The problem with your point on good shows is that "good" is in the eye of the beholder. So what you and I consider "good" is not necessarily what people in some mythical Peoria consider "good."
It all comes back to those two anonymous quotes you are no doubt familiar with-- that Netflix neeeds to "stop making snobby shows no one watches" and that comedy writers only want to write for Barry and "you know who watches Barry? Nobody!"
With, as you note, the exception of HBO and (to some degree Apple, which still hasn't decided if it's an actual streaming service or a marketing ploy) all of the other streamers decided they needed to pivot to pablum, to create shows like The Night Agent that are pefectly fine and will get far more viewers than The Crown.
It seemed to make sense--the more mainstream programming there was, the more subscribers you'd get.
WBD's problem with naming their app sums it all up nicely: despite shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, pre-streaming HBO never had that sizeable a subscriber base. There are, it seems, a lot more people who like their TV to be less challenging. And so did you turn them off by having "HBO" in your name if your goal was to become the next Netflix? Or was it a way to plant your flag, to say, "if you want something that moves you and makes you think, we're your guys."
The latest swtich seems to have been spurred by the acknowledgment that they were never going to be the next Netflix. Or Amazon. And for a sizeable group of people, HBO is always going to be the number three of choice, so why not cater to them and be that third choice?
But back to your original point: what we can best hope for as we come out of this tunnel is that Hollywood realizes that the type of show that we cultural elites consider good is not toxic, that it finds an audience, generates a lot of buzz and ultimately serves to enrich whoever is streaming it.
It's unlikely to be a full renaissance, but I'll settle for a mini-one.
I've found some of the latest elite entries (with White Lotus a wonderful exception) to have concentrated a bit too much on dogma and not as much on pushing boundaries. I don't think a lot of good TV was made during the Red Scare as well.
What do you think the relationship is between stars and AI? Can new stars be made or is that already a dead paradigm? Seems like you think only old stars will thrive or be resurrected but that seems like playing Led Zepplin back catalogue forever, which has been not so great for the music industry.
Oh I think there would absolutely be new stars. And we do have recently emerged stars like Glen Powell, Sydney Sweeney, Timothee Chalamet, Michael Jordan, and Austin Butler. The star machine seems to be working and I expect would continue to work.
I never knew you had a Substack--just subscribed.
The problem with your point on good shows is that "good" is in the eye of the beholder. So what you and I consider "good" is not necessarily what people in some mythical Peoria consider "good."
It all comes back to those two anonymous quotes you are no doubt familiar with-- that Netflix neeeds to "stop making snobby shows no one watches" and that comedy writers only want to write for Barry and "you know who watches Barry? Nobody!"
With, as you note, the exception of HBO and (to some degree Apple, which still hasn't decided if it's an actual streaming service or a marketing ploy) all of the other streamers decided they needed to pivot to pablum, to create shows like The Night Agent that are pefectly fine and will get far more viewers than The Crown.
It seemed to make sense--the more mainstream programming there was, the more subscribers you'd get.
WBD's problem with naming their app sums it all up nicely: despite shows like The Sopranos and The Wire, pre-streaming HBO never had that sizeable a subscriber base. There are, it seems, a lot more people who like their TV to be less challenging. And so did you turn them off by having "HBO" in your name if your goal was to become the next Netflix? Or was it a way to plant your flag, to say, "if you want something that moves you and makes you think, we're your guys."
The latest swtich seems to have been spurred by the acknowledgment that they were never going to be the next Netflix. Or Amazon. And for a sizeable group of people, HBO is always going to be the number three of choice, so why not cater to them and be that third choice?
But back to your original point: what we can best hope for as we come out of this tunnel is that Hollywood realizes that the type of show that we cultural elites consider good is not toxic, that it finds an audience, generates a lot of buzz and ultimately serves to enrich whoever is streaming it.
It's unlikely to be a full renaissance, but I'll settle for a mini-one.
I've found some of the latest elite entries (with White Lotus a wonderful exception) to have concentrated a bit too much on dogma and not as much on pushing boundaries. I don't think a lot of good TV was made during the Red Scare as well.
The Age of Consensus.
"The future belongs to the optimists."
What do you think the relationship is between stars and AI? Can new stars be made or is that already a dead paradigm? Seems like you think only old stars will thrive or be resurrected but that seems like playing Led Zepplin back catalogue forever, which has been not so great for the music industry.
Oh I think there would absolutely be new stars. And we do have recently emerged stars like Glen Powell, Sydney Sweeney, Timothee Chalamet, Michael Jordan, and Austin Butler. The star machine seems to be working and I expect would continue to work.