 10/14/20, 2:18 PM
by darepublic on 10/14/20, 3:53 PM
by dzonga on 10/14/20, 3:28 PM
by asimpletune on 10/14/20, 5:43 PM
by NetOpWibby on 10/16/20, 6:46 AM
by mcguire on 10/14/20, 7:47 PM
by LargoLasskhyfv on 10/15/20, 4:43 AM
First I didn't grow up with much TV, because there were many more interesting things to do as a child, like playing in the forest. Later on I haven't been a fan either, and finally discarded my TV in 1996 and went into cinema instead. But again, not that much.
For a time I substituted that with a Hauppauge WinTV in one of my PCI-slots, and had the surreal experience to watch the second plane crash into the Twin Towers in NYC live on CNN after IRC exploded with: "TURN ON CNN NOW!1!!". Removed the card maybe a few weeks after that, because TV became toxic then, as in News are bad for you, and wasn't worth the energy anymore.
Did a strict media diet for a few years then, until I couldn't resist because of Battlestar Galactica, and got lost into Lost :)
From then on I partially catched up, but still very selective.
Anyways, what follows is an incomplete list of things which either never made it further than the pilot, or got canceled mid-season, or could have been longer IMO.
Earliest thing which comes to mind are several attempts from Gene Roddenberry with
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II_(film) in 1973
followed by
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Earth_(film) in 74
and [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_New_World_(film) in 75
Similar for [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan%27s_Run_(TV_series) around the same time.
Then the reimagined
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_(2008_TV_series)
where I can recommend the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_(1975_TV_series) if you are into realistic Non-Zombie Post-Apocalypse stuff and can get it in good quality.
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Train_(TV_series) from 1999 What are they going to do after? How? Where? WTF?
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_(2006_TV_series) This was one of the most annoying cancelings mid-season!
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcasts_(TV_series) from 2011 could have been more.
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Nova_(TV_series) also from 2011 could have been much more.
[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_(TV_series) 2011
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Skies 2011
[12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defiance_(TV_series) 2013
[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rewind_(2013_film) Never made it into a series. WHY?
[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_(miniseries) 2015
[15] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayward_Pines 2015
[16] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied 2015-2017 This one is special and maybe didn't get much attention because politically incorrect with the ongoing Crimean ... how to put it, occupation, crisis? Anyways, very watchable! (I'm delighted to discover there is a third season out there now. Yay!)
[17] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_(TV_series) 2016-2018 How do the aliens look? I mean WTF? What a let-down :(
[18] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Strain_(TV_series) 2014-2017 Not really canceled, but could have been more.
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Sun 2018 Could have been so much more...
Maybe it's because budgets of production companies have been tighter since the
[20] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80... ?
Also more and more competition with more and more immersive games, sometimes rendered so photorealistic that players just dive in to explore the gameworld by sightseeing, and have fun interacting with things like in an old point-and-click adventure, just seriously upgraded and optionally in groups, networked :)
by o_class_star on 10/14/20, 9:28 AM
It started with the chain bookstores. Used to be, getting in was the hard part, but once a writer got published, he stayed published. His editor would keep supporting his books until he broke out. Chain bookstores wrecked this. They'd pull an author's numbers, see that the first book was a flop, and pass on the second. They also introduced the 8-week rotation, which meant that reader word of mouth (a slower process) got disenfranchised, forcing publishers to pick winners (lead titles) and losers before the books were even launched.
This changed the incentive structure. Instead of having to get one person, who knew literature, to believe in his work, an author has to convince a whole committee of people. If the editor can't sell the book to the money people, it gets no marketing or publicity and it dies.
Then there are the literary agents, who don't even read 99 percent of the work sent to them. That's done by unpaid college-age interns. So, instead of writing a book readers will love, your focus becomes writing a book that people will think their bosses like. It's a totally different game.
I'm not surprised this is happening to Netflix. We tend to have a pro-data bias in technology. We don't realize that when the money people get their hands on data, that unless we are extremely editorial in the context in which they interpret and use that data, it's going to be a disaster. They don't have altruistic motives and they don't work nearly as hard as we do to understand complexity-- it's best to think of them as a different species.
by lumberingjack on 10/14/20, 3:43 PM
by galkk on 10/14/20, 6:05 PM
> It's also worth noting how many of the cancellations have been shows with women and people of color prominently behind the scenes or starring.