Netflix’s Tiger King has won over massive audiences but the platform should be cautious of trying to replicate former true-crime series successes. It seemed like Netflix hit the jackpot when it dropped its latest true-crime series, on the platform last month. With more people than ever staying at home as part of self-distancing measures to help combat the spread of COVID-19, audiences were hungry for some form of entertainment distraction, something Tiger King provided by the bucketful.
True crime is typically coded as tawdry and inherently exploitative, and while it has received the blessing of critical prestige many times in the past, it hasn’t occurred with the level of frequency and mainstream support that we are experiencing right now, both on television and in other formats such as podcasting. Tiger King became the newest must-see Netflix true-crime show because it was too strange to be fake and provided unexpected twists at every turn. It was, to put it bluntly, lightning in a bottle. So, nobody would blame Netflix if they wanted to try and make that lightning strike twice and commission a second season of Tiger King. It would be best, however, if they resisted that urge. Case in point: Making a Murderer.
Making a Murderer was a true tipping point for Netflix, not just in terms of its true-crime output as part of how the streaming serviced defined itself as part of the entertainment complex. The first season dropped on December 18, 2015, and immediately became a major pop culture talking point, with arguments breaking out on all sides of the argument as to whether convicted murderer Steven Avery was guilty or innocent.
The show won several Emmy Awards and even led to over 500,000 people signing a petition to the White House to have Avery receive a Presidential pardon. Many critics, however, called out Making a Murderer for being seemingly one-sided and designed to specifically exonerate Avery, regardless of the evidence. Despite that, Netflix was keen to keep the gravy train going and commissioned a second season in July 2016, which premiered over two years later in October 2018. The response this time was somewhat more muted and many fans of the first season couldn’t help but feel dissatisfied with the results.
It's not that Netflix was necessarily wrong to commission a second season or that there wasn't ground to cover in this case, but the rush to keep up with audience fervor for the story and the particular angle of that first season could not help but lead to disappointment. A similar thing happened with NPR’s wildly popular podcast Serial. Audiences wanted answers and didn’t get the ones they’d hoped for, but such is an inherent risk of true crime, not to mention the issues of keeping up with audience demand in an increasingly oversaturated market.
It’s a real shame too because Making a Murderer season 2 does succeed less as an exploration of Steven Avery and more as a dissection of the labyrinthine cruelty and bureaucratic nightmare of the American justice system. It may not provide as compelling to some viewers as that first season’s character study turned whodunnit did, but its purpose was all the more effective in the long-term. It’s here where a second season of Tiger King would make sense: Focus less on the individuals and more on the machinations and abuses of the American exotic animal market which has been allowed to flourish with little to no legal intervention for decades.
There’s much ground left to be explored there but would the filmmakers, audiences, and Netflix as a whole want that or are they more interested in keeping up the study of Joe Exotic? There are layers there to be revealed but it’s doubtful there would be enough to sustain another seven hours of viewing. If that’s the route they want to take then patience is required.
