11 ms·

Indeed. Meandering, points don't build, completely disjointed. Random excerpt of three sequential paragraphs having absolutely no relationship to one another:

by npunt 3y ago

Indeed. Meandering, points don't build, completely disjointed. Random excerpt of three sequential paragraphs having absolutely no relationship to one another: > The writer’s strike seemed to mark a system in collapse, with still no word of what a mass audience who’d streamed their way through a pandemic would do without the countless hours of storytelling its producers could not actually afford. Perhaps we would have seen it coming if only there wasn’t too much to see. > The good fan holds a TV show to the highest standards; they expect nothing less than exactly what they were expecting. > Peak TV represents something of an end of cultural history—599 scripted series in their final uncontroversial form. The golden age reinvented a mass market medium as popular high art....

vundercind 3y ago
I’m pretty sure I entirely agree with every point the author is making (at least, I’ve identified a few, maybe, and those few, I think I agree with) but god damn it was a hard read. The main problem is that it keeps hanging entire paragraphs on brief references to context I do not have. I watch more than my share of TV, follow film-making, et c., but a combo of incredibly inside-baseball references to the production side and Internet chatter I’ve not followed, and the author focusing mostly on shows I haven’t watched but assuming I had, left me having to do a lot of detective work and inference just to guess at what was being expressed. About a quarter of the way in I was ready to come post in here that the author had clearly paid some attention to David Foster Wallace, but not quite enough—then, a DFW quote near the end of the piece! Ha. I know dick-all about tennis, and even less about pro tennis, but nonetheless understood and enjoyed multiple Wallace pieces about tennis. I know a bit about TV, but that wasn’t enough with this article. The author seemed to be writing this only for themselves.
- basch 3y ago
  It absolutely trades salience for verbosity. If it can be boiled down to " 2ndscreen-attention arms race leads to lowest common denominator content replacing controversial art." Streamers have incentive to produce attentiontainment that vaguely appeals to many, as opposed to thrilling a niche few (who themselves dont have clout or sway of the masses.) Part of drumming pop acclaim now is putting effort towards generating the right kind of social media controversy; creating shows that pit factions against each other in a debate that forces the uninitiated to peak into what all the hubbub is about; instead of creating shows that advance the form but sacrifice universiality. Something too unfamiliar, inventive, and out there, will take too long to get recognized. Streamers need to capture todays attention today. So what is the solution? If I were designing the antidote, it would be to emulate book clubs. With all the data they have on individuals and demographics, "rerelease" shows on a weekly trickle, to new generations. Figure out a way to better promote the best of archives, instead of refilming the old drivel nearly identically, but worse. Get better at generating press cycles about the best of. Catholic church repeats the same curriculum on a cycle, why not netflix?

by npunt 3y ago

vundercind 3y ago

I’m pretty sure I entirely agree with every point the author is making (at least, I’ve identified a few, maybe, and those few, I think I agree with) but god damn it was a hard read. The main problem is that it keeps hanging entire paragraphs on brief references to context I do not have. I watch more than my share of TV, follow film-making, et c., but a combo of incredibly inside-baseball references to the production side and Internet chatter I’ve not followed, and the author focusing mostly on shows I haven’t watched but assuming I had, left me having to do a lot of detective work and inference just to guess at what was being expressed. About a quarter of the way in I was ready to come post in here that the author had clearly paid some attention to David Foster Wallace, but not quite enough—then, a DFW quote near the end of the piece! Ha. I know dick-all about tennis, and even less about pro tennis, but nonetheless understood and enjoyed multiple Wallace pieces about tennis. I know a bit about TV, but that wasn’t enough with this article. The author seemed to be writing this only for themselves.

basch 3y ago
It absolutely trades salience for verbosity. If it can be boiled down to " 2ndscreen-attention arms race leads to lowest common denominator content replacing controversial art." Streamers have incentive to produce attentiontainment that vaguely appeals to many, as opposed to thrilling a niche few (who themselves dont have clout or sway of the masses.) Part of drumming pop acclaim now is putting effort towards generating the right kind of social media controversy; creating shows that pit factions against each other in a debate that forces the uninitiated to peak into what all the hubbub is about; instead of creating shows that advance the form but sacrifice universiality. Something too unfamiliar, inventive, and out there, will take too long to get recognized. Streamers need to capture todays attention today. So what is the solution? If I were designing the antidote, it would be to emulate book clubs. With all the data they have on individuals and demographics, "rerelease" shows on a weekly trickle, to new generations. Figure out a way to better promote the best of archives, instead of refilming the old drivel nearly identically, but worse. Get better at generating press cycles about the best of. Catholic church repeats the same curriculum on a cycle, why not netflix?