[imagesource: Netflix]

As we return to some degree of normality, most of us are finding more important things to do than Netflix and chill.

This, of course, is costing the streamer big time.

A 20% stock drop has wiped $40 billion off its market cap due to its steadily declining subscriber forecast causing a collapse in the share price.

Lately, all people seem to want is nostalgic re-takes or old-takes of their favourite blockbusters, and other streamers like Amazon Prime, Disney +, and HBO have been happy to oblige with things like the Lord of the Rings series, 800 Marvel shows, and The Last Of Us, respectively.

Netflix, on the other hand, is relying on old juice as fuel (think: a new season of Stranger Things, Witcher, The Crown, and Bridgerton).

The only show that might redeem its subscriber list is anticipation for Squid Game 2.

Anyway, there have been quite a few costly shows that the streaming giant has put out, which were complete fails and which may have “actively put people off Netflix” reported The Telegraph.

The executives are likely banging their heads over these poor decisions right now, considering how much they could have saved for the current challenging times.

Here are five of Netflix’s weirdest and most expensive disasters.

1. Hemlock Grove, 2013

Early Netflix was a case study in how not to spend money. Hemlock Grove, a sub-Twilight suburban spook-fest which ran for three seasons, somehow blitzed through $40 million per season (at $3m per episode).

As a frightfest, it flopped horribly (despite somehow getting nominated for an Emmy). And yet the real horror story was how Netflix could spend so much, so unwisely.

2. Marco Polo, 2014

Right at the start of its pivot into original programming, Netflix demonstrated a keen talent for burning through cash. This turgid historical epic, which tells the story of Marco Polo’s adventures in Central Asia, cost $90 million.

But reviews were dismal and it failed to gain any of the buzz enjoyed by other early Netflix properties such as House of Cards and Orange Is The New Black. Mystifyingly Netflix nonetheless pushed ahead with a $90m second series in 2016 – which likewise flopped. Truly a steppe in the wrong direction.

3. Sense8, 2015

The Matrix‘s creators, the Wachowski siblings, were given $9 million an episode and carte blanche to create this 12-part series:

Sense8, which debuted on Netflix in the summer of 2015, was a globe-hopping sci-fi travesty with an incomprehensible plot and dialogue that made Matrix: Revolutions sound like Paul Thomas Anderson directing Daniel Day-Lewis.

In the Wachowskis’ defence, Sense8 attracted a loyal, albeit modest fanbase, which prompted the streamer to commission an equally costly second season. Ultimately, though, its bonkers storyline and pioneering use of the “orgy montage” to move the action forward made it of limited interest.

4. The Get Down, 2016

An expensive show for a tiny audience never works out for very long:

Netflix initially met Lurid Luhrmann halfway by signing off on a none-to-shabby budget of $7,5 million per episode. But this was insufficient for Luhrmann, who racked up $120 million delivering the first, and as it transpired only, season in 2016, which broke the streamer’s record for its most expensive show ever.

By then the production had been beset by off-screen chaos, including frequent blood baths in the writers’ room.

The show was released in two chunks but still went down like a lead balloon.

5. Gypsy, 2017

When Netflix was cancelling shows en masse, this Naomi Watts series was one of the casualties.

Possibly for good reason:

Watts was paid $275 000 per episode to portray a psychologist “who secretly infiltrates the private lives of her patients” while Billy Crudup was her sad-sack executive husband.

Quite how much Netflix poured into Gypsy is a mystery to this day. But in view of Watts’s salary and the hiring of Stevie Nicks to re-record her Fleetwood Mac classic, Gypsy, as theme tune, it is safe to assume the budget was not modest.

Ouch.

For five other big-budget flops, head here.

[source:telegraph]