I keep reading online that Marco Polo from Netflix was a flop, and I don't understand how it's earned this reputation.

Perhaps this myth is spread by competing studios and critics, but I don't see how the facts support that overall assessment. Granted, the review-aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes shows a 30 percent average rating for Marco Polo among critics, and one of the directors/producers even said in an interview once that she considers it the biggest failure of her career.

However, Netflix's CEO says it's a hit. While Netflix doesn't release ratings information, we don't have to take his word for it: during that period, Netflix added a record 13 million new members, and their revenue, income and earnings per share were on the rise. The first season cost $90 million to produce, and we don't know how much profit was earned or money was lost.

Rotten Tomatoes’ "Audience Score" metric is a favorable 93 percent for Marco Polo, compared with 96% for their House of Cards. HBO's highly successful and popular Game of Thrones is in the same ballpark. I'm not a fan of Game of Thrones, though that's neither here nor there; I only mention it because some people like to compare the two shows, even though I don't see why that is--one is semi-historical fiction and the other fantasy--they're not mutually exclusive.

Is a series a flop just because most critics didn't like it, or even when a producer or director dislikes their own work--doesn't viewership ultimately become the deciding factor in the perception of public opinion? I think of books: many classic novels were despised by their own authors and their contemproary critics, and yet they're timeless and enjoyed by millions. So if Marco Polo has millions of fans, how can anyone say in good conscience that the show is a failure? If that were true, why wasn't it cancelled?

Despite the criticism, I for one am delighted that Marco Polo's second season is slated to begin in 2016. I am a fan, I admit I've watched every episode multiple times. I got several friends to watch it too, and they all enjoyed it very much (or at least that's what they told me anyway).

  • 1
    There is no scientific definition of 'flop' in this context. It's purely opinion. If some say it's a flop, then in their opinion, it's a flop. – DA. Jun 22 '15 at 23:02
  • 2
    This is a rant by a fan and not a question. – his Jun 22 '15 at 23:49
  • 3
    I never watched the show, but I do find this question well researched and on topic. Whether it is a matter of a personal opinion or there is indeed some objective way to answer it, remains to be seen and I hope that the users don't rush to close it. However, I would suggest that the OP elaborates this: "I keep reading online...". If it's from the critics then the RottenTomatoes critics rating of 30% would explain it. If it's from regular people, then not so much. – Vedran Šego Jun 23 '15 at 0:05
  • 2
    @sss4r "I can't delete it because of the up-votes" - And you shouldn't either. As apparent from the comments and upvotes, not everyone is convinced that this is a bad or off-topic question at all. Sure, it might need to be fleshed out a little more for everyone to see that it's not just some subjective rambling. But this definitely has potential. Please don't just delete borderline on/off-topic question because of frustration... – Napoleon Wilson Jun 23 '15 at 7:51
  • 1
    ...The close-voting feature is there for a reason and we can't entertain any kind of subjective rambling (which I don't say this question is). But it doesn't mean that the question has no chance either. That's why it's a feature based on voting and which can afterall be reversed if the community thinks the question has changed for the better. – Napoleon Wilson Jun 23 '15 at 7:52

Browse other questions tagged .