Jump to content

Netflix's new epic drama - 'Marco Polo'


AncalagonTheBlack

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, voodooqueen126 said:

I don't understand Chabi. It would've been normal for her to blame Khutulun, not her own son.

I think that Kublai said at some moment that this was his 4th wife and he wasn't able to sire a son. So, it is natural that Chabi knew what was the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
1 hour ago, Risto said:

:lmao:

Quote

[Marco Polo] was responsible for a $200 million loss to the streaming giant. 

It's not enough to restore my faith in mankind, but I'm glad at least some pieces of shit are as popular/profitable as they deserve to be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

Unlike Veltigar, I am sad. It was an enjoyable show, much better than Vikings which is still ongoing.

But with Netflix making so many new shows and movies year by year, it was clear that eventually cancellations were going to happen.

O no.  I was so looking forward to season three!  And we ended on a cliffhanger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Zorral said:

O no.  I was so looking forward to season three!  And we ended on a cliffhanger.

 

To be fair, the Prester John plot could have led this show into a fast moving downward spiral. I would have much preferred it if a season 3 would have involved either an invasion of Vietnam or of Japan. Not that Polo was ever involved in that, but the show had already combined various events with Polo's journey, so it would have been fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Veltigar said:

:lmao:

It's not enough to restore my faith in mankind, but I'm glad at least some pieces of shit are as popular/profitable as they deserve to be.  

Just to remind you, CW's DC shows are still going strong. And Vikings are still on. And of course, "Shannara Chronicles"

1 hour ago, Corvinus said:

Unlike Veltigar, I am sad. It was an enjoyable show, much better than Vikings which is still ongoing.

Yeah, but this is business. Vikings seem to be a winner for History, while MP was a loss for Netflix.

Honestly, I am sorry to hear about it. This is one "coulda, would shoulda been better" shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be missing something.... How can this show translate into a 200 million dollar loss?.... The budget for S2 couldn't have been close to that.... So even if no one watched, I think that number might be slightly exaggerated .... unless there is something factored in that I am unaware of...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

I must be missing something.... How can this show translate into a 200 million dollar loss?.... The budget for S2 couldn't have been close to that.... So even if no one watched, I think that number might be slightly exaggerated .... unless there is something factored in that I am unaware of...

They might have had a production deal for two seasons. That plus an expensive show plus it making them no money == massive loss.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Castel said:

They might have had a production deal for two seasons. That plus an expensive show plus it making them no money == massive loss.

Yeah, but 200 million dollars loss? That seems to be a bit exaggeration. Which show can cause THAT MUCH loss. I mean, the budget for both seasons could reach that, and I even doubt that. I would put the expenses of both seasons between 100 and 150 million dollars.

Plus, as I understand, "Marco Polo" managed to help Netflix with Asian markets. But, it was completely culturally irrelevant and with abysmal reviews, it is no-brainer it ended. But, arguing such loss is, IMO, wrong. It simply makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allegedly it cost ~$200 million for those two seasons (I think these numbers are likely somewhat exaggerated). So the  $200 million "loss" would basically mean that no one, anywhere, watched the show or subscribed because of the show... and yet, Netflix claimed that the show did "well" in Asia, as you say, and also Europe. Assuming they were exaggerating a bit, but still, I find it hard to imagine that the losses associated with the show are anywhere near $200 million.

Unless this figure is, in fact, a "Hollywood accounting" situation where Netflix has decided to pile on a bunch of things on to the Marco Polo budget to make it a net-loser and thus something they can write off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Ran said:

Allegedly it cost ~$200 million for those two seasons (I think these numbers are likely somewhat exaggerated). So the  $200 million "loss" would basically mean that no one, anywhere, watched the show or subscribed because of the show... and yet, Netflix claimed that the show did "well" in Asia, as you say, and also Europe. Assuming they were exaggerating a bit, but still, I find it hard to imagine that the losses associated with the show are anywhere near $200 million.

Unless this figure is, in fact, a "Hollywood accounting" situation where Netflix has decided to pile on a bunch of things on to the Marco Polo budget to make it a net-loser and thus something they can write off.

Yeah, perhaps the better phrase is "200 million flop'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/12/2016 at 1:29 PM, Martini Sigil said:

I must be missing something.... How can this show translate into a 200 million dollar loss?.... The budget for S2 couldn't have been close to that.... So even if no one watched, I think that number might be slightly exaggerated .... unless there is something factored in that I am unaware of...

I just wonder how they calculate the loss. The service is a subscriber service not a PPV service, so while they can clearly identify viewership how do they attribute loss to it unless they can specifically point to a loss of subscribers, or a reduction in subscriber growth? I guess in a virtual sense if you place $X value per viewer then you can calculate a loss/profit. At worst you'd call it an opportunity cost, since the money spent on a show that does not increase subscriber numbers could have been spent on a show that might have increased subscriber numbers. But that is impossible to confirm since the show you might have made instead might have been an equal or worse flop.

Of course there are tax advantages to claiming a substantial accounting loss. So if you are going to cut out the dead wood, one should always pad the loss to the optimal degree (not so much that you will make shareholders nervous) to reduce your tax burden. 

Netflix is certainly doing the smart thing axing a show that failed to gain much popularity, since they have a chance to use that money to try something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...