I haven't really been able to enjoy the netflix 8 episode model. Feels like you get 8 episodes of people on plot rails every 2-3 years and half of them get cancelled on a cliffhanger.
I think they should be more like (formerly?) HBO or Apple and try to make fewer, better shows.
I don't know that they necessarily think this way, but it could have been a distinction they could have gone for. Like you feel better about having The Expanse, or for that matter any other show, in the hands of Amazon than Netflix.
2 fun examples of coping with winding down are HBO's Rome, that "telescoped the third and fourth season into the second one" (https://www.reuters.com/article/televisionNews/idUSTRE4B00VV...) and Blacklist's final episode before the pandemic shutdown that filled the gaps with animated storyboards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0nF4njky94
Futurama might be the best at handling cancellations now, lol.
At least you know somebody has put a marginal amount of thought and effort into how the latest Star Wars or Marvel shows fits into things. It might tell a little story from start to finish or slot into the larger narrative, doesn't really matter, it will usually be "complete" in the sense that it told the story it wanted to tell.
Which I mean, I'm aware it's not breaking any barriers and I would definitely prefer to watch another "Dark" instead but I actually find it exhausting to get invested in a show and have it just be dropped without a satisfying ending.
Yes, this seems to be a problem at this point that stretches across many entire sectors at this point. I know there have been plenty of observations over the years around the dangers of hyper optimizing towards measurables while completely discounting immeasurables yet it seems to be a hard thing still to avoid long term. And in cases like this, or Google say for an even bigger example [0], it can also easily turn into a real doom loop. Initial engagement with services/platforms always entails risk on BOTH sides of the equation. Yeah the business is taking a risk that it won't sell, but the users investing their limited time/resources are taking a risk on its long term support too. Part of bootstrapping is always the business being willing to eat some of that and develop are reputation around doing so, such that people can jump onto v1.0 even if it has flaws and feeling trust that it will have a solid run. Which in turn gives the business the ability to iterate and refine and figure out what it truly is, and then there's a positive loop.
But when businesses forget that and start expecting hits day 1, it can all go into reverse. If everyone expects inevitably to have the rug pulled out from under them, then they won't invest in the first place even if it's promising (short of a monopoly situation where there is literally no choice). Which then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, not enough "engagement", product gets killed, those % of those burned swear off doing it again and tell others too, and next time it goes even faster. I suspect an exclusive situation in some ways could make it even riskier long term by blunting signal: people feel locked into continuing to buy which looks good on numbers, but immeasurably anger is building up. Which means as soon as something else comes along "all of a sudden" people will bolt for it.
I don't know, seems to be a sort of midlife crisis thing that is particularly true of very successful firms that have only ever known major success. They somehow lose the institutional DNA of how they built their customer base in the first place, and then just cannot seem to manage to recover it until it's too late.
----