Can Netflix make one (1) show without shoving in LGBT and

"No!"

>>87368043
Nope, they make their shows based on what's trending.

File: bros.jpg (76KB, 696x464px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 696x464px

>>87368043
I liked Marco Polo.
tw; women are characters, women can fight(to a degree), a fucking white male, blind monk warrior master

But of course it's the one show they cancelled.

File: ahmad-fanakati-marco-polo-netflix.jpg (38KB, 618x412px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 618x412px

>>87368351
This. Marco Polo was fucking cash.

But what was this fucker's end-game, all he did was lock them out of the city briefly. He didn't even try to kill the Khan.

>>87368351
it was good for one season but then it went to absolute shit

it deserved to be cancelled desu

>>87368043
Witcher will tell

>>87369842
if the studio that makes the games has any creative control it should be fine. Poles won't put up with any nonsense in a series based off their folklore and mythology.

>>87368043
Ozark was good but I actually said aloud "Alright, who's gonna be gay?" at the end of the first episode. And sure enough 3 people were.
Also didn't like his daughter saying "It's 2017 you can't slut shame". What's that mean? Like, why not? I know the term has been around for a bit now, but I just don't see its end goal. Hey I like to rape but you can't rape shame me. Can I say that? Will that be a term in a few years?