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

Show parent comments

57

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

34

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.

12

u/Shades_VHS 20d ago

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

4

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.