How 'Stranger Things' Defined the Era of the Algorithm (nytimes.com) 21
As Stranger Things releases the first four episodes of its final season today, nearly a decade after its July 2016 premiere, the Netflix series has come to represent something broader than its own popularity -- the embodiment of streaming television's algorithmic philosophy. When the show first appeared, streaming was still finding its footing. Netflix had been producing original series for only a few years, and services like Disney+, Apple TV and HBO Max did not yet exist.
The question then was what form streaming originals would take: experimental fare like Sense8, nonlinear storytelling like the revived Arrested Development, or prestige dramas like House of Cards. The answer came from a popcorn horror thriller set in 1980s small-town Hawkins, Indiana. Matt and Ross Duffer built Stranger Things from vintage pop-culture parts -- Spielberg's coming-of-age sensibilities from E.T., Stephen King's horror and adolescent bonding, John Hughes' mean jocks and soulful goths, and references ranging from Kate Bush to The NeverEnding Story to casting Winona Ryder of Heathers and Beetlejuice fame.
New York Times critic James Poniewozik calls the series "a human-made equivalent of the algorithm" -- the software engine that drives streaming's "if you liked that, you'll like this" recommendation philosophy. Netflix did not invent the idea of copying television success, but the algorithm automated it and made it part of the creative operating system. The show's structure also fits streaming's mechanics: binge-watching encouragement, irregular release schedules, and episodes that assume audiences have time (the last season finale ran two hours and 22 minutes). The story adds: It's why you see a menu of similar thumbnail recommendations once you finish streaming a favorite series, encouraging you not to discover but to replicate. But the spirit behind it also explains why so much original streaming TV feels like the creative product of an algorithm. Consider the recent Netflix drama "The Beast in Me," which pairs familiar prestige-TV stars (Claire Danes of "Homeland" and Matthew Rhys of "The Americans") in a grim, upscale thriller that vaguely recalls something you might have seen on early 2010s Showtime or FX.
Creating the new by swallowing and regurgitating the old is also the signature move of generative A.I., which may be why that medium is so effective at creating works of burnished nostalgia. On Instagram and TikTok, accounts with names like "Maximal Nostalgia" serve up honeyed, uncanny images and videos that testify to how much better life was in a 1980s and 1990s that never existed.
The question then was what form streaming originals would take: experimental fare like Sense8, nonlinear storytelling like the revived Arrested Development, or prestige dramas like House of Cards. The answer came from a popcorn horror thriller set in 1980s small-town Hawkins, Indiana. Matt and Ross Duffer built Stranger Things from vintage pop-culture parts -- Spielberg's coming-of-age sensibilities from E.T., Stephen King's horror and adolescent bonding, John Hughes' mean jocks and soulful goths, and references ranging from Kate Bush to The NeverEnding Story to casting Winona Ryder of Heathers and Beetlejuice fame.
New York Times critic James Poniewozik calls the series "a human-made equivalent of the algorithm" -- the software engine that drives streaming's "if you liked that, you'll like this" recommendation philosophy. Netflix did not invent the idea of copying television success, but the algorithm automated it and made it part of the creative operating system. The show's structure also fits streaming's mechanics: binge-watching encouragement, irregular release schedules, and episodes that assume audiences have time (the last season finale ran two hours and 22 minutes). The story adds: It's why you see a menu of similar thumbnail recommendations once you finish streaming a favorite series, encouraging you not to discover but to replicate. But the spirit behind it also explains why so much original streaming TV feels like the creative product of an algorithm. Consider the recent Netflix drama "The Beast in Me," which pairs familiar prestige-TV stars (Claire Danes of "Homeland" and Matthew Rhys of "The Americans") in a grim, upscale thriller that vaguely recalls something you might have seen on early 2010s Showtime or FX.
Creating the new by swallowing and regurgitating the old is also the signature move of generative A.I., which may be why that medium is so effective at creating works of burnished nostalgia. On Instagram and TikTok, accounts with names like "Maximal Nostalgia" serve up honeyed, uncanny images and videos that testify to how much better life was in a 1980s and 1990s that never existed.
Re: (Score:1)
Same here
This is a pessimistic take don't you think? (Score:3)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm right in the middle of K-Pop Demon Hunters...
Re: This is a pessimistic take don't you think? (Score:2)
Sure, they tried, but nowadays they are much more empowered to actually do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Creating the new by swallowing and regurgitating the old is also the signature move of generative A.I.
Let me fix that:
Creating the new by swallowing and regurgitating the old is how nearly all art has been created for as long as anyone can remember. You don't create in a vacuum. You take existing ideas and existing styles, remix them, and create something new out of them. If you do it well, the result is original and artistic. If you do it badly, the result is conventional and formulaic. Most art ends up being conventional, but that's ok. Not everything needs to be a work of genius.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a random mix of things people like, throw them together and hope people pay for it. See also: CoD and Fortnite. No one cares if Star Trek and Star Wars stay separate anymore. I want to see Harry Potter riding a Bantha.
Re: (Score:2)
If chasing ratings is taken too far, you end up with Fox used to be, where shows would get cancelled a few episodes into their first season because they were not instant mega hits. Netflix is nearly as bad, cancelling stuff days after it premiers.
A lot of shows took a season or two to really find their feet. A lot of shows that struggled early on ended up doing very well in syndication, or started a long running franchise.
is it though? (Score:2)
It looks more like the usual recipe of: trying random things, having no idea whatsoever why something was popular, then when something works beating it to death with repetition and increasing political correctness until even the hardest core fans wont watch it, then reluctantly canceling it.
Re: (Score:2)
... when something works beating it to death with repetition and increasing political correctness until even the hardest core fans wont watch it,
I think that's more of an advertising problem, ad buyers want the biggest main stream payout. Never underestimate these fuckers, its the ads, the show doesn't mean shit.
Re: is it though? (Score:3)
Political correctness? From what I've heard, Stranger Things had a heavy handed political turn in later seasons, but it wasn't to the left.
That explains why I don't watch Netflix (Score:1)
Anyone actually watching this? (Score:1)
Honestly, I have no idea who is still watching this show. The first season was plenty, it was a kinda cute kinda trope-y idea they executed generally well, it was sweet and fun to watch. That was all it should have ever been.
Every following season got worse and more tiresome. If anything, it should be a hallmark how not to do it.
If you personally enjoy it, more power to each and every one of you. I just cannot imagine who actually watches it anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much the only reason Netflix paid for this piece of native advertising.
The age of the algorithm? (Score:2)
"Stranger Things" didn't define the age of the algorithm The age of the algorithm started around 2500 BC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's not that good (Score:1)
I mean, the first season was decent, but then it quickly devolved into fan service and product placement galore.
Netflix incentives bad season ends (Score:2)
Netflix doesn't tell in advance if there will be money for the next season, but they wait for the numbers of people watching the current one. This leads to each season trying to both have an open end to make people want the next one and an end that could be the conclusion of the series, so that each season ends with a few weird episodes. Trying to appease the watchers also leads to strange jumps in the topic, changing the overall feeling of the show or making the topic "more exciting" in the next season, re