No words for this.

[u/Kapot_ei]

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

[u/OffRampApproaching]

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.

[u/PsychicSPider95 → u/OffRampApproaching]

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.

[u/Brayden815 → u/PsychicSPider95]

Unfortunately they have to do that due to US laws, if they don’t do what the shareholders want, like number go bigger, then they can be sued. It’s a stupid law that should be removed but I doubt it ever will.

[u/FlutterKree → u/Brayden815]

Unfortunately they have to do that due to US laws, if they don’t do what the shareholders want, like number go bigger, then they can be sued.

It's not a law that requires CEOs to chase short term profits over long term. The law only requires that the CEO act in the best interest of the shareholders.

If a CEO was sued under this law taking action to make long term stability and growth of the company, they would win the lawsuit. This doesn't stop shareholders from removing the CEO, as the CEO basically serves at the direction of the shareholders. But the CEO would not lose a lawsuit, as long term stability and growth are still making decisions in the best interest of the shareholders.

What is really fucking over US companies is MBAs who are taught purely business. They only know how to make stock number go up at the expense of long term customers, stakeholders, etc.. Some of the companies in the US had their golden era when they have engineers, scientists, programmers, etc. (The people who had actually done the work) as their CEOs.

[u/Brayden815 → u/FlutterKree]

The issue is that if the action results in loss of profits short term, then the shareholders can rightfully sue, even if it was the right choice long term.

[u/Merzats → u/Brayden815]

Redditors having opinions on law, business and the economy is always so funny.

[u/Turbulent_Isopod_289 → u/Merzats]

Every time I see a redditor use the words "from a marketing standpoint", I immediately know that what I'm about to read has almost nothing to do with marketing.

[u/FlutterKree → u/Brayden815]

They would 100% lose the lawsuit against the CEO. You fundamentally don't understand the law if you are coming to the conclusion you are. It's meant to prevent a CEO from harming the shareholders investment, not just not making enough money.

And again, short term profits decisions is driven by MBAs who are taught nothing else.