Too Much TV: Your TV Talking Points For Thursday, February 6th, 2025

A streaming development exec talks about DEI and "woke TV"

Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Thursday, February 6th, 2025:

PRODUCTION NOTES
My apologies for the very late delivery of today's newsletter. The interview below happened fairly late in the day, and I wanted to get it out as soon as possible.

Along those lines, I'm proud of the work I'm doing on this topic and I think it's fair to say that I'm punching above my weight compared to the bigger, better-funded trade outlets. So I would appreciate you sharing this as widely as possible and upgrading to a paid subscription if possible.

And while I'm writing this, I'm listening to a Spotify playlist I put together called "A Northern Soul Mixtape," which is comprised of tunes that were popular in the so-called "Northern Soul" bars and nightclubs of Northern England and the Midlands in the early 1970s. It developed from the British mod scene, based on a particular style of American soul music with a heavy beat and fast tempo.

A STREAMING DEVELOPMENT EXEC TALKS ABOUT DEI AND 'WOKE TV'
For weeks, I've been writing about the ways in which an American retrenchment on cultural issues has impacted what you're going to see on the screen in the upcoming months and years. I have a pretty solid following on the creative side thanks to my reporting during the Hollywood strikes, so I've heard from a number of you about your recent experiences with the issue.

But I've also heard from some television and streaming executives, who have for the most part asked to keep our conversations off the record. However, one of the people I've been speaking with - a top executive at a large streamer whose job can best be described as being intimately involved with that company's development process - agreed to be interviewed today if I kept the streamer and the their job description vague enough so they couldn't be identified. The following conversation has only been lightly edited for clarity or to obscure identifying details about the executive.

The conversation was often blunt and sometimes contentious. At several points, we went off-the-record so they could yell at me. But I think this is a frank, insider-ish conversation you won't read anywhere else.

So why did you agree to speak with me?

I am proud of the content we create and honestly, I think I'm good at what I do. And it pisses me off to read about how executives are supposedly "bending a knee" and pushing back on diverse casts and non-traditional characters in our shows. In my experience, that's absolutely not the case.

Here is something that people often forget, even some of those inside the business. At the end of the day, we want to create programming that appeals to as many people as possible. That doesn't mean that you can't have a trans character in a show. But that does mean that given that it's a difficult subject for a large percentage of our viewers, if you're going to have a trans character in your script, then there needs to be a creative reason for it other than "oh, it would supportive of the trans community." That might be a worthwhile idea. But that doesn't mean it's a smart creative decision.

Can you talk a little more about that? I know you can't be too specific, but generally, what does that mean when you're listening to pitches and looking at scripts?

Hypothetically, let's say you come in with an idea to reboot a well-known piece of IP, but the lead was originally a white male and you want it to be a women of color. That's fine, but just making that change is more performance than a creative decision. Is there a creative reason to do this other than "let's make the lead less white." I'm fine making the change, we have plenty of white leads. But you need to show me in the pitch why you're making that choice. Are you doing it just to make yourself feel good or is it being done to advance the quality of the show?

There is a perception among many of Hollywood's writers, producers and showrunners that the latest pushback against DEI and diversity by the new Trump Administration is forcing executives to play it safer and focus on programming that won't upset anyone. Do you agree with that assessment? I certainly have heard plenty of stories that seemed to support that fear.

Let's be clear. For the most part, most of the support for diversity, DEI and other stuff like that was...I won't say insincere. Because there are a number of executives, myself included, who think a more diverse Hollywood is a good thing. But we're not the only industry who has companies that start initiatives and say things publicly because it sounds good and makes everyone happy on the surface.

I can only speak for myself. But no one has ever come to me from corporate and said "we want stuff that's more culturally conservative." That has just absolutely not happened as far as I can tell. My goal - and I think this holds true for everyone I work with - is that we want to create programming that appeals to as many viewers as possible. That means balancing more mainstream ideas with others that might be just as worthwhile, but that appeal to fewer people.

This might be hyperbole, but isn't that a variation of the argument made back in the 1950s and early 1960s about having interracial casts on television shows? The networks claimed that having a racially diverse cast would lost them a percentage of their Southern viewers and affiliates. And they decided not to do the thing many of them believed was morally the right decision. And I think it would have been the best creative decision as well.

That is not at all a fair comparison. Deciding that I don't want to greenlight a drama that focuses on the failings of America is not at all comparable to keeping a TV show white-only. I'm just saying that if you come to me with that pitch, you better be prepared to defend it and convince me it needs to be made. Not because of cultural reasons or because that's the way you feel about America. But because that point of view is the only one that makes sense for the project and you have scripts so exceptional that any other qualms I have get washed away.

But doesn't that by default set an unfair bar for these kind of projects? It sounds like you're saying, "You can have a trans character be a prominent part of a show, but it has to be much better than anything else out there."

I don't mean to sound harsh. But welcome to Hollywood. It's always going to be harder to sell a difficult project than one that has a more traditional point of view. This is a business. And that's how things work.

Do you have some thoughts on this subject? Have a story you'd like to tell? Email me confidentially at rick@allyourscreens.com or message me on Signal at @allyourscreens.24

SPORTS RIGHTS COSTS AREN'T TAKING AWAY FROM ORIGINAL AND LICENSING BUDGET AT AMAZON....EXCEPT WHEN IT DOES
The simple reality for any streamer is that you have a set amount of money to spend on programming of all sorts - original productions, licensed titles and live sports rights. It's a point that Netflix execs have frequently made when asked why the streamer hasn't pursued a major NBA or NFL sports rights deal. Those deals are extremely pricey and they don't believe the upside is enough to justify the costs and the impact it would have on their originals slate.

It's a point I've made a number of times here but it's apparently not one shared by Kelly Day, VP of International Programming at Amazon. During a keynote session at NATPE in Miami, she told the audience that it’s a misconception to think that the costs of those sports right deals are siphoning resources away from film and TV originals:

“There have been things written about, ‘Oh, we must be cutting here to put money there.’ That’s just, you know …” Day said, trailing off and letting her I’m-so-over-this facial expression make the rest of her point. “We don’t share details about those things, and there’s always more under the covers than what people see. … It is part of this dynamic of trying to get the right mix of global originals, international originals. We still do a lot of pay-1, pay-2 movie deals, library movies and television, Tier 1 sports in select places where it makes sense. But at the end of the day, it is about what’s going to be the optimal selection for our customers.”

But that sounds as if she's making the exact opposite argument than the one she claims to be making. According to her comments, Amazon has a pool of content money, which is split across a number of types of programming, including sports. I think she just doesn't want to characterize that way, because it implies the streamer would be spending more on original programming if sports rights costs weren't part of the equation. And that's an accurate take, by the way. It just sounds bad when you say it out loud.

NETFLIX AND THE PRINCE ESTATE PERMANENTLY SHELVE DOCUMENTARY
After more than a year of arguing over the completed project, Netflix and the estate of music great Prince have agreed to permanently shelve a long-completed expansive documentary of the musician. His estate initially agreed to cooperate with the documentary's producers, but were upset because the film wasn't 100% complimentary to the singer. This NY Times piece from last year is fascinating and also quite sad to read. Because it describes a film that would have been an exceptional experience to watch:

Cut to Jill Jones, one in a long line of girlfriend-muses whom Prince anointed, styled, encouraged and criticized. Hers is one of the most anguished testimonies in the film, revealing a side of Prince many of his fans would rather not see. Late one night in 1984, she and a friend visited Prince at a hotel. He started kissing the friend, and in a fit of jealousy, Jones slapped him. She says he then looked at her and said, “Bitch, this ain’t no [expletive] movie.” They tussled, and he began to punch her in the face over and over. She wanted to press charges, but his manager told her it would ruin his career. So she backed off. Yet for a time, she still loved him and wanted to be with him, and stayed in his orbit for many more years. Recounting the incident three decades later, she is still furious, still processing the stress of being involved with him.

You can either do a documentary that is fair and true. Or do one that is authorized by the subject. But it never works out when you try to do both.

ODDS AND SODS
* According to an Instagram post by the Magnolia Network, the wife of Maine Cabin Masters star Matt "Dixie" Dix suddenly passed away on February 1st. Ginna Dix was 48.

* Emmy winner Holland Taylor is joining Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson in their untitled brothers comedy series for Apple TV+.

WHAT'S NEW TONIGHT AND TOMORROW

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025:
Apple Cider Vinegar Series Premiere (Netflix)
Cassandra (Netflix)
Clean Slate (Prime Video)
Death Without Mercy (Paramount+)
Golden Kamuy: The Hunt Of Prisoners In Hokkaido (Netflix)
Invincible Season Three Premiere (Prime Video)
Reality Bites: A Hannah Swensen Mystery (Hallmark Mysteries Channel)
Sweet Magnolias Season Premiere (Netflix)
The Åre Murders (Netflix)
The Kardashians Season Premiere (Hulu)
The Takedown: American Aryans (Max)
The Z-Suite Series Premiere (Tubi)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7TH:
Ancient Aliens Season Premiere (History)
Love After Lockup: Crime Story (We TV)
Mysteries From Above Series Premiere (History)
NCIS: Sydney Spring Premiere (CBS)
Newtopia Series Premiere (Prime Video)
Pokemon Horizons: The Series Season Two Premiere (Netflix)
Ready To Love Season Premiere (OWN)
The Greatest Rivalry: India vs Pakistan (Netflix)
The Lion King At The Hollywood Bowl (Disney+)
2025 Critics Choice Awards (E!)
Wrong Side Of The Tracks Season Four Premiere (Netflix)

SEE YOU ON FRIDAY!