sholio | The ratings dance

Interesting article found via umadoshi: Why Netflix Cancels Shows After A Couple Of Seasons.

I read that! It was a business model I did not approve of.

Yeah; depending on how accurate it is, it actually manages to be even more depressingly restrictive than the rating/advertiser focus of network TV. Way to make the networks look good by comparison, Netflix.

Way to make the networks look good by comparison, Netflix.

Seriously. Even a little transparency about viewer numbers would make it feel less like a shell game.

Yeah, I wish they'd communicate better. Especially since they're such a lynchpin of the streaming-entertainment world these days.

... btw, that story request you made, the drug withdrawals one? I've got about 5K of it. :D I thought I'd be done by now, but it just ... keeps going ...

... btw, that story request you made, the drug withdrawals one? I've got about 5K of it. :D I thought I'd be done by now, but it just ... keeps going ...

I hope you're all right with me not feeling guilty.

I'm having a lot of fun, so no guilt required. :D

Although ... the current state of the story is that it's mildly stalled out because while I was sailing happily through writing the first part of it, I've hit a point where I'm not quite sure how much to skip over and ... where to focus, I guess, for the remainder of the story. It's a premise where there's a lot of rather self-similar recovery-type stuff; kind of like writing someone recovering from the flu, say, where the focus of the story determines what gets left in or out.

So if there was any specific thing that you were hoping for from it, in terms of emotional arcs and the like, feel free to say so! I understand if you'd rather not be involved with the plotting process of a gift story on that level, but on the other hand, if you do have something in particular that you'd like to see, it would actually be quite helpful to know about.

I'm having a lot of fun, so no guilt required.

Oh, good.

I understand if you'd rather not be involved with the plotting process of a gift story on that level, but on the other hand, if you do have something in particular that you'd like to see, it would actually be quite helpful to know about.

Oh, jeez. I am not sure I had a particular direction in mind. What are your choices of focus, if that's an answerable question?

I definitely don't mean to put you on the spot! Don't feel obligated to pick something, but at the same time, don't hesitate to let me know if you have a preference. In cases like this, I tend to just go with my gut instinct and/or what I most want to write, but in this situation I have multiple options that look equally interesting to me, so I'd hate to accidentally pick the one that would make the story less fun for you.

It's basically a matter of whether I want to focus on Danny's detox and recovery in detail (that is, focus more centrally on what Danny's going through), or essentially gloss over the details, do a lot of time-skipping, and focus more on Ward's reactions to it, buried trauma that he's pushing through for Danny's sake, and the like.

Edited 2019-03-26 07:02 (UTC)

I definitely don't mean to put you on the spot!

I don't feel put-upon. I just hadn't expected to have any input.

It's basically a matter of whether I want to focus on Danny's detox and recovery in detail (that is, focus more centrally on what Danny's going through), or essentially gloss over the details, do a lot of time-skipping, and focus more on Ward's reactions to it, buried trauma that he's pushing through for Danny's sake, and the like.

If both are equally interesting for you to write, I am slightly inclined toward Option B. [edit] Says the person who rewatched the last two episodes of Season 1 of Iron Fist tonight.

I am not averse to Danny-POV, to be clear. I am interested in how Ward handles it.

Edited (it all feels like one block of story anyway) 2019-03-26 07:39 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll give it a gentle push in that direction and see how it goes. That does help a lot. :D

Says the person who rewatched the last two episodes of Season 1 of Iron Fist tonight.

Ha! I may have to do that. Necessary research, of course!

Re: your note about it feeling like one block of story - it really does. When I watched it the first time, those two episodes were where things really kicked off for me; I was certainly enjoying it up to that point, and enjoying parts quite a lot, but it was also a show I was (mostly) watching in the background while doing art, and tuning out on parts of the storyline that weren't as interesting to me. That two-episode block, with all its emotional turning points, was where the show really caught hold of me and wouldn't let go.

Edited 2019-03-26 08:05 (UTC)

That does help a lot.

I'm glad! And I look forward.

That two-episode block, with all its emotional turning points, was where the show really caught hold of me and wouldn't let go.

I think it may be the point where the show figured out (or at least made visible) the kind of story it was. For Colleen, Ward, and Danny, it's the same question: are you going to keep cycling through the damage of the past in a decaying loop or are you going to grab on to the one thing in your life and leap into the unknown? It's a different answer and a different point for all of them, but they all have to face it. And they all make the leap. Some more wobbly than others, and like all decisions of this kind it will have to be made and remade and remade again, but at the end of the season, even with the weirdo cliffhanger of the closed gate to K'un-Lun that was never resolved, they're all on the other side, looking forward.

Hey hey! Would tonight be a good night for 10K of drug withdrawal fic?

https://archiveofourown.org/works/18424005

I didn't explicitly gift it to you because I didn't want to suggest an implied obligation to review (I usually don't, with this kind of promptfic, for that exact reason). But I know you've had a rough time lately and I hope this will make things a little better. Read and enjoy. <3

Hey hey! Would tonight be a good night for 10K of drug withdrawal fic?

It's an excellent night! Thank you!

(I do not mind it being gifted, if that is a thing you do; I will not feel guilt-tripped. I might just at this stage of exhaustion leave comments like "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!")

But I know you've had a rough time lately and I hope this will make things a little better. Read and enjoy.

*hugs*

*hugs back* I'll go ahead and gift it, then! Outside of exchanges, I tend to be a bit circumspect about that to avoid putting anyone on the spot, but I happily gift when I have reason to think gifting would be appreciated. (ETA: Comments of the "AAAAHHHH!" variety are also loved. <3)

Oh, by the way, inspired by this comment thread, I went ahead and rewatched the last 2 episodes of S1 myself a couple of nights ago - I had meant to come back and reply to this anyway. In addition to the things you pointed out above, about the show (as well as the characters) essentially choosing a direction here, I also really appreciate how much thematic weight this show gives to characters explicitly defeating and overcoming the characters who belittle and abuse them. It's most obvious with Ward shooting Harold at the end, but I had forgotten how much of a thematic motif that also was with Colleen and Bakuto, and (to a lesser degree) Danny and Davos. And okay, sure, it's a power fantasy of sorts, but it's one that really resonates with me.

I particularly appreciate that it's developed in a way that makes it explicitly not a revenge fantasy; it's about overcoming your past and your abuse, not about hurting others. Ward's first attempt to kill Harold is a purely reactive act born of fury and resentment and pain, but in the end, when it finally "takes", he's not trying to hurt Harold or even to protect himself, but to save Danny. And Colleen is only trying to end her fight with Bakuto, not to end him; she specifically makes the choice not to be like him (even if that choice is taken out of her hands in a bit of narrative convenience).

I just really like this show's moral and thematic underpinnings, even if some of the narrative choices along the way are kind of odd.

Edited 2019-04-12 06:44 (UTC)

(ETA: Comments of the "AAAAHHHH!" variety are also loved. <3)

Hee. Already on it!

It's most obvious with Ward shooting Harold at the end, but I had forgotten how much of a thematic motif that also was with Colleen and Bakuto, and (to a lesser degree) Danny and Davos.

Yes! I agree very much that the point is growth, not revenge, and I love the two different killings of Harold Meachum for exactly that reason. Just the clarity with which he shoots Harold shows how much Ward has changed as a person since the midpoint of the season. It's protective and it's also unhesitating and it's a break with the previous pattern of his life, whereas the stabbing just felt like part of it. Still in the same loop. That the murder didn't even last was just insult to injury.

Davos' own history of parental abuse made me wonder what the show would have done with him in a third season: if he would have continued to be the negative exemplar to Ward/Colleen or if he could have managed to pull himself into some kind of antihero, if never exactly an ally. He wasn't dead, and he was important to Danny, which meant the possibility of rapprochement was on the table, even if I feel it might also have been narratively useful for Danny not to reconnect successfully with someone from his emotionally complicated family past. Plus I just like Sacha Dhawan, so in the timeline where Netflix didn't cancel all its shows for opaque reasons of digital planned obsolescence I would have liked to see him again.

I really enjoyed how many different ways this show had to reflect its characters off one another while still maintaining them as distinct and idiosyncratic people. It made their relationships feel thematically rich as well as fun to watch.

I just really like this show's moral and thematic underpinnings, even if some of the narrative choices along the way are kind of odd.

Agreed.

Oh yes! Clarity is a great word for it, I think. I love that scene on the rooftop, and that's a big part of why, that intensity of purpose and the way Ward just walks up there and ends it, especially after Harold openly dismissing him as a threat all episode. And such a contrast to the first murder scene, which I agree with you was very much in keeping with the pattern of his life so far. Harold acts; Ward reacts. He's a simmering cauldron of rage and misery under a tightly controlled surface veneer of calm. He's never really in control - of himself, of his addictions, of his life. When he finally erupts at Harold, he's still not in control, it's just a different way of not being in control. And the fact that it literally changes nothing (Harold comes back, worse than before) thematically underscores that.

But in the scene on the roof, he is in control, maybe for the first time ever - he's mastered himself, he's on top of the situation (finally), and he's found something other than himself that's worth fighting for.

I really enjoyed how many different ways this show had to reflect its characters off one another while still maintaining them as distinct and idiosyncratic people. It made their relationships feel thematically rich as well as fun to watch.

Yes, same! I too wonder what they would have done with Davos if they'd had a third season to explore him further. I agree about Sacha Dhawan being a pleasure to watch. I'd have loved to see him finding his way toward his own form of self-determination away from the toxic fallout of his family and society, whatever shape that ended up taking.

And Joy, too. One thing I really love about Joy in season 2 is that she ends up having her own epiphany and seeking redemption in her own way, but she does it without being nice, or kind, or conciliatory, or any of the things women are supposed to be. She's still a total asshole, interpersonally. But she's trying to do the right thing and fix the things she broke. Like all of them, she's still feeling her way toward who she wants to be.

I love how the show is, at heart, about a bunch of broken children trying to learn how to be adults - in different ways, and some with more success at it than others. We get a pretty good idea of where Danny, Colleen, and Ward are headed by the end (future seasons would likely not have changed that too much, though I would still have loved to see them) but Joy and Davos remain a question mark.

I think I also feel a little better about the MCU shows being cancelled - it was largely irrelevant who was watching, more "are they increasing their audience?" Which is hard for any show to do. But it does make more sense of the complete-in-one-season stories that a lot of Netflix shows seem to have recently, if they're aware they're likely to get 2 seasons maximum.

Yeah, it's odd how much better it actually does make me feel about the MCU shows. It was nothing to do with them as shows; they just didn't really have a chance. But at the same time, AARGH.

It's definitely going to lead to a more self-contained storytelling model, I think.

Yeah, same. Also, while on the one hand it's very frustrating to have those arbitrary hard limits, now that creators know they exist they can start planning their shows in satisfying and complete 1-2 season arcs. For instance, I'm curious about a second season for Russian Doll, but S1 was perfect and satisfying and I'd be fine if there was never another one.

I a so deeply unsurprised. Not by the details but by the underlying businss-y attitude.

I'm also reminded of a bit of script humour somewhere on tumblr that contrasted US TV networks with British ones, and the punchline was the BBC going "tenth... season?" Because super long runs with 20+ episodes per season and 4+ seasons being the goal is... not what the BBC does. (And of course I am super generalising here.)

Granted, the BBC has less stupid amounts of money to base with, but it's an expectation from US shows that there will always be LOTS and... I think that's been fed by studios going "okay this is making money, let's see how long we can make it last", which is a fair business decision, but also tends to end with shows fizzling out, either because they were dragged out long past the natural end of their stories (and fans end up hating a lot of it) or because they weren't prepared to be suddenly cancelld (and fans hate that too). Whereas BBC shows (generally) don't plan to go on forever, so they are much more cohesive with a defined beginning and end. When the seasons are shorter it helps keep storytelling tight too.

Which isn't to say I don't love a lot of American-style long-form shows, or that I don't hate the hugely long hiatuses between seasons of BBC shows, but I feel like Netflix taking the slightly more BBC-ish approach isn't a bad thing for the stories - as long as they expect it and write themselves accordingly. Which they won't because they hope to last forever.

But like you say, if we as watchers don't expect super long 4+ season runs, then we're less likely to be personally wounded when a show is cancelled. It'll be the norm again.

I think that's been fed by studios going "okay this is making money, let's see how long we can make it last", which is a fair business decision, but also tends to end with shows fizzling out, either because they were dragged out long past the natural end of their stories (and fans end up hating a lot of it) or because they weren't prepared to be suddenly cancelld (and fans hate that too).

You just articulated my issues with American tv in a nutshell.

(I kind of wish I actually liked more of what the BBC puts out for exactly this reason, but so much of it just doesn't quite land for me)

Same, I have many fewer BBC shows on my plate, but then, the sheer quantity from America makes it that much more likely to find ones I like - and which have a big enthusiastic fanbase, which is part of what keeps me in it.

Okay, this has helped me realise why this description of the Netflix model upsets me, outside of how boring and non-revolutionary the way they approach viewership and money is turning out to be - I actually think serial storytelling is one of the greatest modern inventions. So for me, it's one thing to creatively decide to wrap it up because we've said what we need to say, and quite another to decide that arbitrary number x is as much as anyone ever needs to express themselves because starting something new intrinsically holds more value. Not even due to the expectation it would be creatively better - just because they need to constantly refresh like a media H&M. It would be like if Marvel felt they had to start over with brand new superheroes very three years - interesting in some ways, and completely missing the point of a great medium in others.

So for me, it's one thing to creatively decide to wrap it up because we've said what we need to say, and quite another to decide that arbitrary number x is as much as anyone ever needs to express themselves because starting something new intrinsically holds more value.

+1. My introductory model for long-form serial storytelling was in many ways (mostly by virtue of being the first show I cared about enough to follow on my own) Babylon 5. I don't need a show to go on forever. I do need it to end when the story says so.

I'm torn, because the shows almost NEVER DID wrap up bc they've said what they need to say - they almost all went on (and continue to go on) either ad nauseam (oh my God NCIS STAHHHP) or they ran until someone decided they weren't making enough, at which point they almost always ended just as choppy and abrupt and limited as anything the Netflix model could be creating.

In the past, yeah, but here's where I admit I'm not sure I buy the underlying assumptions as they apply to tv in the current era? Cable tv is doing lots of stuff that's a specific run where the showrunners get to negotiate the timing of its ending or at least be forewarned, and on network tv if it's something concept-heavy with a following, they often get time to wind down as well. It doesn't apply to every single show, but I do think it's common enough. I will also admit that I can't really speak in depth to how The Americans or Game of Thrones handle their wrap ups, because in a lot of cases I am perfectly happy to ignore the buzz stuff and watch my favs solve the same mystery week after week for twenty years. So I'm also not entirely convinced it's an issue that needs solving - those shows are there for the comfort viewing fall asleep with the tv on people, and the other kinds of shows are not hard to find these days either.

Edited 2019-03-28 00:01 (UTC)

Is it lots? I mean I can think of . . .one? two? high-profile examples, sure, but not a LOT more than that.

I can think of a number where the creators were clearly hedging their bets like crazy, and having secured a single season of X number of episodes aimed very emphatically to tell A Story in that number of episodes in case they were never renewed, and a lot of cases where people got abruptly cancelled, but in US/Canadian TV I can't think of a lot where they actually got to negotiate from the outset "we need a couple of seasons worth."

I mean when I say "I'm torn", I mean that quite personally - a lot of this is inevitably subjective. I'm not generally a fan of endless murder[monster/case/scenario/whatever-of-the-week stuff, mostly because they tend to end up with failure conditions that make me hate the characters that used to be my faves because they've turned into jerks, tbh, or because what drew me to the show to start with has Died Horribly, or both (Criminal Minds I'm looking at you). There are exceptions (Midsommer Murders comes to mind), but they're few and far between for fiction.

So I personally am torn: there's a failure mode to the BBC and apparently now Netflix model, for sure, but there's also a hyper-common failure-mode to the syndication-courting model, especially for things that aren't comedies. *hands*

*nods* Yeah, it's subjective. One point of clarification - I'm talking about shows that got to wrap up on more or less their own terms, as opposed to surprise cancellations & cliffhanger endings, or stuff plodding on into its second decade. I didn't know we were talking about things being specifically pitched as miniseries type runs, which is certainly rare in North America and also I'm not sure it's quite what Netflix seems to be after.

Edited 2019-03-28 23:37 (UTC)

So for me, it's one thing to creatively decide to wrap it up because we've said what we need to say, and quite another to decide that arbitrary number x is as much as anyone ever needs to express themselves because starting something new intrinsically holds more value.

Yeah, I totally agree. I just wish stories could be the length they need to be. Some stories work best as an 8-episode miniseries and drag on horribly at 20 episodes. Some need 100 episodes to fully develop their characters and theme.

Anime does a pretty good job with balancing long and short form storytelling in the same business model. It's true that some drag on forever and are clogged with filler arcs, but you also get ones that are self-contained with a beginning, middle and end at 50 or 100 episodes, along with some that are 6 episodes long and don't need to be any longer. So it's entirely possible to have both. I wish wee didn't have to get stuck on one model or the other.

Yes, yes! Different stories need different amounts of time to be told properly, and new =/= better. New is shinier, that's all, with the potential to be loved or dismissed with without trying it.

Yeah, a BIG part of this is the shift from giant network-owned properties which run well past 100 episodes and made a lot of money for everyone in syndication -- like ER, Law and Order, Grey's Anatomy, Friends, Frasier, X-Files, and those are just the ones at the top of my head -- to properties made by more than one company, which typically ends up with a lot of wrangling over who's going to pay and who's going to profit. This has been going on since way before Netflix -- the financing for Babylon 5 was always cobbled together at the last minute before TNT picked up the last season, a syndication deal and a deal for future shows/movies (and that fell apart anyway), and Farscape infamously ended on a cliffhanger because the Scifi network decided not to finance a fifth season before the fourth one finished airing. And that was in 2002. This problem has been festering for a long while, it's just that people were looking on Netflix as the saviour of shows that had been cancelled so there was the big mis-impression they weren't as driven by money. But a lot of European and British series have just never had this problem because they're typically financed and aired by one company/studio and have short closed-ended seasons, so a show can have seven or eight seasons, but maybe four or five eps a season. If anything, like you say, Netflix's shift from shows that are 22 episodes per season that run a minimum of five seasons to be "successfull" (i.e., that qualify for syndication on other channels) to shorter shows that have fewer seasons/episodes, is more like the BBC model. The creators of Stranger Things reportedly were happier with an 8-episode season they could treat as several "big movies" rather than trying to stretch their material out over 22 episodes. One major problem critics had with nearly ever Marvel show was they felt the seasons were too long -- and most of them were only 13 eps!

The other thing driving this is Netflix's shift from licensing other studios' content to creating its own. It's very unlikely Stranger Things will ever get the chop the way the Marvel shows did, because Netflix owns it. Of the long-running shows cited in the article, House of Cards wasn't cancelled until Spacey's crimes were publicly revealed (and he was fired days after the cancellation), and OITNB ended after seven seasons because a three-season renewal deal was up and the showrunner negotiated a new multi-year deal with Netflix for exclusive original shows (that happened right after Shonda Rhimes left ABC for an exclusive deal with Netflix reportedly worth $100M).

("I hear" was repeated 11 times in that article, once three times in one paragraph, and began way too many of them. That's usually a sign that the piece's editors seriously wanted to weasel the lead.)

Which Netflix is having to do, by the by, because all of those other companies are shortly going to be pulling their content and launching their own streaming service.

Partly because all of them are currently losing money hardcore on it, according to my friend who's job is literally making these kinds of deals.

So many shows are left with cliffhangers for such infuriating reasons I'm reminded of Enterprise, which was cancelled after season four and the cast were apparently told only when they were filming their 5th-to-last episode - and then the hastily scrambled together one of the worst finales ever. No one walked away from that happy, no one.

(You're right, I noticed those "I hear"s and it changed my entire read of the piece. Still, it's interesting.)

So frustrating, but in a way yes oddly relieving that there's not just one villain in the piece. It's all about the big hits, isn't it? In every form of media. I recently had drinks-and-career-advice with a friend who's a fairly successful but definitely midlist author in traditional publishing, and some of what she had to say is quite sobering. (It's also why, with a dozen books out from some fairly major places, she still does a bunch of freelancing as well. And why I will be keeping my day job no matter what happens with my writing.)

On the upside, at least they aren't cancelling after just two episodes of such for failing.

This actually makes me angrier because the calculation is so anti-fannish. *sigh*

I read that!

On the one hand, it makes me sad, since it's happened to a bunch of shows that I really liked, and often seems to happen to shows that are a little oddball or outside the norm. But on the other, I also... can't entirely fault them for it, because I've also watched a lot of shows (*cough* Supernatural *cough*) drag on for seasons and seasons after they stopped being enjoyable.

....interesting. I was wondering about the shorter attention span these days...I've seen people pushing shorter tv series as a good thing because it isn't so much of a time investment to marathon, the fact that so many of the new cartoons have 11 minute episodes instead of 22...

There also used to be a thing where shows would run to a certain episode number...I want to say 5 seasons....because that made it more attractive to syndication packaging.

That was 100 episodes, yeah -- the article mentions it. It was pretty typical for the show cast and crew to have a "100 episodes party."

That article is basically right, but the whole Marvel/Netflix thing was a lot more snarled up than just Netflix's business model of paying more for shows but also keeping more of the ownership. Like the article stated, that meant the shows started off on a more even financial basis, but didn't make as much money for the outside studio. But that happened before Netflix -- a lot of Canadian scifi TV shows, like Continuum, Dark Matter, and IIRC 12 Monkeys and Orphan Black, had similar models and financial difficulties. It's going to continue to be a problem as long as the outside studios want the profits but also don't want to take the risk on paying a lot of money for properties they aren't going to be able to own long-term, and that was a problem before Netflix.

Marvel was cutting ties with Netflix anyway -- Infinity War is the last MCU movie Netflix is going to stream, and Marvel already is setting up two or three short-term Disney+ channel series based on popular (but not that highly paid!) movie characters. The author doesn't seem to know that the Marvel shows also all had the two-year blackout before they could be picked up by a different network, so no, there was no way any of them could be moved to Disney+ anyway. And "Netflix has built an adequate Marvel library, which will live on the service" -- nooo, all the future Marvel movies will be on Disney streaming, as well as the Disney movies. It's unclear how long Marvel movies before CM will be available on Netflix, but when the news came out about the move, most industry sites were still saying "But they still have all the Marvel shows." No, the writing was on the wall for them too, although there were creative difference type problems as well (the Jessica Jones showrunner was leaving after 3 seasons, the Luke Cage showrunner disagreed about the plot as well as Netflix wanting to trim the second season from 13 to 10 episodes, and Daredevil and Iron Fist both had different showrunners for every single season, which is a bad sign of creative instability).

tl;dr The cancellation of all the Marvel shows pretty much at once was driven by giant companies waged in profit wars, but not really in the way the author sets up.

One of the interesting points I saw added to this conversation is that Netflix' subscription models should mean that they're able to do more of like a modern interet approach like podcasters do, where the big names that people are subcribing for are able to 'subsidise' smaller names that are important to sections of their viewership and have something unquantifiable to add. Like diversity in storytelling, for instance! Instead they've decided to crunch the ratings like it's 1966, and the types of shows that lose in that model are going to be the same types of shows that have always lost. So much for breaking out of the network tv framework.

(As a fan of one of Netflix' first cancellations I kind of want to yell at everyone that the writing was on the wall. But. Still disappointing.)

Edited 2019-03-26 16:58 (UTC)

Netflix' subscription models should mean that they're able to do more of like a modern internet approach like podcasters do, where the big names that people are subscribing for are able to 'subsidise' smaller names that are important to sections of their viewership and have something unquantifiable to add.

TOTAL AGREEMENT. And in the beginning, it even looked like that was what was going to happen, that Netflix was going to be a home for quirky, weird, diverse stuff that wouldn't have flown on the networks.

But yeah, noooope, it's just business as usual. I think at this point Netflix has started nailing down what they want their core audience to be -- it's basically Millennial/Gen X white male nerds, the kind of people who are the core audience for Umbrella Academy and Black Mirror and Stranger Things and that kind of thing. Obviously those shows have plenty of crossover audience as well (I like a lot of them too!), but I think that's the core demographic they've decided to court and rather than using that to subsidize a wider array of shows, they're just increasingly doubling down on that core demographic of 20/30/40-something male nerds who like a particular kind of twisty, edgy stuff.

It makes sense from a business standpoint but it's hella frustrating as a viewer.

I'm not sure that it's white male nerds so much as white nerds, tbh - OUTSIDE OF TRANSFORMATIVE FANDOM, I know that all of those shows have HEAVY female audiences, and I think we miiiiight want to be careful about assuming that fannish women represent "women" in general.

But white nerds, for sure.

I'm hoping Disney won't be like that because when they come around I will drop Netflix for them. Netflix has dropped quite a few shows I loved and I'm tired of it.

I didn't even hear that Jessica Jones had been canceled. I find I'm not disappointed or upset for spoilery reasons: I was really unhappy with what some major characters did last season.

I still want Umbrella Academy renewed! Hey, this will only be the second season. Surely we can have one more!

The ratings dance

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject