What makes a good TV show?
Is there a "scientific way" to ensure TV show quality? Jeff Bezos thought so.
Not long ago, a detail from the 2021 non-fiction book “Amazon Unbound: Jeff Bezos and the Invention of a Global Empire” was recirculating. Apparently Bezos had 12 rules that each TV show had to follow, and executives would have to explain why if they didn’t.
According to the book, Bezos told a former studio president: “Look, I know what it takes to make a great show.”
His rules are not some previously unknown formula — surprise! — but basic storytelling fundamentals:
A heroic protagonist who experiences growth and change
A compelling antagonist
Wish fulfillment (e.g., the protagonist has hidden abilities, such as superpowers or magic)
Moral choices
Diverse worldbuilding (different geographic landscapes)
Urgency to watch next episode (cliffhangers)
Civilizational high stakes (a global threat to humanity like an alien invasion - or a devastating pandemic)
Humor
Betrayal
Positive emotions (love, joy, hope)
Negative emotions (loss, sorrow)
Violence
Positive emotions! Negative emotions! Who woulda thought??
The book’s author Brad Stone later said that Bezos was looking for a "scientific way to place his bets" in streaming, but that the rules were ultimately short-lived.
This isn’t the first time Hollywood has looked for a “scientific way” to ensure hits
It’s easy to dunk on these 12 rules, but Bezos is far from the only executive to have this thought. Back in 2013, the New York Times ran a story with the headline: Solving Equation of a Hit Film Script, With Data.
Per the lede: “Forget zombies. The datacrunchers are invading Hollywood”:
The same kind of numbers analysis that has reshaped areas like politics and online marketing is increasingly being used by the entertainment industry.
… Now, the slicing and dicing is seeping into one of the last corners of Hollywood where creativity and old-fashioned instinct still hold sway: the screenplay.
One company offering a similar service is called Slated and on its website it boasts that its “predictive analysis is the most comprehensive in the industry” with a combination of human script readers and a “machine-learning based financial analysis system that uses real-world results from more than 10,000 released films to objectively measure the financial viability of projects on the platform.”
Clearly there’s a market for this. But the idea that anyone can predict how a TV show or film will perform with audiences is bunk.
Can pundits provide an educated guess? Sure. But the idea that everything can be gamed out is very much a mentality of the moment. Of course media compay CEOs are susceptible to it.
As tech moguls have become Hollywood players, they are reshaping what the job even looks like.
It would be false to pretend that, back in the day, studio executives were all larger-than-life characters who championed creative big swings. But they did exist. Like Robert Evans, the storied Paramount president of the 1970s who oversaw everything from “The Godfather” to “Rosemary’s Baby” to “Chinatown.” His outsized persona was always part-myth anyway — and he was a deeply flawed human being, to boot — but at least he bothered with creating a fantasy around the image of a studio boss. He understood that it was part of a larger storytelling endeavor. He was pure showbiz.
The people in these jobs today? It’s not even clear if they like films. Or television, which their conglomerates make far more of anyway.
The Ankler’s Richard Rushfield has a slightly different take:
Today’s leadership gives the sense of keeping their heads down until they run out the clock to their retirement. While major threats loom, they’ve kicked the can down the road for a decade now, until we’re finally running out of road. The only people with any gumption to them are our new tech overlords, who have a model of how you do things that does not involve the huge, deep ranks of decently paid craftspeople and talent that have been Hollywood’s success formula for a century.
It’s all very troubling, and I fear worse is coming, and coming soon
A reminder that Amazon’s big play, “Rings of Power,” has cost in the $1 billion range. Was it a good investment? The first season had a viewer completion rate of 37%, which is very low, especially at this budget.
If it were as easy as Bezos or any of these data crunchers want to pretend, everyone would be cranking out hits.
But it’s a decent question nevertheless: What does it take to make a great TV show or film?
Risk, for one
Great writing is always tops for me. Is the story told with economy? Is there a coherent theme? A throughline that stays with you long after you watch? Does it have something to say?
Also: Are the right actors in the right roles? Was it made with a sense of style? Is there any pacing?
But importantly, Hollywood needs to take risks on new and untested narratives, despite its current resistance. Treating intellectual property as the primary source of inspiration — sequels, prequels, reboots, all of it turning yet more IP into a zombified storytelling universe — is so unbelievably boring, I’m embarrassed for everyone involved.
As The Ankler’s Richard Rushfield put it: “Hollywood has given up serving anyone except the big, bland middle, which is to say nobody.”
But surely name brand movie stars have the juice to back original ideas, right? Well, if they do, they don’t seem to have the interest. Per The Hollywood Reporter, Will Smith has signed a first-look deal with Paramount that will “focus on developing four-quadrant theatrical movies, emphasizing projects based on IP and franchise plays.”
This is not the move of someone looking at the back half of his career and asking: What can I do that isn’t just more of the same? That isn’t safe? Wealth is supposed to grant a certain freedom to take risks. And yet …
But, this is true across the board. Clout means you can influence decisions, but very few people with clout right now also have a stomach for risk. Which is why we see headlines like: Contemporary ‘Wizard Of Oz’ Series ‘Dorothy’ In Works At Prime Video From Gwen Stefani, Blake Shelton & Creator Gina Matthews.
Oh, another riff on “The Wizard of Oz.” Hollywood has willingly become a business of “Yep, leftovers for dinner again.”
This is no way for an entertainment industry to function. Decision makers have trapped themselves in place — and trapped us along with them — so that little on screen reflects the world as it currently exists.
There were always executives who played it safe. But at least there was room for a maverick or two to squeeze through. It seems like there are fewer opportunities for that, at least at the studio level.
On the movie side, it’s worth looking at the top grossing titles of 2025 so far. Yes, there’s a lot of IP in there. But “Sinners” is currently at No. 5 with a box office of $278.6 million. “Weapons” is at No. 12 at $135 million. Not all original ideas will have legs — the end product also has to be good — but that’s true of IP, as well.
Recycling IP doesn’t automatically have to be bad, by the way. When AMC announced it was adapting Anne Rice’s “Interview with the Vampire” into a series, I rolled my eyes. But here’s an example of old IP that has genuinely had new life breathed into its story of a journalist and the chatty vampire who wants to reveal all. I don’t even like vampire stories and I’m in the bag for this one. It’s criminally underseen, but it’s also one of the great outliers in the IP realm, vibrantly written, tonally self-assured and unexpectedly funny. The production design is incredible and the performances are some of the best on TV at the moment. If you haven’t watched it yet (and I’d wager that’s the case for most Emmy voters, who have all but ignored it) there are two seasons so far on AMC+ (Season 3 is in the works) and the show is reason enough alone to subscribe to the streamer. You can read my review of Season 1 here and Season 2 here.
Sam Reid is one of its stars, and he toplines another terrific and underseen series, also on AMC+. It’s an Austrailian show called “The Newsreader,” about the TV news business in 1980s Melbourne. I’ve likened it to an Aussie version of the 1987 movie “Broadcast News,” with its winning combination of satire and pathos and a news team obsessed with beating the competition, no matter the fallout. It’s another show I heartily recommend; Reid is playing an entirely different (dorkier!) character and he’s wonderfully vulnerable but also hilarious. It’s very, very fun. My review of Season 1 is here and Season 2 here.
I don’t think either show conforms to all of Bezos’ rules. I mean, yes: There’s humor and betrayal and moral choices. But there’s no wish fulfillment (not unless your wish is to be a frustrated TV news anchor or depressed vampire). No cliffhangers. Civilization isn’t on the brink of being wiped out. These are relatively small and intimate stories about people (or, er, vampires) just doing their best under the circumstances, and often failing. The writing on both shows is sharp as a tack and attuned to the details of a specific time and place.
And they both have very clear things to say. One of the consistent themes of “Interview with the Vampire” is that immortality is a trap, which is why there’s no such thing as a well-adjusted vampire. Though undead, they are still saddled with messy human psychology. They are all unhappy. They are all hypocrites. They are all betrayers and betrayed. Somehow, so much comedy is threaded through this experience. But having watched humanity pass them by over the decades (in some cases even centuries) hasn’t made them any wiser or more emotionally healthy.
“The Newsreader” has other things on its mind, specifically the tension between the on-air perfection of its anchors and the complete chaos behind the scenes in their work lives and personal lives. There’s a sincere desire to cover the news and inform the public that’s mixed in with grubbier instincts about their careers. Once again, so much comedy is threaded through this experience. But that aforementioned tension is key, and it manifests in literal form when co-star Anna Torv is losing her shit, only to snap into perfection mode the second the camera is on her. It’s a fascinating transition, of utter control that can only last until the next commercial break.
I suppose the fact that these two shows have low audience awareness would suggest — to executives, anyway — there’s no point in backing these kinds of projects. Who cares if they’re good if barely anyone is watching? I don’t have an answer except to say: It’s clear that quality alone isn’t enough. Networks and streamers have to do their part to get these shows in front of people.
So what about original ideas?
When original ideas do get greenlit, they rarely have a subversive premise or challenge the status quo, instead falling within a narrow range of what’s currently considered acceptable.
Rick Ellis is an independent entertainment reporter who runs the digital site All Your Screens. He does really interesting work (often a great alternative to what you’ll find in the Hollywood trades) and in a recent newsletter, he wondered if a miniseries like 1977’s “Roots” would be made today. Now point of fact, this is IP; it’s based on Alex Haley’s 1976 novel in which the central character, Kunta Kinte, is abducted from Gambia in the 1700s and enslaved in the United States. But the question remains and Ellis is skeptical that a TV network or streamer would greenlight the project today, thanks to a collectively absurd jumpiness around any factual realities concerning the experiences of Black people. It would be deemed “woke” or “DEI” and therefore “political.”
Ellis talked to a development executive at a streamer who remained anonymous, but who said he felt that Ellis’ point was an “indirect criticism of what I do.”
First: Development executives should be able to weather some criticism, be it direct or indirect. Grow up!
Second: The idea that today’s executives aren’t “less willing to take on potentially controversial material” (in this person’s words) just isn’t borne out by what we see on screen. So that seems disingenuous.
They conceded that the industry might be more conservative about decisions right now. However:
That's not a reflection of any of our personal beliefs. It is primarily a reflection of the business right now. If audiences supported more adventurous material, someone would figure out a way to get it done.
Except audiences don’t care about the personal opinions of executives so much as the decisions that actually get made.
The executive is correct about some things. We are overwhelmed with choice, which is why very few titles get massive viewer numbers anymore. Or more specifically, the kinds of metrics that are usually important internally at streamers, namely completion rate, new subscribers and percentage of subscribers watching.
Marketing budgets have been slashed and promotion isn’t nearly as effective in our current splintered media landscape as it used to be, when most people read a daily newspaper and watched prime time television. So I’d wager executives are under a lot of pressure to go with pitches that seem like the safer bets, especially if they’re getting no support to take risks, either internally at work or externally from viewers.
It reminds me of recent conversations about the precarious state of criticism as a full-time writing job. It’s on readers to seek out reviews, and share them, in order to show that there’s an audience for this sort of thing. That’s no guarantee (other forces are shaping corporate decisions as well), but it’s not nothing. And I think the executive is saying something similar.
But then there’s reality. I don’t know how Hollywood can make 400+ scripted shows a year and pretend as if audiences can, or even want to, watch that much TV.
“Supporting” a movie or TV show by giving it your eyeballs a fine thing to do, if you choose. But too often this has been equated with activism, and I don’t think that’s the right framing either.
Watch a show or film because it’s good and it catches your interest. Talk about it with other people for those same reasons. But also leave room to dislike it, too, even if you want to see the writers, directors and actors get more opportunities in the future. We need to be able to acknowledge when something doesn’t work or doesn’t live up to its own ambitions, and I don’t think the solution is to encourage people to artificially inflate metrics because it feels “important” to support the people involved.
The thing about TV and film is that it’s an act of creativity that exists to be commercial entertainment. It’s right there in the name: Show business. The “business” side certainly wins out when these are publicly traded companies focused on next quarter’s results instead of the longterm health of the industry.
Wall Street sentiment, though, doesn’t have much in common with audience sentiment. That kind of disconnect won’t result in better TV and film.
Also this week:
As someone who works at a newspaper, I was curious to see how the world of journalism is portrayed in Peacock’s “The Paper,” which is a spinoff of sorts of “The Office.”
They’re trying to recapture lightning in a bottle, but I really didn’t like it:
[On “The Office”] the fortunes of a paper company aren't treated as high stakes because they simply aren't; Dunder Mifflin is yet another faceless corporation and people work there because it's a job. Not a job they want to lose if the company goes belly up because of their apathy, but a boring 9 to 5 nevertheless with all the attendant drudgery that implies. Which is why it doesn't seem weird when they're blowing off work and pulling pranks during those eight hours each day spent under the fluorescent lights.
A newspaper is a different proposition. The aim of any news outlet should be to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and if you value the work of newspapers — and I hope you do; you're reading this review in one! — then the stakes are considerably higher. Which is why the central premise that animated "The Office" doesn't graft on as neatly to the premise of "The Paper."
You can read my review here.
____________________________________
The TV assembly line illustration up top was created for this newsletter by Phineas X. Jones. More of his work can be found at www.octophant.us