Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

From the article:

The dark side of the drive to prove one's primacy of vision (colloquially better known as "I'LL SHOW YOU FATHER THAT YOU WERE WRONG TO NOT LOVE ME!") is that inefficient and self-indulgent - and more often than not abusive - senior management is endemic to the television industry. As cable, streaming, and Internet services adopt the television production model to generate content, the problem only gets worse.

For me, this was one of the surprises from Netflix, Amazon, and Apple jumping into funding series production. The observations the author makes are anecdotally confirmed by the various "leaks" in the industry (and yes, this biases the view because people often don't complain about a good thing, I know), and yet rarely is the content produced by the studios working for these new entrants much different than the content produced "en masse" so to speak.

When this started, I expected more "Love Death Robots" kinds of things and less "Game of Thrones wannabes" kinds of things. I'm really curious how it went on the team doing "The Peripheral" (a show that I really liked), vs "Carnival Row" which seems to be "Jane Austen + Steampunk + Fairys" and, again for me at least, not particularly compelling.

As a result I've always wondered if studios did "retros" or look backs to understand how the product evolved, and if the people paying them ever tried to evaluate their process as a means of managing their investments.

I doubt I'll ever know, but I will remain curious about these things.



view as:

Cable TV also mostly evolved into more channels of more or less the same thing.

Streaming (outside of YouTube/TikTok/etc.) has done mostly the same thing--albeit with something of a bias towards prestige drama and away from slot filling procedurals. But there's less strikingly original and good stuff than one might like. And even the anthologies have been a mixed bag.


Legal | privacy