Ironheart Trailer

[Ghost]

10 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

I have to agree.  This series suffered greatly from poor writing and a truly unrelatable protagonist.  I see why it sat on the shelf as well.  Too bad it did not stay there.  I would enjoy seeing this character with a much better script.

By all accounts, they knew what they had.

Show sat on a shelf, and then there was no build up/promotion until a week or so before.

Maybe they should have scrapped it and started over.

[battlewraith]

10 minutes ago, Ghost said:

By all accounts, they knew what they had.

Show sat on a shelf, and then there was no build up/promotion until a week or so before.

Maybe they should have scrapped it and started over.

 

And yet it was the most streamed thing on Disney+ the week it debuted. 

Letting it sit on a shelf until there was substantial superhero fatigue was most likely the real mistake.

[Ghost]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

 

And yet it was the most streamed thing on Disney+ the week it debuted. 

Letting it sit on a shelf until there was substantial superhero fatigue was most likely the real mistake.

Lol Didn’t take you long to swoop in and try to defend this shows honor.

 

Yes it did good on D+
However…

It failed to break into the Top 10 for overall streaming minutes it’s first week.

So no matter the spin, people did not tune in.

 

As for the imaginary “Superhero fatigue” - so far more people are watching Peacemaker s2 than watched s1.  In fact a 22% increase over s1.

 

Don’t take it personal.

You liked it, which should be all that matters to you.

 

 

Edited August 29 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

 

3 hours ago, Ghost said:

Yes it did good on D+

 

3 hours ago, Ghost said:

So no matter the spin, people did not tune in.

 

If it was the most streamed thing on Disney plus, then obviously people were tuning in. And this was, by your account, with no build up or promotion until about 1 week before. Did it make your top ten list? No. Did any other superhero series? Lol no. 

 

I thought people were done bitching about this show weeks ago. With all this enduring hatred, they must've done something right.

[Ghost]

20 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

 

 

If it was the most streamed thing on Disney plus, then obviously people were tuning in. And this was, by your account, with no build up or promotion until about 1 week before. Did it make your top ten list? No. Did any other superhero series? Lol no. 

 

I thought people were done bitching about this show weeks ago. With all this enduring hatred, they must've done something right.

Oh please, nobody was bitching.  It was an opinion.

 

Ironic that you get upset when certain people seemingly defend the Devs on here, yet you are doing the exact same thing when it comes to Disney.

🤔

 

 

 

Edited August 30 by Ghost

[battlewraith]

6 minutes ago, Ghost said:

Someone says something remotely negative about your precious Disney, and you label it “bitching”

Cant believe you were surprised when I accused you of being a shill 🙄

 

The reason I watched this show is because my wife wanted to watch Andor season 2, so we subbed Disney+ (which we now no longer have). Saw some ads, so I thought I'd give Ironheart a shot. So this "my precious Disney" stuff--I have no clue what you're going on about. I watched Loki, Agatha, and Ironheart. That's it. And I thought the point of this thread was Ironheart. 

I strongly suspect that you've consumed more Disney product than I have.

 

I labelled it bitching because it is. This show didn't appeal to you so you think maybe it should've been scrapped and started over. 

I don't think you were really the intended audience for this show. Eventually, I think you will get over it. God speed.

 

 

[Ghost]

34 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

The reason I watched this show is because my wife wanted to watch Andor season 2, so we subbed Disney+ (which we now no longer have). Saw some ads, so I thought I'd give Ironheart a shot. So this "my precious Disney" stuff--I have no clue what you're going on about. I watched Loki, Agatha, and Ironheart. That's it. And I thought the point of this thread was Ironheart. 

I strongly suspect that you've consumed more Disney product than I have.

 

I labelled it bitching because it is. This show didn't appeal to you so you think maybe it should've been scrapped and started over. 

I don't think you were really the intended audience for this show. Eventually, I think you will get over it. God speed.

 

 

Musta been a different Battlewraith in the FF and Cap 4 threads.

 

I made an observation, which is different from bitching.

An observation that IMO Disney had no confidence in the show and should have started over.

Why that upsets you to the point that you must respond to anything not deemed positive, is baffling to me.

But whatever makes you happy, I guess.

 

 

Edited August 30 by Ghost

[ShardWarrior]

6 hours ago, Ghost said:

Yes it did good on D+
However…

It failed to break into the Top 10 for overall streaming minutes it’s first week.

 

The Luminate chart you posted is a good measure as it reflects overall viewership hours for various series across multiple platforms.  With that said, do keep in mind that unlike other providers, Disney does not directly report their viewership hours to Luminate.  In this case, Luminate uses a few methods to gather and aggregate their data. 

 

Ironheart did make the Nielsen charts.  As far as I remember, Disney does report its viewership hours to Nielsen ratings directly. 

 

 

Whether those hours are accurate or not is debatable.  I have experience with Luminate and know how data is reported to it.  I can confidently say there is quite a lot of creativity involved in reporting numbers to them.  No doubt Nielsen is the same.

 

I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart, just that viewership numbers can be fudged.  

[battlewraith]

8 hours ago, Ghost said:

Musta been a different Battlewraith in the FF and Cap 4 threads.

 

Again, no clue what you're on about.

 

8 hours ago, Ghost said:

An observation that IMO Disney had no confidence in the show and should have started over.

 

Yes, and my observation is that, despite being shelved and having minimal promotion, people watched the show.

Given this data point, a more reasonable conclusion is that they should have released the series earlier, in closer proximity to the Black Panther movies, and it would've performed better. 

You still would've hated it, but maybe it would've garnered a second season. 

[BrandX]

8 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

The Luminate chart you posted is a good measure as it reflects overall viewership hours for various series across multiple platforms.  With that said, do keep in mind that unlike other providers, Disney does not directly report their viewership hours to Luminate.  In this case, Luminate uses a few methods to gather and aggregate their data. 

 

Ironheart did make the Nielsen charts.  As far as I remember, Disney does report its viewership hours to Nielsen ratings directly. 

 

 

Whether those hours are accurate or not is debatable.  I have experience with Luminate and know how data is reported to it.  I can confidently say there is quite a lot of creativity involved in reporting numbers to them.  No doubt Nielsen is the same.

 

I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart, just that viewership numbers can be fudged.  

 

I wouldn't think anything fudged or else, why not fudge the other shows they had that didn't make it.  Why do it for Iron Heart?

[ShardWarrior]

2 hours ago, BrandX said:

I wouldn't think anything fudged or else, why not fudge the other shows they had that didn't make it.  Why do it for Iron Heart?

 

You will note I specifically said I was not saying Disney fudged any viewership data, nor did I say they did so specifically for Iron Heart.

 

10 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart, just that viewership numbers can be fudged.  

 

As for why some do want to embellish their viewership numbers or album sales and such, there are a great many reasons for that.  

[battlewraith]

2 hours ago, BrandX said:

I wouldn't think anything fudged or else, why not fudge the other shows they had that didn't make it.  Why do it for Iron Heart?

 

They wouldn't, unless some executive at Disney had a deep emotional commitment in a Disney+ show pulling ahead of Trainwreck: Poop Cruise.

 

This is 2025. When people are confronted with a specific data point they don't like, they will often launch a vague, generalized attack on the source of the data. 

"I'm not saying this company lied (because then I'd have to show evidence), but companies do lie about these sorts of things."

[ShardWarrior]

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

This is 2025. When people are confronted with a specific data point they don't like, they will often launch a vague, generalized attack on the source of the data. 

"I'm not saying this company lied (because then I'd have to show evidence), but companies do lie about these sorts of things."

 

Since this appears to be directed at me, allow me to expound.

 

First, as I have already mentioned twice and will repeat here yet again a third time, I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart.  I am not suggesting at all that Disney is embellishing their viewership data.  

 

Second, I made absolutely no mention about "not liking the data points".  In fact, my earlier post regarding the Luminate report presented was to explain why Ironheart did not appear there to refute the claim that Ironheart did not appear in the top 10 for viewership.  It did appear in the top 10, just not on the Luminate report.  This is because Disney does not directly report their viewership data to Luminate.  As you can see, Ironheart did appear on the Nielsen top 10 as Disney does report their viewership numbers directly to Nielsen.  That is not me saying that I did or did not like the Ironheart data, only presenting information as to why Ironheart did not appear on the Luminate report.

 

Third, my comment about numbers being open to interpretation comes from experience.  My employer is in the music industry and we report music sales (both physical and digital) to Luminate daily.  This is accomplished by pulling shipment data from our OMS and pushing that data to Luminate directly via API call.  My understanding is the Nielsen operates in a similar fashion.  There have been a few occasions where due to technical issues, some of our sales data was under-reported and some over-reported.  Not by enormous amounts, but enough that they could potentially mean being the number one album for the week or not and we do know there are those in the industry that do embellish their numbers to do just that.  We could be very liberal in what we report if we wanted.  I will repeat again, this is not to say Disney is embellishing their viewership numbers.  Furthermore, In all the years I have worked here, only twice has Luminate asked to audit our data and that consisted of them asking us for the same data we had already sent them.  They report whatever numbers we send them, and since it is possible for there to be inaccuracies, then it is possible to intentionally change numbers and we know some people are.  Again, I am not suggesting that Disney is doing this, only that it is possible to do.  In my experience, competition and bragging rights alone for who is number one or makes the top charts for the week/month/year are motivation enough for some to embellish their numbers.  If you have more technical experience with Luminate and Nielsen and can expand on how they are collecting and auditing the data provided to them to make sure what they are reporting is accurate, by all means please share your knowledge.  

 

Lastly, if you do not believe there are inconsistencies in the data and how companies like Luminate and Nielsen collect and report their data, all you need do is compare the numbers between the two.  Take The Waterfront as an example.  For roughly the same time period, the numbers vary between Luminate and Nielsen by 1.4 million minutes with Luminate - who Netflix does not directly report viewership numbers to - being higher.  That is a rather significant variance.  Which report is correct?  Nielsen or Luminate?  Does that mean Nielsen is under reporting or Luminate over reporting?  Also, Squid Game - a Netflix show - with its 3.2 million minutes viewed does not appear on the Luminate charts at all, but other Netflix programs do.  That is another large variance.  

 

I do not care whether Ironheart made any top 10 lists for viewership or not.  I did not care for the series myself.  I understand there are those that did enjoy it and I am truly happy for them.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, viewership was not enough for the decision makers at Disney/Marvel to want to invest in producing second season.  Perhaps Ironheart will still appear in future MCU projects, hopefully with better script writers next time.

[battlewraith]

11 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

Since this appears to be directed at me, allow me to expound.

 

It was not directed at you, on purpose, to avoid this exposition. 

I don't disagree with anything you said about the numbers. I question the rhetorical goal of what you're saying. 

There is a cultural trend to be skeptical of data sources: scientific research, medical data, government statistics, etc. Skepticism is generally good. We shouldn't just take everything on faith. However, this current trend generally amounts to a vague dismissal of information based on insinuation. 

 

Someone said that people didn't tune in for this show. The list indicates that a substantial amount did tune in. That's a pretty simple claim. It doesn't matter to me that some, all , or none, of the figures on that list may have been exaggerated. The only case that would be relevant is if Disney decided to fabricate an audience for a show they left on the shelf for 3 years and did little to promote.

 

12 hours ago, ShardWarrior said:

I do not care whether Ironheart made any top 10 lists for viewership or not.

 

You cared enough to write all of that based on someone referencing the list. 

[ShardWarrior]

14 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I question the rhetorical goal of what you're saying. 

There is a cultural trend to be skeptical of data sources: scientific research, medical data, government statistics, etc. Skepticism is generally good. We shouldn't just take everything on faith. However, this current trend generally amounts to a vague dismissal of information based on insinuation.

 

I believe you are misunderstanding my posts and trying to inject something that is not there.  There was no rhetorical goal other than to explain why the two charts differ.  Again, this is due to the results varying based on the methods employed, thereby making the data open to interpretation and noting that some methods are error prone, so there is some degree of inaccuracy.  In no way was I making any sort of insinuation or suggesting numbers provided should be dismissed.  Quite the opposite.  You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I am suggesting Disney fabricated an audience.  I was not.  Yet again, I said nothing of the sort and I am happy to go back and highlight where I have repeated this.  

 

21 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

You cared enough to write all of that based on someone referencing the list. 

 

The goal was to provide context and reasoning why Ironheart was not on the list provided and why the Luminate charts are not a good measure for the viewership of Disney+ programs.  As you pointed out, someone mentioned that people did not tune in for this show because the Luminate chart did not show it.  All I did was say was that is not entirely accurate and provided some reasons why Ironheart does not appear there.  If you believe there is any more than that, you are mistaken.

[battlewraith]

22 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

I believe you are misunderstanding my posts and trying to inject something that is not there.

 

Sure, maybe. But I'm trying to make sense of your contribution here.

 

The claim was that people didn't watch the show. According to Disney, they did. Now, unless someone actually wants to argue that Disney is not to be trusted on this--that's it. The claim is wrong. As far as I can tell, nobody here is claiming that Ironheart did gangbusters compared to other popular shows, just that it did well. So the lists that were provided are irrelevant to the point, other than to indicate what numbers Disney is giving which you can just google.

 

I'm not taking issue with your background or perspective on numbers. I'm taking issue with this:

 

On 8/30/2025 at 1:00 AM, ShardWarrior said:

I am not suggesting Disney did anything nefarious reporting numbers for Ironheart, just that viewership numbers can be fudged.

 

Okay, so.........

What am I supposed to do with this?

Is it just a generic PSA that can be applied to any figures coming out of the entertainment industry (or any other industry for that matter)?

[ShardWarrior]

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Sure, maybe. But I'm trying to make sense of your contribution here.

 

I will attempt to dumb it down even further for you.

 

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The claim was that people didn't watch the show. According to Disney, they did. Now, unless someone actually wants to argue that Disney is not to be trusted on this--that's it. The claim is wrong.

 

I agree that the claim is wrong and provided further information as to why the claim and data supplied to support the claim are wrong.

 

10 hours ago, battlewraith said:

What am I supposed to do with this?

 

Whatever you like.  If you want to take the numbers as gospel, go for it.  I happen to know a something of how this kind of information is collected and the various data aggregation methods, so I know firsthand there is wiggle room.  Should I repeat yet again I am not claiming Disney fudged any numbers?  

[Excraft]

17 hours ago, battlewraith said:

As far as I can tell, nobody here is claiming that Ironheart did gangbusters compared to other popular shows, just that it did well. So the lists that were provided are irrelevant to the point, other than to indicate what numbers Disney is giving which you can just google.

 

I disagree, I think they are relevant.  They're providing further context.  The charts show people did watch the show, and that it may have done okay, but not well enough.  The viewership hours weren't sufficient to warrant Disney renewing the series.  I don't know about you, but I did find the info rather interesting and did a little research myself.  I had thought most went just by straight viewership hours.  I found some info about this Luminate company and how they collect their data.  Some of it makes me want to read user agreements again for my streaming devices lol.  Anyway, from what I found, they are able to track D+ stuff even though they don't get viewership numbers directly.  They had reported on how the viewership for the MCU is declining back in November of 2024.  Take that article for what you will.

A lot of people (IIRC including some of those nasty YouTubers you hate so much) hopped all over that first article @Ghost linked to with the one chart as proof Ironheart sucked because it didn't make the top 10 viewership.  I'd have thought given your ardent defense of anything Ironheart, you'd have been thankful that someone took the time to explain why that chart in particular wasn't accurate.  I know I'm thankful.  It added clarity to the discussion. 

 

18 hours ago, battlewraith said:

What am I supposed to do with this?

 

I could be wrong here, but I think you're reading way too much into it.  Seems very simple to understand.   There's differences in numbers posted by various sources due to different collection methods and there's a degree of inaccuracy.  If I'm being honest, you're trying really hard to accuse @ShardWarrior of saying Disney inflated their viewership numbers for Ironheart.  @ShardWarrior repeatedly said that Disney he isn't saying Disney inflated anything, just that there can be some degree of inaccuracy in the data, especially considering that they all use different methods of data collection.  That's all.

 

Bottom line is, people did tune in for Ironheart, but not enough to warrant further seasons.

[Starhammer]

I can't speak for others. I also don't care about ratings or reviews. I watched it. I enjoyed it. I thought some parts were great, some parts were awful, and some could have been easily made better with a little polish. My biggest criticism is that with 6 episodes released in 2 3 episode bundles, it was much too short for a series. Though I like the 3 episode release. I'm sure a lot of others did too, based on Andor s02, and that's probably why they tried that. But if there'd been another 6 episodes, they could have fleshed out development on characters, storyline, and where it all fits with the rest of the world. 6 episodes as a series just feels truncated. I hope they continue to use the characters and incidents in future MCU content, but maybe Riri as a character needs to grow quite a bit before they come back to her for any solo project bigger than a One shot presentation or something.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

I could be wrong here, but I think you're reading way too much into it.

 

No it's just a very typical exchange on these forums. I said that it did well on Disney+ and after argument and reminders that this data can be fudged we all seem to be on the same page that--yes, it did well on Disney+. Huzzah.

 

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

Bottom line is, people did tune in for Ironheart, but not enough to warrant further seasons.

 

I think that's a bit too reductive to be the bottom line.

Disney shelved the series for three years and did minimal promotion, at least according to what people have stated here.

Under those conditions, it seems to have performed very well. Which goes back to my earlier statement--if the studio had handled the series better, it probably would've performed better and maybe gotten a second season.

 

[Excraft]

26 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

No it's just a very typical exchange on these forums. I said that it did well on Disney+ and after argument and reminders that this data can be fudged we all seem to be on the same page that--yes, it did well on Disney+. Huzzah.

 

Yeah no.  I'm being honest here, it reads to me that you misread what was posted and zeroed in on a single comment out of context from someone who said they didn't like the series.  You decided to go on the offensive and accuse them of something they didn't say because they didn't like the show.  

 

Also, how are you defining "did well"?  Did well in comparison to what?  It made the top 10 for the week on Disney?  Ok, but what other new content was released that week?  How does Ironheart viewership rank among other MCU streaming shows?  

 

29 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

I think that's a bit too reductive to be the bottom line.

Disney shelved the series for three years and did minimal promotion, at least according to what people have stated here.

Under those conditions, it seems to have performed very well. Which goes back to my earlier statement--if the studio had handled the series better, it probably would've performed better and maybe gotten a second season.

 

I disagree.  It's just as plausible that Disney shelved the series because they knew they had a huge steaming turd on their hands, and instead of wasting money on advertising, they shelved it while deciding whether to write it off or release it.  Ultimately they decided to release the series, but decided not to spend on advertising because they knew it wasn't going to do well.  If Disney were really confident they had a hit on their hands, they'd have hyped it up and released it years ago after Wakanda Forever to continue Riri's story.  You can play the "what if" scenarios as to why the show failed and/or how it could have done better endlessly.  The series didn't perform well enough for a second season.  That's a fact.  

 

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

I can't speak for others. I also don't care about ratings or reviews. I watched it. I enjoyed it.

 

That's what's most important.

 

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

6 episodes as a series just feels truncated.

 

I agree and I personally think it's part of the reason Marvel/Disney knew there wasn't much of a story here.

 

1 hour ago, Starhammer said:

I hope they continue to use the characters and incidents in future MCU content, but maybe Riri as a character needs to grow quite a bit before they come back to her for any solo project bigger than a One shot presentation or something.

 

I agree.  I'd like to see a better script and totally agree Riri needs to do a lot of maturing first.

[battlewraith]

19 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Yeah no.  I'm being honest here, it reads to me that you misread what was posted and zeroed in on a single comment out of context from someone who said they didn't like the series.  You decided to go on the offensive and accuse them of something they didn't say because they didn't like the show.  

Also, how are you defining "did well"?  Did well in comparison to what?  It made the top 10 for the week on Disney?  Ok, but what other new content was released that week?  How does Ironheart viewership rank among other MCU streaming shows?  

 

If I'm being honest here, I think you hate this "steaming turd of a show" so much that it's warped your thinking.

 

My "offensive" here was simple, yet diabolical. I swooped in and pointed out that the week it debuted on Disney+ that it was the most streamed thing on the platform. People did watch the show. Ghost was actually the one to state that it did well on the platform. I ran with it.  Oddly enough, you didn't grill him on what his definition of "did well" was. Moreover, if you think that maybe it didn't do well, go ahead and explain why. Apparently now on a videogame forum chat thread, we not only need to acknowledge that numbers can be fudged, but also have to provide market research. Knock yourself out. 

 

57 minutes ago, Excraft said:

I disagree.  It's just as plausible that Disney shelved the series because they knew they had a huge steaming turd on their hands, and instead of wasting money on advertising, they shelved it while deciding whether to write it off or release it.  Ultimately they decided to release the series, but decided not to spend on advertising because they knew it wasn't going to do well.  If Disney were really confident they had a hit on their hands, they'd have hyped it up and released it years ago after Wakanda Forever to continue Riri's story.  You can play the "what if" scenarios as to why the show failed and/or how it could have done better endlessly.  The series didn't perform well enough for a second season.  That's a fact.  

 

If hype, advertising. and proximity to the movies have an influence on a show's success, then you've just restated the reasons why the show didn't do as well as it might have.

You boldly assume that, since you hate this show then the Disney execs must have agreed with you.

In actual reality, there are other reasons why the show was held up:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/marvel-star-wars-tv-shows-movies-slowdown-1235326681/

[Triumphant]

4 hours ago, Starhammer said:

I can't speak for others. I also don't care about ratings or reviews. I watched it. I enjoyed it. I thought some parts were great, some parts were awful, and some could have been easily made better with a little polish. My biggest criticism is that with 6 episodes released in 2 3 episode bundles, it was much too short for a series. Though I like the 3 episode release. I'm sure a lot of others did too, based on Andor s02, and that's probably why they tried that. But if there'd been another 6 episodes, they could have fleshed out development on characters, storyline, and where it all fits with the rest of the world. 6 episodes as a series just feels truncated. I hope they continue to use the characters and incidents in future MCU content, but maybe Riri as a character needs to grow quite a bit before they come back to her for any solo project bigger than a One shot presentation or something.

*Bolded/Italics part mine.

That's pretty much my main gripe about any Disney series.  They're all essentially 80's TV mini-series, rather than actual TV series, which makes it very difficult to really give actors a chance to connect with their characters and the writers to really refine the story and understand the characters as the actors portray them.

In the old days, you had TV series that ran multiple seasons of a couple dozen episodes per season.  So the first season of most new shows would generally be anywhere from "meh" to "good" during the first season, and wouldn't actually get good until seasons 2+. but then shows could be really exellent.

Modern streaming series don't really give the shows time for the flavor to meld, so to speak.  And the fact that they cancel the shows if they aren't immediately multi-trillion-billion dollar cash cows doesn't help things, either.

The cancelling thing has annoyed me to the point that I stop paying for streaming services that do this.  Eventually, perhaps I'll just stop watching television series altogether, because of it.  If they're going to keep cancelling quality series before they've had a chance to run their course, I'd just rather spend that time to read a book.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If I'm being honest here, I think you hate this "steaming turd of a show" so much that it's warped your thinking.

 

I don't believe I've ever used the word "hate" to describe the show.  I think you love the show much it's warped your thinking and your blinded by devotion and can't admit the obvious.  See?  That can work both ways.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Moreover, if you think that maybe it didn't do well, go ahead and explain why.

 

It didn't get a second season.  That's a patently obvious fact as to the show not doing well.  

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If hype, advertising. and proximity to the movies have an influence on a show's success, then you've just restated the reasons why the show didn't do as well as it might have.

 

Well no, what I'm saying is that Disney knew they had a turd on their hands and that no amount of hype or release proximity was going to save it.  BP: WF performed markedly worse than the first Black Panther film ($1.34 billion vs. $859 million).  The property was already declining.  If Riri's solo story was that good, it would have garnered higher viewer numbers and received another season regardless of when it was released.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

You boldly assume that, since you hate this show then the Disney execs must have agreed with you.

 

Apparently they do.  Did they greenlight a second season?

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

In actual reality, there are other reasons why the show was held up:

 

It's possible those were factors.  Regardless of the reasons, the show didn't get a second season, which means not enough viewers.  The how and the why don't matter at this point.  

 

[Starhammer]

2 minutes ago, Triumphant said:

*Bolded/Italics part mine.

That's pretty much my main gripe about any Disney series.  They're all essentially 80's TV mini-series, rather than actual TV series, which makes it very difficult to really give actors a chance to connect with their characters and the writers to really refine the story and understand the characters as the actors portray them.

In the old days, you had TV series that ran multiple seasons of a couple dozen episodes per season.  So the first season of most new shows would generally be anywhere from "meh" to "good" during the first season, and wouldn't actually get good until seasons 2+. but then shows could be really exellent.

Modern streaming series don't really give the shows time for the flavor to meld, so to speak.  And the fact that they cancel the shows if they aren't immediately multi-trillion-billion dollar cash cows doesn't help things, either.

The cancelling thing has annoyed me to the point that I stop paying for streaming services that do this.  Eventually, perhaps I'll just stop watching television series altogether, because of it.  If they're going to keep cancelling quality series before they've had a chance to run their course, I'd just rather spend that time to read a book.

Yeah, that seems to be two of their biggest problems. They won't commit to the time necessary to properly develop story or characters, and everything "has to break the internet" or it's no good. Not everything can be the first season of Luke Cage or The Mandalorian. It's just not realistic to set them as the standard for streaming shows.

I don't mind some series being shorter if they get the job done and done well. Lioness (on Paramount, I think. I watch it on Amazon) is 8 episodes iirc, and while I wouldn't mind longer, they get the job done. Dexter, even back when it started on Showtime before streaming was a thing... it was at least 12 episodes a season. If they're only gonna commit to 5-6 episodes, at that point why not just cut it into a movie so you can justify a theater release and get some money back (let's face it, we're past the point of people jumping on a streaming service for 1 show then leaving... most people just stay sub'd or seek out Pirate Bay).

12 episodes is good. it gives plenty of time for everyone to get to know everyone and figure out what's going on, and still not work the cast and crew to death like new Doctor Who back when it was good. 8-10 is ok if it's high quality. 

The other thing they really need to do is set their sights a little lower for a lot of projects. Don't expect everything to be a blockbuster. Get quality out of a lower budget without big names with bigger egos demanding bigger paychecks. A lot of stuff could be animated too. The acceptability of animated not-just-for-kids content has broadened significantly. I would love to see the Star Wars folks commit to some of the Visions studios for ongoing content. I mean hell, I play City of Heroes. I don't need my adventure entertainment in 8k...