• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Daredevil season 3 Marvel/Netflix

^ This isn't like the Sony/Fox deal, where those 2 licensed Marvel characters, gaining control over their live action appearances in films made by them. The Netflix shows were simply ordered by them, and are actually owned and produced by Marvel Tv thru ABC Studios.
Unlike Sony with Spiderman, and Fox with X-Men, Netflix holds no claim to the IP, only streaming rights to continue offering the episodes on the service.
 
fireproof78 said:
I do agree that the discomfort is a sign of a well done episode. The struggle for me is that she feels constantly anxious as a character, so the backstory was hard to take in.

Definitely well done but I can't quite nail down the disquiet with the character.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean by this "anxiety". Karen Page (as portrayed- I don't think this is DAW doing it poorly, just how it is being done) always acts as if she's watching the "doors and corners" expecting something to come in or happen from off-screen.. like she isn't where she should be and just stole the Crown Jewels and may get caught.
 
crookeddy said:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/daredevil-cancelation-bad-news-netflix-165848575.html
Click to expand...

I think Parrots information has been floated around before. Since Netflix doesn’t release viewership, there’s no way to confirm.

Also: it maybe true, but it might not be enough to offset the cost of something they don’t totally own. The original Battlestar Galactica was successful in its first season, it was just to expensive to justify the cost.

This has been Netflix’s problem since the beginning, they were only licensing material. Material that could get pulled. That’s why they got into original content.

Why continue to spend money on something you don’t own fully? When you can spend that money on something you do? Netflix is making the same sort of business decisions other broadcasters make.
 
Christopher said:
If Netflix wanted to order any more Marvel productions, they wouldn't have cancelled the ones they already had.
Click to expand...

This is definitely a business decision, and apparently something with the contracts signed between Netflix and Marvel. There appears to be something in those contracts that Netflix does not like. Perhaps similar to an actor contract where extending the deal beyond this point requires substantially more financial (and creative control?) investment than was initially planned/expected? It certainly has to be more complicated than just Disney is opening a new streaming network. And it has to be something that has come up recently otherwise Netflix would not have ended the recent seasons of its shows the way it did.

I would certainly appreciate one more series (Defenders) that wraps up the dangling plots, but that would probably be too much to hope for.
 
theenglish said:
This is definitely a business decision, and apparently something with the contracts signed between Netflix and Marvel. There appears to be something in those contracts that Netflix does not like. Perhaps similar to an actor contract where extending the deal beyond this point requires substantially more financial (and creative control?) investment than was initially planned/expected? It certainly has to be more complicated than just Disney is opening a new streaming network. And it has to be something that has come up recently otherwise Netflix would not have ended the recent seasons of its shows the way it did.
Click to expand...

As the article linked above explained, they realized that most of the viewers of the Marvel shows were already Netflix subscribers anyway, so the shows weren't enlarging their subscriber base and therefore weren't making them significantly more money. And keeping them around as free advertising for Disney+ could cost them money. These decisions always come down to bean-counting and profit vs. loss.
 
theenglish said:
This is definitely a business decision, and apparently something with the contracts signed between Netflix and Marvel. There appears to be something in those contracts that Netflix does not like. Perhaps similar to an actor contract where extending the deal beyond this point requires substantially more financial (and creative control?) investment than was initially planned/expected? It certainly has to be more complicated than just Disney is opening a new streaming network. And it has to be something that has come up recently otherwise Netflix would not have ended the recent seasons of its shows the way it did.

I would certainly appreciate one more series (Defenders) that wraps up the dangling plots, but that would probably be too much to hope for.
Click to expand...

I think it’s more simple. It’s the expense wasn’t worth it. It didn’t get them more viewers. It wasn’t cost effective. They didn’t own it. Why keep it?
 
Christopher said:
As the article linked above explained, they realized that most of the viewers of the Marvel shows were already Netflix subscribers anyway, so the shows weren't enlarging their subscriber base and therefore weren't making them significantly more money. And keeping them around as free advertising for Disney+ could cost them money. These decisions always come down to bean-counting and profit vs. loss.
Click to expand...

I do wonder what kind of time frame they were looking at, though.

Obviously, I can't just assume my case is typical, but I definitely did sign up to Netflix for the marvel shows and I definitely have noticed a slow but steady decline in the amount of stuff they're offering that I want to see. As long as they had Marvel and Star Trek, I was a guaranteed subscriber. Now they're giving up Marvel and if CBSAA goes international, they may lose ST, too. There are still some shows available I really love (Sabrina, Stranger Things, The Good Place, Dirk Gently) but they're really heavily spaced out across the year, and they aren't even all Netflix owned, either. And their available choice of movies has been rather disappointing for a while. All while the competition is starting to heat up more than ever.

For now, this change isn't a deal-breaker, but if this kind of thinking becomes a habit, I honestly think it could wind up hurting them more than helping them in the long run.
 
Just finished season 3. Outstanding.
The best season of any comic book TV series.
I would love to see the creative team behind this continue, if not with Daredevil than another Superhero.
 
Turtletrekker said:
Marvel can't use the characters in any non-Netflix production for two years after cancellation.
Click to expand...

Marvel and Netflix to fans of these characters...
source.gif


Looks like the X-Men won't be the only new kids on the block in the early 2020s.
 
OCD Geek said:
Marvel and Netflix to fans of these characters...
Click to expand...

Why blame Marvel for it? It sounds to me like it's the sort of thing that the distributor, i.e. Netflix, would put in their contracts for the content they acquire. That kind of exclusivity period is pretty common in entertainment contracts. The people who buy the rights to distribute a creative work want to be able to do so exclusively for a certain period of time so they don't lose money to competitors. For instance, when I sell a short story to a magazine, the contract usually specifies a term during which the magazine's publisher has exclusive rights to the story -- sometimes a month, sometimes 6 months, sometimes a year -- and I have to wait until that term expires before I can market or republish it anywhere else. That's entirely fair, because they're paying me for the right to publish the story and they deserve the chance to profit from that without anyone else undercutting them.

So this 2-year delay before anyone else can use the property seems entirely routine to me, and there's no reason to interpret it as anything screwy or malicious.
 
And the cancellations themselves came entirely from Netflix, apparently Marvel didn't even know they were being canceled until they were.
 
This is entirely on Netflix, they're canceling the shows because they don't want to pay Disney for the right to make these shows when Disney will have it's own service soon. And they had these contracts to make sure that the characters they made popular in the current public consciousness can't be immediately used by Disney as well.
 
Well damn. There goes that theory. I guess this is truly the end for all of those shows. I can't see any of these shows, even Daredevil, returning after a two-year hiatus. :(
 
The Scrooge Doctor said:
I can't see any of these shows, even Daredevil, returning after a two-year hiatus. :(
Click to expand...

There was a gap of 2 1/2 years between Daredevil seasons 2 & 3, and 2 1/3 years between Jessica Jones seasons 1 & 2, although The Defenders did happen in between those.

And we live in a time when shows from a decade or two ago keep getting revived -- I think it was just announced that they're bringing NYPD Blue back, for instance. And lots of British shows go on break for a year or two or even more and then come back, like Red Dwarf and Sherlock.
 
Christopher said:
There was a gap of 2 1/2 years between Daredevil seasons 2 & 3, and 2 1/3 years between Jessica Jones seasons 1 & 2, although The Defenders did happen in between those.
Click to expand...
...when they were actively working on those shows through pre-production, writing, filming, post-production, and anything in between. While it's not clear what "can't use for two years" explicitly means, I'm sure that means at least filming.

Christopher said:
And we live in a time when shows from a decade or two ago keep getting revived -- I think it was just announced that they're bringing NYPD Blue back, for instance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but those shows are planned towards reviving depending on people's careers and in many of those cases, their careers are opened enough to easily fit such revivals (obvious exceptions include John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf). While I wouldn't say any of thes leads are big stars on their own right, they are at least rising stars (particularly Cox and Ritter) and all of the actors in these shows still need paying jobs. If there's no guarantee work for two years (returning to the previous point about the two-year gap), then there's a good chance of someone joining another show or movie that prevents their commitment for returning.

Christopher said:
And lots of British shows go on break for a year or two or even more and then come back, like Red Dwarf and Sherlock.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised I have to point this out to you, but British and American shows are produced very differently, which results in the infrequent series and the reduced number of episodes.
 
The Scrooge Doctor said:
While I wouldn't say any of thes leads are big stars on their own right, they are at least rising stars (particularly Cox and Ritter) and all of the actors in these shows still need paying jobs. If there's no guarantee work for two years (returning to the previous point about the two-year gap), then there's a good chance of someone joining another show or movie that prevents their commitment for returning.
Click to expand...

Of course that's true. I'm just saying it's possible to bring casts back together after they've moved on to other things. It's not guaranteed, no, but it's not absolutely inconceivable either. Look at, say, Alien Nation. The show was cancelled for budgetary reasons, the network tried to find a way to revive it as TV movies, but they couldn't work it out and the cast and crew moved on. But then, 4 years later, they finally did manage to get the TV movie revival underway and were able to reassemble the entire cast. It can happen.


I'm surprised I have to point this out to you, but British and American shows are produced very differently, which results in the infrequent series and the reduced number of episodes.
Click to expand...

Yes, obviously, it has been that way in the past. But we live in an age when the nature of American television is changing. Streaming TV on subscription services is closer to the British model -- shorter seasons, less dependence on a constant stream of commercial sales, more shows built around prestigious actors with other demands on their time. My point is that just because things have historically been a certain way, that doesn't mean they'll inevitably stay that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top