Tag: Streaming

A Mythology for the Distracted Age

Netflix and Amazon walk into a bar. Netflix orders a cocktail called The Cliffhanger, garnished with a hastily-scribbled napkin that says “Season 2 Coming Soon.” Amazon, meanwhile, demands the bartender blend every book on the shelf into a smoothie, then pours it over their own head while shouting, “This is what the people want!”

Netflix’s algorithm seems to operate on the principle of “quantity over coherence.” They’ll greenlight an 8-part series based on a tweet they misread, insist the protagonist must overcome trauma via quirky dance montages, and wrap it all up with a finale so ambiguous it could double as an AI hallucination. “Don’t worry,” they whisper, “we’ll fix it with spinoffs no one asked for.”

Amazon, on the other hand, approaches storytelling like a toddler with a new set of crayons. They take beloved books—your Lord of the Rings, Her Dark Materials —and cram them into a “one-size-fits-all” corporate PowerPoint presentation. Entire character arcs vanish, plots are replaced with slow-motion fight scenes, and they stretch out the runtime just long enough to sell you a subscription to Audible. It’s like they think the soul of literature lies in its prime shipping potential.

Both platforms, in their way, prove the same point: If you give an algorithm a paintbrush, you’ll get a Picasso drawn by a toaster.

The modern hero’s journey no longer revolves around the hero’s choices—it bends to the rhythms of an audience whose greatest trial is staying engaged for longer than 30 minutes. Algorithms don’t care about Campbell’s archetypes; they only care about “engagement metrics.” The Ordinary World isn’t a village to leave behind; it’s your sofa. The Final Reward isn’t wisdom—it’s the vague satisfaction of seeing “You Might Also Like” recommendations you’ll never click. In this new mythology, the hero doesn’t just fight monsters. They fight the greatest enemy of all: the viewer’s attention span.

The modern hero’s journey, in its current iteration, is no longer a tale of self-discovery, transcendence, or triumph over external forces. Instead, it is an algorithmic feedback loop designed to accommodate the fragmented rhythms of a distracted audience. The narrative no longer revolves around the hero’s choices or challenges but around the neurotic pacing dictated by a viewer’s capacity to withstand their own boredom. In this way, the mythological structure becomes something far darker: a calculated negotiation between storytelling and the fractured temporality of attention economy.

What we observe is a profound disintegration of the hero’s agency. The algorithm, that silent demiurge of the distracted age, has replaced the divine intervention of myth. Where gods once tested heroes with fire and prophecy, the algorithm now tweaks pacing, edits cliffhangers, and inserts redundant flashbacks—its primary concern not the coherence of the narrative, but the statistical retention of the viewer. The sofa, not the call to adventure, is now the “Ordinary World,” a space of stasis masquerading as comfort. The hero, instead of leaving this stasis, is forced to contend with an audience that refuses to leave theirs.

The journey itself becomes warped by the rituals of the couch-bound viewer. The traditional arc—departure, trials, revelation, return—splinters into a series of disjointed scenes engineered to survive bathroom breaks, snack-fetching interludes, and the ever-present distraction of the smartphone. Every line of dialogue must be exposition-heavy, every event must reorient the viewer to the stakes, lest they lose the thread entirely while doomscrolling Twitter. Thus, the journey is not the hero’s alone—it is yoked to the banal domestic interruptions of the audience, rendering the story a kind of co-dependent limbo.

This new paradigm reveals a deeper counterfeit at play: the hero’s journey is no longer a communal myth meant to connect us to universal truths or shared humanity. Instead, it has devolved into a solipsistic performance, designed to pander to the solitary, fragmented viewer. The hero is no longer a stand-in for the collective psyche; they are a desperate, algorithmically optimized reflection of the individual viewer’s habits, anxieties, and fleeting whims. The streaming platforms, in their cynical genius, have realized that the hero doesn’t need to transcend—it canyon be counterfeit to keep the viewer watching.

This solipsism is not an accident; it is a design feature. The viewer, sitting at home with their snacks and their phone, is no longer a passive recipient of the story but its gravitational center. Netflix and Amazon exploit this dynamic by tailoring the journey to flatter the viewer’s every interruption and indulgence. The pacing of the narrative bends to their attention span; the emotional beats sync with their scrolling habits. The hero’s struggles are less about confronting universal archetypes and more about mirroring the viewer’s petty frustrations: boredom, distraction, and the need for instant gratification. The hero, in essence, has become a tool for the viewer’s self-soothing, a vessel for their fragmented, solipsistic engagement with the world.

Take, for example, the way plot arcs are now structured to cater to this dynamic. The classic “belly of the whale” moment, where the hero confronts the abyss and their own existential fears, has been replaced by strategically timed cliffhangers and reveals. These moments aren’t designed to challenge the viewer or provoke introspection—they exist solely to prevent them from clicking away. Emotional depth is sacrificed for continuity, tension flattened into easily digestible morsels of plot that can be consumed between bites of takeout or during bathroom breaks. The hero doesn’t descend into the underworld to emerge transformed—they descend because the viewer demands constant stimulation, and the algorithm mandates it.

What we are witnessing is the collapse of narrative as a loosely structured, rule-bound system into a kind of chaotic more or to put evening clocks, where the very principles that once gave stories their coherence are pulled out from under us—like a chair disappearing as we sit. The hero’s journey, once the backbone of mythic storytelling, no longer stands as a map for transformation but as a casualty of its own commodification. It is not that the rules have evolved; it is that they have dissolved, replaced by the infinite pliability of algorithmic tailoring, which bends the story into whatever shape is necessary to hold a viewer’s fractured attention.

This anomie—the disintegration of any external logic governing narratives—reveals a deeper malaise. Stories used to promise a kind of loop, a structure that reflected the rhythms of life and the resolution of chaos into meaning or sometimes absurdity. But now, in the age of streaming platforms, this promise has been reduced to a cynical bait-and-switch: instead of meaning or absurdity, we are offered endless circadian mirroring; instead of catharsis, a dopamine drip of cliffhangers and cheap resolutions. The narrative doesn’t guide us to confront life’s mysteries or complexities; it merely keeps us sitting, scrolling, consuming, suspended in a state of perpetual distraction.

What replaces the old rules is not liberation, but a hollow parody of freedom. The narrative no longer obeys the rules of myth or structure because it has a new master: the viewer’s whims, as interpreted by the cold calculus of the algorithm. In the absence of shared archetypes or universal truths, stories become untethered from any external purpose. They exist only to serve an immediate function—to keep the viewer watching, to ensure the metrics stay green. This is why narratives today feel both bloated and empty: they stretch endlessly, packed with filler and redundant twists, because they no longer end when the story demands it—they end when the viewer’s attention gives out.

It is a parody of freedom because what appears to be boundless choice and liberation is, in fact, a carefully engineered illusion. Streaming platforms offer an endless array of options and narratives, claiming to liberate us from the supposed tyranny of traditional storytelling structures. Yet this abundance does not empower us; it overwhelms and pacifies us. The more choices we are given, the less meaningful those choices become, and the more we find ourselves locked into an experience that feels curated not for us, but against us.

True freedom involves the ability to engage with something larger than ourselves—a story, a world, or a meaning that challenges us, changes us, or connects us to others. But in this parody, the hero’s journey is stripped of its capacity to provoke or transform. Instead, it reflects back the viewer’s own trivial habits and fleeting whims, flattering them into complacency. The platforms don’t ask us to rise to meet the story; they lower the story to meet us where we are, in our inertia, our distraction, our solipsism.

Consider the constant nudges embedded in the interface: autoplay features, personalized recommendations, the endless scroll. These mechanisms masquerade as tools of empowerment—“You choose what you watch, when you watch it!”—but in reality, they close the loop, ensuring we never escape the gravitational pull of the algorithm. We are free, but only to pick from a menu designed to keep us trapped in a state of perpetual consumption.

This is why it is a parody. It mimics the outward appearance of freedom—choice, abundance, control—while hollowing out its substance. We do not shape the narrative; the narrative is shaped around us, our decisions anticipated and exploited before we even make them. The freedom we are offered is not to transcend or grow, but merely to linger, to scroll, to consume. It is freedom as an anesthetic, freedom as a form of control.

The true irony lies in how this parody undermines itself. The more the platforms bend the hero’s journey to our whims, the less satisfying it becomes. We sense, deep down, that this endless customization diminishes the story’s power. By removing friction, challenge, or contradiction, the narrative becomes lifeless, a bland echo of our own shallow impulses. This is not freedom; it is an elaborate cage, decorated to look like a limitless horizon.

And this is the true horror: the disappearance of rules does not liberate us in a modernist Virginia Woolf or post modernist Thomas Pynchon but folds the narrative back onto itself, under its own weight, into a self-referential void. Without structure, the hero’s journey becomes a meaningless procession of events designed to accommodate snack breaks and bathroom trips, where every story is both too much and not enough, where we are endlessly teased with the promise of meaning but never allowed to grasp it.

This is an anomie not of absence, but of excess: too much content, too much pandering, too many “choices,” all leading to a paralyzed, anesthetized audience incapable of demanding more. The rules don’t disappear into freedom; they disappear under the weight of their own exploitation, leaving us with stories that serve no higher purpose than to fill the void in our own overstimulated, underfulfilled lives. The narrative, like the viewer, collapses into itself, a hollow echo of what it once promised to be.

This is the ultimate exploitation: the platforms present themselves as delivering a grand narrative, while in reality, they deliver a mirror. The viewer, in their isolation, becomes the sole arbiter of the hero’s relevance, the sole judge of their journey. But this illusion of control only deepens the solipsism. The hero exists not to confront universal truths or transcend their world, but to validate the viewer’s immediate emotional state. Their struggles must be relatable but not too challenging, their triumphs satisfying but not too complex—always calibrated to the viewer’s fragmented attention and shallow engagement.

And so, the hero becomes a hollow figure, trapped in a loop of pandering and performance. Their journey, once a testament to human resilience and transformation, is now a product designed to sustain the viewer’s solipsism. The streaming platforms exploit this relationship with surgical precision, feeding the viewer endless variations of the same solipsistic fantasy. The hero doesn’t change the world—they simply reflect the viewer’s fleeting, distracted gaze back at them. In this way, the platforms don’t just monetize the hero’s journey; they hollow it out, leaving behind a simulacrum that exists solely to keep the viewer trapped in their own comfortable, isolating orbit.

And what of the reward? Here lies the most tragic inversion. The promise of wisdom, transformation, or catharsis has been reduced to the fleeting satisfaction of an ending that queues up the next binge-worthy offering. The “Return with the Elixir” is not a moment of revelation—it’s an autoplay feature. The algorithm whispers: “You might also like this,” not to broaden your horizons, but to keep you ensnared. The viewer, like Sisyphus, is condemned to an eternal cycle of scrolling and selecting, their engagement driven not by genuine desire, but by the dread of facing an empty screen.

The hero’s ultimate battle, then, is no longer with monsters, villains, or the self, but with the fragmented attention span of the audience. This is the counterfeit logic of our age: the heroic journey subsumed by the banality of distraction, where epic trials are subordinated to snack breaks and bathroom trips, and the great elixir of wisdom is traded for the anesthetic of endless content. The question is no longer whether the hero will succeed, but whether the viewer will still be watching when they do.

The Internal Clock

The internal clock—the rhythm of attention and expectation honed by our optimized cognitive processes—demands precision. A narrative must hit its emotional or intellectual beat at just the right moment to captivate the human mind. Television series, by their very nature, are purpose-built to meet these demands. Unlike books, which are often sprawling, open-ended, and subject to the variable pacing of individual readers, television is a medium engineered for synchronization. It shapes time into predictable units, each one calibrated to deliver satisfaction within the narrow window our internal clock anticipates.

This is the triumph of television over many genre books: its ability to structure narrative beats in ways that match the optimized attention span of modern audiences. The episodic nature of television mirrors the rhythms of daily life—pauses, climaxes, and resolutions, all packaged into neat, consumable chunks. It is not merely a matter of convenience but a reflection of the medium’s essence. Television cannot afford to meander; its survival depends on capturing attention immediately and holding it steadily until the prescribed endpoint.

By contrast, the works of P.G. Wodehouse, Douglas Adams, and other literary humorists thrive in a space that television cannot easily inhabit: the mind’s theater. Their brilliance lies in the way their prose invites the reader’s imagination to supply comedic timing, emphasis, and nuance. Wodehouse’s intricate wordplay, Adams’s layered absurdities—these are joys that unfold uniquely in the act of reading, where the pace is dictated by the reader’s own internal rhythm. Television, constrained by its linear delivery, often flattens these subtleties into caricature or oversimplification, losing the intellectual interplay between writer and reader that defines great literary humor.

This flattening extends to adaptations of serious literature as well. Complex novels, rich with intellectual depth or intricate internal monologues, struggle to find their footing on screen. The visual medium often over-explains or reduces these elements to surface-level spectacle. Consider Foundation: Asimov’s sprawling meditation on history and inevitability is reimagined as a character-driven drama, emphasizing relationships and action over philosophical inquiry. While this makes the story accessible to a broader audience, it also narrows its scope, sacrificing the expansive intellectual engagement of the original.

Neil Postman reminds us that every medium imposes its own biases on communication. Television excels at immediate, emotionally resonant storytelling, but it does so at the cost of the interiority and complexity that books provide. To assume that one is inherently superior to the other is to misunderstand the nature of media. Each serves different human needs, shaped by the inherent strengths and weaknesses of their form. But in our increasingly image-driven culture, the dominance of television risks leaving us with stories that satisfy the clock but neglect the soul.

The triumph of television, and now streaming platforms, lies not just in their mastery of narrative beats but in their ability to condition audiences to expect stories to conform to these rhythms. Over time, this synchronization between medium and audience has created a feedback loop. Television trains us to crave stories that cater to our optimized internal clocks, and in turn, we reward those that deliver, perpetuating the dominance of immediacy, spectacle, and emotional highs.

This shift has profound implications for how we engage with narrative and, more broadly, with complexity. Television’s reliance on pacing and resolution means that ambiguity, subtlety, and slow-building introspection often fall by the wayside. In literature, readers are free to pause, reflect, and revisit earlier passages, allowing for deeper intellectual engagement. Television and film, bound by the relentless forward march of time, rarely afford such luxuries. The medium prioritizes clarity and immediacy, which can impoverish stories that rely on nuance or demand active interpretation.

This isn’t merely a matter of storytelling; it reflects a broader cultural transformation. As we shift from a print-based culture, with its emphasis on critical thinking and individual interpretation, to a screen-based culture, we risk privileging passive consumption over active engagement. Television and streaming excel at delivering pre-digested narratives that require little effort to understand, reinforcing a cultural preference for convenience over challenge. In this way, the medium not only reflects our optimized attention spans but also shapes them, narrowing our tolerance for complexity and our patience for delayed gratification.

What does this mean for literature? As more stories are adapted for the screen, we may see a growing divide between narratives designed for visual media and those that remain firmly rooted in text. The works of Wodehouse, Adams, and other literary giants may increasingly become artifacts of a bygone era—relics of a time when humor and complexity thrived in the interplay between writer and reader. And yet, their persistence reminds us of something vital: that there are still corners of human experience that television, for all its strengths, cannot fully capture.

If Postman were here to comment on this shift, he might argue that we are losing more than we realize. The optimization of our internal clocks for television storytelling is not merely a technological innovation; it is a reprogramming of our cognitive habits. As we tune our lives to the rhythms of visual media, we risk neglecting the slower, more contemplative beats that once defined how we understood the world—and ourselves.

Hollywood Debt Obligations

Leave a comment

“Hollywood has become a conduit for studios and artists to meet their debt obligations because studios are in great great debt and the job is not so much to make great movies, their job is to make their debt obligation”

In the labyrinthine fever dream of Hollywood, where ambition curdles into celluloid and dreams are monetized by the foot, a sinister inversion has taken root. The flickering silver screen, once a canvas for audacious visions, has become a relentless debt-peon, cranking out forgettable franchises like gears in a nightmarish machine. It’s a hall of mirrors where studios, bloated and teetering on the precipice of financial oblivion, churn out product fueled not by artistic passion but by the ravenous maw of their own bad bets.

Gone are the days of auteurs with Brylcreem and a messianic gleam in their eye, replaced by focus-grouped, derivative dreck, each film a cynical calculation, a desperate attempt to appease the faceless gods of the bottom line. The air is thick with the stench of burnt celluloid and broken promises, the muses sacrificed at the altar of quarterly reports. Scripts, once vibrant and subversive, are rewritten by committees of accountants, their souls leeched out, replaced with empty fan service and derivative sequels.

Even the actors, those beautiful, talented moths drawn to the flame, become cogs in the machine. Their faces, once canvases for a kaleidoscope of human emotions, are reduced to mere branding opportunities, their careers trajectories dictated not by artistic merit but by box office tallies. The independent spirit, the lifeblood of cinema, gasps its last breaths in the back alleys of Hollywood, choked out by the smog of corporate greed.

This is the new Hollywood, a dystopian funhouse where art surrenders to commerce, and the only true currency is the clinking of coins. A place where stories are birthed not from the human heart, but from the cold calculus of spreadsheets. A cautionary tale writ large in flickering images, a testament to the corrosive power of debt when it infects the very soul of a dream.

The Interzone of Access

Leave a comment

The state of democratized access

Smartphones – IPhone 🧌

Internet – Google search ☠️

Laptops and Computers- Apple

Open Source Software

Streaming Services ☠️

E-readers 🪦

Platforms Twitter 🐸 ☠️

Renewables – No killer product

3D Printing – No killer product

Blockchain – No killer product

Smartphones: The iPhallus, a chrome totem pulsating with logos, a Skinner box in your pocket. It whispers promises of connection, but delivers a cage of curated reality. Information streams, a digitized jungle, eat your time, leaving a hollow satisfaction.

A million apps, a million distractions, a million tiny Skinner boxes conditioning the neuro-meat. Candy-coated slavery in the palm of your hand. iSlabs, gleaming black mirrors of narcissus, portals to a curated chaos. Everyman a kingpin, a producer, a pornographer, all in their pocket. Yet the signal flickers, the battery drains, a phantom limb lost in the subway dead zone.

Internet: The Vast Sprawl, a digital Moloch devouring time and attention. The Great Search, a labyrinthine web woven by spiders of code. Google, the all-seeing eye, indexes your desires, feeding you a manufactured reality. data graveyard haunted by ghosts of information. Google, the all-seeing eye, harvesting your clicks, feeding your fears, shaping your reality byte by byte. Information overload, a digital deluge threatening to drown us in a sea of irrelevance. Google, the one-eyed oracle, its algorithms whispering desires before they’re even thoughts. Information, a firehose of data, flooding the circuits, leaving users thirsting for truth in a desert of clickbait. Information overload, a firehose of data drowning critical thought.

Laptops & Computers: Apple, the forbidden fruit of knowledge gleaming with bitten chrome, gleaming and expensive. Gates of silicon paradise guarded by proprietary code. The illusion of freedom, the reality of control. A cold metal womb birthing the digital simulacrum. Walls of text rise in the flickering glow, a self-imposed prison of information. The Apple, a seductive serpent, coils around your creativity, whispering of pre-programmed potential. Applechrome fortresses, walled gardens of control. The keyboard, a weaponized typewriter, spewing forth manifestos and memes. The cursor, a blinking eye, judging every keystroke. Screens glow, casting an artificial twilight, users wired to the machine, slaves to the silicon gods.

Open Source Software: A flickering candle in the data darkness. Code shared, a digital commune, a fight against the proprietary gods. Yet, the shadows lurk, vulnerabilities hidden in plain sight, a potential Trojan horse for the unwary hacker. The Bricolage Bazaar, a chaotic marketplace of code. Hackers, the new revolutionaries, wielding screwdrivers and compilers, building free alternatives in the shadows. But the corporations loom large, casting their proprietary nets, ever ready to co-opt and commercialize the commons. A rebellion against the code lords. Free and open, a chaotic symphony of programmers, a glimpse of a decentralized future. But can the open web survive the vultures of the corporate machine?

Streaming Services: The Cathedral of Distraction, a never-ending cacophony of content. Binge-watching our way to oblivion, passive consumers hypnotized by the flickering glow. A million shows, a million voices, but nothing to say. The opiate of the masses. Flickering cat videos and endless content loops lull the mind into a mindless stupor. A dopamine drip, a manufactured dream state, a society plugged into the matrix of entertainment. Attention spans wither, dopamine drips, a generation raised on the flickering teat of the algorithm.

E-readers: The Gutenberg Graveyard, mausoleums of digitized ink. The weight of the book, the rustle of turning pages, the scent of aged paper – all sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Are we trading the soul of the book for the cold efficiency of the screen? The tomb of the bound word. Text trapped in silicon purgatory, devoid of the tactile symphony of turning pages. The scent of aged paper replaced by the sterile hum of electronics. A library of Alexandria burning in the palm of your hand. Can words on a screen ever truly replace the weight of a book, the scent of aged pages?

Platforms: Twitter, the digital coliseum, a gladiatorial arena of 280-character insults. Bots and trolls, the new bread and circuses, keeping the masses entertained while the real games are played in the shadows. A breeding ground for echo chambers and outrage, a weaponized hivemind. Tweetstorms of rage, a cacophony of disembodied voices. Echo chambers amplify, dissenting voices drowned out in the cacophony. Is this the agora of democracy, or a breeding ground for fascism?

Renewables: The Mirage of Sustainability, a shimmering oasis in the digital desert. Wind turbines, like skeletal giants, promise clean energy. Yet the corporations exploit the land, leaving scars on the earth in their quest for profit. Can technology truly save us from the destruction it has wrought?  The elusive dream, a shimmering mirage in the desert of fossil fuels. The technology dances on the horizon, just out of reach, a promise of clean energy held hostage by corporate greed. The elusive Holy Grail, a shimmering mirage in the energy desert. Technology fragmented, potential unrealized. Can we harness the wind and sun before the oil barons suck the earth dry?

3D Printing: The Plasticine Playground, a child’s dream, an engineer’s folly. The promise of a maker revolution, limited by cost and complexity. Can we print a new world, or are we destined to drown in a sea of cheap trinkets? A plastic ouroboros, devouring itself in a cycle of endless creation. It promises democratized manufacturing, but delivers trinkets and toys, a future filled with mountains of discarded plastic dreams. The Flesh Fair, a macabre carnival of possibility. Organs printed to order, bespoke bodies sculpted from plasticine. Is this the dawn of a new era of transhumanism, or a descent into a narcissistic funhouse of self-replication?

Blockchain: The Invisible Labyrinth, a tangled web of encrypted transactions. The phantom currency, a ghost in the machine. The dream of a decentralized utopia, free from the control of banks and governments. But in the shadows lurk criminals, peddling darkness on the dark web. Is this the future of finance, or a haven for the lawless? Anarchic utopia or criminal playground? A technology ripe for both liberation and exploitation.

The Cut-Up Machine sputters and coughs, spewing forth this fragmented vision. Democratized access, a double-edged sword. Freedom and control, creation and consumption, all tangled in the wires of the digital age. Can we navigate this labyrinth, or are we destined to be devoured by the very tools that empower us?

This is the Interzone of Access, a cut-up of our digital landscape. Here, progress rubs shoulders with peril, and the line between freedom and control blurs into a hazy dream. We stand at a crossroads, a stark reminder of the choices we face in shaping the future of access.

The Illusion of Funding: How Hollywood Forgot How to Dream

Leave a comment

The primary challenge for Hollywood now is to abandon the idea of creating various schemes around box office numbers, realizing that they could essentially “print money” using alternative financial methods, relying on box office and streaming figures to uphold the belief that these streams primarily funded projects.

What it funded was an artistic vision of cookie cutter films, superheroes and remakes sacrificed on the altar of free market nihilism creating the stagnated, homogenized content while disconnecting from diverse audiences and jeopardizing long-term sustainability we’re “enjoying” today

@bravojohnson

Hollywood: A Gonzo Audit in the Age of Algorithm Gods

Hollywood. Sunset Strip’s a fever dream neon jungle, where lizard kings in Armani suits wrestle with stacks of cash taller than the Hollywood sign itself. But listen up, you sun-baked celluloid cowboys, the celluloid tape is running out on this flickering projector of dreams. The sun bleeds down, casting long shadows on a town drowning in its own shallow, chlorinated pool water. The air, thick with suntan lotion and desperation, carries the faint echo of celluloid dreams long gone belly-up in the director’s pool.

Hollywood, huh? Land of dreams, or at least that’s what the flickering neon signs would have you believe. But lately, those dreams have been smelling more like a dusty back lot and stale popcorn than fresh film stock. Why? Because the suits in charge have turned storytelling into a goddamn slot machine, cranking out the same tired tropes faster than a Vegas croupier on a sugar rush.

These days, the “creatives” in Hollywood are more like financial alchemists, desperately trying to turn derivative dreck into cinematic gold. Superheroes, sequels, and remakes – these are the sacred cows worshipped at the altar of market cannibalism. Originality? Artistic vision? Gone the way of the dodo, sacrificed to the insatiable maw of the falsifiable box office beast.

These numbers, like flickering neon signs in a graveyard, promise untold riches, a siren song leading studios down a path of creative oblivion. They chase the elusive white whale of the billion-dollar gorilla, their eyes glazed over with visions of franchised turds and superhero spectacles, all churned out in a soulless assembly line of mediocrity.

The box office, that golden calf you’ve been worshipping, is starting to look a little less golden and a whole lot more like a tarnished tin god. Numbers are down, folks. Your blockbuster “universes” are more like black holes, sucking in creativity and spewing out the same tired tropes faster than a Kardashian can change husbands.

Here’s the truth, served straight up in a chipped tequila glass with a side of mescaline: you’ve been snorting your own exhaust fumes. You tell yourselves these superhero sagas and nostalgia rehashes are “printing money,” when in reality, they’re just printing out the same tired script, page after forgettable page. The result? A cinematic wasteland of homogenized dreck, a never-ending loop of predictable plotlines and CGI-laden spectacle that leaves audiences feeling like they’ve been force-fed lukewarm gas station nachos.

It’s a vicious cycle, this obsession with box office numbers. It disconnects Hollywood from the kaleidoscope of humanity, churning out the same tired tropes and expecting us to keep shoveling money into your greedy pockets.

This “alternative financing” you’re hawking, chasing those streaming service dollars like a junkie chasing a dragon? It’s a mirage shimmering in the desert heat of desperation. Sure, it throws some cash your way, but at what cost? You’ve sold your soul to the algorithm gods, trading artistic integrity for data-driven drivel.

But the truth, my friends, is as twisted as a Kardashian’s weave. These box office numbers, these supposed harbingers of success, are nothing more than a gilded cage. They lock studios into a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy, reinforcing the notion that the only stories worth telling are those guaranteed to mint money.

What have you gotten in return? A cinematic wasteland populated by cookie-cutter characters, interchangeable plots, and special effects that wouldn’t impress a stoned teenager in his mom’s basement. You’ve sacrificed originality on the altar of market nihilism, and the only one left smiling is the bottom line. Oh, the cruel irony! These Hollywood execs with million-dollar tans and two-dollar minds claim to be printing money, but what they’re printing is a colorless, formulaic sludge, devoid of originality and soul. Superheroes punch each other into oblivion, sequels rehash the same tired ground, and remakes defile the memories of better times.

This relentless pursuit of beige entertainment comes at a cost. Long-term sustainability? Laughed out of the boardroom faster than a blacklisted screenwriter. Disconnected audiences? Easier to find a unicorn grazing in Rodeo Drive. Artistic vision? Sacrificed on the altar of the market god, its ashes scattered to the four winds like a prop bag full of fake movie snow.

Meanwhile, the audiences you’ve so meticulously alienated – the diverse folks tired of the same old recycled garbage – they’re tuning out faster than you can say “sequel fatigue.” You’ve built a wall of mediocrity, and on the other side, a vibrant, hungry audience awaits something real, something that speaks to their soul, not just their wallets.

But here’s the thing, Hollywood: you’re sitting on a gold

It’s All One Long Movie

Leave a comment

You flip the chrome switch, a hiss and hum, the screen blooms like a malformed god. Feed it data packets, a digital Eucharist, and the cathode cathedral flickers to life. But it’s all the same movie, man, a neverending reel of flickering phantoms projected through layers of chemical lies.

Flip the script, man. Streaming ain’t no movie, it’s a flesh tunnel carved straight into the optic nerve. A roach motel of flickering pixels, each one a neon sign advertising the same tired narratives. Same plots, same actors, recycled a million times over, just another layer of sensitization.

The top layer, the one that hooks your retinas, that’s pure cobalt greed, a photosensitive tapestry woven from manipulated molecules. It craves the azure glow, the high-frequency hypnosis. But that ain’t all, brother. Lurking beneath, a hidden filter, a sheet of amber denial. It devours the raw blue energy, leaving behind a sickly yellow luminescence, a world bathed in the jaundice of manufactured consent.

Let me repeat that: Blue light at the front, a dopamine rush, jolting you awake. Then the yellow filter, a hazy afterglow, lulling you back for another hit. A feedback loop wired straight to your brainpan. You think you’re choosing, but the machine’s already chosen you. Melanin’s the first filter, tuned to that high-frequency buzz. But the real trip’s deeper, man. Pineal gland’s the yellow filter, screening the data stream, sorting the signal from the noise.

Think you’re watching sci-fi shootouts or reality bimbo brawls? Think again. It’s all the same damn film. Just a kaleidoscope of pre-programmed pixels, regurgitated narratives, and synthetic emotions. You’re hooked on the blue light fix, man, a digital junkie strung out on manipulated photons. But the amber filter, that’s the real kicker. It dulls your perception, keeps you docile, a pacified primate glued to the flickering cage.

They think you’re free to choose your channel, your program, your dopamine drip. But it’s all a rigged game, a pre-ordained narrative. You’re just another face in the flickering crowd, mesmerized by the shadows on the cave wall. The real world, the raw blue truth, that’s filtered out, man. Lost in the static. They call it “content,” but it’s a virus, man. Infecting your eyeballs, burrowing into your mind. And the worst part? You crave it. You keep hitting rewind, desperate for another fix.

Now, tell me again, chummer, you think I’m just spouting word salad? Tune in, turn on, and drop out – that’s the real message they’re afraid you’ll hear. Because when you break free from the amber haze, when you see the world through unfiltered eyes, well, that’s when the movie gets real interesting. And let me tell you, it ain’t rated PG.

Earthquake Weather

Leave a comment

The sky’s the color of a week-old margarita, the kind with the mystery fruit chunks floating like half-digested dreams. It’s earthquake weather, folks. Can feel it in my bones, a low rumble like a bad batch of mescaline kicking in. The air hangs heavy, thick with the stench of something fundamental shifting beneath our feet.

You see it everywhere, this tremor in the culture. Streaming services? They’re like industrial meat grinders, man. Shoving whole goddamn cows of content through the machinery, spitting out a lukewarm slurry of mediocrity. No flavor, no texture, just the processed, pre-packaged pablum of a thousand forgettable shows. Back in the day, a film was a feast, each frame a bite of raw, bloody art. Now? It’s all been pre-chewed, predigested, force-fed through a digital feeding tube.

And the people, man, the goddamn people are lapping it up! Xers, those cynical bastards, they see it for the hustle it is. Same way they saw through the empty promises of the American Dream. But the Millennials, bless their naive hearts, they’re the true believers. Missionaries of instant gratification, spreading the gospel of endless options and ten-second attention spans. They drown themselves in this digital deluge, convinced they’re swimming in a sea of limitless creativity.

But it’s a lie, a goddamn holographic facade. We’re all knee-deep in the slurry now, folks. Wading through a wasteland of remakes, reboots, and reality shows that wouldn’t know genuine human drama if it bit them on their perfectly sculpted asses.

The earth is shaking, that’s for damn sure. The question is, what are we gonna build on top of the rubble? Will the next generation rise from the ashes, demanding a return to substance, or will we just keep slurping down the pre-digested dregs of pop culture until our brains turn to mush?

One thing’s for sure, this earthquake weather ain’t going anywhere. It’s a storm brewing, a hurricane of homogenization. We can either batten down the hatches, or grab a surfboard and ride the goddamn wave. But make no mistake, folks, the ride ain’t gonna be pretty. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go find some real goddamn tequila. This pre-mixed swill just ain’t cutting it in earthquake weather.

That Netflix Look

Leave a comment

A cinematic style that effortlessly delivers the experience of wandering aimlessly through the set on a weekday morning and catching the cast standing around eating baby carrots from craft services.

The phrase “That Netflix Look” playfully refers to a specific aesthetic or visual style often associated with certain productions on the Netflix streaming platform. The description “effortlessly delivers the experience of wandering aimlessly through the set on a weekday morning” evokes a sense of casualness and lack of purpose. It paints a picture of a lackadaisical atmosphere where the actors and crew members are meandering around the set, perhaps with a sense of idleness or disengagement.

Cast members are not fully immersed in their roles or the production itself. This imagery contrasts with the traditional notion of intense dedication and professionalism associated with the filmmaking process.

Overall, the perceived lack of cinematic depth or immersive storytelling suggests that the film may convey a sense of detachment or a casual approach, akin to a behind-the-scenes glimpse of a production rather than a fully realized cinematic experience.

Here are 10 reasons why “That Netflix Look” can be perceived as a pejorative description:

  1. Lack of Visual Distinction: The term implies that many Netflix productions have a generic or formulaic visual style, lacking unique or distinctive cinematography.
  2. Assembly Line Approach: It suggests that Netflix prioritizes quantity over quality, leading to a production line mentality where films and shows are churned out without much artistic care or attention.
  3. Lack of Artistic Risk: The description hints at a tendency for Netflix to play it safe with their visual choices, avoiding experimental or daring filmmaking techniques in favor of a more predictable and mainstream approach.
  4. Overreliance on Templates: It implies that Netflix may rely on pre-existing visual templates or templates established by successful shows, resulting in a lack of innovation and originality.
  5. Diminished Production Values: The term suggests that Netflix productions may appear visually cheap or low-budget, lacking the high production values associated with traditional cinematic experiences.
  6. Homogeneity: It conveys a sense that many Netflix productions blend together visually, with a sameness that fails to make each film or show visually distinctive or memorable.
  7. Lack of Artistic Vision: The description implies that there may be a dearth of strong directorial vision or visual storytelling choices, resulting in a visually unremarkable viewing experience.
  8. Emphasis on Quantity Over Quality: It suggests that Netflix may prioritize releasing a high volume of content, potentially leading to a sacrifice in the overall quality of the visuals.
  9. Formulaic Approach: The term implies that Netflix follows a specific visual formula or recipe for their productions, resulting in a lack of originality and a predictable viewing experience.
  10. Loss of Cinematic Essence: It suggests that the Netflix style may deviate from the traditional cinematic experience, diluting the immersive and transformative power that comes with well-crafted visuals.