Big Tech-funded TV facing a 'schism' in production styles claims Jon Stewart

AppleInsider

Comedian Jon Stewart says that tech giants like Apple and Amazon have wrought an "earthquake" in the way stream-on-demand shows like those on Apple TV+ are made.

Jon Stewart on The Problem With Jon Stewart. Credit: Apple TV+

Stewart, who has returned to "The Daily Show" as one of a rotating array of hosts, spoke with fellow comic Conan O'Brien on the latter's podcast about how making TV shows has changed. He pointed to Apple and Amazon specifically as tech companies that are now producing TV shows and movies.

He lamented how tech giants have brought a ruthless efficiency to television production. Stewart likened the change in styles to the shakeup that happens when powerful tech executives take over smaller companies.

Subscribe to AppleInsider on YouTube

"Silicon Valley walked in, in the way that Elon Musk walked into Twitter and went, How many people work here? 10,000? Make it two'" Stewart said.

Stewart saw his own Apple TV+ big-issue discussion show "The Problem With Jon Stewart" canceled a year ago for what he called "different agendas."

The death of the "writer's room"

Stewart specifically focused on the reduction of the traditional "writer's room," where storylines were traditionally hashed out among a group. He admitted that this "legacy business" model for scripted shows was "the most inefficient way" to create programs.

"The ethos of legacy entertainment is we've created this incredibly eccentric business where you need an agent and a manager and a lawyer, and they're gonna take about 60 percent of what you make, but without them, there's nothing you can do," Stewart noted. "And you join the studio, and the studio will give you a deal and you'll sit in your room."

Apple and other tech companies' styles of making their own products, services, and entertainment relies on far fewer people. Tech executives, in particular, promote only those who can handle high-pressure deadlines and yet reliably produce quality work.

"I can't function like that," Stewart admitted. O'Brien agreed, noting that his comedy-writer friends are finding it much harder to get work.

Stewart has previously pointed out that Apple blocked him from having US Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan on "The Problem"'s spinoff podcast, which set off a conflict that ultimately ended his Apple TV+ show.

Streaming TV productions: big budgets, but tighter control

"That's the schism, the earthquake that's been going through it," he said. "So, now Apple and Amazon, they go in and they go, Writer's room? Wait, you've got 14 writers and they're with you from start to finish on the production?'"

"Well," Steward said in reply to the hypothetical summary of Apple and Amazon's concerns, "it's important for the writers to be invested and also we're showing them how they're on the page because it's different about the page to the screen. They've got to understand how that works and understand how we interact with the props."

"And they're like, They can have three weeks and it's gotta be on Zoom. And you can have four of them'," Steward said. O'Brien agreed, saying the way TV is being produced is "changing radically."

"These companies don't believe in institutional knowledge that allows people to grow and get better and create more," Steward said. "What they believe now is the auteur system, which has always sort of existed within film and TV ... and this idea of ruthlessly efficient content factories, where what matters is the real estate and not the individual creative," he added.

The interview with Stewart appeared on the September 27, 2024 episode of the "Conan O'Brien Needs a Friend" podcast. The episode is available on YouTube, and should soon appear on both Apple Podcasts and Spotify Podcasts.



Read on AppleInsider

entropys

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

charles1

Old Man Yells At Cloud.

foregoneconclusion

IMO, Apple TV+ has always generally seemed high on production value and fairly mediocre on script quality. A lot of empty calories when it comes to the dialogue. 

chasm

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

chasm

charles1 said:

Old Man Yells At Cloud.

Literally!!  

entropys

chasm said:

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

Oh, I didn’t read it wrong,
I just whole heartedly disagree with Stewart’s view. In fact his whinging he only had four writers instead of his usual 14 seemed like a “let them eat cake” moment. 

Each story as a general rule should only have one writer. One.  maybe I would admit a writer and an apprentice. But that’s it. 

jrg_uk

These companies don't believe in institutional knowledge that allows people to grow and get better and create more," Steward said. "What they believe now is the auteur system, which has always sort of existed within film and TV ... and this idea of ruthlessly efficient content factories, where what matters is the real estate and not the individual creative,"

Which I find interesting, because that’s definitely not how it works in the Software biz, or really in any company. Companies are definitely the sums of their parts, and even if you have an occasional “rockstar” or “10x” developer or auteur, even if such people actually do exist, they can’t possibly do all the work by themselves and rely upon a wide team of people to get the actual work done.

AppleZulu

entropys said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

Oh, I didn’t read it wrong,
I just whole heartedly disagree with Stewart’s view. In fact his whinging he only had four writers instead of his usual 14 seemed like a “let them eat cake” moment. 

Each story as a general rule should only have one writer. One.  maybe I would admit a writer and an apprentice. But that’s it. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. People who have no comprehension of how something is made or done come in as management and treat everything like interchangeable widgets. They walk in, look at a process they know absolutely nothing about, slash staff and costs, then wonder why the result is terrible. 

So you fire all but one and a half of the writers and demand that they “produce content” on a tighter deadline. You only register the lower quality when viewership falls, because as a widgeteer, you have no idea what’s funny or not. 

Next, you fire the writer and keep the less expensive apprentice. Things get worse. You threaten to replace the apprentice writer with AI, which ironically “produces content” by distilling and regurgitating the output of all those writers rooms that used to exist, but algorithms have no actual sense of what’s funny, so that “product” stinks as well, and nobody’s watching your more efficiently managed show any more. 

But sure, you know more than the “whinging” Jon Stewart, who has nurtured and shepherded a writers room that produced a generation of the top comic actors and writers who have themselves gone on to collectively produce billions of dollars worth of the best comedic “content” in the last couple of decades. 

Of course, you’ll be oblivious to what you’ve destroyed and file a report on how you saved money, first by cutting the 14 writers, then by closing down a failing production unit. Your fellow widgeteers will reward you for all the money you saved and give you a huge bonus. Next thing you know, you’re a hot commodity hired by Boeing because they need an expert Vice President of Widgeteers to slash costs to meet their mysteriously falling revenue. 

spliff monkey

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

Tell me you’re an ill informed idiot without saying you’re an ill informed idiot. 

You don’t work in TV or Movies, but you have all of the answers huh? That’s an astounding ego you have there. 

entropys

AppleZulu said:

entropys said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

Oh, I didn’t read it wrong,
I just whole heartedly disagree with Stewart’s view. In fact his whinging he only had four writers instead of his usual 14 seemed like a “let them eat cake” moment. 

Each story as a general rule should only have one writer. One.  maybe I would admit a writer and an apprentice. But that’s it. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. People who have no comprehension of how something is made or done come in as management and treat everything like interchangeable widgets. They walk in, look at a process they know absolutely nothing about, slash staff and costs, then wonder why the result is terrible. 

So you fire all but one and a half of the writers and demand that they “produce content” on a tighter deadline. You only register the lower quality when viewership falls, because as a widgeteer, you have no idea what’s funny or not. 

Next, you fire the writer and keep the less expensive apprentice. Things get worse. You threaten to replace the apprentice writer with AI, which ironically “produces content” by distilling and regurgitating the output of all those writers rooms that used to exist, but algorithms have no actual sense of what’s funny, so that “product” stinks as well, and nobody’s watching your more efficiently managed show any more. 

But sure, you know more than the “whinging” Jon Stewart, who has nurtured and shepherded a writers room that produced a generation of the top comic actors and writers who have themselves gone on to collectively produce billions of dollars worth of the best comedic “content” in the last couple of decades. 

Of course, you’ll be oblivious to what you’ve destroyed and file a report on how you saved money, first by cutting the 14 writers, then by closing down a failing production unit. Your fellow widgeteers will reward you for all the money you saved and give you a huge bonus. Next thing you know, you’re a hot commodity hired by Boeing because they need an expert Vice President of Widgeteers to slash costs to meet their mysteriously falling revenue. 

It isn’t about money, I just don’t believe you can be creative by committee. You don’t get a work of art with 14 people working on it at once. Heck I would be happy if the one writer got paid as much as the 14 currently do cumulatively, if the product was good.

Writing by committee is the path to mediocrity.

AppleZulu

entropys said:

AppleZulu said:

entropys said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

Oh, I didn’t read it wrong,
I just whole heartedly disagree with Stewart’s view. In fact his whinging he only had four writers instead of his usual 14 seemed like a “let them eat cake” moment. 

Each story as a general rule should only have one writer. One.  maybe I would admit a writer and an apprentice. But that’s it. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. People who have no comprehension of how something is made or done come in as management and treat everything like interchangeable widgets. They walk in, look at a process they know absolutely nothing about, slash staff and costs, then wonder why the result is terrible. 

So you fire all but one and a half of the writers and demand that they “produce content” on a tighter deadline. You only register the lower quality when viewership falls, because as a widgeteer, you have no idea what’s funny or not. 

Next, you fire the writer and keep the less expensive apprentice. Things get worse. You threaten to replace the apprentice writer with AI, which ironically “produces content” by distilling and regurgitating the output of all those writers rooms that used to exist, but algorithms have no actual sense of what’s funny, so that “product” stinks as well, and nobody’s watching your more efficiently managed show any more. 

But sure, you know more than the “whinging” Jon Stewart, who has nurtured and shepherded a writers room that produced a generation of the top comic actors and writers who have themselves gone on to collectively produce billions of dollars worth of the best comedic “content” in the last couple of decades. 

Of course, you’ll be oblivious to what you’ve destroyed and file a report on how you saved money, first by cutting the 14 writers, then by closing down a failing production unit. Your fellow widgeteers will reward you for all the money you saved and give you a huge bonus. Next thing you know, you’re a hot commodity hired by Boeing because they need an expert Vice President of Widgeteers to slash costs to meet their mysteriously falling revenue. 

It isn’t about money, I just don’t believe you can be creative by committee. You don’t get a work of art with 14 people working on it at once. Heck I would be happy if the one writer got paid as much as the 14 currently do cumulatively, if the product was good.

Writing by committee is the path to mediocrity.

You're just proving my point about people making management decisions based on a lack of knowledge about the thing they're managing. It's not "writing by committee." Writers' rooms are a highly competitive process where everyone brings their best, pitches it, and only the funniest stuff ever makes it into a script. Writing comedy is incredibly hard, and only a coke-addled unicorn could go solo and carry a series or a Daily Show and have it be consistently funny. And while there are surely coke addled people who might think they're a unicorn, the reality is that unicorns don't exist. That's why comedy uses writers' rooms. 

P.S. As for works of art made by 14 people working on it at once, i sincerely doubt you could find even a single production on a Top 100 list of either television or film, in which one of these acknowledged works of art was made by fewer than 14 people working on it all at once. Sure, you could probably find some things with fewer than 14 credited writers, (maybe not on the television list), but the entire art form is, by its very nature, a collaborative process.

Marvin

entropys said:

AppleZulu said:

entropys said:

chasm said:

entropys said:

Writing by committee is no doubt a key factor in the malaise plaguing Hollywood these days. That and risk averse studios doing remakes, sequels and having series run way beyond their use by date.  

I think you misread the article somewhat. Stewart is arguing FOR writing by committee, but that’s not how most streaming shows work — scripts now are generally written by a single person or a very small team (two, three people tops).

Your comments on the problems with risk-averse studios, however, I heartily agree with.

Oh, I didn’t read it wrong,
I just whole heartedly disagree with Stewart’s view. In fact his whinging he only had four writers instead of his usual 14 seemed like a “let them eat cake” moment. 

Each story as a general rule should only have one writer. One.  maybe I would admit a writer and an apprentice. But that’s it. 

This is why we can’t have nice things. People who have no comprehension of how something is made or done come in as management and treat everything like interchangeable widgets. They walk in, look at a process they know absolutely nothing about, slash staff and costs, then wonder why the result is terrible. 

So you fire all but one and a half of the writers and demand that they “produce content” on a tighter deadline. You only register the lower quality when viewership falls, because as a widgeteer, you have no idea what’s funny or not. 

Next, you fire the writer and keep the less expensive apprentice. Things get worse. You threaten to replace the apprentice writer with AI, which ironically “produces content” by distilling and regurgitating the output of all those writers rooms that used to exist, but algorithms have no actual sense of what’s funny, so that “product” stinks as well, and nobody’s watching your more efficiently managed show any more. 

But sure, you know more than the “whinging” Jon Stewart, who has nurtured and shepherded a writers room that produced a generation of the top comic actors and writers who have themselves gone on to collectively produce billions of dollars worth of the best comedic “content” in the last couple of decades. 

Of course, you’ll be oblivious to what you’ve destroyed and file a report on how you saved money, first by cutting the 14 writers, then by closing down a failing production unit. Your fellow widgeteers will reward you for all the money you saved and give you a huge bonus. Next thing you know, you’re a hot commodity hired by Boeing because they need an expert Vice President of Widgeteers to slash costs to meet their mysteriously falling revenue. 

It isn’t about money, I just don’t believe you can be creative by committee. You don’t get a work of art with 14 people working on it at once. Heck I would be happy if the one writer got paid as much as the 14 currently do cumulatively, if the product was good.

Writing by committee is the path to mediocrity.

Different types of content have different production pipelines. Jon Stewart is talking about a daily current affairs comedy talk show. Those writers aren't all working on the same material, it's a joke factory where they are looking at current news and trying to come up with something funny to say about each news segment:

A TV show with a storyline needs fewer writers as it has to follow a story arc. Game of Thrones only had a few writers. Here's an episode credits:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4283094/fullcredits/

George R.R. Martin was the original writer of the book and David Benioff and D.B. Weiss adapted it for a TV screenplay.

Foundation was written by Isaac Asimov, screenplay by David S. Goyer and Josh Friedman with some editors:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8887574/fullcredits/

There can be a disconnect when production companies who are accustomed to making narrative TV shows try to produce comedy talk shows the same way and vice versa.