Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
IIs TV getting stupider? In today’s entertainment industry, plummeting attention spans and disinterested audiences are no longer seen as obstacles to overcome, but as market opportunities. Last week, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon promoted their new film Netflix Movie tear,seem Confirming long-standing rumors about Netflix production – Creators are explicitly advised to adapt to so-called “second screen audiences,” those who view television as a halfway decent experience while their front-ends are preoccupied with Instagram, TikTok, or live blogging Brooklyn Beckham Legend. Damon joked that Netflix told him: “If you repeat the plot three or four times in dialogue, it wouldn’t be too bad because people are on their phones while watching.” He added: “That really starts to infringe on storytelling rights.” Well, quite a bit.
This isn’t exactly a huge revelation: even if you haven’t read the many reports over the past few years about the creative impositions imposed by modern showrunners, it’s usually obvious just by watching the final product. You can feel it even on the streamer’s biggest shows, like Wednesday and stranger things, and the latest Adapted by Harlan Cobain run away. It would be foolish to dismiss every repetitive bit of dialogue or clunky exposition as part of some grand, calculated strategy — but if you watch enough streaming shows, certain patterns always emerge. What’s more, the situation is generally worse on television than in movies, where big-name film directors tend to have a greater degree of control. The problem, of course, is that for those no Filling out the New York Times crossword puzzle while watching TV but actually wanting to sit down and engage with a show, whether for its artistic merit or sheer escapism. For these viewers, unnecessary repetition creates a dull and condescending spectacle.
Of course, in one sense, there’s nothing new and malicious about this new trend. Long before streaming, before DVD box sets became commonplace, television had to be tailored to a specific type of passive viewer. It has to take some account of those who tuned in later and missed the first part of the show – and ad breaks often require characters to retell the action in awkward literal terms. The best old TV shows didn’t avoid doing this, but simply found elegant, clever, and even humorous ways to incorporate these reminders. Recall, for example, The Simpsons The episode returns after a commercial break, with Homer detailing where the characters are now and why, with Bart commenting, “That’s weird to say.”
However, television’s slow descent into stupidity goes beyond this issue. As an art form, television seems to be regressing in many ways. I saw a discussion on social media the other day about lasting effects electric wire – David Simon This sweeping, complex and impressive crime drama remains among the finest screen productions of the 21st century. The argument is that, despite being universally and enthusiastically received, the show actually ended up having little impact on subsequent television – if electric wire Taking advantage of the infinite canvas of television pushed on-screen storytelling beyond pre-existing boundaries, something no show since has truly sought to do. It’s hard to argue otherwise.
The same goes for other shows from the “golden age” of television – The Sopranos, deadwood,even mad Men – We’re doing something that’s not been successfully tried on television right now. One episode was incredibly complex The SopranosThe stories mirrored and deepened each other over the course of an hour, and it felt truly literary. If we look at the best television of recent years – e.g. successionA very smart, funny, well-acted, deft piece of television – and even then it doesn’t have the same narrative ingenuity. At its core, its story is simple and its implications obvious. Like all popular shows these days, succession Also keep an eye on social media. Not necessarily for an imaginary “second screen audience,” but for the whims of a vivisectionist in the spirit of the Internet zeitgeist. Today’s TV shows have to be memetic first and foremost. Sif (Sarah Snook) is a charming, rounded, believable character, but isn’t she? Serve In that pantsuit? Tom and Greg’s tricky dynamic says a hundred different things about the mechanics of power and class, but what if it was condensed into a gay supercut?
Of course, there’s a reason why this gem from television’s “golden age” made a splash. They are smarter and more complex than almost anything that came before them. But even in the distant past, when television was still often viewed as an “idiot box,” the truth is that many TV shows were in many ways smarter than what we have now. If you watch an episode cheers — a very popular, low-maintenance, low-involvement sitcom — you might hear references to foreign filmmakers, classical musicians, Russian novelists. The level of knowledge assumed at that time was much higher. Allusions in television are rarely adventurous these days.
In a way, this is less the fault of television and more a reflection on the world we live in: as our shared monoculture fragments and proliferates, there simply aren’t the same references to draw from. (Ubiquitous Talking Points Do Almost always falls into the younger, more popular realm of culture: pop music 😉 But that’s only half the excuse – not everyone who sees it cheers One would expect to know who Gustav Mahler or Ingmar Bergman was; nevertheless, the joke was made. Now the TV is also Aspire to prioritize accessibility. The creators are determined not to let their audience get left behind—whether it’s because they have one eye on their phone or because they have no idea who Carl Jung is. What remains is an art form that refuses to look outside, one that becomes ever more insular.
During an interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Affleck and Damon specifically mentioned another Netflix series: pubertyas an “exception” to the rule—proof that great television is still being made unencumbered by systemic imperatives. Even in the past year there have been many intelligent and original shows that aim to Saw itcorrect and careful. It is exciting that series such as pubertyor for many peopleor chairman companycan find a massive audience without having to succumb to the basic instincts of the streaming-era mentality. Maybe they’re the exception, but at least that’s it. Ultimately, there’s no real long-term benefit to making a TV show that appeals to people who aren’t interested. In other words, television doesn’t need to be stupid – we hope those in charge are smart enough to realize that.