Like I said previously
Disney taking all it's toys and going home
Well, maybe D'Onofrio will now get his wish to show up as Fisk in a Holland/Spider-Man movie after all?
This means it's almost certain Jessica Jones and The Punisher are on their final seasons at Netflix too, as they're already filmed.
Runaways season 2 debuts December 21st on Hulu, and Cloak & Dagger season 2 is finished filming (to air on Freeform/ABC Family)... but after that ???
Well, maybe D'Onofrio will now get his wish to show up as Fisk in a Holland/Spider-Man movie after all?
This means it's almost certain Jessica Jones and The Punisher are on their final seasons at Netflix too, as they're already filmed.
Runaways season 2 debuts December 21st on Hulu, and Cloak & Dagger season 2 is finished filming (to air on Freeform/ABC Family)... but after that ???
Runaways should be safe...With the Fox merger, Disney now has controlling interest in Hulu. Disney also owns Freeform, so Cloak and Dagger should also be safe.
This is all about Disney and Netflix, which are soon to be major rivals in the streaming wars, and neither side wanting to help the other.
Yup, if we see Daredevil on screen again - and it's likely we will, whether that's soon or ten years from now - it'll be a new actor and a new version of the character. It might even be in MCU Phase 4, since at the moment it looks like they'll be relying a lot on very obscure (to a general audience) Marvel characters and Daredevil would actually have some name value built into the character.
Netflix could actually be in trouble. They're still years away from turning a profit, but they're topping out their American growth and Europe's not growing much either. That's why they're starting to invest heavily in material for the Asian market, but that might not be enough to keep them going until they start actually making money. With their top-tier shows all gone or about to finish (with the sole exception of Stranger Things and - a bit further back - 13 Reasons Why), Netflix have a sudden dearth of must-see content, and Disney pulling all the Marvel shows hurts them even further.
They're also clearly going to pull all of the Fox movies and TV shows the second they can, along with Disney's own content, and move it over to Disney+ and Hulu with two original Star Wars live-action shows, three and probably more MCU shows with the actual film actors in them etc. That's stuff that Netflix can't compete with.
All I know is I think it's a shame that Charlie Cox is no longer Daredevil. Same is true for D'Onofrio.
I admit, with the future loss of the Netflix Marvel shows (I think it's all but certain that Jessica Jones and Punisher will be cancelled sometime after there next seasons air, given those are well along in production), plus the diminishing returns on movies which appear there, that Netflix is likely to go from "subscribe continually" to "subscribe for a month or two and binge all the shows I like, then unsubscribe. Granted Disney+ is likely to the be same thing.
Didn't the press release say that the character of Daredevil will appear again? My money is on either a reboot as a theatrical property, or a new show on Hulu.
Well, maybe D'Onofrio will now get his wish to show up as Fisk in a Holland/Spider-Man movie after all?
This means it's almost certain Jessica Jones and The Punisher are on their final seasons at Netflix too, as they're already filmed.
Runaways season 2 debuts December 21st on Hulu, and Cloak & Dagger season 2 is finished filming (to air on Freeform/ABC Family)... but after that ???
Runaways and Cloak & Dagger might continue. Disney owns Freeform outright, and they have 60% of Hulu.
Netflix could actually be in trouble. They're still years away from turning a profit, but they're topping out their American growth and Europe's not growing much either. That's why they're starting to invest heavily in material for the Asian market, but that might not be enough to keep them going until they start actually making money. With their top-tier shows all gone or about to finish (with the sole exception of Stranger Things and - a bit further back - 13 Reasons Why), Netflix have a sudden dearth of must-see content, and Disney pulling all the Marvel shows hurts them even further.
Unfortunately, we've entered the phase where streaming rights are going to fragment, and it'll end up being almost as bad as cable TV. Why should studios lease their content to Netflix, when they can just put it on THEIR streaming service.
Realistically, i think this is going to make piracy much more of a force. When almost everything was on just a few streaming services, piracy wasn't anywhere as much worth the bother...you could just pay $8 a month to Netflix, and have access to most of what you wanted. Now, with stuff fragmented over dozens of streaming services? I wager piracy makes a much bigger splash than it has since the heyday of Napster.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've assumed this is Netflix being spiteful and stupid rather than Disney forcing them to stop the shows. Disney already pulled their entire library from Netflix effective Feb 2019, and this feels like Netflix is "getting back at Disney".
It also could be Disney paid them a lot to stop the shows and end the contract so Disney can pick up with them directly without waiting for years for the current contracts to end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well this sucks, and indeed I agree that it seems if they're cancelling their most-liked Marvel show, Punisher and JJ will be cancelled once their upcoming seasons air too.
To throw my completely unfounded speculation in the mix--I wonder if Netflix could have kept the shows going, but Disney-Marvel was getting more restrictive about what stories they could tell/what characters they had access to, so they just cancelled rather than having to deal with that. I don't know if it's so much "getting back at Disney" than not wanting to deal with them, even if they could have.
Both the official statements of cancellation have noted it isn't the end of the line for those characters, just those particular series, so I hope we do see them down the line.
I don't know why people keep saying if they use the characters again they will be recast. I remember Feige saying something about recasting characters (not necessarily tv-to-film) but IIRC it was in the context of only if they had to, i.e., the actor was not available (or unwilling, etc.). They know full well the actors bring a fan following in and of themselves and, if they want to use the characters in any context, would probably try to make the existing cast work first.
Anyway, I'm not going to pearl-clutch about it---and I think the more realistic worst-case scenario is, despite promises, this is the last we'll see of those characters. Which really sucks, but in a way I'd prefer that to them being "rebooted" and seeing the undoing of the however-tenuous it's-all-connected theme out there---and creating a split fanbase, which will not do them or the audience any favors.
That said, I do not think this is a death knell for Netflix by any means. They do well with many of their original shows, many of which bring in as large or even larger audiences than the Marvel series--Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, the Crown, etc. Those shows may not be watched by a lot of geeks, but that is not an indication of success (or not). (And meanwhile since they get the rights to show the CW shows, superhero fans will have those to watch still.) Will Netflix suffer with an oversatuation of streaming choices in general? Maybe, but as much as we Marvel fans may not want to think so, the success of those shows were but one part of a much larger Netflix pie.
In fact, it occurs to me Marvel was largely filling in all their options (by which I mean budget) for action/adventure shows, and maybe another reason they might be letting these shows go is so they can develop their own IP in the action/adventure market, which if done well they could profit from through merchandising without having to share.
It does suck because I think a lot of the shows have had a lot of good come out of them. On the other hand... if we do see the Defenders in any form show up on the Disney service or Hulu or in a movie or whatever, maybe next time it will be with decent pacing for once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Argh me mateys I do be hav'n a feel'n we be hittin the high sea's very soon.
I've been with Netflix more than 10 years now, and the garbage that's starting to accumulate there is making me reconsider my monthly subscription for the first time. I'm not so impressed by what my kids are watching on there either.
Less TV and more reading/gym time/life in general wouldn't be so bad now that I think of it...
|
To throw my completely unfounded speculation in the mix--I wonder if Netflix could have kept the shows going, but Disney-Marvel was getting more restrictive about what stories they could tell/what characters they had access to, so they just cancelled rather than having to deal with that.
Both the Kingpin, and, more recently, Bullseye, are certainly relatively big name villains to be unavailable to the MCU because 'Netflix is using them.' Particularly (wild speculation) if a 'Dark Avengers' is one of the phase 4 ideas being tossed around.
Marvel is not short on heroes to put on-screen, with the Fox merger bringing the X-Men and Fantastic Four back, but good villains? Those are gold, as they've learned with Loki, and, arguably, Thanos.
|
It was sad to see the series ended, especially with reports of the season 4 writing already underway. That's life though.
I'd imagine if Disney could sign the actors from these series to contracts, we might see them continue in the roles on Hulu (or maybe the MCU).
I almsot feel sorry for Netflix, though. If Disney wants to, it could more than likely crush the company. At least until the point where it's hurting so much, someone else buys it.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see how The Streaming Wars turn out.
Netflix still has Stranger Things, Lost in Space, and others, I'm sure they'll be fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, it'll be interesting to see how The Streaming Wars turn out.
Like I said above, I think the biggest winner of the streaming wars will be piracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Altered Carbon is coming back too, with Anthony Mackie (Falcon from Avengers) as the lead. They aren't going to follow the books, and Morgan is directly involved in developing the story.
Travelers season 3 drops in a couple days, and I'm looking forward to that.
The Netflix movies have largely been disappointing. Spectral was okay, but still pretty meh. The Titan was extremely bland. Outlaw King I stopped watching half-way through because I was bored. I'm not going to bother opening a movie from them unless people tell me it is amazing.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see how The Streaming Wars turn out.Like I said above, I think the biggest winner of the streaming wars will be piracy.
ARR ME MATEY!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey folks, I know the Paizo mods don't like folks encouraging piracy. I know no one's getting there yet, but probably best not to dance the line.
I saw something somewhere (I can't remember) that suggested the Marvel shows were not being "binged" enough compared to other popular shows on Netflix (the MOST binged one being one I've never heard of--probably due to Netflix's weird recommendation algorithms). None of the shows were in the top 10 of being "binged."
This is weird, because I don't see how "binging" earns them any more funding than watching regularly but not all at once.
I also wonder if "binging" itself is just becoming less of a thing. This is anecdotal obviously, but I don't hear people talking about having bingewatching nights the way they used to.
I'd say it's true, the Netflix Marvel shows are less bingeable. They are slowly paced and very intense--hard for me and I would guess others to watch more than a few eps at a time. I also find more and more I want to watch no more than a couple episodes at once and let them sink in before moving on. But the "solution" to that (not that I think it would be a problem) would be to shorten the seasons (like they did with Iron Fist) and fix the pacing.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
It should be better if a show isn't binged as much. A bingable show you can subscribe for a month, binge it, then cancel. The slower a shower is watched and completed, the longer you're likely to retain the subscriber for multiple months, or habituate them to simply keeping their subscription indefinitely.
I don't binge but I will watch an episode or two every day.
Not the marvel shows mind you, but other shows.
This is weird, because I don't see how "binging" earns them any more funding than watching regularly but not all at once.
A major metric for this sector of the economy (games, apps, media, etc) is time. The more time a consumer spends on your service, the better hold you have over them (ie, the more likely they are to continue giving you money). If a customer only spends a couple hours per month on your service, they are more likely to cancel it because they are spending their time somewhere else.
A major metric for this sector of the economy (games, apps, media, etc) is time. The more time a consumer spends on your service, the better hold you have over them (ie, the more likely they are to continue giving you money). If a customer only spends a couple hours per month on your service, they are more likely to cancel it because they are spending their time somewhere else.This is weird, because I don't see how "binging" earns them any more funding than watching regularly but not all at once.
While I see what you are saying, this doesn't account for what JoelF847 said: if you binge a show over the weekend, and then you aren't interested in watching anything else, you'll cancel your sub and just resubscribe later when you want to watch something else. For example, if I ONLY want Marvel shows and I DO happen to binge them (I did do a binge session with a friend on Daredevil S3), then I'll cancel my subscription after that one weekend, and not resubscribe until Jessica Jones comes out.
If I decide to watch a series like an actual TV show, though, and watch one episode a week, that means I am subscribing for at least three months(presuming a 13 episode series)---AND because I am logging in more frequently over a regular period of time, I will be seeing more new recommended shows pop up that may suck me in and keep me watching as I run out of other show.
I guess it really just depends what the viewership is doing in particular. It would be interesting to see streaming habits over time--and if/how they are changing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Netflix: 130 million subscribers
Hulu: 20 million subscribers
In 2017, Netflix added 7.5 million subscribers (the majority of that was international, but still 2 million new subscribers in the US). More people subscribe, and stay subscribed, to Netflix than any other streaming service. The 2 million new subscribers in the US is good, but fairly small increase for Netflix, but it's a massive chunk compared to Hulu's user base.
If you don't count all Amazon Prime subscribers, but only active users (100 million people pay for prime, but only 26 million actually watch videos on the service), Netflix has more subscribers than all other services combined.
I'm not going to make a claim to causality, but if the hypothesis you mentioned were true, it seems highly doubtful that the company that has the strategy of releasing all episodes simultaneously would be dominating the market in this way.
I suspect it has to do with two factors though. First would be human nature. People tend to take the path of "least resistance". Managing your account, turning it on and off, it isn't technically a lot of work, but it is work that occupies mental space. Once subscribed people are likely to stay subscribed until conditions change enough to push them off, and then they'll likely stay off. Second, Netflix doesn't spend their revenue on advertising. Advertising is effective when you need to get people to learn about your product, but everyone knows about Netflix at this point, and a subscriber who is binging a show is fully aware of your product. You don't have to advertise. Instead, Netflix is spending all of their money on content. Since that is what consumers want, that gets them to stay.
I think a factor why the Marvel shows are dropping like flies is a combination of their lower viewership (a show that isn't being watched as much isn't drawing in new customers, or helping to keep old ones as much), and the licensing fee. Disney isn't stupid, they don't just sell the rights on a one-time fee basis, they want a piece of the pie in perpetuity. My guess is that each season has payments to Disney as part of the budget, and if you combine that with these shows being a little more expensive (they do have some special effects, and action shows are always more expensive) the cost was getting harder and harder to justify.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The axe falls for the final time:
Gizmodo: "Netflix's The Punisher and Jessica Jones Are Officially Cancelled"
It had never been done before.
Four separate television series, each with different super-talented showrunners, writers, directors, cast and crew, coming out months apart and then...
...they would meet in a single event series all set in the heart of New York City.
We called them The Defenders.
And together we were thrilled by stories of Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, Iron Fist and even the Punisher joined in!
They said it couldn't be done.
But Marvel assembled amazing teams to write, produce, direct, edit, and score 13 seasons and 161 one-hour episodes.
Take a moment and go online and look at the dazzling list of actors, writers, directors, and musicians who graced us with the very best of their craft.
We loved each and every minute of it.
And we did it all for you -- the fans -- who cheered for us around the world and made all the hard work worth it.
So, Thank You!
On behalf of everyone at Marvel Television, we couldn't be more proud or more grateful to our audience.
Our Network partner may have decided they no longer want to continue telling the tales of these great characters... but you know Marvel better than that.
As Matthew Murdock's Dad once said, "The measure of a man is not how he gets knocked to the mat, it's how he gets back up."
To be continued...!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bummer, but not unexpected at this point. I've also noticed other Netflix series not directly made by Netflix getting the axe, and so I am inclined to believe Loeb saying "our network partner decided" to cancel, not Marvel.
Given they have frequently said, including in Slaadhead's quote, that "it's not over" and "to be continued" I'm hoping once Netflix's no-compete clause is up in 2 years or so, we'll be seeing more Defenders-esque series. I realize by then many of the actors may move on to other things, but there is room in the Micro-MCU-verse for many other stories to be told. Me, I'm hoping for, should the actors remain available, Daughters of the Dragon. (And if the actors aren't available hopefully that means they are doing other cool stuff.)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I've read in multiple places that there is a 2-year non-compete from the date of cancellation on these characters in film and TV. This actually means Netflix did a slight favor by cancelling Jessica Jones early, rather than waiting a few weeks after S3 drops. This means JJ could hit screens again months earlier than if Netflix had waited.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully the 2-year non-compete runs from Netflix's cancellation date to the future air/premiere date on the new channel/service. If that's the case, Marvel could start writing and filming during the embargo as long as the series doesn't debut on Disney+ (or Hulu, or wherever) before the 2 year limit.
It'd be nice to see lawyer Jenn Walters take on Murdock & Nelson in court.
I'd pay to see that Nega. Especially since I'd like to see She-Hulk in some form.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to see She-Hulk in the MCU. I'm torn between wanting to see her in the films, as a "next-phase" more or less replacement for Hulk (the Avengers could use a good lawyer, and the CGI would be better--and yes, she needs to be CGI'd like Mark Ruffalo, especially since her size sometimes shifts according to her mood, even while staying green), and I'd like to see how she bounces off some of those characters... or seeing her in a television-scale show, where you could go more in depth with characterization (and the CGI budget may not be too bad if she's the only one generating it). As for what it should be like were it a TV show, I'd vote for it to be heavily based on Charles Soule's She-Hulk solo a few years ago--a good balance of comedy with serious superhero concerns, without being hokey or insulting the reader. Plot: setting up a law office specializing in the concerns of enhanced individuals; bad guys keep making things messy. The only problem/question is if we're basing things on that, do we bring in the MCU's Trish Walker exploring her newfound abilities working as a hero-for-hire? (Lower case Hs) Or since Trish is much darker and weird (with a thoroughly assassinated character from JJ S2) in this universe, do you pick a different, more f%@+-it, happy-go-lucky hero to replace Hellcat? (Mind, I recognize Patsy has gone through some serious crap in the comics too, but her attitude is quite different from Trish's--but OTOH a different character to bounce off of could help Trish grow a bit.)
I want to see She-Hulk in the MCU. I'm torn between wanting to see her in the films, as a "next-phase" more or less replacement for Hulk (the Avengers could use a good lawyer, and the CGI would be better--and yes, she needs to be CGI'd like Mark Ruffalo, especially since her size sometimes shifts according to her mood, even while staying green), and I'd like to see how she bounces off some of those characters... or seeing her in a television-scale show, where you could go more in depth with characterization (and the CGI budget may not be too bad if she's the only one generating it). As for what it should be like were it a TV show, I'd vote for it to be heavily based on Charles Soule's She-Hulk solo a few years ago--a good balance of comedy with serious superhero concerns, without being hokey or insulting the reader. Plot: setting up a law office specializing in the concerns of enhanced individuals; bad guys keep making things messy. The only problem/question is if we're basing things on that, do we bring in the MCU's Trish Walker exploring her newfound abilities working as a hero-for-hire? (Lower case Hs) Or since Trish is much darker and weird (with a thoroughly assassinated character from JJ S2) in this universe, do you pick a different, more f+&$-it, happy-go-lucky hero to replace Hellcat? (Mind, I recognize Patsy has gone through some serious crap in the comics too, but her attitude is quite different from Trish's--but OTOH a different character to bounce off of could help Trish grow a bit.)
I would pay good money to see your take on this idea.
I guess the question though is...Does Marvel even have complete rights for She-Hulk? Universal apparently still has some say over the Hulk's solo films...they can use him in Avengers movies but Universal has distribution rights for solo films. I vaguely recall She-Hulk potentially be tangled up in that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen this discussed by fans before. I don't think anyone's looked at or really knows what's in the contract, apart from the fact that Universal has distribution rights for Hulk solo films. And indeed, that's part of why the movie option for She-Hulk would be for her to be in an Avengers (or other team) movie because that certainly gets around it as it does for Hulk. It would depend on the specificity of the contract regarding TV shows... if she can't have a solo TV show, they could put her on a team probably just as they could in the movies. Even if my dream of basing it on Charles Soule's solo title could be made to work because there are other regular superhero characters in it (again, Hellcat, among others)--call it Marvel's Bad Ass Ladies of Law or whatever (not really) and not really an issue. Or alternately, they work with Universal for the distribution, just as Marvel worked with Sony to put out the new Spider-Man movies.
In the meantime it's just fan dream spitballing, and that's okay too.
It could even be possible that Marvel could make a She-Hulk movie without Universal involved. I mean it would not be the first time the contracts have been read in a certain way.
Or as DeathQuaker said, they could work something out. Happened before, too^^
shrugs...oh by all means I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade on this stuff, even though I think I sometimes feel that is what my comments sound like. Only Marvel and Universal really actually know what those contract say, and at least one of the initial reasons no one pursued Hulk sequels has probably as much to do with how well the Norton Hulk did.
Namor is also IIRC tangled up with Universal, although I think the success of Aquaman makes him a bit harder to do anyway. I'd still like to see them use him as a villain in a film, which might also be a way they could work around the situation.
Namor has, in my mind, rarely been heroic. He's more a foil against humanity and especially it's worst versions. (Imperius Rex PUNCH Nazis!)
But I want SOME kind of She-hulk before I'm 50. (I'm currently 42...)