The Watch - Unpacking ‘Annihilation’ and the ’90s Nostalgia of Netflix’s ‘Everything Sucks!’ (Ep. 230)

Episode Date: February 26, 2018

The Ringer’s Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald review the sci-fi thriller ‘Annihilation,’ starring Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaac, and discuss how it differs from the Jeff VanderMeer novel it’s adapted from (1:00). Later, they review Netflix’s new awkward ’90s teen comedy ‘Everything Sucks!’ (25:00). (edited) Tweet at us @thewatchpod. And listen to our 'Annihilation' Double Down Book Club and interview with author Jeff VanderMeer here Or for more 'Annihilation' coverage, check out the following: https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/2/23/17042946/annihilation-alex-garland-natalie-portman-review https://www.theringer.com/movies/2018/2/26/17053240/annihilation-exit-survey https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/movies/annihilation-review-natalie-portman-oscar-isaac.html Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I need sports to have to clear the room. Stand up and walk now. Hello, and welcome to the watch. My name is Chris Ryan. I'm editor Thuringer.com and joining me in the studio, furiously finishing his trip advisor for Area X. It's Andy Greenwald! Listen, man.

Woo! Annihilation! Happy to be here with you. I feel like the people should know. You're recharged. I still balanced. Chris spent the weekend up in Pizzolato country. Yeah, I was.

up in oh high. Like I don't know where you travel to where your DNA was refracted to the point where you are now basically part eucalyptus plant. My eyes are shimmering. Andy, the illusions that we are making are to annihilation, which is what we will be spending the first half of this podcast discussing. Obviously, we talked about the book for Double Down Book Club. We have Jeff Vandermeer on the pod. So you can go back. We can send out links to those older podcasts if you want to hear this sort of three-dimensional version of this story. Before we get too far into this, I want to talk to you about a couple of Ringer, wider Ringer projects that we've got going on. The Ringer expanded universe.

Yeah, let's talk about the recapables, man. Okay. Amanda Dobbins, one of the best out. A queen. Hosting the recapables for Atlanta. So the recapables, kind of playing off of the rewatchables, kind of playing off of our need for, you know, to want to have that conversation right after the episode end. So the Ringer is putting up instant breakdowns of every episode of Atlanta season two.

It's hosted by Amanda, and it features a rotating panel. and it features a rotating panel of obsessive ringer staffers, and you can subscribe to the recapables. The first episode is recapping the first season, so you can get caught up. And that's up now, and the instant recap analysis goes up this Thursday after the season premiere of Atlanta, season two.

Obviously, you and I will chat a little bit about that on Thursday day, just like kind of as a preview. And then that afternoon or evening, depending on where you live, you can get that episode of the recapables for episode one. and it's a doozy, you'll love it. Also, since we're talking about Annihilation,

I just wanted to tell you a little bit about some cool shit on our website. I love it. We've got an exit survey today about the movie Annihilation where a lot of our staff weighed in with some takes, learned a lot about a lot of people. I think 50% of the box office was Ringer adjace.

We were about to test that theory. Sean Fennacy, our buddy did an incredible pie with Alex Garland. You can listen to that on the big picture, which is on Channel 33, or you can read a large chunk of it on the ringer.com. Oh.

Great written transcript of that. And also Adam Neiman wrote a wonderful review of the movie. And he was a little bit more skeptical. I think maybe you were too. Yeah. I'm just going to point at you. So let's get into annihilation. In the second half of the pod, we're going to talk about Netflix's Everything Sucks, which we've watched a couple episodes of.

Yes, but we are going to talk about this movie in some detail. I would say for those people who are about to hit fast forward or turn off the podcast, this isn't really a movie that is going to be, your experience is not going to be, super negatively affected, I think, if you listen to us talk about details because none of it makes that much linear sense. It's really impressionistic. But I get it if you want to move up. If you were planning on reading the book now, go ahead. Feel free. It's unrelated. Completely different experience, but we will probably mention some book stuff that if you were like, I want to be in a vacuum and read the book now.

So let's get it. My wife was like that, and then I just basically told it the plot of the book over pizza last night. Let's recapable a bit here. Okay. So, um, um, Annihilation The book came out a couple years ago as you said by Jeff Van Dermeier It's part of the Southern Reach trilogy We got really into it We did it as the book club

It is a terrific read I read it on one airplane flight When I was sick of all the movies Delta was offering During 2016 I'm just like people like to know Where we are in the timeline I mean

We started this talking about like Getting our Chi back centered So you could talk about movies All you want Don't say we to me Brother Muzone Okay I have not reinvented myself To that degree

I live in a house of sick children Okay Like this is so far from my experience Is that a metaphor? I mean maybe You live in a land of wolves I live in a land of sick children The book is really immersive

Really surreal I think a lot of people read it And said boy I can't wait for the movie Backed with There's no way you can make this into a movie Alex Garland Who did ex machina Who wrote books like The Beach

And wrote the screenplay for 28 days later And never let me go And never let me go an inspired choice to adapt this and delivered what has to be a legendary flex by making a movie in which he admits he read a galley copy of the book once

and then wrote a screenplay based on his vague impressions and memories of it. Someone said he can't adapt this and he said hold my beer. I don't actually know if that's how you use the hold my beer thing, but let's just go in it. It is wildly different, which let's say from jump, I find admirable and interesting. I think Jeff Vandermeer finds it

potentially something else. Now we know why he was a little hesitant when we talked to him about it. So he had to have known somewhat. I mean, in Alex and Sean's conversation, Garland's like, I called him and I was like, this is my pitch. And I don't know whether Jeff had any red light, green light optionality there, but I probably at that point, it sort of out of his hands. It had to have been a courtesy call. And I think his experience is his own and he hasn't talked about it, but I'm sure it was like any artistic persons, which is it once, you know, it's its own thing. The book exists, but you have to feel a little bittersweet about it

because it's transforming it to a potentially larger audience. That being said, I don't know that you could do a page for page adaptation of this book. And I will say going into it, I wish there was more of the book and maybe less of the book. I couldn't tell. Let's go big picture to start with. It was heartening to see how many people responded to my tweet where I was like, I just saw a movie, let's all talk about it. And a lot of people, I think, assumed I meant this is a great movie.

Let's go see it. I think this is a fascinating movie. I think this was a worthwhile movie. I'm excited to talk to you about it at length. I don't think this movie works, but I think that there are things in it, performances, visuals, the last 15 minutes in particular,

that are so astonishing that they have stayed with me and are worth discussion. But I also think we can have, maybe we should put this at the end of the conversation, a kind of larger meta-conversation about how movies like this get made in 2018, why they get made, and what happens to them. Because I will say,

as a fan of the book, as a fan of the material, as a fan of Alex Garland, I was really ready to cape up on this podcast and be like, how dare Paramount basically dump it? As we've alluded to, the movie did not get much promotion. Did it not? I mean, because there are stars in it, you know, Natalie Portman did Saturday Night Live and Gina Rodriguez was on Marin's podcast. Like, they were out there.

Yeah. But it did not get a giant push. And Paramount also sold the movie for the rest of the world to Netflix. And so I was ready to cape up and be like, how dare they, this is art, you know, I'm so excited. How do they? Cloverfield paradox, this thing. Exactly. Honestly, and I say this, not meaning to be critical of the film, I'm like, good job by you,

Paramount. Like, you got some money in the theaters, and you sold this in the rest of the world to Netflix, so you got your money because this is not, this was never going to be a blockbuster. I don't know how you sell this movie, because the... You mean to Netflix or to the audience? To the audience. And I think that Blade Runner 2049 had a similar... problem in terms of...

At twice the length. That was also something that people, that there was a group of people, I imagine the crowd, the amount of people who were interested in Blade Runner outnumber the amount of people who were interested in the Southern Reach trilogy, but there was still a built-in audience who were probably like looking forward to Blade Runner coming out. How do you sell that movie without giving too much of it away with enticing people to come with some of the more thrilling moments? So in Blade Runner, that would be, you know,

hovercrafts shooting through walls. Harrison Ford's face. And Harrison Ford. Whereas, and in annihilation, in some of the trailers, they gave away some of the biggest scares, or at least alluded to them. The Tessa Thompson getting yanked by the alligator, the bear woman. I hadn't seen any ads. So I was, those got me.

Those were good jumps scares. Those were great jump scares, but that sets the tone for the movie. Going into this movie, I was like, interesting, they've decided to make this into a sci-fi horror movie. Yes. And I think my biggest point, and perhaps my big. criticism of it is that this movie to me existed in an uncanny valley between a mainstream sci-fi horror film and an art house film and I think Garland's um Garland's uh taste run more

towards the art film and so but I cannot tell because he did this adaptation what interested him most and what was mandated and what wasn't because it veers pretty wildly. You know I think the exposition that build up is pretty clunky and all of the backstory that he added with Oscar Isaac's character, Natalie Porbin's character, and her cheating on him, those were the beats that rang the falsest to me. But again, I cannot tell if that was a studio being like, we need some origin, we need to know her emotional whatever, or, and maybe you know this from interviews, or this is something that Garland himself is less interested in because his work generally is about people who have either intentionally distanced themselves or have,

for whatever reason, are emotionally cut off from the world. Like, that is his work. Yeah, and I think also in a couple of his works, for instance, I guess all of this works, and to some extent, they put people in extreme situations and they have an ostensible mission, but that mission is corrupted by human nature, right? So in sunshine... Or human breaks, right.

Yeah, in sunshine, they're supposed to restart the sun with a nuclear weapon. And Sunshine is actually... What an elevator pitch. One of the all-timers. It's actually the inverse of this movie where Sunshine is this incredible kind of philosophical tone

with Cliff Curtis talking about how the sun and brightness is the opposite of darkness and that's where we find God and like we're gonna, if you were to die getting roasted by the sun

would be to actually like be transported into a higher plane of existence. Okay. All this stuff. And then it turns into a monster and they have to fight the monster so that they can still drop the bomb to start the sun.

This is the inverse. This is they fight the monsters in the beginning so that they can get to the philosophical stuff at the end. Mm-hmm. That's what put, yeah. But in each of his movies, I think for 28 days later, when you get to the Christopher Eccleston character at the end,

when you get to the Brendan Gleason character, and they're kind of, all the things that you would hope that we could transcend if we were in an extreme situation actually come up. And in this movie as well, I think that he puts together this group, and then he has this group fall apart and have these people, I mean, as the cast character says, we're all damaged goods, which I think is a little on the nose. Sure was.

Yeah, so I guess I can't not talk about this in relationship to the book. Because I think that in the same way, and, you know, in some ways we're unique or the people who've read the book are unique. But this is an increasingly common occurrence in movie going and in television watching where you are watching something that is executing a vision of source material. And that's not that significantly different than the way entire movie history has been with people making westerns off of, you know, Louis Lamor books. but this is something that you have a relationship to the same way somebody might have a relationship to a certain Batman storyline or a certain Avengers storyline.

And I couldn't just watch the movie. Now, I actually really liked it. I actually thought it was this interesting artist's embellishment of some ideas that Van Amirer had with their own ideas. And I thought that the actual physical, visual representation of Area X, what Garland calls the shimmer. Which he calls for eyes. That was...

Area X is pretty cool. I don't know why you called... But you brought up some stuff about what Paramount brought into it, and there's some pieces online this week, you know, today about the original script that Garland had. Oh, okay.

And more than anything, I think it had more of the stuff that you didn't like. There was more King, apparently. There was more Southern Reach, but Southern Reach as this nefarious agency that was imprisoning Lina, whereas in the book,

it's entirely voluntary. Yes, she volunteers, right? Yeah. And there's some other stuff about, like, framing devices and character deaths that we don't have to get into. That makes sense to me, I guess. Garland tried to, you know, he talks about Trojan horsing. I mean, like, he tried to Trojan horses.

This is what people do. And your point is, like, your point is well taken. People have attachments to the way they encountered material first. That's always the case. And I always want to be an advocate for someone having their own way into something. What I think is a little disappointing just from Jump is that what Vandermeier does, which is particularly unique, is that the story is essentially about, maybe it's alien, maybe it's whatever, but Earth is reclaiming itself. It's a, it's a biology-based

story. She's a biologist. It's a story about Earth sort of reclaiming something from what was taken from it from man. Garland is not as interested in that. He's interested in about, he's interested in the way we hurt ourselves and the sort of deterioration that's built into ourselves and how that plays out emotionally. That's valid too, but it does feel grafted onto this other subject matter that, so I mourn a little bit the loss of that other story, and not sure how we would have done it. The other things that I'm worn are the psychologist character, Jennifer Jason Lee. There's some stuff from the book that makes, that's cool, that I think works better, that she hypnotizes them. She's running, she has her own agenda.

I mean, there is some sort of creature lurking in the swamp, but she is the person who's manipulating the main characters and seems to know a lot more about what's going on in Area X than they do. Yes, and I don't know what choices she was making in this performance because they were very strange to me. I think that she made a choice and played it throughout, but it made the character extremely opaque. in a way that I couldn't really follow. Like, they were just, considering how clunky the exposition was to get these characters together. It seems like she has a secret

and that she has an ulterior motive. And then they seem to... In the book, there is one. And we won't spoil. And they seem to erase that motive about three quarters of the way in the movie. Yeah, exactly. Where they're just like,

she's like, I got to get to the lighthouse. I really enjoyed in the exit survey that someone, I don't remember which ring or staff member was just like, I love a movie where someone says the name of the movie. Right. And the fact that she's like,

hey, annihilation. Annihilation. in the book is actually really cool. Yeah. You know, uh... Okay, well, that's enough mourning of the book. There's that. And then there's also, the main sort of mystery of the book is this creature, uh, that is

crawling down a staircase, writing in religious poetry. Religious poetry. Religious poetry. And, and that is just not in the movie. No. The whole tower thing, the whole bunker is just not there. The tower that's also a staircase. So it's, it's a very interesting choice to just,

be like, mate, I'm going to move on with this then. You know, it's like, he looked at the word annihilation. He's like, what if we annihilate ourselves? And, you know, I don't know why I'm just doing Sasha Baron Cohen as Alex Carlin. I was going to let this was New Chris. I was going to let it just let it roll. Okay, so all that being said, there are some really

worthwhile things about it. Again, it's a little bit of half-stepping. Like, I loved the all-female expeditionary force and what that represented visually and what that could represent thematically. I think that was punted a little bit. Yeah, also Gina Rodriguez on her Ellen Ripley shit was just outstanding. That was a surprise.

Yeah. But she was great. Yeah. If you listen to her on Marin, she does a lot of a Krahmaga. Does she? Is that how you say it? Krav Maga. Yeah.

It sounds like I'm doing a, it sounds like I'm imitating the parrot from Iitania when I say that. I thought that the bear scene. Yeah, that's great. Was just astonishing. The interiors, Gina Rodriguez's interrogation scene and paired with the, the bear who has Shepard's voice inside of it, was one of the most uniquely, terrifying things I've seen in a very long time. Can I, um, sidebar for a second here?

Uh, one thing listeners know, and you know Chris, of course, because you're you, is that you, as a friend often cautioned me away from scary things. Yes. I was a hundred percent fine with every single thing in this movie. Good. Would you have cautioned me away from it, knowing that I am a retiring time? No, I don't, because I think it's too deeply, like, it's, it's too ponderous of a movie.

If there are things that you can do with horror movies that make the tension around that scene, just unrelenting and unbearable. Unbearable. and I think that there's enough you know ponderous shots of Natalie Portman's back and water moving in a glass that you can

like get your breath, you know? Yeah, the water moving, some of the shots are, it's beautifully directed. Yeah. I also really want to give a shout out to Tessa Thompson, who's becoming one of my favorite performers. She's very good in this, yeah.

She's very different in everything. Yeah. The last thing I saw her in was a little film called Thor Ragnarok, which I know you love as a movie and you love when I say the whole title. Yeah. And she is not this in that movie.

I love that she can just dial it up or down and was just incredibly retiring and cerebral in this movie. And then she turns into a plant, which is nice. Yeah. She has a happy ending. What do you think this movie is about? Do you think it's literally about Jennifer Jason Lee's speech in the cave? No, I mean, I think that there is, I think it's clumsy. But I think there was an attempt to make this about something.

Yeah. You know, the book is very impressionistic. And there are two more books that are not a successful. as the first book and trying to advance an idea that sort of leaves us, gives us threads, but nothing really to knit it together. I think it's about those various monologues, about how deterioration and annihilation is built into us, and how do we respond to it? Yes. Why do we destroy things that we love? Why do we destroy ourselves?

I think that was sort of clumsily handled. But the sheer what-the-fuck beauty of the end of the film is so moving and unsettling and inspiring. And that was, my main thought. Like, I think that there used to be a time when there were two versions of this movie, there was the big budget movie, and then maybe there was the picnic at Hanging Rock Indy that I think he kind of wanted to make. And he shot, he went up the middle. You made a $40

million, sci-fi horror philosophy movie. Yes, and I don't think it works, because I don't think that could ever work. But I think that the fact that he Trojan horse, that ending, just visually, choreographically, just psychologically, into this movie

was really impressive and really, profound. And I think that that scene, and I have to give a shout out to our old Grantland colleague, Emily Ishido, who wrote a piece on Vulture that basically suggested that there was a connection here to mental illness and depression and the ways that we hurt ourselves, when we are not aware of hurting ourselves. And that is what that dance with the rainbow double signifies in a way. It's not, and just being able to convey all that wordlessly, that this is something that is her, that isn't her, that is hurting her, but it is not malicious, was beautiful and transcendent. provided a moment that is really wonderful in a movie theater as opposed to on your couch where

you look around and you're like, wait, oh no, everyone's seeing this too. Sure. I am hallucinating too. I am shimmering right now because this is so elevated and bizarre. There's stuff in there that is not anywhere nearly as beautifully rendered or thought-provoking as the Twin Peaks episode 8. But there's stuff in, there were moments in that movie where I felt like I was being transported away from the sort of mainstream pop culture industrial complex experience of watching

something and floating off into an artist's vision. And more than anything else, that is why we root for this movie. That is why I ask people to go see it and why we want to talk about it, because there are gradations of disappointment in a movie, you know, and look what he went for. Look what he got into the movie theaters.

And I think, and this will tie into our conversation weirdly in the second half of the show as well, but it's hard to make stuff, man. Yeah. And it's hard to make exceptional stuff or exceptionally weird stuff. I think ultimately the movie's about what Natalie Portman's

leader talks about in the classroom at the beginning and about this sort of binary of life and death and creation and destruction happening hand in hand and that the world is essentially experiencing a big bang moment with Southern Reach and with Area X or sorry with Area X and the shimmer and that that is this um this act of creation that is transcends whether like uh the the big thing that keeps coming up is like what does it want what does it want It's like, well, what if it doesn't want anything? Creation doesn't want. What are we putting on to it?

There's not a psychology or a villainy, a villainy to creation or to mutation or to evolution. It's just something that's happening. And I, you know, I haven't quite bothered to piece together what the Oscar Isaac's character is named Kane. He kills his brother, quote unquote, in the, with the phosphorescent grenade and then, you know, goes off. Yeah, I mean, kills himself, but it's like there's a, there's a Cane Abel thing happening in there. this idea that they've gone out, maybe they're going to create a new world together. The actual original ending of this movie in the script

is pretty interesting because it essentially is they are hugging or whatever. You know, like they've come together. And it ends with you see through a window that a ton of meteors like the one that started Area X are coming towards Earth. Oh, damn. So don't think that there was ever a plan for a sequel. obviously Garland didn't intend to do authority the second book and the sequel

in the series anyway. That's fine. It sounds like it'll be probably 10 years before they can even think about doing this again. There is an opportunity though down the line. Maybe when we're on episode 10,000 of the watch they'll be making the new version of violation. There is the 10, 12 episode maxi event series

version of this trilogy, which I don't know is worthwhile. I mean, I think they took a swing and the books exist, but there is something that I do miss because the thing that grew me about the book, I know we said we wouldn't talk about this anymore, but maybe this will get a few people to pick it up, and then we can have their own conversations about which they preferred,

because they are so distinct, was the book was inspired by Vandermere walking around where he lives in Florida and just noticing things, tidal pools and algae and stuff that literally I can't even say because I don't pay attention to the natural world. And the idea of people looking at this and it looking back at us and having something to say or teach us is both beautiful and interesting, but it's also unsettling. And I missed that kind of unsettling nature of it.

I was sort of hoping to be disquieted in that way. But that said, look, this is, I'm happy to live in a world where Alex Garland got this money, where he got Natalie Portman and Tessa Thompson to sign up to do this. We also just keep getting good movies, man. Yeah, look, this is, there are enough movies now that it's a, I'm happy we can have this conversation, not only because I get to go see them, but because we can have a long conversation about a movie that I'm not even sure if I liked. That doesn't matter. Yes.

Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And this is an interesting segue to go into our next conversation, which is about Netflix as everything sucks. Because I think that there's, we're going to get into a little bit of the relationship between having misgivings about a movie and having that be a contained experience versus having misgivings about a television show and being like, and now I owe this show four and a half to 12 to 15 hours of my life. Also about why maybe you're right, movies are sneaky better right now. We'll be back after a quick word from our sponsors. Today's episode of The Watch is brought to you by the Black Tucks.

everyone wants to look as great as their date at a wedding or a special event. There's trouble is there's just like no way for you to spend the amount of time or money that she did shopping for her outfit. But the black tucks.com is your answer. With high quality rental suits and tuxedos delivered straight to your doorstep. The black tux is the easy way to rent suits and tuxedos online. The black tux lets you create your look or choose from tons of stylus selected outfits. suits usually retail for 1,200 bucks, but at the black tux, they start just $95.

Expert customer care has your back every step of the way. It's completely done online. With the Black Tucks free home try-on, you can see the fit and feel the quality of your suit months before your event. After ordering, your suit will arrive 14 days before your event, if anything is less than perfect. The Black Tucks will send you a free replacement right away. When your event's over, you just drop the rental back in the mail. Shipping is free both ways. To get $20 off your purchase, visit the blacktucks.com slash watch.

That's the blacktucks.com slash watch for $20 off your purchase. The Blacktucks.com. premium rental suits and tuxedos delivered. Today's episode of The Watch was brought to you by Movement. You guys have heard us talk about Movement. The company has grown like crazy, and now with almost 2 million watches sold in 160 countries, they continue to revolutionize fashion on the belief that style shouldn't break the bank.

I don't know if you have checked out the site lately, but they have doubled the number of watch styles, and they are expanding. I purchased one of these watches for my mother-in-law. Did you? And she adores it. And you can, this is the thing that, love about movement is that I can get you a watch. I can get my mother-in-law watch.

We both gave watches to our wives. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing is it can be a great. It's a great place to pick up a gift. It's a great place to get a gift for yourself. They go over very well as gifts. I can personally attest to that. I'm also super into the revolver collection that they have there right now. At a department store, you're looking at $400 to $500 for a watch, but movement watches started just $95.

Because movement figured out a way that if you just sell online, you can cut out the middleman and the retail markup, providing you with the best. possible price while still offering classic design, quality construction, and style minimalism. Get 15% off today with free shipping and free returns by going to movement.com slash watch. That's mvmt.com slash watch. See why movement keeps growing and check out their expanding collection. Check out to the revolvers. It's the watch of the watch. Go to movement.com, mvmt.com slash watch. Join the movement. Andy, we're back. Let's talk a little bit about everything sucks, which is a show that a bunch of our listeners,

Definitely like saying, hey, can we hear you guys talk about this? It's from Ben York Jones and Michael Mohan. It's on Netflix. It is a kind of a 90s throwback. I guess it's set in 1996. Yeah, some high school freshmen in Oregon. Very handheld, personable comedy, coming-of-age comedy in the vein of freaks and geeks about a group of teens in freshman sophomore year in high school in, as he said, in boring Oregon.

It's got small town frustrations. It's got a lot of discovering yourself going on. Emotionally physically as well. And it has this phenomenal on-the-nose soundtrack that's kind of crammed into every minute of it. Shouts to Netflix's music sync budget. Good job. I'm wondering about this for a while. Maybe if somebody who knows something about music supervision, everybody Anthony Roman might be able to help us with this question.

but I feel like this, some rule must have changed. No, I think they're just paying. Well, because there was a while ago, it was like there, I remember when there, I can't remember what was like the first time I heard Zeppelin in a movie, or at least like, it would, it had been like 20 years since like almost famous or something. Right. And I can't believe David O. Russell had the money for this. And they talked about how like plant and page, like allowed it to happen.

Yeah, it's generally. And now I just feel like every show has the, the first wave serious station on or whatever. Or Noel Gallagher's high-flying. birds isn't really as profitable as everyone needs it to be. Man's not hot. That's what I'm saying. Man's lukewarm. Man's fine. So I want to hear your take on this because I've watched two episodes. Yeah. And I know that a lot of people have basically, and I will probably continue to watch this show. Okay. A lot of people have been like, you got to wait until episode, I think it's five or six for this to really get going. Yeah. Look, it's fine. I don't like it, but it's fine. And I can see why people would like it.

and I don't blame you if you do. It is well-intentioned. It is sweet. It has some nice performances by some young people, some of whom I think are probably bound for bigger things. But to me, this is a case study of we have too much TV. And it's self-defeating because we love talking about TV. It's great to have things to talk about.

It's self-defeating because, you know, I also try to make TV now and, like, there's so much of it. And it seems counterintuitive to argue that there should be fewer shows. And yet I'm starting to think that in our conversations, we keep hitting this wall of B-minus, that things are good, they're fine. And I wonder if that has to do with the fact that there simply aren't as many good scripts as there need to be.

There aren't as many good writers as there need to be. So you think it's a talent pool thing? I think it's a talent pool thing. I do, because there's a version of the show that gets shefted up a little bit that maybe gets worked over some more, written up a little bit more, has a higher budget,

not for the music, but for everything else around it. Maybe has a larger talent pool to cast the kids from because Stranger Things doesn't exist, or some of these other shows with kids don't exist, and it's a little bit better. Right now, I think it's fine.

And by the way, I think for Netflix, that's fine. Because for the people, fine is fine, good enough is good enough for Netflix. Because this, like much of their programming, scratches very specific itches. There's nothing wrong with the show.

There's nothing offensive about the show. If you are looking for this type of feeling of young people finding themselves, if that ticks a box for you, if you're from this generation and you enjoy the nostalgia for it, It takes a box for you. It is not expensive to make.

But I'm starting to get frustrated that things aren't better. Yeah, also, everybody's outfits in that show, this show are now cool again. So you just... It's easy. Yeah, it's not... The high-waisted jeans are just back. There's just a... I'm watching this, and I'm like, I see that they want to be freaks and geeks.

But, you know, extremely Lloyd Benson voice, like, I watch freaks and geeks. You are not freaks and geeks. And because it's trying to be that and falling short of it, both the emotional... emotionally and comedically, I had the wrong reaction to a lot of it. There's a big set piece that ends the second episode where our lead character, and that kid is really talented, I think. I think he's... Yeah, Jaha'i Diallo-Winson.

I think he's really good. He's a fine. In order to woo the daughter of the principal, whom he has a big crush on, who is discovering that she, in fact, might be gay, he hijacks the AV system of the school and makes a video starring him that's To Wonderwall by Oasis. and I just couldn't stop cringing. I thought not in the same way I would cringe

if someone in my high school did this, but cringing in like, I wish they hadn't tried this because I just thought it failed. It wasn't clever enough, it wasn't good enough, it just simply was. It literally was karaokeing and emotion that they were chasing,

and it wasn't good enough. And you've let me be negative about the show that is otherwise very charming and well-intentioned and I feel bad a little bit. I feel like I'm stepping on bunnies, but that aspect bummed me out. I it's starting to get to the point where you know I I feel like it's almost like a it's like us it's like us is when you're watching sports right and if you watch basketball if you watch college basketball every single night versus if you only watch March Madness yes do you know what I mean and it or if you watch uh 50 Premier League games and you've seen 10 or 20 one one draws and then you watch uh Manchester City win it on the final day of the season and you're just like is this what soccer is holy shit

Like that's how people react to it. And I think that we're having a little bit of that kind of reaction. Obviously, like, we have different appetites for culture consumption between the two of us. But we've obviously sort of tilting a little bit towards like, well, let's talk about this movie. And then with these shows, I think partially because there's just a huge stack of them to get through, we're a little bit more crusty. We're the old music critics and we're like, ah, this sounds like dinosaur junior. And I think that that is somewhat of a disservice to the shows, but is actually pretty candid.

You know what I think it's fair? You have to work harder to break through now. Like, there's just too much stuff. And yes, there's, like, I'm sure for every time I'm saying, like, Ozark is amazing. Someone's like, well, what about X, Y, and Z show that does the same thing Ozark does, but better or worse or whatever. TV is becoming, in a way, what it always was, which is something that scratched particular itches at a certain time.

There will always be something exceptional, and that maybe wasn't the case before. But it is servicing in a way. And I think your analogy is correct. I don't watch college sports because I want to watch, I want a cherry pick. I want to watch the best people do the best up against the best. It used to be that the TV did not have that huge catalog, that huge library of content happening all the time from which you had to cherry pig. It used to just be like, well, there's only 10 shows on.

And I like four of them. But also, no one was dunking. Yeah. You know what I mean? It was like watching Penn Cornell in 1950. Right. It was like crisp chess passes. And then we had five years of guys who were really good.

Yeah. And now we're like, oh, okay, they're the one and done. And I think that we are running up against, yes, there's the diluted talent pool. But I think we also, as I alluded to, we're talking about services that are trying to build content libraries and trying to specifically with a tech mentality. And that sounds pejorative. I don't mean it. But with a tech mentality programmed to need as opposed to programming to be exceptional. and ticking certain boxes,

you know, algorithmic boxes that we don't even know about. And so it's fine. So I feel like a lot of the shows we've been talking about this year and, you know, people, and it's fine. People love to say, like,

I don't like anything anymore or maybe I never did like anything. But I am noticing that the majority, we were excited to get back into talking about a lot of shows this year and we've been covering a lot, but I think they've generally been B2B minuses. I think Dark was an exception

so far this year. And I think that's really reflective of the quality of, quality level of the shows. I think a lot of them have been fine. And, you know, pivoting forward, we're going to talk about a show that premieres tonight on Thursday that you're really into McMafia on AMC. And I enjoyed it because it goes towards a lot of my interests as well, but I still felt a little bit of the same thing. Like, this could have been better. Yeah. Well, that's a great question is that when you have this kind of volume, like here's an example. And I think you actually

would say the same thing about Terriers. Maybe not. Maybe you're a little bit too in the bag for Terriers. Super in the back. Which I love Terriers. I would say the same thing about Justified.

There were half of the season of justified were not throw away episodes. They had great moments. They had

great lines. They had great scenes. But they were almost self-consciously like here's a one-off because we're going to do like sort of

five overarching episodes that really are about like say the Margo Martin, the Margo-Martindale character or we're going to do a Boyd episode that it's Boyd and Raylan.

then there would be like Raylan has to do a case today. And whatever that was, six years ago, seven years ago, in season three or season four of Justified, you just kind of be like, cool. I mean like, I like hanging out here. I do not have as much competition for my eyeballs. I would, I think that's a correct point, but I would push back a little bit just to say that shows you're mentioning,

justified and terriers, and it's something that FX has always understood pretty well. That's actually old-fashioned TV in the sense that even when they are treading water, or even when they are doing a mission episode or just connecting the dots, they do so with an eye towards entertaining you in a world that you like to be in. And that for a while got a little muddled

and it's not a sin, but it wasn't the point. I think TV, as the high-mindedness of the prestige era trickled down, middle episodes became more about educating the audience on the world or, you know... Three episodes guest actor runs. Like that's kind of stuff that doesn't feel like it really happens as much anymore. No, and I think that it's okay to admit that you're making a TV show.

It doesn't have to become something even more profound or build up. But I think because we ask such high concepts, we ask for such incredible star wattage, and we ask for something that really delivers a reason to watch because one of the things that everything sucks is sort of trying to pitch here is like, hey, it's like it's freaks and geeks, but it's the 90s, and we're really, like, investing in the cultural touchstones of the time period. We got slap bracelets, man. Yeah, and that's the concept, right? Otherwise, it's a pretty traditional dramedy, right?

Yes, and, and, you know, to follow, I'm curious if you think this. Like, there were, I smiled at the appropriate places because we all knew people like this, no matter the era, you know, the drama kids I particularly enjoyed, and certainly the music cues I enjoyed. although I have to say, What's the Story Morning Glory came out in 1995? And that was a very profound Tuesday release day for me in college, because the same day that Super Chunks hears where the strings come in. But he gets it through the Columbia House. And he's in Oregon. He's not in college.

Just got to say, the same way I'm like. This is kind of getting back to the Lady Bird conversation about how long crash would have been in rotation. So I understand that. Fair. But I'm curious if there was anything in the show thus far that suggested what many people who have defended the show. have suggested to us, which is that there's something deeper and more unique or idiosyncratic

about these people and their emotional relationship than the archetypes. These episodes are pretty short, and I think that they're counting on you being able to get through three or four of them to get to the money part. But do you see any of those trails? Not yet.

That's the thing. Not yet, but I take people's word for it. And the thing with Netflix is, here's the thing with McMafia. I watched McMafia when it was on in England, so I've already seen the season. it was a joy to watch McMafia once a week. I looked forward to watching McMafia once a week.

I didn't need to watch three episodes of McMafia at once. That would be overkill. But dropping in on these people and their money and their drugs was very exciting to do once a week. I think Netflix is counting on me saying, I have three hours to watch everything sucks. And that is a different proposition that you're making with the audience. So I'd be curious to know what our listeners thought.

I became, you know, actually, it's just a great, great opportunity for mention that we have a Facebook page. Oh, great call. We do have a Facebook page where you can go and you can talk about TV, you can talk about the watch, talk it, and meet other people. Talk about your skin care, Regiment. I don't know about you. I don't have one yet, but I want, I can introduce you to a guy. But we've created a new place for you guys to come together, hang out, discuss the pod, and get to know fans of the show. Search the watch on Facebook and go to groups, and you'll find us there.

It's also you can find it through the ringers Facebook page, too, right? Yeah, I think that you're saying. out on everything sucks. I'm out. Regretfully almost. Yeah. I'm saying I'm one foot in, one foot out. The other thing to remember,

and maybe we should have brought this up the last time we had an entire long conversation about the state of Netflix, anecdotally, obviously they don't provide information, but anecdotally, one of their most successful shows of all time, if not their most successful show to date, is 13 reasons why. That's not a show we've discussed.

Narcos is top five for sure. Netflix is realizing that the people who have the interest, the passion, and the time to deep binge, like really go for it. Our kids, teenagers, who are growing up not checking for Thursday nights and NBC, but just assuming Netflix is its own ecosystem. So the programming is starting to reflect that, and that's a very smart business move. It might be a smart creative move, too, if we get feedback from the teens, who I'm sure want to hear about the skincare habits the 40-something-year-old podcast hosts, but who are just like, this show takes boxes for me. I enjoy this.

I don't know about freaks and geeks. I know about this. Yeah. But some of their moves are pointed away from us, despite whatever generational overlaps exists. Yes. But, you know, this, more than anything, this whole conversation in this podcast has made me,

has reinforced something that you've brought up the other week, that movies might be more exciting right now because it is a chance to, once again, see the biggest home run swing. the best funded creatively and financially take on something. Now, in the case of annihilation, I think it didn't work, but boy, was that an interesting swing. Yes, and also the trade between time and payoff is more logical. It's, even if the annihilation had been two and a half hours, it would have been the two, that would have been it.

You know, you wouldn't have been like, well, I have to wait for episode nine for this to really round third and get into like what it's really about. I guess that's nine hours, dog. That's a long time. No, I know. And, you know, again, I think people, I hope people will check out McMafia tonight, Monday on AMC. We can talk more about it later. Yeah, I just want to say, Andy's a little bit reserved. I, I loved this show. You give the elevator pitch on that? Yeah, McMafia is just about a guy, a guy named Alex Godman, who is a hedge fund banker living in London. Very relatable. And has, he's a Russian immigrant, and his uncle and his father have a pretty apparent Russian. mob ties, although he looks at himself sort of in the Michael Corleone way of being outside of that

in the beginning of Godfather. I mean, not the second Godfather. What about the third? He looks at himself looking, being sort of outside of their history and their legacy and their their connections with Russia and events transpire that draw him in to that world and the world of money laundering and drug smuggling. Those events transpire around the 35 minute mark of the pilot. And we get David Stratharne playing an Israeli political fixer. slash smaller. And by the way,

where all my top of the Lake China girl heads at because your man David Densik he doesn't have a long runway

but he puts in work. And the waif also from Game of Thrones Oh, great call. Doing a great job as a kind of drugged up champained up

Russian Russian girls. It's not much of a stretch from what she was on Game of Thrones. The conversation we should have plays Alex Godman's sister.

Only to say this in the broadest possible terms is I think that this is an ongoing conversation even with us in terms of what we want from TV. Because there are moments when we are so gratified that television has become so microprogrammed to give us shows that just take our boxes, that deliver the sorts of things that we're interested in, that we enjoy.

And I mean that high and low. I mean that from the pilot of Ozark to the middle episodes of Twin Peaks where there's a 10-minute interlude of a guy sweeping the floor. I mean, these are very, these are micro-programmed in a way. And they appeal to us. but I am also at the same time wishing that there were bigger swings still allowed. Now, often you do a bigger swing

and you end up with here and now on HBO, which, by the way, shouts to HBO for basically convincing the world that this show doesn't exist. We haven't even mentioned it. HBO puts out five, no, four dramas a year maybe. They debut one or two at most. Yes.

And this is the new show from Alan Ball who had six feet under. It's Tim Robbins and Holly Hunter. And nobody has said a single thing. Except that this is like an abomination. Like, it is one of the worst shows in recent memory. And it is sort of like a fever dream of what everyone inside CPAC over the weekend listening to Trump's speech thinks that we're watching. And maybe they're right and they have a point.

But, yo, this show has been ghosted. I know. Is it coming back? First of all, I'm sure not. But second of all, really impressed by HBO and the regime over there. Because when vinyl came out, all the stories were like, oh, HBO's blowing it. Like, what is this big budget thing? Here now, they just, they were like, here's something that we're putting out.

And everyone's pretending it doesn't exist. I know. They're bulletproof. If you want to read any of the stuff that we discussed from the earlier in the pod, like Sean's interview, Naman's review, the exit survey, all that stuff will be in our show notes. We're going to try and include more links in there. Can I throw a non-ringer link in there? Manola Dargis's review of Innihilation in the New York Times was hewed very closely to my mixed enthusiast.

You and Manola. Maybe she should replace me. We're both L.A. resident. I'll just move to Ohio. Until Thursday, on Thursday we're going to be talking about McMafia, we'll do a little bit of Looming Tower, and I think maybe catching

up the counterpart? Yeah, I'm catching up on counterpart. By the way, we should all be catching up on counterpart that not only is it getting a second season. Betty Gabriel back. This is what's so weird about TV. Yeah. Oscar season right now, get out, everyone's like, low-key, Betty Gabriel is the most amazing performance in that movie.

Counterpart on Stars nabs her for season two? Get these actors, television. What are you doing? Why is, I mean, good for Stars, Yo, what are we doing? All right, see you Thursday. Great job, Brantzky. Hey, guys, this is Sean Fennessey, the editor-in-chief of The Ringer,

and I want to tell you about a podcast I host called The Big Picture. Each week, I welcome a different filmmaker to talk about their latest movie and how it was made. I've talked to the directors of some of my favorite movies, including Jordan Peel, Greta Gerwig, Ryan Johnson, Barry Jenkins, and dozens more. You can find new episodes on the Channel 33 feed every Friday by going to TheRinger.com backslash podcasts, or by subscribing to Channel 33,

wherever you get your podcasts. I hope you'll check it out.