A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
Related communities:
There is a weird inverse relationship between how long audiences will wait to give a show a chance, and how long execs (specifically Netflix) will give the show.
I think there must be more to the Netflix example. Maybe they are monitoring other data points like web searches or show mentions on fora to quantify buzz and work out if the show has hit potential with target markets. Either that or they get some new opportunity for creative accounting with each show.
It's capitalism. Unverified, but I've heard it explained as a result of tracking growth through new subscribers. Keeping around an old show won't drive new subscribers unless it's a huge show that generates a lot of buzz. New shows have a better chance of appealing to people who aren't already subscribers. So they cancel the old one and start up another new show instead.
I'm currently re-reading Dan Simmons' Hyperion Cantos, and something struck me. If this had been made into an HBO/... show, like, 8 years ago, it could have been a genre- and generation defining TV event akin to Game of Thrones.
But if it was to be produced today? It would be a cringe, plastic-feeling knock-off akin to Netflix' Last Airbender.
Twin peaks?
Twin Peaks started out good and stayed good. I didn't get around to watching it until the late 2000s. I had heard that it started to fall apart after the killer was revealed, but it just kept getting better.
It isn't for everybody, though, and it probably just got too weird for a mainstream audience.
marvel: "here's what you wanted"
us: "kys"