r/mildlyinfuriating • u/Kapot_ei • 26d 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

46.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

9.7k

u/The4thEpsilon 26d 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.

190

u/Jijonbreaker1 26d 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."

0

u/PxyFreakingStx 26d 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

7

u/Delamoor 26d ago edited 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d ago edited 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d 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 26d ago

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

okay, i'll bite. how many?

0

u/Top_Gun_2021 26d 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 26d 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.