... Because the basic journalistic concept of citing your sources is apparently too difficult for Nicole here to pull off:
https://www.cbr.com/agatha-all-along-least-expensive-mcu-series-record/
As best as I can tell, this is basically an accurate encapsulation of the 'source' of the actual budget of AAA.
Echo was actually, properly, verifiably reported to have a budget of $40 million, for the whole show, and then the Hollywood Reporter just said AAA was "significantly less expensive" than AAA.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, "Agatha is the studio’s least expensive live-action series to date, significantly so." While THR didn't disclose the production budget for Agatha All Along, the use of "significantly so" strongly implies that the latest Disney+ series cost a lot less than the $40 million Marvel spent on Echo.
So... we just have to trust The Hollywood Reporter, who cites no one, nothing, doesn't even hint at an anonymous but qualified source.
... Further, Nicole does not even attempt to define what 'success' is. Is it viewed minutes? Is it rating scores?
No, nothing quantifiable is cited.
She likes it because it is story centric, has great effects and characters. ... And that's pretty much it. Two or three sentences using those adjectives / descriptors, 0 explanation.
... Then the rest, the large majority of the article is not even about AAA, it is about planned/possible future Disney+/MCU shows, and how maybe they can or will or should have lower budgets.
This is the fluffiest fluff piece, whose premise is basically based on hearsay, that I've read in a long time.
