And indeed, how they got their supplies and funding and were doing what they were doing HAS to have more of a story behind it, but they seemed to have lost sight of the potential there. (Unless that does get brought up later elsewhere in the Defendersverse.)Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure the Defendersverse is living on borrowed time. As far as I know, Disney is still planning to do their own streaming service. And I don't really see them continuing to support Netflix after it goes live. Worse, they can't even move the Defenders shows to that service, because Netflix has partial ownership of them.
It depends a lot on the nature of the contract Netflix has with Disney. Netflix could have the rights to those characters (but JUST those characters, so we won't see further expansion of that part of the Marvel world). Or Netflix could have contracts to make a certain number of series after which the rights revert.
Even in the worst case scenario, if Disney found the Defendersverse to remain profitable and want to do more with it themselves, they could buy it back from Netflix. It's not like Disney's short on cash.
|
I personally would have loved for IGH to have been merely a small portion of a larger organization...as it is, it seems that IGH consisted on 3 scientists, two nurses, and a few security people. I was hoping that IGH would actually tie the Defenders together closer, with it (or at least a larger organization behind it) also responsible for Luke Cage's experiments and the chemical that gave Daredevil his powers.Completely agree with you. Especially with all the buildup about IGH between JJ and DD, having it basically be one hippie mad scientist with a classic rock fixation was rather a letdown. And indeed, how they got their supplies and funding and were doing what they were doing HAS to have more of a story behind it, but they seemed to have lost sight of the potential there. (Unless that does get brought up later elsewhere in the Defendersverse.)
Yeah, I was wanting for a Defenders season 2 to maybe tie Luke, Jessica and Matt's origin stories (well, and Kilgraves...) through chemical experimentation together (since Defenders season 1 was heavily tied into Danny and the Hand, and not so much the other three).
The concept that there are more chemically altered superfolk possibly banging around out there, and that Matt, Luke and Jessica are just some outliers that 'got away from them,' could be neat.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Also, Disney wouldn't want the Netflix shows on their digital streaming service. They've been pretty clear that they want it to be family friendly, so the "R" rated mature themes of the Netflix defenders shows wouldn't ever be part of the Disney service. From what I've read, Netflix has these shows as long as they want them at least for the duration of their contract.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(From the "It's About Friggin Time" department:)
Jessica Jones finale season teaser poster (Twitter)
(I'm guessing late May or in June for it's arrival.)
I was almost wondering if they were never gonna air it. It's stupid we don't have an actual release date yet.
Stupid but again it's probably because Netflix is miffed they're getting the raw end of the Disney/Fox merger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on reading around, I believe the authorities when they say that Netflix cancelled the series themselves for their own reasons, not because Disney pressured them to (especially when various Marvel high-ups like Jeph Loeb protested when the cancellations were announced). Netflix after all still owns the rights for 2 years. Netflix has cancelled a LOT of shows I liked lately that had nothing to do with Marvel (e.g., Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, One Day at a Time); the common denominator is they were not inhouse productions. Netflix seems to be moving toward a combination of in-house originals and older licensed IP like old sitcoms and movies, but no originals that are not made in-house--probably so they can control the budget and timing more carefully.
I think they are just hoping if they keep it vague they will get more early subscriptions; otherwise some folks may just subscribe right before the release date and cancel right after.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the Jessica Jones cancellation was what was sort of the breaking point for me on netflix...that whole service has gone downhill slowly but surely, at the same time as the service has been steadily increasing its monthly subscription fee. Despite being a nearly continual subscriber, I found that there were longer and longer periods when I didn't use the service. I will periodically resubscribe when stuff accumulates that I want to see (I expect I will return for Stranger Things in July), but it's not going to be something I keep on long term.
I've been a Netflix subscriber since it was a DVD service. I turned off the DVD's back when they wanted to split the two services. I've been happy to pay $10 a month for the streaming service. We watch a few shows here and there on Netflix, but some of them are available on CBS or Hulu. Marvel shows were a big draw for me. When Disney+ comes out, I'll probably drop Netflix, at least for a while. They have cancelled all of the shows that might keep me around this year.
Here's one of the quotes from Loeb that shows it was Netflix's decision:
“We were basically having a block party in New York, and they took away our permit,” he said. “It was not a decision that Marvel made, it was a decision that Netflix made. It was their right to do that. All I can say about it is, those characters will live on, and we’ll see what happens.”
From this article: With Marvel Studios in Charge of the Disney+ Shows, Marvel TV Turns Focus to Hulu
That article itself is interesting. Looks like Marvel TV products may continue to be homed at Hulu (which Disney owns part of) in spite of the new Disney+ service. I got really annoyed with Hulu when it became subscription only when their original marketing suggested it was never going to be like that, but on reflection, I actually prefer what Marvel TV does over Marvel film. Yes, of course I've gotten deeply invested in the films too (although I feel a need for a long break after Endgame), but at a brush, I feel like the TV format lets us get to know the characters better and get more detailed comic-book like stories, serial format and all. Maybe after I cancel my Netflix subscription, I'll pick up Hulu instead. Besides I should be subscribing to the streaming service showing Agent Carter.
It also definitely sounds like once Netflix's two year grace period with the IP is up, Marvel TV has more plans for the Defenders characters.
I dont know what kind of world we are going to be in when one company has a stranglehold on all forms of copyrighted entertainment. I dont want to say I saw this coming, but...
That article itself is interesting. Looks like Marvel TV products may continue to be homed at Hulu (which Disney owns part of) in spite of the new Disney+ service. I got really annoyed with Hulu when it became subscription only when their original marketing suggested it was never going to be like that, but on reflection, I actually prefer what Marvel TV does over Marvel film. Yes, of course I've gotten deeply invested in the films too (although I feel a need for a long break after Endgame), but at a brush, I feel like the TV format lets us get to know the characters better and get more detailed comic-book like stories, serial format and all. Maybe after I cancel my Netflix subscription, I'll pick up Hulu instead. Besides I should be subscribing to the streaming service showing Agent Carter.
It also definitely sounds like once Netflix's two year grace period with the IP is up, Marvel TV has more plans for the Defenders characters.
Cloak and Dagger shows up next day and is well worth the watch. Runaways has been more hit and miss IMHO. I am excited for the Ghost Rider show that will be coming there.
I also find, at least on the horror movie front, the movie selection is a bit better, as far as non-original movies go.
From the Netflix side, I suspect that they would rather have more titles with fewer seasons than the inverse.
More titles means more splash cards for shows and more choices for viewership. Meanwhile additional seasons means an ever diminishing return on continued viewership.
From the Netflix side, I suspect that they would rather have more titles with fewer seasons than the inverse.
More titles means more splash cards for shows and more choices for viewership. Meanwhile additional seasons means an ever diminishing return on continued viewership.
Although my understanding is that shows like Friends and the Office are still the most watched shows on the service. I don't know how much of there owned original content really has the draw versus IP from other companies. And pretty much ALL of that is going away, as I think all of the major studios have announced creating there own streaming services
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'd be more excited it Ghost Rider was canon. Seriously, you cast the same guy that played the part in the MCU (Agents of SHIELD) but its not gonna be connected? Why? Why bother?
That article itself is interesting. Looks like Marvel TV products may continue to be homed at Hulu (which Disney owns part of) in spite of the new Disney+ service. I got really annoyed with Hulu when it became subscription only when their original marketing suggested it was never going to be like that, but on reflection, I actually prefer what Marvel TV does over Marvel film. Yes, of course I've gotten deeply invested in the films too (although I feel a need for a long break after Endgame), but at a brush, I feel like the TV format lets us get to know the characters better and get more detailed comic-book like stories, serial format and all. Maybe after I cancel my Netflix subscription, I'll pick up Hulu instead. Besides I should be subscribing to the streaming service showing Agent Carter.
It also definitely sounds like once Netflix's two year grace period with the IP is up, Marvel TV has more plans for the Defenders characters.
Cloak and Dagger shows up next day and is well worth the watch. Runaways has been more hit and miss IMHO. I am excited for the Ghost Rider show that will be coming there.
I also find, at least on the horror movie front, the movie selection is a bit better, as far as non-original movies go.
I had the same initial reaction, but now that the Spiderman Far From Home trailer is out, it's pretty easy to have Marvel say the Ghost Rider show is a different world in the multiverse where he didnt connect with SHIELD and potentially leave the door open for the Prime version which worked with SHIELD still show up if they want.
I still am not convinced that Mysterio has the numbering right...
No I'm sure there's a multiverse. Ghost Rider proved that along with Strange.
Now whether Mysterio IS from another Earth...is unclear.
Although my understanding is that shows like Friends and the Office are still the most watched shows on the service. I don't know how much of there owned original content really has the draw versus IP from other companies. And pretty much ALL of that is going away, as I think all of the major studios have announced creating there own streaming servicesFrom the Netflix side, I suspect that they would rather have more titles with fewer seasons than the inverse.
More titles means more splash cards for shows and more choices for viewership. Meanwhile additional seasons means an ever diminishing return on continued viewership.
None of their IP has a big draw, but part of that is due to the era we're in. Stranger Things is a minor cultural phenomenon, but the era of cultural phenomenon TV shows is largely over. GoT is potentially the last one (and then for reference, compare GoT viewership with say MASH, GoT loses in both raw numbers and percentage of audience). Every decade the audience is more and more fragmented.
Not really about Netflix, but the relationship between streaming services, IP, and piracy.
That teaser gave us nothing!
>.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've done up her (the show's) Twitter feed like it's been hacked. https://twitter.com/jessicajones
I thought it would be about Price Cheung going after her, but it looks like it's some other dude.
It's probably Foolkiller. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's probably Foolkiller. :p
oooh... foolkiller...havent heard that name in a long time!
Freehold,
Well I figure it was about time...
Cape,
I think that's doubtful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd hope the same, CapeCodRPGer, but I have read more than one interview with the showrunner/head writer who, reading between the lines, feels like she and the show are too cool to /really/ be part of the MCU, and therefore doesn't do more than cursory mentions/connections. See also: JJS2 not at all referencing, let alone building on, Jessica's character development from the Defenders. I'm sure Claire and Luke's involvement in the first season were studio mandates they couldn't get around. It seems to me like she (the showrunner) is embarrassed to be writing a "nerd show."
Otoh, S2 generally had poor reception so maybe some studio meddling might actually help in this case.
All I know is Season 2 has a lot to answer for in my book...especially for Hellcat. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was rewatching S1 with friends and I was struck at how different Trish was than in S2. Total character assassination.
Exactly! That was why I refused to watch more than two episodes. They completely RUINED my favorite "I didn't start out a Super Hero but I damn sure survived enough crap to become one!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we're on "Jessica could solve all her problems by killing a crazy murdering a!@!$+% immediately, refuses to, and then everyone suffers for it for 13 hours, Part III."
That said, I am looking forward to Jessica being Jessica and hoping the emergence of Hellcat is worth watching. It actually seems like some of their interactions will be good.
I am also looking forward to the episode directed by Krysten Ritter.
Also FYI, the villain is totally Foolkiller. At least one of the guys that held that title.
But yeah DQ, not sure it will be that way.
Non-spoilery review of the first 8 episodes.
Sounds like it's pretty solid, according to this reviewer. This gives me hope.
Regardless I'm glad I got the villain right this time.
I'm just starting episode 4 (what?). First two were strong. Got a little frustrated with 3, but I'm curious where things go. Trish seems to be handled much better so far (crossing fingers). As usual for me, I'm interested in Jess and in Jeri's plots, and could not care f#&&ing less about Malcom, but he continues to eat airtime. The episode Ritter directed was good.
|
The wife and I made it through the first three episodes last night. I've got mixed feelings so far. Episode one was well done. Episode two was interesting, with the Trish focus. Episode 3 was okay.
Overall, so far they've got a decent story developing. However, the focus on other, pointless characters (Malcolm and Hogarth) makes things drag so much I'd expect the police to pull the show over for illegal racing. As with pretty much every other Netflix MCU show, I'm guessing this season probably could have been several episodes shorter.
Eh liked it better then season 2 but It never hit the high that was season 1.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who loves superhero stuff, and remains a child at heart about it, I never really watch Jessica Jones for the story of Jessica Jones, someone who generally resents her powers, any sense of obligation they place upon her, or the word 'hero' itself.
Malcolm's story is interesting to me. Jeri's. Trish's. Eric's. Each has a different reaction to the presence of super-powers in their lives, and it's kind of neat to see. Jeri and Eric find ways to exploit either other super-people or their own gift to remain who they fundamentally are, although one at least shows some signs of growth, when exposed to Jessica, who is also just living her life, despite her powers, not because of them (but still making better choices, although it is interesting that between Fixer, PI and Blackmailer, half the cast's main jobs are 'digging up dirt on people'). Trish goes hog-wild, and best embodies the enthusiasm a younger me might have felt for the super-power lottery she won, but has the notion that might makes right, and that since she's got the power to win fights, she needs to get in lots of fights (kind of the opposite of Bruce Banner's philosophy mentioned by Natasha in Age of Ultron).
Unfortunately, the series has hit one theme fairly consistently. Each of the threats could have been addressed or pre-empted by Jessica in the first few episodes of the season, if she'd been some combination of sober and paying attention, and they dragged out the whole season, and did the damage they did, because she didn't A) throw a manhole cover from across the street at Killraven sooner, B) put a stop to her mother sooner, C) pay attention to Trish's highly visible flame out sooner. In each case, the body count only got as high as it did, because Jessica didn't really seem to *want* to get involved, and kept putting it off or pushing it away or trying to dodge any sort of responsibility for what was melting down around her (like some sort of anti-Spider-Man, which is kind of her thing).
It's a weird sort of message to send. When doing nothing and ignoring the situation is no longer an option, Jessica will, begrudgingly, put down her drink and do the right thing? Eh.
Still, some great work from the various actors and actresses. There were some gut-puncher lines like, "I'm sick of people abandoning friends and family like they've got infinite amounts of either. Work it out." or "I know you don't want to die alone. But you're going to."
The reasons the law isn't doing things seem kinda randomish this season.
"what if hamlet had superpowers...."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finished it today. I'm right with Aberzombie... better than 2, writing was veeeerrry bumpy, but ended well.
The ending I believe is controversial. Many found it bad or depressing. Weirdly, I actually felt quite elated. The middle of the season was hard to get through. It hit its stride on the last few episodes, and even a characterization I thought I was going to hate I was right there with.
Certainly better than Season 2 where the show started strong and then took a sharp nosedive halfway through and never recovered. I think one huge problem is Season 1 is great, though has a few flaws once you get past the brilliant performances and the chilling Kilgrave plot.... and with Season 2 and 3, they just tried to repeat the success of Season 1 rather than attempt any real change or forward motion. Psychopath is obsessed with Jessica Jones, due to complex reasons Jessica waffles in how she is going to deal with said psychopath with regard to rule of law, Jessica gets blackmailed, Jessica becomes captured, Jessica becomes uncaptured, Jessica finally stops the bad guy (okay, she didn't in season 2, but that "twist" was hardly a good one in the actual context of the narrative). The B-plots are also always versions of the same theme -- Malcolm overcoming a bad habit/attachment, Jeri being Lawful Evil, Trish being self-righteous and wanting to be seen as special, Trish vs. Dorothy, Dorothy vs. Jess. And each time they tried to just make lightning strike in the same place twice, what was good about the series got diluted and what was bad about it (pacing, inconsistent characterization that was hidden/made up for only by superior acting) became increasingly notable. They lacked proper leadership to take the show in different enough directions.
Moreover, when Jessica Jones is good, character drives the plot, and things make sense. When the show is bad, plot drives character, and characters do obnoxiously out of character and stupid things just to serve the plot. I hope, once Netflix's two year contract hold on the rights to the characters expire, that should there ever be a revival involving Jessica (whether solo or with others) on Hulu or Disney+, the new production team hires the people who wrote the good episodes (Scott Reynolds is a name that stands out on many good ones, and the one Jane Espenson episode was good which of course is unsurprising), and tells the bad writers, as well as Melissa Rosenberg who made it clear she is much too cool for the MCU, to seek employment elsewhere.
I will say the good episodes of season 3 are great, and why it stands above season 2 is that Jessica is much less often a bystander in her own story, and moreover has a much more distinct arc of character development. I really like Jessica, drunken warts and all, by the end of Season 3.
As always the performances are top frickin' notch, as is the direction and distinct visual feel. Each scene is a work of art in terms of mise en scene and atmosphere. It is especially of deep credit to Krysten Ritter and Rachael Taylor to make their characters continually watchable and relatable when the writing for Jessica and Trish gets nonsensical, ooc, and wishy-washy in the bad episodes.
And shout out to the awesome as always supporting characters. If we get more Defendersverse in 2 years, I want Zaya to be the new Hogarth in the legal aspects of the stories. And I will take 13 episodes of nothing but Gillian and her side-eye, please and thank you.
If you struggle through the middle keep going, it's worth it. Skip an episode if you have to. The last scene I especially thought was fantastic.
I feel I am with the consensus...better than season 2 but not as good as 1.
|
|
So I would say this is some good news.
Krysten Ritter Is Willing To Return For More ‘Jessica Jones’
Granted, it would be awhile before it could appear on one of the Disney streaming services (HULU, I'd guess). It'd be interesting to see what a show would be like with Disney firmly in control and the company's not inconsiderable resources to play with.
The same goes for the other former Netflix shows.