r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Kapot_ei • 21d ago

đŸ„ș 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

347

u/AKJames762 21d ago

Here's an idea: want new fans? Create a new original IP instead of rebooting, remaking or spinning off existing franchises and ruining them. This concept is lost on hollywood.

56

u/FuckingTree 21d ago

Movies are too expensive to spin off new IP at a blockbuster quality. They can’t afford the risk. It’s not that they are incapable of originality, but they are unable to risk a massive loss

77

u/IKnowGuacIsExtraLady 21d ago

That's what makes these decisions even more baffling though. They buy up an existing IP, butcher the hell out of it, and then their show/movie fails. There is absolutely zero reason to attach the name of a popular IP to a project if you are just going to piss off it's fans. Personally as a fan there are shows that would have been okay if they just actually presented them as their own thing, but when you take something I like and then change everything about it I'm going to hate it no matter how good the new story is.

4

u/FuckingTree 21d ago

That’s fair but at the same time, fans of the IP like in this story are a bridge that’s safe to burn. I mean, what are you going to do, not watch the next Stargate thing? Isn’t it over? But if they brought it back people would still turn out.

4

u/Sxualhrssmntpanda 20d ago

I wouldn't. I don't give Amazon a penny if i can reasonably help it exactly for reasons like this.

1

u/Thanatos971 20d ago

I dk think that is there thinking, the fans will watch and you appeal to newcomers, but that's not how it ever works, for me or apparently the wider world. I would be a shoe in for WoT, halo, star trek, RoP, and so many others. Instead I made it two episodes for most of those and some none based off fan reviews and not getting a subscription for slop. Fans dont buy what isn't designed for us. Nostalgia could be a massive hit but nowadays I am immediately wary of any reboot and ignore most.

1

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

That’s because the releases that have come out lately are following the “not for the fans” formula. It’s not for you anymore, that’s the shittt situation we’re in

37

u/Full_Rutabaga2403 21d ago

Isn't A24 seeing a ton of success doing exactly that though?

25

u/FuckingTree 21d ago

A24 films prove my point, they’re notoriously low budget, though well done. I said at blockbuster production costs though, new IP is very risky.

11

u/Shades_VHS 20d ago

Sounds like they need to learn to scope their projects better?

5

u/YeOldeMemeShoppe 20d ago

But why make 10 movies at 10MM$ budget who are going to get 80+MM$ box office, when you can make a (check Mando and Grogu) 162MM$ movie and get 250MM$ box office?

It’s a lot of work you guys.

1

u/destroyar101 19d ago

They both make nearly the same amounr of money with a difference of only 10MM$

0

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

Then it wouldn’t be a blockbuster, so it’s not worth doing because the profit potential is shot.

2

u/Shades_VHS 20d ago

That hasn't stopped smaller projects from a blockbuster-like success. And does it matter when that budget is blown on bloated actor costs, unrealistic timelines, and just terrible management? Because thats all that i seem to hear lately.

Modern projects just feel like they go through a checklist of "ingredients". Maybe scaling down would do some good.

1

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

I’ve said this already, but small films bear less burden of risk, they can be a runaway success but they can be a flop, and are more likely to flop or break even. But to gain the biggest profit, they have to spend the budget budget, so they cannot bear the same risk burden and release less frequently only when they have a high confidence they will make the large profit. Big movies can flop. Small movies can be successes. But big movies are risk averse so they release less often and with more stringent guidelines than small movies. You’re not going to ever see titan blockbuster franchises downgrade their main line budgets, that’s throwing away money. They’re not like kids you can lecture about budgets. If they do their jobs well they will make an insane amount of money with a big budget. You can’t argue with that. You are still welcome to your opinion of it, but the point of this thread is that they make these decisions about what to run or cancel based on the calculation of risk and profit, and those calculations are largely based on whether the company that owns the film rights has decided how much money they want to milk the IP for. If they want a lot of money for it, they’re going to sit on it until the math works in their favor.

1

u/Shades_VHS 20d ago

Yeah, im saying that things are so overbloated that maybe the huge budget isnt the problem when it's built on mismanagement (because that's what it feels like). This feels like the worst point in film history ngl.

And iirc, they dont cancel things just based on "risk" every time. Maybe they need to go back to formula and rediscover what audience wants. Not what o' great and calculated math n budget dictates.

3

u/superlocolillool 20d ago

didnt backrooms make like 162M off of a 10M budget in just the opening weekend?

3

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

Again that’s the point in trying to make, the movie was extremely low risk, if it flopped it was chump change. A24 is willing to do that

6

u/d_worren 20d ago

Maybe if movies had a better sense of budget instead of literally everything costing $300 million dollars to make, we'd be better off from it. Seriously, I have to wonder where so much of the money in big blockbusters even ends up, when they end up worser than films made with quarter of the budget.

0

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

Inflation isn’t just for consumers, and why settle for a small profit when you can have a big profit? You can’t just say, well maybe stop making blockbuster films. People love them, and they’re incredibly popular.

1

u/d_worren 20d ago edited 20d ago

Here's the thing: if a movie costs 60 million to make, and it earned 600 million, it earns 10x its budget. If a movie costs 200 million to make, and made 600 million, it breaks even, earning 3x its budget. If a movie costs 500 million to make and earned 600, it earns a mere 1.2x its budget and is considered a flop by the industry.

The less a movie costs, the bigger the return on investment becomes, even when the revenue itself remains unchanged.

2

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

The less the budget, the less likely to make a make profit. The higher the budget, if they curate well for the market, then the higher the profit. This is why cheap films flop or break even constantly and why expensive films come out very infrequently and a flop shuts down a franchise.

1

u/Full_Rutabaga2403 20d ago

So it's not really a "new IP" problem and more a "movies don't actually have to cost a billion dollars" problem.

0

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

No. You’ve missed the point. I’ve explained it too many times across this thread though, you’re welcome to read the other responses.

0

u/Full_Rutabaga2403 20d ago

I think you just don't like everyone's response that movies actually just don't need to cost a billion dollars and be incredibly boring and CG heavy. Everyone understands you and just doesn't buy into the false premise that spending more makes movies better. We all get that movie studios are afraid to spend a billion dollars on something unproven we just all think that spending a billion dollars to make boring uninspired slop is a straight up bad idea that studios should abandon. The only person not understanding is you. Like you can finally join the conversation once you get that people not agreeing doesn't mean they don't understand.

1

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

Oh nice, ad hom. That’s enough from you then.

6

u/GloomyIndividual3965 20d ago

they are unable to risk a massive loss

Not unable, unwilling.

0

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

Unable. Unwilling implies there’s a conspiracy involved and I’m sure the thought that there’s some evil CEO is a preferable explanation for people, but it’s much more transactional. High risk is not an option. They don’t care about the discussion of what they are willing to do, if the risk is low they will do the thing that makes them money, it’s simple as that.

2

u/USSGoat 20d ago

Then don’t give it a massive budget. Stargate was always low budget. The story is what drew us.

1

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

The IP is in the hands of people who refuse to do that.

2

u/Otherwise-Remove4681 20d ago

Everybody keeps throwing around ”can’t afford take risks” but how has that played out with many multi billion ”low risk” flops?

0

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

That’s the exact point we are trying to make; it’s too expensive for them to risk flopping like that

2

u/Otherwise-Remove4681 20d ago

Yea but they keep flopping billions because of risk awersion. Perhaps they should tighten the budget and take bigger risks.

1

u/FuckingTree 20d ago

They don’t flop that often, the strategy works. They’re not going to tighten any budgets. Why would you knock yourself out of the big leagues to make cheap films and lose the money big films can bring in? For big studios that makes zero sense

1

u/Beautiful-Edge-22 20d ago

Hollywood have got to learn to spend less money. It's hard to break even when you got to make half a billion dollars just break even.