I'm beginning to dislike Netflix (re: Archive 81, 1899, Warrior Nun etc cancellations)


log in or register to remove this ad

payn

Legend
What do you mean by "legit?" I was merely referring to popularity - pointing out that Hancock is relatively well-known.
As in legitimate author, researcher, person who says things you can consider reasonable. Again, I dont know Hancock, but Rogan himself has said, "dont listen to me I'm stupid" and pontificates on doing a better job vetting guests and researching subjects. Being popular doesn't mean the author is not spreading misinformation or conspiracy. Again, I'm not saying, but if you want me to consider Hancock somebody to listen to, using Rogan is a bad idea.
 

Mercurius

Legend
As in legitimate author, researcher, person who says things you can consider reasonable. Again, I dont know Hancock, but Rogan himself has said, "dont listen to me I'm stupid" and pontificates on doing a better job vetting guests and researching subjects. Being popular doesn't mean the author is not spreading misinformation or conspiracy. Again, I'm not saying, but if you want me to consider Hancock somebody to listen to, using Rogan is a bad idea.
You're completely missing the point. Netflix is an entertainment service, and puts out shows that they think people will watch. Hancock is a popular author. Millions of people watch or listen to Joe Rogan. I mentioned Rogan as an example of Hancock being known to many people, and thus giving a certain base audience for a show.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you, me, or any other individual or subset of individuals, think Hancock or Rogan is "legit."
 

payn

Legend
You're completely missing the point. Netflix is an entertainment service, and puts out shows that they think people will watch. Hancock is a popular author. Millions of people watch or listen to Joe Rogan. I mentioned Rogan as an example of Hancock being known to many people, and thus giving a certain base audience for a show.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you, me, or any other individual or subset of individuals, think Hancock or Rogan is "legit."
I hold documentaries in a higher regard and find it unethical to spread misinformation for entertainment and profit purposes. So, I see the popularity argument as putting the cart before the horse here. Obviously, you are not convinced about the accusations about Hancock. I am just beginning to learn about the author and their material.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I hold documentaries in a higher regard and find it unethical to spread misinformation for entertainment and profit purposes. So, I see the popularity argument as putting the cart before the horse here. Obviously, you are not convinced about the accusations about Hancock. I am just beginning to learn about the author and their material.
I would suggest that the term "misinformation" doesn't apply, especially when we're talking about theories on prehistory. It isn't "misinforming" to share a different view on human origins, because there's no factual account of it.

What I find to actually be both unethical and misinformation--not to mention slanderous--is linking Hancock to white supremacy.
 

wicked cool

Adventurer
I could cry that The Kingdom was cancelled after season 2. Great cast, cool story, excellent pacing and direction. The film was nice but after 4 years I’ve given up on a Season 3.

OA was another one that was canned just as it started to get interesting. It makes me wary about investing time in series like From because the payoff is so slow.

Really enjoying Midnight Club so far though. They keep just enough coming to keep me paying the subscription - though granted by parents and brother all have the access.
Oa liked it. Strange delay between season 1-2. Wanted more . Came out around the same time as travelers (really good)which got an ending at least
Midnight club I think got cancelled
 



Ryujin

Legend
Personally I cancelled my Netflix for a rather worse thing than their dreadful habit of cancelling shows. Rather they gave Graham Hancock a glossy, fairly high-budget documentary series!

For those who don't know who Graham Hancock the full wikipedia article can be found here: Graham Hancock - Wikipedia

But to summarize, he's a conspiracy-theory nut case who promotes totally fake archaeology that basically says there used to be a older better (whiter) civilization spread across the entire world, then it got wiped out by something. His "theories" (which are baseless and evidence-free), align tightly with 1800/1900s white supremacist theories about human history (particularly along the lines of "the non-white natives of this region could never have done such a thing!"), and basically portray archaeology and archaeologists as lying and attempting to cover up the "truth".

And why did Netflix do that, why would they drag this somewhat forgotten (he was big in the '90s) conspiracist figure back to light in 2022? Because Hancock's son is Senior Manager of Unscripted Originals at Netflix.

Great! Nepotism leading the to direct and intentional promotion of racist conspiracy theories.


Re: the lesser sin of cancelling shows, I think the main issue I have with it from Netflix particularly is that they seem to very much adopt a "throw it against the wall, see what sticks!" attitude to shows, and the end result of this is that the "feel" of Netflix is far worse than other channels re: cancellations. @Umbran is very much correct to point out a lot of shows get cancelled across all networks, and so on, but certainly Netflix' vibe here is very different to Apple+, Disney+, or even Prime, where you're not getting so many intriguing shows thrown at you, only to be immediately snatched away. It's also clear to me that, the metrics Netflix uses for determining what shows to keep are incompatible my own viewing habits, because Netflix has explained (on a number of occasions), that unless people immediately binge-watch an entire show, that's seen as a major negative indicator. I mean, one might argue Prime has gone too far the other way at times - some shows have inexplicably kept going, season after season, despite questionable quality, but honestly, that feels better to me.
Graham Hancock: Erik von Daniken, but without the funny/interesting alien stuff.

Also Graham Hancock: "Look at all of this stuff (that I wouldn't know about if it wasn't for archaeologists) that archaeologists ignore!"
 
Last edited:






Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
What's your line of work, if I may ask?
giphy.gif


I speak with a broad swath of the public, sometimes in depth, and not always by choice.

I've had workplace reasons to speak with a whole spectrum of objectionable people, many of whom would likely derail and then lock this thread if I mentioned them, including some of the most objectionable categories of people on Earth. Racists, if anything, are at the shallow end of the pool.

(I also speak with a lot of great folks, too. It's not like I'm interviewing alleged war criminals in the Hague 24/7.)

I suspect anyone who really cares has long ago figured it out.
 

Undrave

Hero
You're completely missing the point. Netflix is an entertainment service, and puts out shows that they think people will watch. Hancock is a popular author. Millions of people watch or listen to Joe Rogan. I mentioned Rogan as an example of Hancock being known to many people, and thus giving a certain base audience for a show.

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you, me, or any other individual or subset of individuals, think Hancock or Rogan is "legit."
Hmm... well, to quote the Wiki:

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) objected to the classification of the series as a documentary and requested that Netflix reclassify it as science fiction. The SAA also stated that the series: "repeatedly and vigorously dismisses archaeologists and the practice of archaeology with aggressive rhetoric, willfully seeking to cause harm to our membership and our profession in the public eye; ... the theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies; does injustice to Indigenous peoples; and emboldens extremists"
Make of that what you will...

ANYWAY!

This thread ... definitely took a turn I was not expecting.
What's your opinion on binge watching, Snarf? I feel like it's kind of a blight on entertainment.
 

Mercurius

Legend
Hmm... well, to quote the Wiki:


Make of that what you will...
Accusing someone of racism is an easy and cheap way to (try to) discredit them - even if it is entirely unfounded, which in this case it is. I've been reading GH for 25 years, and haven't caught even a tiny whiff of bigotry (except his dislike of close-minded archeologists!)

And no, the hypothesis that there is an unknown antediluvian civilization is not itself a racist idea. I mean, if our definition of racism is "a racist once said something similar," then what isn't racist? I mean, let's not even get into the myth of progress, how some have interpreted evolutionary theory, etc etc.

Perhaps the archeologists should, instead, address the content of his series?
 

What's your line of work, if I may ask?
I dunno about @Whizbang Dustyboots but if you work in any country in Asia which is seen as like, a destination for "colonial" types, so like especially Singapore, you're knee-deep in racists (many of whom will be married to Asian people).

Equally if you work in the charity sector, whatever part of that sector, no matter how leftist, with the possible exception of youth/LGBTQ stuff, you will meet bunch of amazing racists with axes to grind (often 55+ in age to be fair). Some of them would be good people if it wasn't for the amazing racism.
And no, the hypothesis that there is an unknown antediluvian civilization is not itself a racist idea.
Yes it is. And just saying it isn't it just bloody silly. It's all about how local civilizations couldn't have made things they could easily and obviously have made. I've been following him on and off for 30 years with increasing disgust.
Perhaps the archeologists should, instead, address the content of his series?
Literally every single thing Hancock has ever suggested has been either prima facie ridiculous, or debunked very easily.

You say you've been "reading him for 25 years" though, so you've been reading and accepting conspiracy theories and psuedo-science for 25 years, so I guess it's unsurprising that you're mysteriously claiming the laughable stuff he outputs isn't laughable.
 
Last edited:

I would suggest that the term "misinformation" doesn't apply, especially when we're talking about theories on prehistory. It isn't "misinforming" to share a different view on human origins, because there's no factual account of it.
It's absolutely misinformation.

Hancock systematically ignores and misrepresents the science on the issue. Pretending he doesn't isn't viable as a logical or reasonable argue, it's a hard fact that he does.
 

LOL, I completely disagree about your take on Graham Hancock - which is clearly lacking in any actual exposure to his ideas, beyond (I'm guessing) a cursory viewing of a few minutes of his documentary. Hogwash, in other words!
Mate, I've been reading his stuff longer than you have, and I have actual archaeological training.
I mean, by your logic--cancelling Netflix because they have a show on that has ideas you don't agree with--you might as well put me on the ignore list, because I like and read Graham Hancock, and probably lots of other things that you'd find to be "conspiracy theories" and "nutty."
With no insult, I'm considering it. If you're going to push pseudo-science, and tell someone who knows way more about than you (and started off kinda buying into his stuff, before I actually studied archaeology) that they're talking "hogwash", I'm not sure your input is helpful lol.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top