The author admits at the end that there are still some shows trying new things and taking chances, and I think they may be underestimating how many. So that means there are a small number of shows...
The author admits at the end that there are still some shows trying new things and taking chances, and I think they may be underestimating how many. So that means there are a small number of shows that area great, fewer that are terrible, and a lot that are just fine. I think that's actually a pretty good situation to be in?
I think the point of the article is that many shows seem to be better than they are due to high budgets or big names. Also that many good shows require too much attention and we can only tolerate...
I think the point of the article is that many shows seem to be better than they are due to high budgets or big names. Also that many good shows require too much attention and we can only tolerate a certain amount of that so "mid" shows are sometimes popular because we don't always want to be challenged.
I remember hearing for a long time that The Wire was one of the best shows. I actually had to restart watching it twice over a few years because the first few episodes are kind of dense and confusing so I lost interest. It took half a season for me to understand how good it was.
There have been other articles about how modern TV allows users to watch shows in order so there can be continuity or progression. In older shows most episodes are independent of each other because there was no way to know the order especially in reruns. But this ability to have multi-episode or multi-season arcs adds to the commitment when deciding to watch something.
This is a well-known phenomenon to those with an interest in mathematics, first noticed by Francis Galton in his 1886 paper Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature, and the article...
This is a well-known phenomenon to those with an interest in mathematics, first noticed by Francis Galton in his 1886 paper Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature, and the article itself is an example of the regression fallacy which is perpetually committed by those unaware of this.
The author selects actors and writers who were on a "hot streak" during an earlier period (Glover, Erskine, Konkle, Russell, Lyonne, Elba, etc), finds their later cinematic progeny lacking, and then proceeds to draw conclusions. This biased selection is at the root of it though -- as the author later notes, there are incredible shows being made (Severance, For All Mankind, Dickinson, Beef, Reservation Dogs, Mrs Davis, etc). Like the falling pinballs in a Galton board, if we were to instead have chosen the authors and actors from these recent hits and followed their trajectories in cinemaspace back to their first shows, we would be drawing a different conclusion -- that these formerly "mid" entertainers are emblematic of a cinematic Renaissance.
I think " Poker Face" is brilliant and like it much better than "Orange is the New Black." "Russian Doll" is somewhere in between. Every Natasha Lyonne performance I see is my new favorite!
I think " Poker Face" is brilliant and like it much better than "Orange is the New Black." "Russian Doll" is somewhere in between. Every Natasha Lyonne performance I see is my new favorite!
The author admits at the end that there are still some shows trying new things and taking chances, and I think they may be underestimating how many. So that means there are a small number of shows that area great, fewer that are terrible, and a lot that are just fine. I think that's actually a pretty good situation to be in?
I think the point of the article is that many shows seem to be better than they are due to high budgets or big names. Also that many good shows require too much attention and we can only tolerate a certain amount of that so "mid" shows are sometimes popular because we don't always want to be challenged.
I remember hearing for a long time that The Wire was one of the best shows. I actually had to restart watching it twice over a few years because the first few episodes are kind of dense and confusing so I lost interest. It took half a season for me to understand how good it was.
There have been other articles about how modern TV allows users to watch shows in order so there can be continuity or progression. In older shows most episodes are independent of each other because there was no way to know the order especially in reruns. But this ability to have multi-episode or multi-season arcs adds to the commitment when deciding to watch something.
This is a well-known phenomenon to those with an interest in mathematics, first noticed by Francis Galton in his 1886 paper Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature, and the article itself is an example of the regression fallacy which is perpetually committed by those unaware of this.
The author selects actors and writers who were on a "hot streak" during an earlier period (Glover, Erskine, Konkle, Russell, Lyonne, Elba, etc), finds their later cinematic progeny lacking, and then proceeds to draw conclusions. This biased selection is at the root of it though -- as the author later notes, there are incredible shows being made (Severance, For All Mankind, Dickinson, Beef, Reservation Dogs, Mrs Davis, etc). Like the falling pinballs in a Galton board, if we were to instead have chosen the authors and actors from these recent hits and followed their trajectories in cinemaspace back to their first shows, we would be drawing a different conclusion -- that these formerly "mid" entertainers are emblematic of a cinematic Renaissance.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.ph/n7GYV
gift link https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/27/arts/television/mid-tv.html?unlocked_article_code=1.n00.aqnH.U_LgyaXccAIP
Swapped the link for the gifted one. Thanks! :)
I think " Poker Face" is brilliant and like it much better than "Orange is the New Black." "Russian Doll" is somewhere in between. Every Natasha Lyonne performance I see is my new favorite!