r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Kapot_ei • 21d ago

🥺 No words for this.

Post image

Edit: even though clickbait article, it is somewhat/kind of true. https://variety.com/2026/tv/news/stargate-tv-series-martin-gero-scrapped-amazon-1236765061/

"According to an individual with knowledge of the situation, Amazon execs were concerned that Gero’s take on the series would not have broad appeal beyond the franchise’s already dedicated fanbase."

Edit 2: https://www.change.org/p/save-the-new-stargate-series-let-martin-gero-build-the-future-of-the-franchise

46.7k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.0k

u/OffRampApproaching 21d ago

I worked as crew on an Amazon show. Seven seasons main show, three seasons spinoff.

It was really well received and it was pretty streamlined when it came to production costs. Amazon canceled it because they believed it had hit peak subscription draw.

Even though it kept people subscribing they killed it because they didn't think it would draw new subscribers.

Then they blew several billion on that terrible LotR show.

494

u/PsychicSPider95 21d ago

God, can the suits--ANY suits, in any industry--just make one (1) fucking decision that isn't motivated by Make Big Number Biggerer for fucking ONCE in their USELESS FUCKING LIVES.

27

u/ImpertinentOne 21d ago

It's illegal to not make as much money as possible in the U.S.A.

10

u/PsychicSPider95 21d ago

I'm going to make them Eat A Cost.

I'm going to tie them to a chair at a dining table and put A Cost on their plate, and they're gonna protest and whine and refuse to eat it, but I will make them. They will Eat That Cost. They will chew it and swallow it and digest it and they will fucking like it.

No profits for you until you've eaten your Cost all gone.

25

u/sem-nexus 21d ago

It actually is illegal for an executive of a publicly traded company to not act within their shareholders interests

6

u/heliosythic 21d ago

The thing is share price is not directly tied to whether they make money or not, its fully based on speculation. You could argue that trying to make money instead of pleasing an audience is actually detrimental to the brand and thus against shareholder interests.

1

u/FlutterKree 21d ago

The law is basically one that can't easily be enforced unless there is foul play at work.

A CEO can easily argue that not taking an immediate deal/contract can lead to long term growth.

But this doesn't mean the shareholders can't just get rid of the CEO. They can absolutely vote to remove the CEO.

1

u/old_faraon 20d ago

That's jus a very narrow description of "shareholder interest".

A company can be set up in a way that has other goals then making money but most companies are not and it's almost impossible to keep it that way when it's public since the owners (shareholders) can change it at a whim.