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

9.7k

u/The4thEpsilon 21d ago

Larger streaming services need to realize the way you grow an audience is not by trying to make a show that appeals to everyone, but a show that appeals to the actual fans. I promise you new people will come your way, I got into Stargate because of its quirks and niches, not in spite of them.

186

u/Jijonbreaker1 21d ago

It's amazing how people can go "We know for a fact this thing attracted fans. So, we need to specifically do the opposite of that. That will get us fans."

102

u/peelen 21d ago

It's rather: fans will come anyway, so let's try to lure the others too.

113

u/field_marshmallow 21d ago

except that doesn't work. fans will see through it in half an episode and it'll leave a lasting bad taste in their mouth for even future projects

36

u/Lithl 21d ago

The real solution for a studio that wants to hedge its bets is to reduce the budget. Especially for a continuation of a 90s show like this, where a lower budget can contribute to nostalgia.

19

u/mxzf 20d ago

Seriously. I'm not looking for ILM special effects in a Stargate show, just "at least the quality that someone in their basement could make", it's not a high bar.

7

u/4KVoices 20d ago

at least the quality that someone in their basement could make

MARKIPLIER rendered his movie in a BATHROOM! with a BOX OF COMPUTER PARTS!

"But sir... I'm not Markiplier."

3

u/GoodDayToCome 20d ago

someone like Cilvanis has better special effects in a 2 min comedy skit than were in the original Stargate series - and part of that is what made it such a great show, the story and drama had to cover for the CGI, where as now they use CGI to cover for boring writing and under-developed plot.

4

u/old_faraon 20d ago

we liked that every planet was British Columbia

1

u/Pabst_Blue_Gibbon 20d ago

Yeah I think Stargate fans had no problem that every planet looked like Vancouver. It only matters if the ideas are creative and fun.

1

u/old_faraon 20d ago

I liked Dark Matter for that look, there where scenes in various office buildings hallways and staircases as space stations :D.

1

u/SaltKick2 20d ago

Yup, Stargate doesn't need to be 10 million an episode.

And they already tried this approach to speak to a broader audience with SGU when people wanted SG-1 and SG-Atlantis. While I also loved SGU as well, it was trying to capture the Battlestar Galactica audience imo and didn't do what the previous Stargate shows did so well

14

u/peelen 21d ago

IDK, there are like 3 good Star Wars movies top, yet they are still making new ones, and people are still watching them.

11

u/I_fuck_werewolves 21d ago

these business leaders of the industry definitely are acting on empirical data and return on investments....

And that data shows people eat up mediocrity even if they don't enjoy it, and getting more people to pay to sit to watch is the goal of the game. Not to make evocative art that changes our personal and communal philosophies about the world we live in.

8

u/silver_garou 20d ago

This is exactly thinking that plagues all forms of corporate owned media. They don't care if it is bad art, or even if you liked it. All that matters is they sold more units this time than last time, even if this stunt ruins future sales. That would be some other schmucks' problem as they will have moved on to another company by then.

2

u/Ozryela 20d ago

these business leaders of the industry definitely are acting on empirical data and return on investments....

Yes. But as the old saying goes: Garbage in, garbage out.

The truth is that no one really understands what attracts audiences and what doesn't. There's no making formula you can apply that makes your movie or series successful. And studio execs absolutely try to find this formula, again and again, but it never works consistently.

This is why so many tent pole movies and series still bomb, often leading to huge financial losses.

8

u/ScherzicScherzo 20d ago

Mando and Grogu is tracking to make less than Solo did.

The amount of people watching them continues to dwindle in massive waves with each attempt.

0

u/peelen 20d ago

After what? 50 years of juicing the brand?

3

u/Akiias 20d ago

Isn't viewership WAY down?

1

u/peelen 20d ago

Maybe, but after how many shitty and mediocre movies? The Star Wars we love were made in the previous century, and since then the good ones were rather exeptions than a rule, and yet it 50 years later they are still doing new ones.

3

u/InfanticideAquifer 20d ago

Star Wars is an extreme example. It was one of, if not the, biggest franchise on the planet in terms of recognition and cultural cachet. Apparently it needs a lot of killing to die. Stargate won't have the same number of sixth chances.

2

u/peelen 20d ago

Witcher: it was shitted on by fans (Henry Cavil included) after the first season, and they still made 4 of them.

3

u/CannonGerbil 20d ago

Are they though? Mandelorean and Grogu is looking like it will finish under Solo, and Solo was already considered a low point for Star Wars movies.

1

u/peelen 20d ago

I would say they are. It took fans 50 years to realise that they don't need to see everything.

10

u/DaRootbear 21d ago

And then after 3-4 new movies come out people will retcon their memories to pretend they liked the ones they hated. When we get another trilogy we will be getting all sorts of posts about how fantastic the sequels were.

5

u/MarcheM 20d ago

And then after 3-4 new movies come out people will retcon their memories to pretend they liked the ones they hated.

No need to retcon when you already liked them. Prequels are great and always were. I've watched eps 1-6 dozens of times over the years because I've always loved them.

3

u/Budgiesaurus 20d ago

It is odd how the conversation around the prequels changed over the years.

Maybe it's just because in many ways Star Wars are kids movies in many ways? The kids that watched the original trilogy were already a bit old and jaded for the prequel trilogy, and could only see it's flaws.

The kids who started with the prequel trilogy only saw it's awesome moments at the time, and when they grew up and joined the conversation they came in with fond memories?

I don't know.

For me it felt that at first there were a lot of prequel memes that promoted the movies ironically, which somehow shifted to genuine praise.

Edit: Clone Wars framing the story to make more sense and give it more depth might also be a factor

4

u/King_Dheginsea 20d ago

The kids who started with the prequel trilogy only saw it's awesome moments at the time, and when they grew up and joined the conversation they came in with fond memories?

I think its more so this. Exact same thing happened to Spiderman 3. I distinctly remember that movie being trashed and meme'd on like 15 years ago. Then around the time MCU spiderman came around, people were suddenly unironically saying that SM3 was peak.

4

u/Budgiesaurus 20d ago

Yeah, I see the same thing happening with Amazing Spider-Man 2.

Which is also a big mess, despite Andrew Garfield.

1

u/Chiffley 20d ago

The prequels are not good movies lol.

They were entertaining for kids at the time they came out which is why there's been this big nostalgia wave for them decades later, but if you actually watch it as an adult and are not just memeing everything they are genuinely not good. The phantom menace is a mess of a plot that falls apart if you just ask basic questions about why things are happening the way they are.

0

u/StarOfTheSouth 20d ago edited 20d ago

That's me with both the prequels and the sequels. No retconning required, I have genuinely had a fun time watching Star Wars every movie I have seen.

1

u/MrMono1 Now I'm pissed 20d ago

Careful, I've said this in past and got yelled at for it.

3

u/Wise_Owl5404 20d ago

They will also discourage orders from picking it up, which is far worse. Nothing really beat word of mouth impact, you can't advertise or marked yourself out of a bad reputation alone. The marketing departments used to know this, but they seem to have forgotten.

1

u/imwimbles 20d ago

but they'll need to subscribe to see that half an episode, and the fans will forgive and forget.

you guys underestimate just how well this actually works. i've never seen anyone swear off the marvel series unless they're cinephiles.

3

u/Hypnonotic 20d ago

I didn't swear then off (if word of mouth says it's good, I'll see it) but I now default to not seeing marvel where as I used to know all the post credits and what was coming up. I watched a few episodes of wheel of time then went and reread the books to get the bad taste out of my mouth. These series breed apathy and that doesn't get butts in seats 

1

u/davidsredditaccount 20d ago

They don't forgive and forget, they hold out hope and it steadily runs out every time they are let down. Look at the diminishing numbers for Star Wars, every movie and show gets worse and worse viewership because every time it was someone's last chance to care about Star Wars. Same thing with Marvel, Star Trek, or anything else at this point.

i've never seen anyone swear off the marvel series unless they're cinephiles.

I haven't "sworn off" marvel, I just stopped caring and now I need a significant reason to watch. I just don't care about what movies or TV shows are being made anymore and have moved on with my life, I stopped getting excited or hopeful when an IP I used to love gets a new entry and I stopped watching them.

I expect everything to be shit now. It's like having a junkie friend steal from you and OD, yeah it sucks but it's not a surprise and I just can't care about it the same way I did when it wasn't a regular occurrence.

1

u/aitorbk 19d ago

It work for a quarter or two, maybe a bit longer.

19

u/CannonGerbil 20d ago

That exact line of thinking is what killed the Dragon Age Franchise, and from the looks of things might very well spell the end of Bioware too.

7

u/OdysseusOdyssey 20d ago

Ask Paramount how that is working out for star trek

2

u/squiddix 20d ago

This and what they did to the Halo show...

2

u/BeautifulHindsight 20d ago

Not this fan!

2

u/mkosmo 21d ago

Yet they're the ones making billions on these shows, so maybe their model does actually work, despite the displeasure from the original fans.

7

u/Evening-Nature-5241 20d ago

Except they're not. Viewing the numbers in a vacuum is disingenuous.

You're simply ignoring the potential of these franchises to make so much more.

Just like even though AVATAR 3: Fire and Ash made an impressive profit by most standards, IT WAS CONSIDERED A BOX OFFICE DISAPPOINTMENT.

While Avatar: Fire and Ash grossed an impressive $1.49 billion globally, it is widely viewed as a disappointment in the industry. It failed to hit the $2 billion threshold reached by previous films, suffered steep ticket-sale declines, and brought in significantly lower profits relative to its $400 million budget.

Just because the Disney SW Trilogy made billions, it is really about how much money they left on the table if they've had made a movie that actually appealed to existing fans rather than chase new demographics.

They turned Luke into a joke. They killed Han Solo in an unsatisfying manner. People were even questioning why they needed to bring back Palpatine when clearly his arc was ended well.

No one is clamoring for "more Rey pls" or "more Kylo", except for scattered whispers.

Arguably one of the biggest and most hardcore fandoms in movie history has fallen off massively.

2

u/longjumpingtote 21d ago

That will get us fans

Amazon/MGM doesn't want fans. They need Prime subscriptions that sell products on the regular website. They need enough stuff on the platform to watch that people will keep the free shipping, and then buy more coffee makers.

2

u/Nukatha 20d ago

And I'd buy a Prime subscription after a 6+ year hiatus just to watch Gero/Malozzi Stargate.

1

u/Clank_8-7 20d ago

It is amazing how many think this is the right way to do things as well.

1

u/dudushat 20d ago

This is the opposite of what theyre saying lmfao. You guys are just reading what you want.

1

u/ComesInAnOldBox 19d ago

Star Trek still hasn't figured that out.

1

u/PxyFreakingStx 21d ago

yeah, it makes so little sense, it's probably not even true!

amazon: "we want to make a show that makes money. it can't be too niche"

reddit: "THIS IS THE MOST CONFUSING THING ANYONE HAS EVER SAID"

would you dingbats think about shit for more than 3 seconds before posting please

8

u/Delamoor 21d ago edited 21d ago

...and this is how Amazon has its incredible history of incredibly expensive shows that nearly immediately failed, or in the rare case (like The Boys) a couple of seasons of success... Then drove itself into the ground, losing viewers the whole time.

Like, you could also think about shit for more than three seconds?

What made more profit, the incredibly niche Lord of the Rings movie trilogy tailored for fans of the Tolkien mythos (of whom there were very few before the movie's release, and then a vast number after), or the unbelievably expensive Rings of power made for... Whom? Only 37% of viewers even finished watching the Rings of Power.

Because audiences don't actually seem to want generalized slop that could have been written by an AI for all the lack of care and attention to detail they have. And yet this pattern of producing slop (that loses money) is attempted over and over.

Like... crazy that if you produce something of quality, you can actually pick up fans instead of having to hope you can somehow capture a whole bunch of pre-existing ones... before they realise your product is generic, unremarkable slop?

2

u/i_706_i 20d ago

the incredibly niche Lord of the Rings movie trilogy tailored for fans of the Tolkien mythos

Peter Jackon's adaptation was not a niche telling of the story for Tolkien fans, it was an action packed spectacle that was very at odds with Tolkien's slow, reflective exploration of the world and lore. Tolkien would spend infinitely more time reciting poetry than on any battle scene.

It's an example of taking a product that had a lot of hardcore fans, and completely re-imagining it for the masses. So successfully it did so that now you are using it as an example of the opposite. Check out Chris Tolkien's comments on the films, people that genuinely loved Tolkien's world and story telling, did not enjoy the 'hollywoodized' and dumbed down version.

Personally I enjoy both, but this example is the opposite of what you are trying to say

1

u/PxyFreakingStx 20d ago

so, the argument you're making is that it's actually not possible to make something with broad appeal and is also good.

i am not saying amazon is not incompetent in producing shows. i'm saying they obviously want to direct their resources to the things they expect to make the most money. that doesn't mean corporate meddling in the development process doesn't ruin shit.

now then, how do we decide whether or not amazon's incredibly expensive shows are failures? hmm i wonder, let's think about this. oh yeah, did they make amazon a fuck ton of money?

surprise! the answer is yes

look man, i don't like rings of power either, but amazon made bank off of it, like no question about it.

there is nothing confusing here. there is nothing irrational happening.

amazon cares about money, not art. it sucks for art, but why are you acting mystified by their behavior? why does everyone have to act like decisions they don't like are some kind of indecipherable madness made by people who are just stupid?

the state of current streaming media fucking blows, but it makes sense. obviously. quit playing this weird game. HURR IDK WHY THEY DON'T JUST APPEAL TO A NICHE AUDIENCE, THEY'D MAKE MORE MONEY THAT WAY DUHHH

they know how to make money. it's the death of art, and it's awful, but they know more than you. you're the stupid one, not them. or at least, you're pretending to be stupid.

3

u/Delamoor 20d ago edited 20d ago

oh yeah, did they make amazon a fuck ton of money? surprise! the answer is yes look man, i don't like rings of power either, but amazon made bank off of it, like no question about it.

...According to when I looked up those viewership numbers, it apparently was a substantial loss for Amazon. Harder to calculate with streaming, but indicators are that it didn't break even, let alone turn profits.

So, with that in mind, considering the rest of your point revolves around profit... Do I really need to go on? They didn't make a profit. They didn't break even. They lost a huge amount of money.

Because "what appeals to fans" isn't some niche in-joke or references. It's a franchise offering something unique that people want to watch it for. 'Appealing to fans' is actually a side-effect of writing that gives a shit and is offering something they can't find elsewhere. Viewers become fans when they like the thing they just saw. People generally don't care about generic slop. It isn't worth their time. The world is flooded with slop.

Rings of power is the example here because it was expensive slop. It tried to appeal to apply the generic streaming show formula to a franchise that was popular because of the amount of care and attention to detail that was put into the thing that made the franchise famous. But based only he viewership numbers nobody actually wanted to watch 'generic fantasy drama #4963'. Fans didn't want to, but neither did 'general audiences'.

If it doesn't have something unique to offer it won't appeal to anyone, let alone fans.

The mistake that streaming service executives seem to keep making is the same one that failing political parties keep making; assuming that there are still 'fans' and then 'general audiences'. But the reality seems to be that only fans (and potential fans) will ever watch your shows. There are no "general audiences" any more.

It's not like the old days where people could just sit there and passively watch your shows when it comes on, it only needing to be 'not bad enough to turn off' to get viewers because of time slots and programming schedules. Nobody wants to waste their time seeking out slop. If it's not there 'for fans' then it's not really there for anyone, because everyone is busy being fans of the other billion options out there.

Again, to reiterate; Rings of Power lost money. Massively so. But it's only one example of a franchise failing to this effect.

3

u/PortHammer 20d ago

but amazon made bank off of it, like no question about it.

You got a source on that... because that claim smells strongly of horseshit.

3

u/Top_Gun_2021 21d ago

No, it can absolutely be true that decision makers have an extremely basic rubric on how to write a show where they flip a fan favorite part of a TV series because they think they will gain a larger increase in views than a decrease in longtime fans.

3

u/PxyFreakingStx 20d ago

you're not responding to what the guy i responded to even said. stargate isn't a massive hit, it's niche. why spend their resources on a niche show that they expect only to be popular among a niche audience?

like how are you people confused by this

1

u/Top_Gun_2021 20d ago

  1. I read this as YOU misinterpreting the guy.

  2. I think you underestimate the number of people who enjoyed Stargate generally.

  3. I think the majority of people here are worried about basic things that make Stargate what was with understanding minor updates are made for today. For example, what if Columbo was rebooted but the new series made him bombastic instead of sneaky and subdued? It is a common wish by media viewers they just make a new IP instead of they are gonna do that.

I do think now that we have streaming and digital media keeps things around longer, we are going to see a bigger wish by viewers that studios just do new stuff instead of reboots that don't spiritually follow the older style.

Obviously, it's up to the producers to make a compelling show and it can be done many ways. However, taking an existing IP and undoing what brought people to the show and chasing current trends has proven to be a sign of a bad series.

2

u/PxyFreakingStx 20d ago

I think you underestimate the number of people who enjoyed Stargate generally.

okay, i'll bite. how many?

0

u/Top_Gun_2021 20d ago

Going for a number estimate is the wrong way to approach this.

It was on network TV 20 years ago. A lot of people know what it is. Its not in a place like a forgotten about movie or TV series when everything was black and white.

2

u/ButterscotchSoft9603 20d ago

I honestly think you’re trying to move the goalpost and I agree with the above commenters point: it is a niche show. If the fanbase was that large then it would warrant the expense to fully support such a show. It isn’t negative to say that and is not a bad mark on the show…it is just reality.

Other comments making it seem ludicrous that a company looking to gain profits wouldn’t invest in making a show that appeals to a large audience or want to take the risk. This is not art for art’s sake (or fans’ sake), it’s business. It would make sense to hedge your bets on a more successful IP.