Too Much TV: Your TV Talking Points For Tuesday, August 20th, 2024

A couple of new shows to put on your radar

Here's everything you need to know about the world of television for Tuesday, August 20th, 2024:

A COUPLE OF SHOWS TO PUT ON YOUR RADAR
If you're looking for something a bit off the radar to watch this week, I have a couple of suggestions:

* The Tyrant (Hulu)
It isn't often that I finish watching a series and think to myself "Wow, I like a lot of things in this show, but I have absolutely no clue what I just watched." But that was certainly the case with this four-episode South Korean series that premiered on Hulu last week.

I was originally attracted to the show because it is helmed by Park Hoon Jung, who was able to create complex worlds that blurred the lines between good and evil in previous projects such as V.I.P and The Witch. The Tyrant also has that same stylish look wrapped in a lot of unsettling plot uncertainty. And in fact, parts of the plot of The Tyrant may or may not be set in the world of The Witch. I might be able to answer at least that question if I had a clue about what was going on in The Tyrant.

From what I can tell Jo Yoon So plays Ja Kyung, a killer for hire (maybe?) who also has a dissociative personality disorder that has her sharing her body with her twin brother. Kim Seon-ho returns to TV for the first time since Hometown Cha-Cha-Cha playing the Director Choi of Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) and he goes rogue after some super soldier program he is running is lost during delivery. There are multiple intelligence agencies shooting it out - including one that is supposedly American - while Ja Kyung strolls through the landscape killing people in some admittedly entertaining ways. 

Then the final minutes of the four-episode series include a flashback which pretty much made the previous four hours even more confusing. An accomplishment I thought was impossible at that point. 

The weird thing is that I enjoyed The Tyrant, even with the grandmaster level amount of ambiguity. It's a stylish, often incomprehensible series. But it also engaged me in a way that I appreciated. It's not for everyone - especially since it's subtitled but not dubbed into English. I can't say that I can recommend it exactly. But it might be worth checking out if South Korean spy noir is your thing. Here is a look at the trailer, which honestly makes the show seem a lot more coherent than it feels while you're watching it.

* Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal (NatGeo)
I'll have a full review of this up tomorrow on AllYourScreens when it premieres, but if you're a fan of true crime stories (or even tales of treasure hunting) with one insane twist after another, this will be right in your sweet spot. 

A scientist named Tommy Thompson became obsessed with tracking down the location of the famous 1857 shipwreck SS Central America, which was reported to be carrying three tons of gold when it sunk during a storm. The machinations Thompson went through to locate it (and convince people to invest in his idea) was one challenge. But you won't be surprised to learn that finding the gold in 1989 led to a cascading series of events that left Thomson an international fugitive headed for jail. It's a fun watch and at three episodes, there isn't a lot of filler.

And if you aren’t ready to upgrade to a paid subscription but would like to financially support my efforts, you can buy me a cup of coffee.

THE CASE AGAINST MERGERS
The mysteriously-named Entertainment Strategy guy writes a must-read newsletter as well as a column the The Ankler. And while I don't always agree with him (most notably on the case for the value of doing theatrical releases for more streaming movie titles), he's one of those people who puts together such a good case that it forces me to up my game if I disagree with him. 

ESG posted a piece today about the need for the Hollywood Unions to step up and use their political pressure to oppose further large mergers and acquisitions in the entertainment sector. And I think he makes a good point:

So that’s my recommendation to Hollywood workers: influence the current administration by any means necessary. Specifically…

• Make the case online. The Harris campaign reads Twitter. If many Hollywood celebrities advocate for breaking up Hollywood/Big Tech, they’ll listen.

• The unions need to put out specific policy positions advocating for more competition in Hollywood across the board.

• Hollywood talent should fundraise for the campaign, but make sure antitrust is on the agenda.

• Advocate for FTC Chair Lina Khan and DoJ Antitrust head Jonathan Kanter to keep their jobs too.

At the height of the strikes, Hollywood talent spoke with remarkable unanimity on the need for reforms to help talent and workers. I think they could unite again, and strategically, that’s what they should do.

And while ESG is right about the fact that Hollywood's biggest media analysts spend a lot more listening to Wall Street than the media industry's employees, I have to push back a bit about his statement that no one agrees with his thoughts about industry mergers:

As I laid out last week, I think that the best way to improve Hollywood is to make it more competitive. Full stop.

Raise your hand if you agree with me.

Okay, keep your hand up if you also host/write/record a newsletter/column/podcast?

Anyone?

It certainly isn’t the people I listen to around town. When I read articles or newsletters from almost every other reporter/pundit/analyst in Hollywood, to be clear, I don’t read anyone who agrees with me.

I can only speak for myself, but I've been very vocal about my distrust of mergers that seem to be more about extracting fees and shifting around debt than improving the future of the affected companies. I've been covering media mergers since the days of the AOL/Time Warner merger. And they have almost always turned out to be a financial disappointment if not a disaster. Merging two struggling companies doesn't turn everything into one vibrant success. It is more likely to result in a lots of layoffs, some executive golden chute payouts and a slightly bigger company that is still struggling.

AD BREAK

For a limited time, Paramount+ annual plans start at $29.99/yr. That’s around $2.50/month for 12 months. Cancel anytime, effective at end of billing cycle. New & former subscribers only. 18+. T&Cs apply. Offer only valid through this link

STREAMING IS NOT LINEAR TV, PART 226
I am old enough that I remember working in digital news back in the day when it was still some new fangled thing that most legacy print publications still thought of as a fad or at best, a brand extension of their traditional business. 

It was a frustrating time to be in the business, especially because that fundamental misunderstanding of digital news led those old media organizations to make key decisions that would come back to haunt them. Like, for instance, not training readers early on that they were going to have to pay for digital access to their favorite news organizations.

I see that trend a lot in the television and movie industries. Many incredibly smart people don't understand the economics of streaming. And it's not their fault, because to be honest, I've talked to plenty of executives who grew up in the linear TV world who don't understand it either. But it's frustrating for me, because we can't solve the problems Hollywood is going through right now unless we agree on the fundamental framework we are working under.

I spent hours last night on the social media site formerly known as Twitter going back and forth with people who disagreed with this tweet:

And I have this disagreement with people on the creative side all of the time. I understand why they think television should revert back to the 22-24 episode broadcast and cable model that was the industry standard even ten years ago. But it's just not economically justifiable for linear TV networks to do that anymore. A collapsing audience, fewer places to syndicate successful shows, and rising production costs just make it impossible. Even on the broadcast side, you are seeing an increase in 13-episode seasons coupled with reductions in cast size. And it's the same scenario in what is left of cable television.

It's the same situation when it comes to streaming, although the economic incentives are different. While linear television is governed by ratings (and to a lesser extent, costs), the primary incentives in streaming are to lower subscriber acquisition costs as much as possible while also retaining as many subscribers as possible for as long as possible. While it varies by streamer, the general rule of thumb is that once you hit the 6-8 month subscription timeframe, you're finally making money off the subscriber. 

So how many viewers is important. But it's even more important to have the right viewers. A modestly successful series that attracts new subscribers and/or helps retain current subscribers is more important to a streamer than a super popular show that doesn't spawn subscriber engagement. As an example, while this piece of mine is a couple of years old, it lays out some of the parameters of this.

And yet, so many people in the industry refuse to believe it. They point to the success of a show such as Suits on Netflix and say "See! Netflix should order shows with longer seasons, this is what people want!" But this comparison isn't even apples to oranges. It's more like apples to coffee tables. Yes, Suits was popular on Netflix. But it was also a show that was successful during its original run, making it much more likely audiences would watch it in 2024. It's an old enough show that many younger viewers hadn't seen it and Netflix was able to license it at a reasonable price. None of that corresponds to order more episodes of an untried original series.

It's also important to note that streaming executives will tell you that longer episodes don't translate into increased subscriber engagement. While many people in Hollywood don't want to believe it, three new originals with eight-episode seasons are better for subscriber numbers than one show with 24 episodes. Especially because three different shows provides more of a chance you'll have one that breaks out with audiences. 

And yet, many people just refuse to believe any of this is true.....

TWEET OF THE DAY

ODDS AND SODS
* So Pop Crave is at the DNC this week.

WHAT'S NEW TONIGHT AND TOMORROW

TUESDAY, AUGUST 20TH:
* Divided By Design Series Premiere (HGTV)
* Face To Face With Scott Peterson (Peacock)
* Langston Kerman: Bad Poetry (Netflix)
* Spiral Season Eight Premiere (MHz Choice)
* Terror Tuesday: Extreme (Netflix)
* TouTouYouTou Series Premiere (MHz Choice)
* Untold: The Murder Of Air McNair (Netflix)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21ST:
* Back To 15 (Netflix)
* Cursed Gold: A Shipwreck Scandal (NatGeo)
* Icons Unearthed: Harry Potter (Vice)
* Like A Girl (Fuse)
* Nice Girls (Netflix)
* PBS News Special: Democratic National Convention (PBS)
* Pop Star Academy: KATSEYE Series Premiere (Netflix)
* The Accident Series Premiere (Netflix)
* Time Bandits Season One Finale (Apple TV+)
* Wyatt Earp And The Cowboy War (Netflix)

SEE YOU ON WEDNESDAY!