Archive for the ‘Entertainment’ Category (feed)

Streaming Wars analysis & Predictions

Hollywood business is one of my few hobbies. I don’t mean celebrity news (which I don’t give a hoot about), but the actual business side of it. I’ve been following the streaming wars closely too, and this below is my analysis and my predictions:

– Netflix did a huge mistake for not pursuing franchises. Instead, they went for quantity, hitting as many as 450 originals in 2020 (almost as much as ALL the other US services and TV channels combined!). And most of what they released, was random garbage (quantity over quality). What sells instead, is escapism. The ability to make the viewer believe what they see is real, by using interconnected stories/characters a’la MCU. Now that they realized their mistake, they’re paying Sony $1 billion, just to get “first look” rights, and $450 million for Knives Out sequels (that number doesn’t even include the production cost of the movies, only the rights!). They’re hemorrhaging money left and right to catch up with existing Hollywood franchises, while their debt has reached $30 billion.

– Another mistake they did was to release all episodes at once. While consumers (think they) want that, it’s a really bad business decision, because it kills the hype of the show — resulting in untimely cancellation. The reason why cult TV shows were successful in the long run, like Twin Peaks, Lost, etc, is because viewers had time to process an episode, and spread it to new viewers, week after week. This was deemed “the water-cooler effect”, as employees would gather around the water-cooler in their workplace to discuss and theorize the episode they’ve just seen. This created cult status, that makes shows rewatchable in the long run. By releasing all episodes at once on Friday nights, the best Netflix can hope for are a couple of Youtube review videos by Sunday. By Monday, the hype is over. The show is gone from the collective conscious. And with it, millions of dollars down the drain.

– Having reached a ceiling of about 200 mil worldwide subscribers, Netflix will have to enter the streaming gaming market (like Google’s Stadia). A possible collaboration with Nvidia can bring them the tech required. Netflix said a couple of years ago that youngsters (8-22 yo) don’t watch TV anymore, they play games instead. That’s their main entertainment. So that’s the natural next step for Netflix: game streaming, in addition to film content.

Streaming Wars

– By 2024, we will have the first casualties in the streaming wars. My guess, these will be Peacock, and Paramount+. Apple might, or might not continue with AppleTV+, not for the lack of money, but maybe they just wouldn’t want to compete in that crowded sector anymore (as they’ve decided the same thing for many other of their products in the past too). Hulu might fold-in into the adult section of Disney+, as it already has in the international version of D+ (named “Star”). Discovery+ is a future mystery (so far they’re not doing great).

– HBOMax will continue to be middle of the pack and will probably survive. The market has space for 5 paying streaming services, no more than that.

– AVOD (streaming service that is free with ads) will become much bigger than it is now. It is possible that a lot of currently paying streaming services will turn to that instead of going bankrupt or sell out.

– Sony was the smartest of all the 6 major Hollywood studios. It’s the only one without a streaming service. They waited for the dust to settle in, and then they put their content into limited-window licensing auction. Now, they’re gaining billions on the back of Netflix, and as it was announced today, Disney.

– Amazon’s recent announcement that the first season of Lord of the Rings TV show will cost them $465 million, won’t bring them money in. That amount is astronomical for a service where subscribers don’t grow fast, and either the production studio WETA overcharged them, or Amazon really doesn’t care, and they just want to show off.

– Jason Blum, of the popular Blumhouse Productions, is a known genius of making blockbuster horror movies out of very, very low budgets. He makes the films for $2-$3 million, and sells them to big studios for distribution (he usually gets a 10x-30x return, which is unheard of in Hollywood). Well, in 2017, that guy went and knocked the doors of all big studios and told them he can make quality streaming content for $400k per episode (which is dirt cheap). The reply he got: “we don’t care about saving money”. Studios are currently in battle mode, and they don’t care how much they spend, as long as their foot stays in the race. Which will be fatal for some of them by 2024.

– Disney+ will be the only service that has a chance to touch 500 million subscribers worldwide. Then, it too will reach a ceiling. The golden era of streaming will be in the years of 2020-2030.

How Twilight should have been done

I’m not a Twilight hater. I love the first movie/book, but I dislike how the story progressed. It became unnecessarily convoluted.

The story needed to be only 3 films/books long and had a more traditional story structure with real stakes, and not that laughable things that happened at the end with weddings, and children that reach maturity at the age of 7. I mean, come on.

Instead, the end of the first film/movie should have been Edward and Cullens leaving Bella in order to protect her, seeing Victoria telling the Volturi, and Bella going to the prom by herself all alone (or with Jacob after her dad arranges that with the school). No Arizona trip either, the James attack could just as easily happen at Forks.

On the second film we see her relationship with the werewolves, and their fight against the Volturi sent force of 4-5 vampires, with Edward coming back after he’s hearing about it. On the third film, there is the final battle against the Volturi with the help of the werewolves, Jacob DIES in the battle, and Bella has to be turned to survive. She lives happily ever after with Edward, but with the occasional sad thought about Jacob. The end.

Instead, we got a super convoluted story about imprints, weddings, children, abortion politics, and other such stupid off topic themes that are not central to the love triangle of Jacob-Bella-Edward.

An even more more interesting approach would be to give us 6 books overall, 6 months apart. 1 from the PoV of Bella, and one from Edward (as she did with the recent Midnight Sun book), but for all 3 books. Then, the films would be filmed as such too: one film release in May during blockbuster season, and the Edward version for Christmas release. The films would be shot together and then split during editing. Especially for the second film, it would be very interesting to see Edward’s story away from Forks, where 75% of the story would be different than that of the Bella 2nd film/book! This would have been a great innovation IMHO and provide a richer universe building.

Later on, she could release 1 book, encompassing the whole story, from the point of view of Jacob. Maybe a film too, if it was deemed a good idea.

I think that would be the best way to do this series.

To appease the boys and the haters, the vampires could have fangs when they would drink blood only (they would retract otherwise), and when in the sun, we should be seeing their corpse or demonic face, not sparkling diamonds. Having Bella seeing Edward like this, it would have a real conflict to actually making a decision that she STILL likes him, rather than having a teenage love situation kind of falling onto her without being able to fight it off. If Edward looked like a corpse or a demon under the sun, there would be some decision time for her, raising the stakes in the series, and making the Jacob option more likable and realistic.

I have no trouble with Edward stalking her btw. If we take his PoV, where he’s being alone for a century, then stalking someone he suddenly falls in love with, is only natural (creepy, but natural behavior).

In conclusion, great first film/book 9/10. It went downhill from there on. It could have been a bigger classic than it is in both literature and film mediums. And they should have never fired the first woman director, because she really captured Bella’s romance perfectly. Both the books and the subsequent male directors made a mess out of it.

Netflix’s next move

A few years ago, Netflix had said that by 2015, they would stop their DVD subscription, and have almost everything streaming instead. 2015 came and left, and we’re not only still have DVD subscriptions on Netflix, but their streaming service has become weaker, with fewer noted titles. At the same time, Netflix is being battled by the establishment, be it Hollywood studios, or internet and cableTV carriers.

Sure, I’d love to have Hollywood’s latest offers streaming for me via Netflix, but this is obviously never going to happen. Not for $10 per month anyway. If people could pay $25 (or even $50) per month, a more full Hollywood catalog could be offered, but that’s not going to gather a lot of subscribers because the price is too high. Creating tiers of subscribers (e.g. $10, $25 etc with different catalogs for each), will anger customers too. So what could Netflix do?

I personally see only one way out of this mess, and it’s two fold:

1. Adopt an iTunes & Amazon model, where most Hollywood movies and TV shows are offered for a rent price (e.g. $3-$5 for a movie, $1-$2 for a TV episode).

2. Produce in-house about 250 productions per year (instead of the current 50 or so — episodes are counted separately here).

Let’s run some numbers on a back of an envelope:
There are 30 million Netflix subscribers in the US today. Each pays $10 per month. This means it has gross sales of $3.6 billion per year. Taxes and operational costs aside, should leave the company with $2 billion to invest in its own productions.

What this means is that on average, each production can cost up to $8 million. Which is plenty of money to shoot amazing movies *if you employ the right talent*. Consider the recent and well regarded sci-fi movies “Another Earth”, and “I, Origins”, by the same director. The first one was shot for just $70k, and the second one for $1 million.

Also, considering that some TV episodes don’t necessarily have to cost more than $2 mil (at least for dramas), it means that some more expensive than the average $8mil movie productions can take place too. I certainly don’t see why the first season of “House of Cards” cost $100 million…

So anyway, every other day a new episode or a new movie can debut on Netflix, that no other service has access to. I’m personally in favor of smaller TV seasons of 6 to 8 episodes (instead of the current 10-13), with the 3 first episodes streaming immediately together, and the rest every few days. Overtime, all these new productions will accumulate, building a strong catalog.

The first couple of years might be rough, while the catalog is building, but I think it can be done successfully, since a lot of their current streaming deals will also be active for a while before they go offline from the subscriber version of Netflix (these can still re-appear on their renting side). Plus, some of these productions (e.g. documentaries) are cheap enough to license anyway, so they can still remain at the streaming side of things.

Cultural bias when judging art

I’m almost shocked by the Pitchfork review on Yeasayer’s new album, “Amen & Goodbye”. To me, over the years, it was baffling why originally Pitchfork endorsed Yeasayer in 2007, but they killed them in their subsequent albums (which in my opinion were more interesting). This was answered in the first paragraph of their latest album review. Basically, Pitchfork hated the fact that Yeasayer weren’t writing lyrics about things they truly believe in, that they were in fact, trend-hoppers.

Wait a second, so did Pitchfork truly believed back in 2007 that a bunch of kids from Brooklyn would ever want to leave the city and become “handsome farmers”, as their lyrics claimed? Are their writers that gullible? Or do they live in a fantasy world that the first Yeasayer album reinforced in their heads, only to be deflated by the clearly urban sound of the albums that followed?

Why blame Yeasayer for it? Why blame a bunch of musicians who want to make it in the industry? Why would anyone think that art is only about what the artist believes and not what the masses want to see/hear? Because let me tell you, if you’re a professional artist, by definition you have to make art that people want to see or hear. Only a part of it could coincide with what the artist actually truly likes/believes. Why? Because that’s what “professional” means. It’s not about “selling out”, it’s about literally being able to sell.

The artists who create only what THEY want to create, they’re by definition either not professionals, or they can’t live off their craft (and need a second job). It is EXTREMELY RARE that an artist creates only what they want to, and have commercial success at the same time. And even when that happens, it also means that they will be out of favor within 3-5 years, as trends naturally change. Tough luck after that time passes.

I know a lot of people would like to make art sound special, but art today is no different than anything else. It’s democratized immensely, and that also means that it’s been commoditized. And anything that is a commodity, is bound to trends. Even trendsetters have to build on top of existing trends, nothing happens in a vaccuum. Everything is connected.

So yeah, going back to that Pitchfork review, I have trouble understanding how they can call Yeasayer “trend hoppers” but also at the same time “out-of-step with current trends”, and judge their music on their character or how they do business, and not on the music itself. In fact, a lot of Pitchfork reviews are like that: they judge the people themselves, not their work. A lot of bands have been destroyed just because Pitchfork didn’t think they were hipster enough, or for being hipsters in disguise.

In my opinion, the album itself is rather “blah” (not as interesting as their 2010 “Odd Blood”), but I try to judge the music itself as music and what it does to my synesthetic brain. Does it turn it On, does it transport me to another dimension? Does it make me feel something, or makes me see something that wasn’t there, as true psychedelics do? If yes, it gets more points, if not, it gets fewer. I care not about lyrics, because I almost never care about what others think about stuff. To me, especially as a non-native English speaker, it’s only about the music.

But I won’t judge music or art in general based on the creator’s character, or what my own beliefs expect that creator’s character to be. This raises the philosophical question: “is the art separate from the artist?”. And the answer to this depends on your point of view, how you consume art. From the point of view of the artist, the art and the artist are not separate. But for all third parties, it depends: if you can only understand art by understanding the artist, then yes, judging the artist himself, might make sense. But if you make the art your own by separating it from the artist (as I usually do), then I don’t need to know about the artist’s convictions. Because at that point, his/her art and me, are one. And by proxy, that makes myself and the artist one. So it’s a synergistic/symbiotic way of consuming art, rather than a conditional one (e.g. “I might like that art if its artist is in agreement with my beliefs”.)

My score for their new album: 5/10 (lower than Pitchfork’s score in fact, but without a cultural bias attached to it)

Review: Dark Matter

“Dark Matter” (DM) is a new sci-fi show at the SyFy channel, produced in Canada. It tells the story of 7 crew members who wake up on their spaceship without any memories. Soon, they learn that they’re wanted mercenaries, and the story continues from there.

There’s not much to tell about the show really: it’s a run-o-the-mill Canadian production trying to pass as a modern sci-fi: dark cinematography, sterile characters and performances, crew-members who bicker at each other as main plots, no actual ethical lessons through the sci-fi lens as you would expect from good sci-fi etc.

Stylistically, the show resembles Stargate:Universe (SGU), and guess what: both its creators were writers/producers in the Stargate franchise. However, it is obvious that even if they ended up with a bad version of SGU, their original goals were instead to provide an alternative to the Firefly fans. I can literally see in my mind’s eye the SyFy business meeting among execs seriously discussing that a Firefly-wannabe show is needed, since it’s something that it’s been missing in the minds of sci-fi lovers.

So, they set out to do a Firefly-wannabe, trying not too hard to feel too much like Firelfy. The indications are there: the oddball little girl who feels like River but dresses like Kaylee, the crazy gun-lover mercenary, the “priest”, the strong female, the mercenary/wanted thing, the being hungry and not having any money, the handler guy. Even the episodes are the same: the western-like feel, the fact that there are no aliens in their universe, the boarding episode, the woman enemy episode (using an android instead of Saffron this time), the mining colony episode and their illness, the stealing job episode, etc etc. Only thing missing is Inara’s whore part (which is telling, meaning that they never pushed the envelope).

In conclusion, Dark Matter is simply a patchwork alternative for fans of Firefly. It’s not as good as Firefly in any sense, but it might be good enough if you’re hungry for some space-based sci-fi. I will not say that DM is a Firefly copycat. That would mean that it’s as good as Firefly, while it’s not. I’d say instead that it’s a poor cousin.


FlashForwarding with Sense8

Sense8 is a Netflix production, originally developed by the people behind “The Matrix” and “Babylon 5”. When I saw the trailer a few weeks ago, I was so stoked about it: DMT, oneness, spiritual and philosophical discussions… Are you kidding me? This would be so cool! But now that I’ve seen all 12 episodes, I’m not as stoked anymore. Here’s a list of what went wrong:

1. No mystery. While the show has 4 more seasons (if they don’t get cancelled) to explain more things, its mysteries aren’t holding together well. They could have gone instead for a full episode per sensate (8 + 4 more exhilarating episodes at the end glueing together the story). Let the sensates and the overall story unveil in a way that is more interesting (not slow, but in a more brainf*ck way), rather than laying out the stories block by block and only have a central mystery to solve at the end of the season (in this case, Whispers and the company behind him). LOST worked because it knew how to build anticipation and thrilling by twisting the way it informed the viewer about what is what. Sense8 doesn’t. Sense8 is very traditional in its story telling instead, no matter if it likes to think the opposite for itself.

2. Boring, cheesy drama. Especially the ones set in India & Mexico. Very little action (except in the last 1-2 episodes), which is not fit for sci-fi. There have been at least 5-7 extremely cheesy scenes in the season too. I cringed in a similar way I did for the Star Wars prequels for some reason.

3. Unneeded sex scenes. Even on Game on Thrones, sex usually acts as a plot threading or character development, rather than filling up time. On Sense8, it was just too much of it because we already seen the same lovers over and over again having sex (we get it, they have sex daily, good for them!). I loved the trans story, but the gay one had way too many cheesy scenes in it for me to take it seriously. It felt that the whole series were revolving around the trans & gay sex scenes, rather than these sex scenes being simply part of the story. For the record, I would complain just as much if it was as much hetero-sex from the same lovers over and over too. My complain is not the gay/trans sex, it’s just the fact that we see the SAME lovers doing the same thing all the time, which is something that doesn’t serve the story and the plot. The only time I felt that the sex scene was excellent AND very much needed by the plot (because it **explains** what sex can be for a sensate) was the sensate orgy scene (3 men + 1 trans woman). This scene needed to be there because it’s the only way we can understand the unlimitness of being a sensate. It was rightfully part of the plot! But seeing the other two same set of lovers making out on each and every episode, was unneeded, too much, and ended up being cheesy at the end.

4. Single-dimensional characters. This is mostly because of how the series was setup (everyone dividing their screen time with the others, not leaving much time for development).

5. The language. JMS explained on his Facebook page why they decided to use English as the language set in other countries (see: that’s how Hollywood does it traditionally), but this just doesn’t work today. If anything, it makes the series less interesting, less mysterious even. It levels the playing field in a way that takes realism away.

So my verdict is that this is another FlashForward (remember that show, from ABC?). Great ideas, bad implementation.

Extant: a review

Watched the first two episodes of “Extant”, the new Spielberg-produced sci-fi show, starring Halle Berry. There are several problems with the series. It’s really a surprise having a veteran like Spielberg allowing such easy mistakes from his writers.

The biggest mistake is that the series is a localized story. No sci-fi show or movie ever survived in the long run by only telling a localized story without providing a larger “universe” for the world that the story is taking place. We don’t know what the year is, we don’t know what kind of technology is available (from one side we have high AI and interstellar space travel, but then we have old fashioned cars and button-pushing washing machines? Really?), we know nothing of how the world is organized in that time, and we know nothing about how humans got so far in space, or how far. This is a grave mistake for any sci-fi story. It shows no vision. It just shows a guy with a script getting the go-ahead to shoot the series, but that’s not the type of vision that creates cult, or successful shows.

Cult shows are cult because they make their extended universe believable by providing a lot of information about it. It’s as simple as that. People get hooked with believable detail, even if the show might even mildly suck in other perspectives. For example. Babylon 5 was a tragedy in terms of filmmaking (camera, sound work, and even dialog was the worst), but the believable “large”, epic story it told, and the detail it provided for the world it operated on, it made it a cult show. Star Trek and Star Wars owe their success to this type of “complete universe” vision too. Extant is not such a show. It’s just an idea, set in a non-descript world.

And then there’s the AI. Halle Berry and her husband in the show have adopted a child android as their son, which behaves 99% like a human. This itself is unbelievable. Having worked in AI myself for years, such type of AI won’t be developed for many hundreds of years later, *if ever*. People have talked since the ’70s that “true AI is just 10 years away”, but of course this hasn’t happened. The kind of AI that we WILL get (most likely through Google) is going to be similar to the computer on Star Trek: TNG. Smart enough to carry away complex actions, but not even close to be “human”. This whole AI subplot weakens the series as a believable sci-fi show. Of course, Spielberg himself created an “AI” movie back in the ’90s, so he’s obviously a fan of the concept. I’m willing to forget about this, since he has personal ties to the subject matter, but not insisting on universe-building from the get-go, it shows that the series is amateur hour that has come across to lots of money.

My advice: watch it for fun, but don’t invest in it, because it will disappoint.

Streaming and the music market

David Byrne has started quite some chattering online after his recent article at The Guardian about how artists make no money anymore because of Spotify and other streaming services. While Spotify pays 70% out to music owners, most of that money are going to the labels that actually own the copyrights of most artists today. But that’s just scratching the surface of what really is happening today in the music industry.

Argument 1: Paying $10 per month for unlimited music is too little money to ask to be able to supports artists.

Answer: $10 is actually the right price. Twenty years ago, before the Internet, most people would put aside anywhere between $50 and $100 per year for music. This is about the same price Spotify/GooglePlay/RDIO are asking consumers today to pay for music too. Nothing has changed in terms of “how much a consumer is paying for music”. If anything, $10 is a well averaged amount that a middle-income Western family can afford. You must understand that “normal” people don’t spend money on individual records when they’re balancing their spreadsheet at the end of their year. They call that expense “music”, as if it’s a single product/purchase. As such, the music industry must price that product as if one unit.

Argument 2: Yeah, but back then you’d get only 5-10 albums for that amount of money.

Answer: Indeed. But consider why terrestrial radio was so popular before the Internet. And also consider why the consumer would get a 2nd, a 3rd, or a 10th album in the same year. The answer is: variety. People wanted variety, but they couldn’t afford it. Hence, they were listening to more radio, since there was no other way out to the situation for them. Today, we don’t have the limitation of having to pay for physical media. The internet has plenty of bandwidth and connectivity. If the labels were to push people to go back to physical media, that would be like putting artificial limits on the market (since technology has found a way around the limitations and added expense of physical media). Artificial limits and their market never survive.

Argument 3: Yeah, but profits out of Spotify are minuscule.

Answer: Indeed. This is because of #2 answer above: variety. Variety that’s now available! Since the explosion of the Indie music in the last 5 years, more and more people are listening to different artists than what the major labels want them to listen to. As such, the profits are spread thin towards the “long tail”. So back in the olden days, you’d get about 300-400 pop artists get all the money (along the major labels behind them), with the small indie musician community only making money out of gigs. Now that is so easy for indies to join the same services as the major artists, the listening habits of the consumers are all over the place. As such, everyone earns pennies at the end. As for the major pop artists, most of the Spotify money are going to their labels, not to them. It’s not Spotify’s fault for having these artists signed all their rights away for a record contract! Spotify actually pays out 70% to copyright holders as I mentioned, which is an industry standard.

Argument 4: Well, I make more money when I sell via iTunes.

Answer: Yes, because you sell individual tracks/albums. But people want variety, and they want it for that “magic” amount of money they spend on music every year. Which is about $100 per year, as explained. When people are going for the iTunes model, they only afford to listen to about 10-15 artists. But when they go with unlimited streaming, they open up to many more artists and music. Their horizons are expanded, and they have the true variety they always wanted. Basically, the iTunes model creates just 500 mega stars that take most of the money, while Spotify creates no stars, but every artist gets to be listened to eventually (even if no one makes any money anymore via it). Which one is better: the rich oligarchy of the 0.1%, or democratization of music where music is made purely out of love for it (since no money is being earned anymore)? Besides, if you don’t want to have your music streamed, you have every right to remove it from all these streaming services. Oh, you don’t have that right? Well, nobody forced you to sign evil contracts with labels that take away your rights!

Argument 5: How are artists are going to live then?

Answer: With a real job. Music will only be the labor of love, rather than the labor for bread. For the few that might be so good that people want to see live, they might be able to scrap by while still in their 20s, while they’re still cool. Then, reality will kick in for them too.

Argument 6: Spotify exists just so people don’t torrent as much.

Answer: It’s one of the reasons why the major labels allowed unlimited streaming. But it’s not the only reason. Unlimited streaming for a fee is a natural progression of the music industry. Labels are blaming torrents for their demise, but in reality, it’s the Indies who destroyed them.

Argument 7: The indies? Why?

Answer: In the olden days, to make an LP, CD or cassette pressing and recording was a very expensive deal. It pushed artists to sign some very unfavorable contracts. But since 2000, and especially after 2005, there’s no need for any of that anymore. Anyone with a $300 computer and $200 equipment can create, record, and distribute music. This is revolutionary. This has made the industry explode with CD releases. There were about 5000 yearly releases in the ’80s, and we’re at 150,000 per year today. And I can assure you, that’s not because of population explosion, but rather, artist explosion — artists who found cheap ways to produce and share their work. The fast computers, the cheap apps, and the Internet, made all this possible. Labels are blaming torrents, but in reality, they simply became irrelevant. Now, there’s true choice on music.

Argument 8: And is this a good thing?

Answer: It depends on your intention. If you only care about the music industry and making a buck, then it’s bad news. If you care about music itself, then it’s the best news since classical music sprang to existence. These bedroom musicians that are everywhere today are experimenting in ways never could before. As such, they’re creating brand new types of sounds and music almost every year. “Chillwave” was the first genre that had no physical birth place for example, it was a sound that was spread and evolved via the Internet.

Argument 9: Does this mean that the music industry is toast?

Answer: Yes. It means that music is now free to experience, and not bound to major labels who create banal music and promote it as if they’re brainwashing the masses. Spotify simply becomes a centralized music service in that case, and not a means to get rich. If someone wants to make some money out of their music, then gigs is the only way to do so. Labels must be left out, since they’re redundant right now. If artists want to go pro, they should create their own music videos, take care of their social presence online, hire a PR firm, and do lots of gigs.

Argument 10: But it’s so sad to see it go away.

Answer: Nostalgia and feeling bad for having bought all these records in the past won’t change the reality of things. See it the other way: in my town, in the building where Tower Records were housed (SELLING music), now a guitar shop has opened instead (CREATING music). It’s societal evolution, and only good things can come out of more creation! Humans are creator beings!

A review of “Revolution”, NBC’s post-apocalyptic sci-fi show

JJ Abrams is at it again, this time at NBC. His new show, “Revolution”, is set to premiere at Sept 17th, but it’s already available online for free viewing — if you live in the US.

The premise of the show is rather simple: all the world’s sources of power have gone dark, and after 15 years of living… in organic farms, local militias have risen.

The show feels like LOST having sex with FlashForward. Everyone’s actually kinda lost, there’s a plane, a text-mode computer, some mystery, and a universal blackout. There are a lot of scientific inaccuracies, while everyone’s hair and clothes are still banging after all this time.

The show was interesting, but it was super-flawed. Not in terms of the overall idea, but in terms of execution. It has the exact same problems as FlashForward had: poor execution. The plot showed us a small version of that world, it was not grand and emerging to the viewer. The stakes were not big. Except the main mystery (why did the lights went out), there’s nothing else to keep the show together.

The biggest problem for me was the cutting of the show. Either this show needed a different editor, or an additional 5-6 minutes, or a two-hour pilot instead of an one hour. Everything just felt rushed, Jon Favreau could only do so much with directing.

The only thing that worked in this show was the fight scene. Personally, I give the show no more than one full season to live. Just like with every other network show, it just can’t bloom the same way cable shows can. Not enough time in 43 minutes to tell a proper story, and not with the FCC checking every word and scene.

The music of Fiona Apple

I think that I have finally understood why I don’t like most of that highly-lyrical/vocal music (e.g. Fiona Apple, Bob Dylan, Florence etc).

So, I was listening to Fiona Apple’s new album, which has gotten great ratings, and the whole meat of her music is really the lyrics. There’s little music to speak about, and the one that exists, usually gets muffed by the voice. When listening to the admittedly well-crafted poetic lyrics, I realized that it’s all about the internal angst of these human beings. For Fiona for example, her life was changed when she was raped at the age of 12. From then on, all her songs are about dealing with it even if the songs are not all very clearly about it. Not to be insensitive about it, but that’s the impression I get from that type of music: “me, me, me, look at me, look how I feel now, me, me, me”.

Well that kind of music just doesn’t represent me. And it’s not just about music, but movies and visual art too. I can’t stand dramas, for example. I can’t stand visual art where the artist reflects his inner struggles of who he is in every single painting.

GET OVER YOURSELVES, God damn it. The world is not just about you and your silly existential bullshit. You’re just an ant in the cosmic sea of creatures. Alone, you don’t matter. I don’t matter either. Together, we could, at some point, but alone, we aren’t.

This is why I prefer art that is about grand things, that deals with a society that are over and above their little problems, where the people have accepted who they are in the cosmos, and they’re working towards a better common future, rather than crying all day long about some abstract thing that they themselves don’t know what exactly it is. I mean, they should definitely sing about REAL societal problems (e.g. being alone in a city full of people, how money changes people etc), but when there’s some abstract “oh, I’m so sad right now, but I don’t know exactly why” type of bullshit, well, I’m just not interested in hearing that.

I’m not saying that the human psyche doesn’t matter at all, or that we shouldn’t sing about it, it’s just that when 95% of the music out there is about silly bullshit about depressed people with psycho-complexes, it irks me the wrong way. We should be looking at the future through art as a complete species, as a multiplicity, not as an adult individual who hasn’t accepted his/her place in the world yet.

Oneohtrix Point Never, Health, and John Maus are just some of the few artists that make sense in my mind. They make music sounding like it’s from 200 years in the future: where the WE matters a lot, and the ME matters less. And their music features actual music, rather than over-mixed, over-powering vocals.