{"id":995,"date":"2024-03-21T12:04:45","date_gmt":"2024-03-21T16:04:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/?p=995"},"modified":"2024-03-21T12:04:45","modified_gmt":"2024-03-21T16:04:45","slug":"anna-louise-wiegenstein","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/2024\/03\/21\/anna-louise-wiegenstein\/","title":{"rendered":"Anna Louise Wiegenstein"},"content":{"rendered":"

Anna Louise Wiegenstein<\/strong> is a Ph.D candidate in the Screen Studies program within Oklahoma State University\u2019s Department of English. Her dissertation examines elements of style and authenticity within the film and TV output of Baz Luhrmann. Other research interests include contemporary film and television musicals, streaming video industrial study, and the \u201cfound footage\u201d form of filmmaking. Her writing can be found at <\/span><\/em>InMediaRes<\/span> and in the <\/span><\/em>Media Industries Journal.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u201cThe Shut Down\u201d:
\nRisk and Failure Negotiation Within Netflix Original Programming<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the years since its introduction into the media marketplace, Netflix\u2019s business model has often been discussed as a nonstop upward trajectory, a forward-thinking startup that has been able to shutter major companies like Blockbuster before going on to redefine the television landscape with its major investment in online streaming services. This narrative of success had a few, relatively minor missteps (the swiftly-canceled disc-rental offshoot Quikster, for example) but news of a substantial dip in its subscriber numbers in mid-2022 was, for many, the first hint of significant instability within the company.[1]<\/span><\/a> Even following the rockier period of late, Netflix is still seen by many as a media provider so tied to success that even its millions of dollars of accrued debt in building its upstart empire has yet to affect its stock prices longterm.[2]<\/span><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

This essay seeks to extend the recent questioning of this narrative further back in time, and to place Netflix more squarely in the context of television studies \u2013 a field where success is the exception, rather than the rule \u2013 by analyzing the brief life of 2016 Netflix Original series The Get Down.<\/em> Announced as an exciting entry into television from Australian auteur Baz Luhrmann nearly two years prior to its debut, the production became infamous as shooting schedules dragged and budgets ballooned, finally reaching the point where Variety<\/em> described it as the \u201cmost expensive series of all time.\u201d[3]<\/span><\/a> All the financing in the world ultimately couldn\u2019t stop the show from being the first Netflix Original to be canceled after a single season, a misfire that seemed rare at the time, following the company\u2019s content production successes including House of Cards <\/em>and Stranger Things<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Even as Netflix has attempted to play on an identity \u201cas a tech company, as opposed to a media company, in order to articulate a brand identity built around disruption,\u201d an examination of the ways that they positioned The Get Down<\/em> prior to its debut reveals strategies more akin to traditional television models.[4]<\/span><\/a> Despite Netflix\u2019s resistance, scholars note that \u201cwhen the company pivoted toward identifying more as a television channel than video rental service, it largely adopted standard industry practices for creating original series,\u201d among which are a series of risk mitigation techniques utilized when producing and promoting a new show.[5]<\/span><\/a> Jason Mittell reminds us that \u201cto study the aesthetics of American television requires us to study failure.\u201d[6]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>To this, we can add the importance of examining how creatives and executives alike continue to try and avoid that which, speaking statistically, is the far likelier outcome in a saturated media landscape. By stating that Netflix Original programming deserves its own risk and failure analyses, this essay argues that streaming media companies are indeed more like traditional TV than they might wish to acknowledge. To conclude, the promotional discourse that surrounded the debut of The Get Down <\/em>is compared to Luhrmann\u2019s more recent streaming project \u2013 the Hulu limited series Faraway Downs<\/em>, which in some ways was positioned as an inversion of The Get Down\u2019s <\/em>supposed shortcomings.<\/p>\n

Risk Management Strategies Within Television<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles Ramirez Berg, a panelist on the first-ever \u201cfailure studies\u201d panel at University of Texas-Austin\u2019s 2015 Flow conference, summarized what might be the initial and most basic impulse behind such a field of study, writing simply, \u201cIt\u2019s easier to pan a flop than to appreciate a masterpiece.\u201d[7]<\/span><\/a> However, as Berg continues, \u201cthe danger for the critic is assuming a superior position to the work and the maker,\u201d thus necessitating \u201ca great deal of humility\u201d on the part of academics for failure studies to become a fruitful and incisive analytical tool, as opposed to simply a forum for complaint.[8]<\/span><\/a> Indeed, Peter Kunze\u2019s call for media industry scholars to consider what he terms \u201cunproduction studies\u201d \u2013 the works of media that never made it into existence at all, existing only as early drafts and industry legend \u2013 takes failure studies even further, and makes a compelling argument that attention to this area \u201cmay offer us more representative samples of industrial behavior and logics than a focus on successful media productions.\u201d[9]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Television studies, more particularly, has long been an industry where \u201cfailure is a near certainty; most series will not be hits.\u201d[10]<\/span><\/a> In their 1994 sociological analysis of TV executives\u2019 decision-making process, William Bielby and Denise Bielby tracked the process of moving from 600 pilot episode scripts to a mere 23 that would go on to debut in a primetime position in the 1991-92 television season.[11]<\/span><\/a> Despite the assumption that television executives with experience in the field \u201ccan probably distinguish well-crafted from mediocre scripts and make informed judgments about the quality of acting, editing, and direction of a pilot,\u201d they concluded that, \u201cthe programmer has no reliable basis for predicting whether audiences, advertisers, and critics will accept the series.\u201d[12]<\/span><\/a> Or, to quote then-president of CBS Entertainment Jeff Sagansky, who would give Bielby and Bielby their article\u2019s title: \u201cAll hits are flukes.\u201d Mittell explains that, \u201cfor a production company, the profits from one hit series can offset the losses of many failures,\u201d thus the continual reliance every TV season on intentional overproduction \u2013 \u201cproducers continue to rack up debts in search of the next blockbuster series.\u201d[13]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Since the pivot to creating their own original programming, Netflix has been open about their embrace of overproduction, with Chief Content Officer Ted Sarandos spelling out the business model in a 2018 interview: \u201cMore shows, more watching; more watching, more sub[scriber]s; more subs, more revenue; more revenue, more content.\u201d[14]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>The \u201cunpredictability of cultural commodities\u2019 success\u201d makes the practice of risk reduction one of particular interest to media industry scholars.[15]<\/span><\/a> While it may be impossible to guarantee that a series will become a hit, numerous writers have identified several major strategies continually used by television producers to promote and position a new program to best advantage. Todd Gitlin\u2019s indispensable Inside Prime Time <\/em>(1983) devoted a whole chapter to what he termed \u201crecombinant culture,\u201d described as \u201cassum[ing] that selected features of recent hits can be spliced together to make a eugenic success.\u201d[16]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Similarly, the process referred to as \u201cformatting\u201d by Timothy Havens and Amanda Lotz seeks to \u201cemphasize features of media content known to succeed in the past,\u201d whether in direct spin-offs of hit series or in the foregrounding of \u201cknown talent\u201d in front of or behind the camera.[17]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/sup>This tendency was forecasted in Bielby and Bielby\u2019s 1994 article, which concluded that \u201creliance on established writer-producers is likely to intensify\u201d in the years moving forward.\u201d[18]<\/span><\/a> At the same time, however, TV producers must balance the \u201ccompeting demands of originality versus familiarity,\u201d attempting to bank on viewers\u2019 prior knowledge of successful TV track records, \u201ceven though hit programs often come from relatively unproven talent with innovative new ideas.\u201d[19]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Despite the increasing proliferation of cable channels able to option their own original programming, and the entry of subscription-video-on-demand (SVOD) providers\/programmers including Netflix doing the same, the chances of a series going on to be successful has not significantly improved. Amanda Lotz\u2019s book We Now Disrupt This Broadcast<\/em> discusses in depth how the growth of the cable industry was a long series of programming bets that often didn\u2019t pay off, where \u201cfar more channels struggled with the new competitive environment than succeeded, even those that developed original scripted series.\u201d[20]<\/span><\/a> As the importance of creating a unique programming brand for cable channels became more apparent through the decades, many cable executives attempted to utilize a strategy of \u201cdistinctive\u201d or \u201cquality\u201d shows. However, \u201can environment with an abundance of distinctive programming again required new strategies\u201d for a series to succeed, thus the overall failure rate remains just as high in a television landscape with numerous other channels.[21]<\/span><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

While some aspects of the Bielby and Bielby analysis are pertinent<\/u> years later, it is important also to note where their findings must be updated. The most significant of these is what was, ironically, described as the \u201cleast ambiguous criteria of commercial success\u201d in 1994 \u2013 \u201ca large audience with a demographic composition valued by advertisers.\u201d[22]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>SVOD providers like Amazon Prime and Netflix instead operate through the growth and retention of their paid subscriber base, not through the traditional broadcast\/cable model of \u201cselling eyeballs\u201d to advertisers. Lotz has previously discussed the economic distinctions between a subscription network in her writing on HBO, stating that \u201csubscription networks need to sell the network instead of individual programs. Most basically, subscription networks must develop programming of such distinction that viewers are willing to pay for it.\u201d[23]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>For HBO\u2019s turn-of-the-millenium series lineup, this distinct was clear but implicit: shows like The Sopranos, Sex and the City, <\/em>and Oz <\/em>were \u201crefreshing, uncensored, groundbreaking\u201d while broadcast competition is therefore assumed to be \u201cboring, constrained, routine.\u201d[24]<\/span><\/a> As Deborah Jaramillo has argued, HBO\u2019s \u201ceagerness to differentiate its product from that of broadcast television amounts to the creation of a brand,\u201d and it was a strategy that Netflix would adopt in hopes of emulating their success.[25]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Colin Jon Mark Crawford discusses in his recent monograph Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em> how Netflix\u2019s move toward original content production was initially framed to both investors and the public as one that would echo HBO\u2019s debut decades earlier. In the initial company blog post announcing the debut of House of Cards<\/em>, Sarandos writes that, \u201cWe\u2019ve found the gripping, serialized one-hour drama\u2026has become a very important part of the Netflix experience and over the years, we\u2019ve been able to add these shows from many different channels, with the notable exception of HBO.\u201d[26]<\/span><\/a> Crawford reads the phrasing of the House of Cards<\/em> announcement as a \u201cstrategic gesture toward the prestige of HBO \u2013 whom [Netflix] famously outbid for this very show,\u201d and the competitive relationship between the two platforms would become codified soon after in a 2013 GQ<\/em> profile of the company, where Sarandos famously commented that, \u201cthe goal is to become HBO faster than HBO can become us.\u201d[27]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup><\/p>\n

Even viewership ratings, another legacy measurement of television success, are in question in the contemporary SVOD television field. Netflix\u2019s caginess as to their own internal data has been an area of mystery and annoyance, both for those competitors looking to deflate the hype around seemingly-viral hits, and those creatives working within the Netflix system.[28]<\/span><\/a> While Lotz has argued that the closest subscription networks like HBO have gotten to Nielsen ratings are the rates of \u201cchurn,\u201d or those viewers canceling service, Netflix has been open about their reliance on numerous viewership metrics, including what Sarandos terms \u201csurvivorship,\u201d or the rate of people who start a program and continue watching until the end of a season.[29]<\/span><\/a> \u201cThough its very design, Netflix turns every user into a Nielsen-esque data generator,\u201d Crawford writes, \u201cwith the entire user base as its sample group, rather than the hopefully representative demographic cross-section Nielsen strives for.\u201d[30]<\/span><\/a> \u00a0<\/sup>The move from a \u201crepresentative cross-section\u201d to a more individualized metric can easily be seen in the highly personalized micro-genres and recommendations that have become Netflix mainstays. These would be impossible without the company\u2019s mass data collections, down to the specific level of which promotional thumbnail image \u201cunlocks\u201d a viewer starting a program.[31]<\/span><\/a> Netflix has further argued that their lock-and-key viewership numbers \u201cenabled them to \u2018predict\u2019 the success\u201d of House of Cards<\/em>, as well as \u201callaying concerns about the risk of producing new episodes of Arrested Development<\/em>.\u201d[32]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Publicly, however, Netflix has positioned itself as a company that, in many significant ways, operates outside of the traditional television production model. In an extensive 2018 company profile, Sarandos described their business philosophy as one diametrically opposed to the norm \u2013 \u201cI\u2019m building a team that\u2019s oriented as saying \u2018Yes\u2019 in a town that\u2019s built to say \u2018No.\u2019\u201d \u2013 thus hinting at the aversion within both TV and film production houses to move too far outside of established norms of success.[33]<\/span><\/a> Timothy Havens has argued that this tendency toward \u201csaying yes\u201d is as much a strategy of intentional overproduction as it may be an embrace of creatively-driven projects. Havens writes that the company\u2019s indiscriminate catalog building, rather than the cultivation of a specific niche market (as with streaming providers like Shudder or The Criterion Channel) is, \u201cultimately, what Netflix has in common with broadcast channels\u201d in opposition to the \u201cnarrowcasting\u201d favored by many cable networks.[34]<\/span><\/a> This reading would likely be contested by Netflix executives, who have attempted to spin their embrace of quantity \u2013 both in terms of sheer amount of original programming as well as the cost of making it \u2013 as an interest in allowing film and television creators seemingly unlimited freedom; a place where \u201cbusiness strategy often equates to selecting a worthy, proven talent and giving them enough money to follow their creative impulses wherever they may lead.\u201d[35]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>However, as we can see through a closer look at the production and promotion of The Get Down<\/em>, even the \u201cseemingly endless\u201d budget Netflix purports to have only extends so far.[36]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Managing the Risks of The Get Down<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Get Down<\/em> was reported to have been a long-percolating Baz Luhrmann project, with estimates a 1970s New York-based story being developed by the director for over a decade before finally taking shape as a television project in collaboration with Sony Pictures Television in late 2012.[37]<\/span><\/a> After a bidding war between FX and Netflix for the program, the streaming service won out, largely due to their enthusiastic \u201crich season commitment\u201d as opposed to the pilot-only offer given by FX.[38]<\/span><\/a> The initial announcement of the show came in early 2015 with a paired press release and 18-second teaser video identifying Luhrmann as a \u201cvisionary.\u201d This, combined with a statement by Content VP Cindy Holland relating the forthcoming show to several of his past cinematic successes (Strictly Ballroom<\/em>, Moulin Rouge!,<\/em> The Great Gatsby)<\/em> reinforced the enthusiasm Netflix\u2019s full-season pickup offer indicated.[39]<\/span><\/a> Luhrmann\u2019s directorial persona at this time was well-established, remaining largely unchanged since his debut film: an emphasis on visual splendor in the forms of elaborate costuming and production design, heavy, foregrounded use of popular music (often ahistoric to a story\u2019s setting), and a fondness for classical, even mythic character archetypes and narratives. With these traits in mind, a series set to chart the heyday and demise of the disco movement alongside the emergence of early hip-hop seemed logical enough on the grounds of spectacle. If the pairing of a particularly homegrown American art form like hip-hop and an Australian director gave anyone pause, perhaps the $350 million gross of his adaptation of the Great American Novel two years prior was enough to put those concerns to rest.<\/p>\n

The SVOD company\u2019s reliance on Luhrmann\u2019s status as a contemporary auteur was similar to the positioning of the House of Cards<\/em> series announcement, which referred to series executive producer David Fincher\u2019s \u201cunique vision\u201d as one of the assets that led them to take on the \u201cmanageable risk\u201d of moving into original content production.[40]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Such announcements have become \u201ca new constant\u201d for Netflix in the years since, with the company having embarked on content production deals with not only well-known film directors (Alfonso Cuar\u00f3n, the Coen Brothers), but also top broadcast showrunners (Shonda Rhimes and Ryan Murphy) and public figures more generally (the Obamas).[41]<\/span><\/a> \u00a0<\/sup>Kristen Warner writes that the usage of this strategy \u2013 \u201cauteurism as a guarantor of critical acclaim and thus the justifier of risk\u201d \u2013 is one that streaming platforms like Netflix \u201cborrowed [the] logic\u201d from broadcast and cable channels alike early on in their expansion.[42]<\/span><\/a> \u00a0<\/sup>As Crawford notes, this strategy serves Netflix not only in the traditional risk mitigation practice for a particular series, but also \u201clegitimize[s] the platform\u2019s ability to attract \u2018top talent,\u2019\u201d allowing them to further entice other successful TV and film creatives to join them,\u00a0 maintaining this \u201clore of talent attraction.\u201d[43]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Recent work by Ryan David Briggs has illustrated how this auteurist \u201crisk-justifying\u201d logic can also be seen in fellow SVOD behemoth Amazon Studios\u2019 attempt to build a brand identity \u201cbased on appealing to a particular <\/em>audience rather than just any <\/em>audience\u201d via partnerships with filmmakers including Spike Lee and Nicholas Winding Refn.[44]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>In July 2016, a month before the first half of The Get Down<\/em>\u2019s one (and only) season would be released, the excitement about Baz Luhrmann\u2019s entry into television was doused by a lengthy piece of investigative reporting from Variety<\/em>\u2019s Cynthia Littleton. Her research would go on to shape much of the industry and public discourse surrounding the show. Littleton described how Luhrmann had gone through \u201ctwo showrunners, numerous writers, and no small amount of strain with producer Sony Pictures Television\u201d with a series that \u201cwent well over the original budget of about $7.5 million per episode and wound up costing at least $120 million overall.\u201d[45]<\/span><\/a> The issues plaguing the show had become consistent enough to even get the production a new moniker among those working on it \u2013 \u201cThe Shut Down.\u201d Among the recurrent and apparently unsolvable problems with the series was Luhrmann\u2019s position. <\/em>The director has consistently claimed he \u201cwent into the project expecting only a light level of involvement after getting Get Down<\/em> on its feet.\u201d[46]<\/span><\/a> The Variety<\/em> piece was the first of several public statements by Luhrmann where he reiterated his vision of being \u201can uncle to the project,\u201d while not fully serving in a day-to-day showrunner model.[47]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>According to unnamed sources within the Variety <\/em>article, Luhrmann \u201cfailed to heed the counsel of seasoned veterans and…show[ed] a lack of regard for the skills needed to pull off a big-budget drama series.\u201d[48]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>As previously indicated, among the traditional risk management processes in television production is the usage of personnel who have previously proven track records on successful series; in this case Shawn Ryan, showrunner on FX\u2019s The Shield<\/em>, was initially brought on by Sony to facilitate this.[49]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Much of the seeming fault for The Get Down<\/em>\u2019s drawn-out production process is placed on Luhrmann\u2019s shoulders in the Variety <\/em>piece, with mentions of the director\u2019s \u201chabit of big spending\u2026linked to his reputation as a stylistic perfectionist.\u201d[50]<\/span><\/a> This assertion was strengthened by the accompanying art for the article \u2013 a drawing of Luhrmann against a stylized background of stacks of cash in flames.\u00a0 However, the piece also indicates that tension may have been partially exacerbated by Netflix\u2019s refusal towards \u201cany move that would have diminished Luhrmann\u2019s day to day role.\u201d[51]<\/span><\/a> Reportedly, Ted Sarandos was so insistent on The Get Down<\/em> being a truly Luhrmann-esque production that \u201csources say\u2026he wouldn\u2019t move the show out of the development phase\u2026unless the director committed to shepherd it from beginning to end.\u201d[52]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>In this reported conflict, we can see two distinct forms of risk mitigation \u2013 Netflix\u2019s emphasis on Luhrmann\u2019s signature stylistic elements being front and center and Sony\u2019s usage of several proven showrunners to help the director adapt to the workflow of series television \u2013 coming into direct conflict with one another. However, alleviating risk in television is as much about \u201croutines previously proven\u2026economically efficient\u201d as those strategies intended to try and achieve eventual success, and whether the mythic $120 million figure was accurate or not, the two strategies utilized by both Netflix and Sony ultimately seemed to cancel one another out, with financially disastrous results.[53]<\/span><\/a> As Variety<\/em> forecasted, the show\u2019s success and future were already in question; the idea of it being \u201cNetflix\u2019s first one-and-done series\u201d is floated, with the additional speculation that The Get Down<\/em> might indeed \u201cprovide a cautionary tale for Hollywood.\u201d[54]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

Variety<\/em>\u2019s framing here is intriguing, as it doesn\u2019t specify who exactly the \u201ccautionary tale\u201d is meant to be warning \u2013 streaming executives at Netflix and elsewhere as to the downside of being so publicly willing to spend largely, or media workers within the industry who might consider a Netflix series offer a dream come true. Spokespeople for the company, most notably Ted Sarandos, made much of the creative freedom Netflix allowed its talent partners, with both the reportedly hands-off development process and the streaming corporation\u2019s tendency toward full-season pickups as strong marks in favor of joining them. In a 2016 address, Sarandos described this as a company commitment to \u201cproducing and publishing books rather than chapters,\u201d a choice that allowed creators \u201cthe chance to concentrate on multi-episode story arcs rather than pilots.\u201d[55]<\/span><\/a> This decision is one that Netflix has reiterated among the chief ways their production model differs from that of broadcast television. This is echoed by a longstanding promotional discourse within Netflix using \u201cactors and directors champion[ing] this idea about how \u2018liberating\u2019 their creative experiences were with the company\u201d[56]<\/span><\/a> Variety<\/em>\u2019s reporting on the production process behind The Get Down<\/em> and prediction of it as a failure in the making may have resulted in both removing some of the idyllic shine from the Netflix Original production process, and perhaps even making an unspoken argument in favor of the broadcasting methods of previous decades.<\/p>\n

Following the publication of the Variety<\/em> piece, both Luhrmann and Netflix entered the month of the show\u2019s debut with a combination of promotional duties and damage control. Luhrmann gave an interview where he attempted to downplay the production struggles and disputed the notorious \u201cmost expensive show\u201d designation that The Get Down<\/em> became unable to move away from. \u201cI owe it to this community that has let me in to make sure we do everything we can to make sure that we are honorable,\u201d Luhrmann said to The Hollywood Reporter.<\/em>[57]<\/span><\/a> Luhrmann reiterated the importance of collaboration, particularly due to the obvious disconnect between a white, Australian director and the series\u2019 subject matter of Black and Latinx youth in 1970s New York, in a number of show profiles leading to the series debut. For example, Vanity Fair<\/em> described The Get Down<\/em> as something Luhrmann \u201ccurated\u2026putting together a team that could get it made: [Nelson] George, [Grandmaster] Flash, executive producer Nas, DJ Kool Herc, Afrika Bambaataa.\u201d[58]<\/span><\/a> Again, it is notable how the promotional discourse continues to rely on the traditional methodology of emphasizing known talent. Given that the majority of the series\u2019 cast were then-unknown young actors, focus shifted instead to highlighting the caliber of expertise helping Luhrmann craft an authentic series behind-the-scenes.<\/p>\n

Upon its long-delayed debut, critical reception of The Get Down<\/em> was decidedly mixed, with several reviewers noting Luhrmann\u2019s over-the-top cinematic sensibility as an odd match for serialized TV storytelling. The New York Times<\/em> concluded that, \u201cFor worse and for better\u2026[it] probably should have just been a Baz Luhrmann film.\u201d[59]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Also filtered into several write-ups was the show\u2019s by-then-notorious production history, with Variety<\/em>\u2019s review commenting that The Get Down <\/em>\u201cwas unprecedentedly expensive and time-consuming for parent company Netflix; the result smacks of half-baked creative ambition run amok.\u201d[60]<\/span><\/a> The New Republic<\/em>\u2019s Sasha Frere-Jones closed his otherwise positive review by indicating that the hyper-dedication to detail had indeed created an accurate portrayal of 1977 New York, calling it \u201ca parade for my youth. But who ever watches a parade twice?\u201d[61]<\/span><\/a> While Netflix leans into a public image of being a champion of creative deviation and artist-driven projects, their \u201cinternet TV\u201d brand identity is likewise tied to \u201cextended periods of viewer engagements\u201d \u2013 both in rewatchability, as in the numerous successful network sitcoms they maintain licensing agreements with, as well as of course the \u201cbingability\u201d of a series.[62]<\/span><\/a>\u00a0 <\/sup>Thus, despite Frere-Jones\u2019 praise for numerous aspects of The Get Down<\/em>, his final remark may give an indication as to Netflix\u2019s final reasoning in following through with canceling the series after only one season.<\/p>\n

From Cancellation to Faraway Downs<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

There is still uncertainty as to who made the final call as to The Get Down<\/em>\u2019s fate. Most industry publication headlines read that Netflix was the one that \u201caxed\u201d or canceled the series, with various reporters including detail on how the show was \u201cplagued by a revolving door of crew and beset by delays,\u201d that it \u201cfailed to connect with viewers in the ways that buzzy hits like Stranger Things<\/em>\u201d did, and so forth.[63]<\/span><\/a> However, while neither Netflix nor Sony made any kind of public statement, Luhrmann posted a lengthy missive to his official Facebook page explaining that an exclusivity contract keeping him from filmmaking commitments required him to step away from the series \u2013 seemingly assuming much of the responsibility in the show\u2019s demise.[64]<\/span><\/a> This resulted in Get Down<\/em> fans splitting blame between both parties, with numerous Facebook users beseeching Luhrmann to hire a new showrunner, while The Hollywood Reporter<\/em>\u2019s initial article announcing the cancelation received comments months later claiming Netflix has a greater share of responsibility, saying \u201cit got cut because not enough white people, [I] bet you a million dollars.\u201d[65]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

This final fan claim is obviously difficult to prove, but Kristen Warner\u2019s argument for skepticism in the face of streaming platforms presenting themselves as new vanguards of media diversity is well-taken in this instance. As she writes, \u201cour favorite streaming platforms\u2026rely on the same tastemakers and gatekeeping strategies as their legacy media counterparts, ultimately resulting in the veneer of difference at the level of content while employing the same techniques to ensure success is in play.\u201d[66]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Despite the well-publicized involvement of expert figures like Grandmaster Flash and Nas in The Get Down\u2019s<\/em> production, and the majority Black and Latinx cast of the show, the key players in determining the series\u2019 future fit Warner\u2019s description of\u00a0 \u201cthe same \u2013 white \u2013 executives\u201d recruited by streaming companies, \u201cvirtually the same as the talent pool for legacy networks.\u201d[67]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>However, Cameron Lynn Brown\u2019s recent article discussing \u201cresidual fandoms\u201d for streaming content, whose presence on platforms like Netflix \u201callows for fans to (re)engage with their fan object through avenues reminiscent of syndication\u201d may provide one way for future research to continue to investigate the engagement of fans of The Get Down<\/em> even after its demise.[68]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Particularly given the rise in prominence that performers on the show such as Justice Smith and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II have enjoyed following the series\u2019 cancellation, it would be intriguing to see if The Get Down<\/em> might have a similar fan resurgence in the years to come.<\/p>\n

For Netflix\u2019s part, it is unsurprising that the company quickly pivoted to spinning The Get Down\u2019s <\/em>cancellation as, actually, a mark in their original content\u2019s favor, rather than as the \u201ccautionary tale\u201d recounted by Variety<\/em>. When questioned on an investor call about the cancellation decision, Sarandos remarked that it was merely a symptom of Netflix\u2019s ambition, saying, \u201cif you\u2019re not failing\u2026maybe you\u2019re not trying hard enough.\u201d[69]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Crawford characterizes this as of a piece with the \u201cbold, if not pathological optimism of Silicon Valley,\u201d often encapsulated in the techie maxim \u201cmove fast and break things.\u201d[70]<\/span><\/a> As he also makes note, as Netflix more fully embraced content production in the years since The Get Down\u2019s <\/em>birth (and death), the rate of original series created by Netflix has been paired with a rise in Netflix cancellations as well.[71]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>\u00a0Warner writes that streaming platforms have developed the same weakness as their cable channel forebears \u2013 \u201cthere can never be enough content\u201d \u2013 and just as in previous eras, this overproduction can likely be read as a further reiteration of the endless search for the one giant hit that will make all the canceled series irrelevant to Netflix\u2019s bottom line.[72]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/sup>Even Luhrmann appears to be not too badly burnt by the unsuccessful SVOD partnership, as in late 2022, he announced an upcoming partnership with Hulu to release a streaming series with a very different provenance \u2013 Faraway Downs<\/em>, the limited series borne out of 2008 Universal Pictures release Australia. <\/em>Purportedly a result of 2020\u2019s COVID-19 production halt on Elvis<\/em>, Luhrmann reconsidered the additional footage that was cut out of the 2008 release, particularly an alternate ending to the film that had been changed soon before the movie\u2019s debut, and pitched the extended version as a six-part episodic series to Hulu \u2013 a fellow NBCUniversal subsidiary.[73]<\/span><\/a> The announcement of the Faraway Downs<\/em> limited series was tagged as a \u201cdirector\u2019s cut\u201d release by numerous publications \u2013 even more specifically post-Justice League<\/em>, some described Luhrmann as following in the footsteps of Zach Snyder.[74]<\/span><\/a> Jonathan Rosenbaum has written that the concept of the \u201cdirector\u2019s cut\u201d is one that is able to be \u201cboth a legal concept and as an advertising slogan,\u201d and the duality of this is able to be seen in the promotional positioning of Faraway Downs<\/em> when considered against The Get Down<\/em>.[75]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

For Luhrmann\u2019s Netflix series his novel status in making series television was seen first as a selling point and later as an explanatory factor in the show\u2019s early demise. Faraway Downs<\/em>, contrastingly, was described as \u201cA Baz Luhrmann Film in Six Parts.<\/em>\u201d The discussion of the scenes that were able to be added back into Australia<\/em>\u2019s runtime are very much in line with Rosenbaum\u2019s stance that a \u201cdirector\u2019s cut\u201d mythology argues that \u201cparadoxically\u2026every film has at least two versions \u2013 a correct one and a more correct one.\u201d[76]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>Luhrmann described the distinction himself in an interview with The Wrap as \u201ca banquet vs. a meal,\u201d a metaphor which the writer helpfully extended, claiming that Faraway Downs<\/em> is \u201csomething richer and more complete than the film that was released in 2008.\u201d[77]<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

While Luhrmann was fairly politic in describing his view of Downs <\/em>and Australia<\/em> as being able to \u201clive with a relation to each other, like two children,\u201d the original 2008 release (which received a mixed critical reception in the U.S. and has yet to achieve an equitable cultural footprint when compared to Romeo + Juliet<\/em> or Moulin Rouge!<\/em>) was slightly denigrated in the promotional lead-up to the Hulu series debut.[78]<\/span><\/a> The shelving of a more tragic ending for Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman\u2019s characters is now recast as a product of the sociocultural moment, specifically the global financial crisis of 2008, which Luhrmann describes as a time when \u201ceveryone had end-of-the-world feelings\u2026I was just wondering if this would just be too much tragedy.\u201d[79]<\/span><\/a> In addition to the new\/alternate ending to the story begun in Australia<\/em>, and similar to some of the promotion done around The Get Down<\/em>, another point repeated throughout the Faraway Downs<\/em> press cycle was the importance of updating and enhancing the Aboriginal characters and themes already present in the film\u2019s source material, something that was again said to be in need of \u201cdeepening.\u201d[80]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup><\/p>\n

Viewership metrics on Faraway Downs<\/em> so far are, much like the totals on The Get Down<\/em>, basically unknown outside of the platforms upon which they exist. It should be noted, however, that among the many differences between the two projects, among the most crucial is the lack of serialization concerns for Faraway Downs<\/em>. It was pitched from the start as a six-part limited series, and given that no new footage needed to be shot (though Jackman and Kidman did contribute additional lines of dialogue remotely for scenes previously cut in 2008), the level of expense and risk on the show was dramatically reduced.[81]<\/span><\/a> <\/sup>While the type of success that Faraway Downs<\/em> could achieve as a one-shot series was never discussed as a potential breakout hit on the level of Hulu\u2019s previous attempts along these lines, such as fellow Nicole Kidman vehicle Nine Perfect Strangers, <\/em>perhaps the appeal of attempting to reuse and recycle an already-existent Universal Pictures property was enough for Hulu executives to agree. For Luhrmann\u2019s part, interviews done throughout the release and awards season for 2022\u2019s Elvis<\/em> had made mention of the idea of a similar four-hour \u201cextended version\u201d of that film with longer concert sequences making its way to the public in the coming years.[82]<\/span><\/a> Whether it will take a full 15 of them as with Faraway Downs<\/em> remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

In an industry where only around one percent of pitches ultimately succeed in moving forward to a series order, risk and failure truly comprise the majority of what television industry studies seeks to examine.[83]<\/span><\/a> As this analysis has demonstrated, despite perceptions that Netflix\u2019s programming decisions align with their reputation as \u201ca \u2018new tech\u2019 company, rather than a legacy media business,\u201d many of the strategies employed by the streaming company in undertaking a project like The Get Down<\/em> have been historically implemented by the very television executives that they attempt to segregate themselves from.[84]<\/span><\/a> Thus, while Netflix claims to not want \u201cto be a streaming, supersize clone of HBO or FX or NBC,\u201d the application of an industrially-focused framework with risk mitigation at the forefront,<\/u> indicates that the company may be closer to the traditional than they ever wish to let on.[85]<\/span><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

[1]<\/span><\/a> Eric Deggans, \u201cNetflix lost nearly 1 million subscribers. That\u2019s the good news,\u201d NPR.org. July 19, 2022, https:\/\/www.npr.org\/2022\/07\/19\/1112335543\/netflix-second-quarter<\/a><\/p>\n

[2]<\/span><\/a> Josef Adalian, \u201cInside the Netflix Binge Factory,\u201d Vulture.com. June 11, 2018, https:\/\/www.vulture.com\/2018\/06\/how-netflix-swallowed-tv-industry.html<\/a><\/span>.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/span><\/a> Cynthia Littleton, \u201cInside the Troubled Production of Baz Luhrmann\u2019s \u2018The Get Down,\u2019 Netflix\u2019s Most Expensive Series Yet.\u201d Variety. June 26, 2016, https:\/\/variety.com\/2016\/tv\/features\/the-get-down-netflix-baz-luhrmann-production-troubles-1201822679\/<\/p>\n

[4]<\/span><\/a> Timothy Havens, \u201cNetflix: Streaming Channel Brands as Global Meaning Systems,\u201d From Networks to Netflix: A Guide to Changing Channels<\/em>, ed. Derek Johnson. (Routledge. 2018), 325.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/span><\/a> Amanda Lotz, We Now Disrupt This Broadcast: How Cable Transformed Television and the Internet Revolutionized It All <\/em>(MIT Press, 2018), 123.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/span><\/a> Jason Mittell, \u201cThe Aesthetics of Failure,\u201d The Velvet Light Trap<\/em>, no. 64 (2009): 76.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/span><\/a> Charles Ramirez Berg, \u201cNotes on the Emergence of Failure Studies,\u201d The Velvet Light Trap<\/em>, no. 64. (2009), 101.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/span><\/a> Berg, \u201cNotes on the Emergence,\u201d 101.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/span><\/a> Peter C. Kunze, \u201cHerding Cats<\/em>; or, the Possibilities of Unproduction Studies,\u201d The Velvet Light Trap<\/em>, no. 80. (2017), 19.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/span><\/a> Kristen Warner, \u201cABC: Crisis, Risk and the Logics of Change.\u201d From Networks to Netflix: A Guide to Changing Channels<\/em>, ed. Derek Johnson (Routledge. 2018), 27.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/span><\/a> William T. Bielby and Denise D. Bielby \u2018All Hits Are Flukes\u2019: Institutionalized Decision Making and the Rhetoric of Network Prime-Time Program Development.\u201d American Journal of Sociology<\/em>, 99, no. 5 (1994): 1289.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/span><\/a> Bielby and Bielby, \u201c\u2018All Hits,\u2019\u201d 1920.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/span><\/a> Jason Mittell, \u201cExchanging Programming,\u201d Television and American Culture <\/em>(Oxford University Press, 2009), 22.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[15]<\/span><\/a> Timothy Havens and Amanda D. Lotz, \u201cThe Industrialization of Culture Framework and Key Economic Concepts,\u201d Understanding Media Industries, 2nd<\/sup> Edition<\/em> (Oxford University Press, 2016), 30.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/span><\/a> Todd Gitlin, Inside Prime Time<\/em> (Pantheon Books, 1983), 64.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/span><\/a> Havens and Lotz, \u201cIndustrialization\u201d 40; <\/em>Mittell, \u201cExchanging\u201d 46.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/span><\/a> Bielby and Bielby, \u201c\u2019All Hits,\u2019\u201d 1309.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/span><\/a> Mittell, \u201cExchanging,\u201d 46-47.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/span><\/a> Lotz, We Now Disrupt<\/em>, 71.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/span><\/a> Lotz, We Now Disrupt, <\/em>106.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/span><\/a> Bielby and Bielby, \u201c\u2019All Hits,\u2019\u201d 1290.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/span><\/a> Amanda D. Lotz, \u201cIf It\u2019s Not TV, What Is It?: The Case of U.S. Subscription Television,\u201d Cable Visions: Television Beyond Broadcasting<\/em>, ed. Sarah Banet-Weiser, Cynthia Chris & Anthony Freitas (NYU Press, 2007), 91.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/span><\/a> Deborah Jaramillo, \u201cThe Family Racket: AOL Time Warner, HBO, The Sopranos, <\/em>and the Construction of a Quality Brand.\u201d Journal of Communication Inquiry, <\/em>26, no. 1 (2002): 65.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/span><\/a> Jaramillo, \u201cThe Family Racket,\u201d 65.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/span><\/a> Colin Jon Mark Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions: Financializing Platform Television<\/em> (Lexington Books, 2021), 60.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 60.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[29]<\/span><\/a> Lotz, \u201cIf It\u2019s Not TV,\u201d 96; Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[30]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 74.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[32]<\/span><\/a> Havens & Lotz, \u201cIndustrialization of Culture,\u201d 32.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[34]<\/span><\/a> Timothy Havens, \u201cNetflix: Streaming Channel Brands,\u201d 329.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/span><\/a> Charles Bramesco, \u201cThat auteur do it: can big name directors continue to thrive on the small screen?\u201d The Guardian. February 17, 2017, https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2017\/feb\/17\/big-film-directors-turn-to-tv-shows<\/p>\n

[36]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[37]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[38]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[39]<\/span><\/a> Leslie Goldberg, \u201cBaz Luhrmann Hip Hop Drama Gets Netflix Series Order.\u201d The Hollywood Reporter. February 5, 2015, https:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/live-feed\/baz-luhrmann-hip-hop-drama-770442<\/p>\n

[40]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 60.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 94.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/span><\/a> Kristen J. Warner, \u201cBlue Skies Again: Streamers and the Impossible Promise of Diversity.\u201d Los Angeles Review of Books<\/em>. June 24, 2021, https:\/\/www.lareviewofbooks.org\/article\/blue-skies-again-streamers-and-the-impossible-promise-of-diversity\/<\/p>\n

[43]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 94.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/span><\/a> Ryan David Briggs, \u201cA Tale of Two Indies: Amazon Studios and A24 in the Streaming Age,\u201d The Velvet Light Trap<\/em>, vol. 90 (2022), 8.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[46]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[47]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production\u201d; Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

[48]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[49]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[50]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[51]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[52]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[53]<\/span><\/a> Warner, \u201cABC: Crisis, Risk and the Logics of Change,\u201d 27.<\/p>\n

[54]<\/span><\/a> Littleton, \u201cTroubled Production.\u201d<\/p>\n

[55]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 85.<\/p>\n

[56]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 77.<\/p>\n

[57]<\/span><\/a> Leslie Goldberg, \u201cBaz Luhrmann: \u2018The Get Down\u2019 Isn\u2019t TV\u2019s Most Expensive Series Ever.\u201d The Hollywood Reporter. July 27, 2016, https:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/live-feed\/baz-luhrmann-get-down-isnt-914955<\/p>\n

[58]<\/span><\/a> Jenna Marotta, \u201cThe Get Down<\/em> Will Show a City, a Music Movement, and a Young Cast on the Brink.\u201d Vanity Fair. August 9, 2016, http:\/\/www.vanityfair.com\/hollywood\/2016\/08\/the-get-down-netflix-set-visit<\/p>\n

[59]<\/span><\/a> Mike Hale, \u201cBaz Luhrmann\u2019s \u2018The Get Down\u2019 is \u2018West Side Story\u2019 With Rappers and Disco Queens.\u201d The New York Times. <\/em>August 11, 2016, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2016\/08\/12\/arts\/television\/review-netflix-get-down-baz-luhrmann.html?_r=0<\/p>\n

[60]<\/span><\/a> Sonia Saraya, \u201cTV Review: \u2018The Get Down.\u201d Variety.com. August 4, 2016, https:\/\/variety.com\/2016\/tv\/reviews\/tv-review-the-get-down-netflix-baz-luhrmann-shameik-moore-justice-smith-1201829116\/<\/p>\n

[61]<\/span><\/a> Sasha Frere-Jones, \u201cThe Beat Don\u2019t Stop.\u201d The New Republic<\/em>. October 2016, https:\/\/newrepublic.com\/article\/136335\/beat-dont-stop<\/p>\n

[62]<\/span><\/a> Kevin McDonald, \u201cFrom Online Video Store to Global Internet TV Network: Netflix and the Future of Home Entertainment.\u201d The Netflix Effect: Technology and Entertainment in the 21st Century<\/em>, ed. Kevin McDonald & Daniel Smith-Rowsey (Bloomsbury: 2016), 210.<\/p>\n

[63]<\/span><\/a> Steph Harmon, \u201cNetflix series The Get Down reportedly axed as Baz Luhrmann says he will focus on film.\u201d The Guardian<\/em>. May 24, 2017, https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/film\/2017\/may\/25\/netflix-series-the-get-down-reportedly-axed-as-baz-luhrmann-says-he-will-focus-on-film; Daniel Holloway, \u201c\u2018The Get Down\u2019 Canceled by Netflix.\u201d Variety.<\/em> May 24, 2017, https:\/\/variety.com\/2017\/tv\/news\/the-get-down-canceled-1202443885\/<\/p>\n

[64]<\/span><\/a> Baz Luhrmann, \u201cDear fans of The Get Down.\u201d Facebook, May 24, 2017, https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/BazLuhrmannOfficial\/posts\/dear-fans-of-the-get-downi-wanted-to-speak-to-you-with-an-open-heart-and-just-ac\/1856753604650395\/<\/p>\n

[65]<\/span><\/a> Kate Stanhope, \u201c\u2018The Get Down\u2019 Canceled at Netflix After One Season.\u201d The Hollywood Reporter<\/em>. May 24, 2017, https:\/\/www.hollywoodreporter.com\/live-feed\/get-down-canceled-at-netflix-1007551<\/p>\n

[66]<\/span><\/a> Warner, \u201cBlue Skies Again.\u201d<\/p>\n

[67]<\/span><\/a> Warner, \u201cBlue Skies Again.\u201d<\/p>\n

[68]<\/span><\/a> Cameron Lynn Brown, \u201cResidual Fandom: Television Technologies, Industries, and Fans of \u2018Survivor,\u2019\u201d The Velvet Light Trap<\/em>, vol. 90 (2022), 19.<\/p>\n

[69]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 93.<\/p>\n

[70]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 93.<\/p>\n

[71]<\/span><\/a> Crawford, Netflix\u2019s Speculative Fictions<\/em>, 93.<\/p>\n

[72]<\/span><\/a> Warner, \u201cBlue Skies Again.\u201d<\/p>\n

[73]<\/span><\/a> Brent Lang, \u201cBaz Luhrmann Expanding \u2018Australia\u2019 into Six-Episode Director\u2019s Cut \u2018Faraway Downs,\u2019\u201d Variety<\/em>, June 28, 2022. https:\/\/variety.com\/2022\/film\/news\/baz-luhrmann-australia-six-episode-hulu-series-faraway-downs-nicole-kidman-hugh-jackman-1235304986\/<\/p>\n

[74]<\/span><\/a> Lang, \u201cLuhrmann Expanding \u2018Australia,\u2019\u201d; Rodrigo Perez, \u201cFaraway Downs Review,\u201d The Playlist<\/em>, November 23, 2023. https:\/\/theplaylist.net\/faraway-downs-review-baz-luhrmann-snydercuts-his-epic-australia-melodrama-doubles-down-on-excess-length-20231123\/<\/p>\n

[75]<\/span><\/a> Jonathan Rosenbaum, \u201cPotential Perils of the Director\u2019s Cut,\u201d May 5, 2023. https:\/\/jonathanrosenbaum.net\/2023\/05\/potential-perils-of-the-directors-cut\/<\/p>\n

[76]<\/span><\/a> Rosenbaum, \u201cPotential Perils.\u201d<\/p>\n

[77]<\/span><\/a> Adam Chitwood, \u201cWhy Baz Luhrmann Revisited and Enriched \u2018Australia\u2019 With \u2018Faraway Downs,\u2019\u201d November 20, 2023.<\/p>\n

[78]<\/span><\/a> Hunter Ingram, \u201cWhy Baz Luhrmann Changed the Ending of\u00a0 \u2018Australia\u2019 When Turning the Film Into Hulu\u2019s \u2018Faraway Downs\u2019 TV Series,\u201d Variety<\/em>, November 26, 2023. https:\/\/variety.com\/2023\/tv\/news\/baz-luhrmann-faraway-downs-australia-different-ending-1235804666\/<\/p>\n

[79]<\/span><\/a> Ingram, \u201cWhy Baz Luhrmann Changed the Ending.\u201d<\/p>\n

[80]<\/span><\/a> Janine Israel, \u201cFaraway Downs: a first look at Baz Luhrmann\u2019s attempt to remake his biggest flop,\u201d The Guardian<\/em>, October 21, 2023. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/tv-and-radio\/2023\/oct\/22\/faraway-downs-a-first-look-at-baz-luhrmanns-attempt-to-remake-his-biggest-flop.<\/p>\n

[81]<\/span><\/a> Ingram, \u201cWhy Baz Luhrmann Changed the Ending.\u201d<\/p>\n

[82]<\/span><\/a> Adam Bentz, \u201cBaz Luhrmann Open to Releasing Elvis 4 Hour Version in the Future,\u201d ScreenRant<\/em>, September 14, 2022. https:\/\/screenrant.com\/elvis-four-hour-cut-baz-luhrmann-release-plans\/.<\/p>\n

[83]<\/span><\/a> Mittell, \u201cExchanging,\u201d 51.<\/p>\n

[84]<\/span><\/a> Lotz, We Now Disrupt<\/em>, 123.<\/p>\n

[85]<\/span><\/a> Adalian, \u201cInside.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Anna Louise Wiegenstein is a Ph.D candidate in the Screen Studies program within Oklahoma State University\u2019s Department of English. Her dissertation examines elements of style and authenticity within the film and TV output of Baz Luhrmann. Other research interests include contemporary film and television musicals, streaming video industrial study, and the \u201cfound footage\u201d form of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22232,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/995"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22232"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=995"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/995\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1083,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/995\/revisions\/1083"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=995"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=995"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.bu.edu\/ampersandjournal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=995"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}