Pandora’s Box: The Greed, Lust, and Lies That Broke Television

by Peter Biskind

AN ECONOMIST BOOK OF THE YEAR


From The Sopranos to the scandalous behind-the-screens story of the TV revolution by the author of the cult film classic Easy Riders, Raging Bulls.

The revolution has been televized. From The Sopranos to Stranger Things, the shows we watch - and the ways we watch them - have been transformed over the past fifty years. Out of the bland wasteland of 'play-it-safe' broadcasting came astonishing stories of sex, violence, and corruption shown first on cable, and then by way of streaming. Today, the power of viewers to select what they want and when they want it is greater than ever before. In short, we are living in a new golden age of television, but golden ages don't last forever. Revolutions have a habit of eating their own, and the era of 'peak TV' may have an unhappy ending.

Pandora's Box is a major new account of the small screen from cultural critic Peter Biskind. Through exclusive, candid and colourful interviews with writers, showrunners, directors and actors, Biskind brings us face to face with the people whose creations we encounter every day on our sofas, and reveals the dynamic interplay of art, commerce and technology. We follow executives down the corridors of power and see how their money and guile cultivate, then crush creativity; we witness the making - and unmaking - of TVs biggest hits. There has never been a more exciting time in entertainment history, and Peter Biskind, the ideal insider guide, captures it all.

Genres: Nonfiction, Film, Audiobook, History, Tv, Media Tie In, Business

385 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 7, 2023

About the author

Peter Biskind is an American cultural critic, film historian, and journalist, best known for his tenure as executive editor of Premiere magazine from 1986 to 1996. He attended Swarthmore College and authored several influential books on Hollywood, including Easy Riders, Raging Bulls and Down and Dirty Pictures, some of which became bestsellers. In 2010, he published a biography of Warren Beatty titled Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America. Biskind is a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, with work appearing in major publications like Rolling Stone, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He served as editor-in-chief of American Film from 1981 to 1986. His books have been translated into over thirty languages. Despite his acclaim, some critics, including Roger Ebert, have challenged the accuracy of certain anecdotes in his works.

Reviews

[Muffin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Peter Biskind has written extensively about the movie business but when it comes to television it feels like he really doesn’t have much to say. Most of what he says about HBO is either addressed previously or directed quotes from the HBO oral history that came out a year or two ago. His analysis of antihero television post-Sopranos is basically a retread of Bret Martin’s Difficult Men. He has a tendency to assume that a show that does poorly in ratings was inevitably bad, as though there’s any connection between a show’s success and its quality, or any way to predict either. He repeatedly refers to the hiring of any woman in an executive role as a byproduct of MeToo which is just straight up sexist. This book has very little to say about the past couple of decades of television and works better as a lit review.

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you need to read a history of cable and streaming TV from The Sopranos to the present, you'll find Peter Biskind's account interesting, but lacking the magic that made Easy Riders, Raging Bulls (ERRB) so incessantly entertaining. Biskind alternates between the executives who decide what gets done and the creatives who actually do it. The creatives are much more interesting. The boardroom stories lack a character like Bob Evans from ERRB and are pretty boring; people seem to get fired before we really get to know who they are.

The formula will be familiar to those who read ERRB. Oddballs who buck the system spark a creative revolution, which is eventually mainstreamed by the suits upstairs. Perhaps that summary sells the book a bit short, as Biskind's accounts does embrace many contradictory elements. As a non-regular television viewer I learned plenty and I now realize there are some interesting shows I still need to see. But unlike ERBB which celebrated 70s cinema, this is definitely not a celebration of the triumphs of the peak TV era (although Biskind acknowledges the creative flourishing that occurred), but more of a dive into the venality of the entire industry.

As the leader of a nonfiction book club, I'm usually looking for books that will generate interest in a subject rather than just support that interest. Pandora's Box is strictly a supporter.

Thanks to netgalley for providing an early copy for review.

[Kristofer D · Rating 2 out of 5]

I learned about this one from James Meek’s terrific review essay in the London Review of Books. Every now and then the LRB will run a review of a book that is superior to the book itself, and this is one of those instances. Anyone looking for a thoughtful meditation on peak TV ought to read Meek’s review; Biskind’s book itself is gossipy and lighter than air.

There’s no particularly developed argument to Biskind’s book; instead the reader is treated to a succession of anecdotes interspersed with catty quips. Illustrative of the quality of the latter, we are treated to this assessment of the DC Extended Universe:

…the only hive of superheroes that could conceivably challenge the MCU, is no treat, either: see 2016’s embarrassing Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Boredom (oops, that’s Justice) (270)

Wowza - zing!

The quality of the jokes aside, this book perhaps would have benefitted from more extensive fact-checking. At times, it is easy to infer the correction. For example we learn that “In October of 2012, Jeff Bezos surprised everyone by praising Netflix for its hit Squid Game. (241)” Squid Game came out in 2021, so it’s an easy error to spot, and to correct. Simple mistake. But a more substantial error occurs earlier in the book, as Biskind related the development of HBO’s memoryholed Vinyl from 2016:

The Wolf of Wall Street, written by Terry Winter, had been Scorsese’s biggest grosser, so the director called him in 2008 and asked if he’d be interested in helping him with Vinyl. (170)

The Wolf of Wall Street came out in 2013. So maybe this is just another example of a simple mistaken date. But in the following paragraph we learn: “But the stock market crashed in 2008, and it was not the time for a $100 million Scorsese movie.” (171) Wait - what? An odd assertion, given that The Wolf of Wall Street’s budget was - you guessed it - $100 million.

Much earlier on, we encounter perhaps the most egregious example of Biskind’s penchant for confused chronology. Discussing the prehistory of HBO’s Oz, we learn that writer Tom Fontana developed a show for NBC called The Philanthropist. After Iron Man was released, NBC wanted The Philanthropist to be more like the debut MCU film. So they fired Fontana from The Philanthropist, then rehired him later. The show, we learn, was never picked up because NBC decided to give Jay Leno a ten o’clock time slot instead (19). Apparently freed up to do something more creatively fulfilling, Fontana is contacted while shooting Homicide - HBO CEO Chris Albrecht is interested in Fontana’s show about life in prison, Oz (20).

What is trivially wrong in this telling is that Iron Man was released in 2008, a full five years after Oz was off the air. The entire anecdote about The Philanthropist - which aired eight episodes in the summer of 2009 - had to have taken place well after Oz’s development. The immediately following paragraph notes that Fontana was shooting Homicide when Oz began production. Is this just sloppy editing? Biskind would seem to be trying to shoehorn Fontana’s treatment by networks into the creation myth of HBO, but this particular story happened after the series finales not just of Oz, but of Sex and the City, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, The Shield, and after the premieres of Mad Men and Breaking Bad. Whatever it is Biskind is trying to relate here, it is chronologically out of place and, moreover, misleading.

There are other errors in the book I won’t detail, and I’m certain there are many more errors I didn’t catch (full disclosure, I have not watched more than a few minutes of most of these shows, and I did not watch any of them as they originally aired - I just have access to Wikipedia). The density of errors presumably is an artifact of the way the book was composed - there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of a central guiding thesis, and Biskind’s knowledge of the world appears to extend no further than Hollywood itself as an industry. But he does like interviewing disgruntled former employees and cast members! So the book takes the shape of a series of gossipy anecdotes that do not always appear to advance the book’s argument. Accordingly, I found it very difficult to follow the truly colossal number of “characters” in the book. Since the first names are typically dropped after the first mention, I found myself repeatedly making Google searches like “Albrecht HBO” or “Fuchs HBO” and so on.

Is this book a profound meditation on the cultural impact of “prestige TV”? No. Is it reliable a history of the emergence of prestige TV within the broader entertainment industry? Also no. Does it paint a vivid picture of the conflict between commerce and art? No, not really - Biskind doesn’t seem particularly committed to artistry, so much as he is interested in the whole milieu of money and gossip and awards and so on. We know The Sopranos is good because the critics and award shows say it is good; but what exactly makes The Shield “good”? And, for that matter, aside from the quantum leap in violence and graphic depictions of sex, what is it that makes prestige TV a quantum leap in quality over, say, The Simpsons or Seinfeld (or, for that matter, Homicide or Twin Peaks or an even more defiantly middle brow blockbuster like Law and Order)? (Meek makes this suggestion in his LRB review.)

Anyhow, this book was bad and you’ll save time reading James Meek’s LRB review instead. If you still have a hankering to read it after reading Meek’s piece, go for it - the only significant flaw of Meek’s otherwise admirable review is he does not give the full impression of just how bad the experience of opening Pandora’s Box truly is.

[Sean Carlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating and, with copious integrated citations and exclusive one-on-one interviews, exceptionally well-researched analysis of the creative and socioeconomic evolution of televisional storytelling from network (during the late-20th century) to cable (at the turn of the millennium) to streaming (the 21st century).

Biskind demonstrates how broadcast television started out as advertiser-driven, middle-of-the-road dreck before the "cable revolution" of the aughts, which led to post-Sopranos "Peak TV" -- a so-called "golden age" of prestige premium-cable drama. Then streaming services -- Netflix and Apple and Amazon, whose Big Tech business model isn't beholden to profit like the capitalistic studios/networks of yore -- turned everything into "content," and shows incrementally became unwieldy "ten-hour movies," and now with the return of ad-supported subscription tiers, TV is undergoing a creative regression:

When a streamer known for originals remakes itself in the image of a studio or a network, it is indeed on its way to becoming a studio or network, producing studio and network content: bland, bloated, and inoffensive. All in all, there are too many streamers making too many shows, a lot of them of questionable quality, leaving consumers oversubscribed and underwhelmed.

Biskind spins a compelling, even persuasive narrative, but it is ultimately predicated on an ethically dubious premise: that the only artistically worthy period of television history was the one that showcased uncensored stories about antiheroes -- Tony Soprano, Raylan Givens, Don Draper, Walter White, Vic Mackey, et al. Because those characters were complex. They were real.

These are the vigilantes and revenge figures whose appeal lies in doing the wrong thing, refusing to play by the rules because their bullshit detectors tell them the American Dream is a fraud, constructed by the powerful to benefit themselves.

Yeah, okay. Maybe. Not really. Jesus, what is it about old white men (speaking as one) and our holier-than-thou antiheroes? These "vigilantes and revenge figures" aren't social justice warriors "breaking the rules" for the greater good; they're rage-addicted grievance collectors, cursed to be the righteous voice of reason in a world full of idiots. This is the same faulty logic displayed by Quentin Tarantino in Cinema Speculation (reviewed here) when he asserts

the curse of eighties cinema. . . . was that the complex and complicated lead characters of the seventies were the characters that eighties cinema avoided completely. Complex characters aren't necessarily sympathetic. Interesting people aren't always likeable. But in the Hollywood of the eighties likeability was everything. A novel could have a low-down son of a bitch at its center, as long as that low-down son of a bitch was an interesting character.

Biskind reveres the violent, antisocial, nihilistic antiheroes of '00s "prestige" TV the way Tarantino exalts the violent, antisocial, nihilistic antiheroes of '70 exploitation cinema. And I can't help but wonder: When it comes to characterization, why do both Biskind and Tarantino equate violence and nihilism -- the antisocial values of a "low-down son of a bitch" -- with complexity?

That is the same fallacy on which Kyle Buchanan's effusive paean to George Miller's Mad Max, Blood, Sweat & Chrome: The Wild and True Story of Mad Max: Fury Road (reviewed here), is premised: violent antiheroes are complicated characters. It's the same mentality that fuels Michael Mann's 470-page ode to hypermasculinity Heat 2 (reviewed here).

I would argue -- as did James Poniewozik in his excellent history of television Audience of One: Television, Donald Trump, and the Fracturing of America -- our culture's endless glorification of tough-guy antiheroes, "the vigilantes and revenge figures whose appeal lies in doing the wrong thing [and] refusing to play by the rules," has played no small part in the degradation of the social compact and the fraying of the social fabric that is now threatening to break Western democracy.

The aughts may've very well been a "golden age of TV," but if that's in the rearview now... well, that's just fine by me. Hollywood's ongoing existential crisis might very well mean -- call me an optimist -- less cultural pollution, i.e., fewer stories promoting individualism, antiheroism, and petro-masculinity. That would be a true golden age indeed.

[Cara · Rating 4 out of 5]

An eye-opening look into the current state of one of my favorite things: television.

From premium cable practically inventing prestige drama to basic cable following suit to streamers exploding on our devices to...whatever sub-era we're in now, Pandora's Box covers it all. I really dig post-modern dives into our current culture; it's always fun and interesting to assess what we're all experiencing in real time and to guess what the future will bring. This would pair well with a few recent books written about HBO as well as Reed Hastings' book about creating Netflix.

Minor nitpick: I could have done without the author's editorializing, only because it wasn't consistent. It read like a straight nonfiction until he would randomly make a snarky comment, which put me off.

Good stuff. Thanks to the publisher and NG!

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

The evident effort and insight in other Biskind show-biz books isn’t found too much here. Although he interviewed dozens of industry players, he could’ve cobbled together a good 90% of Pandora’s Box with only streamer subscriptions and access to Variety and Hollywood Reporter online archives. I enjoyed more the book’s second half, focusing on the streamers’ business machinations, than the first half, which is primarily a series of brief write-ups of the bigger shows seen on pay services and the basic cablers.

[Jeff Bursey · Rating 3 out of 5]

An adequately-written (some sentences get away from the author) overview and occasional deep dive into the genesis and life of streamers and cable channels that, at one time, challenged the networks. It's a light read, and Biskind chooses apt quotations to show that everyone, or maybe only 99.5%, of those involved in this industry are rotters (to some people, or to all people). The book takes us up to sometime in 2023 so it is close to where things are now.

[Miika Moilanen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hyvä, vaikka välillä hieman kiemurteleva, läpileikkaus TV:n / striimauspalveluiden lähihistoriasta. Välillä vähän liikaa nokkeluuksia ja perustelemattomia mielipiteitä sarjoista ja elokuvista.

[Belaraniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Бискинд лучший, тв сосет, и все такое прочее
На самом деле, реально офигенная журналистская работа, проделанная по горячим следам, но с удивительной цепкостью взгляда, выхватывающего in the eye of the storm главное.

[Rebecca Oliver · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was interesting but weird. it was very condensed, like you couldn’t skip a sentence. it was abrupt. it also was so much fact and so little perspective for a lot of it—i’ve never seen someone present so much information that condemns media figures without moralizing or going on at all about the consequences of what they did? it also became tiresome in the last 100 pages because it stopped feeling like it was about the competition between hbo and cable, and was more about the mass tangle that is streaming. that’s history’s fault more than the authors. interesting, but not amazing, and late at the library !

[Nadia Zeemeeuw · Rating 3 out of 5]

There were segments in this book which truly fascinated me. There was a whole parade of some very bad but frustratingly influential people - and in this madness sometimes I was completely lost.
In the end it turned out to be a nice book to listen to while walking - it gives you a lot of insights into show making world but not demands too much from you as a reader.

[Amber · Rating 2 out of 5]

I enjoyed the informative breakdown of the history of the golden age of television that is in a state of transition to who knows where, but I find Biskind’s attempts at humor and witticisms lacking if not outright cringe. He also lacks a real understanding of trans-ness and I often felt his age and cis-whiteness. Further he has a great grasp of the history of these execs and studios but not of the creative side of the industry - saying for instance that the Spiderverse films “do away with actors entirely” just because their characters are animated.

[Megan Hurley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was interesting. Seems like a very incestuous industry and that a few hubristic men have kinda ruined it for all of us.

[Yevhenii · Rating 4 out of 5]

Детальна розповідь Пітера Біскінда про сценаристів та керівників, які закладали основу епохи «розквіту телебачення», і що сталося, коли в гру вступив Netflix.

[Chris M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some people might like it, but it drops too many names for me to stay interested. This was a DNF for me

[Steven West · Rating 4 out of 5]

Peter Biskind turns his hand to what many consider a golden age of television - and its evolution into our current state of play where Amazon spends almost a billion to make / promote a Lord of the Rings series no one seems to have enjoyed, while whole movies like Batgirl are cheaper to bin off than release. It's a fascinating / horrifying peek behind the curtain, encompassing grim tales of sexual harassment, terrible decisions, mass hirings and firings and how HBO's bold 'Oz' directly and indirectly led to entertainment both spectacular and pitiful. All of it punctuated by Biskind's marvellously catty commentary.

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of the book is a bit misleading, it’s more about the transition from network TV to cable (specifically through HBO) to streamers rather than just TV in general. However I do feel like the author artfully uses HBO and its origins as a guide to follow the ever changing landscape of TV and how the industry works. As for the book itself I think it’s a great achievement, if you’re like me and you love deep diving into Hollywood, the industry and how TV shows are made I can’t recommend this book enough. It also gave me some great recommendations for shows to watch like Weeds which I hadn’t even heard of before I read the book. Agile and gripping, this book is incredibly entertaining for a non fiction work. Highly recommend!

[Patrick Kirby · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was a huge fan of Mr. Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," which chronicled the so-called "New Hollywood" era of the 1970s and so I was eager to see how he tackled what could be considered the New Hollywood era of television.

The Good Stuff: He provides a well-researched overview of the rise of Prestige television from the late 90s to today. He is well sourced and seemed to have spoken to many people. He also writes in a casual, almost stream of consciousness style that is fun and engaging. Finally, his overall thesis is clear and well-suporrted.

The bad stuff: While clearly deeply researched, there were all few sloppy mistakes. For example, he twice refers to a major character on "The Americans" as Marsha (It's Martha.) He also injectsts Politics where it doesn't belong by trying to tie Donald Trump to people who he admits are Democrats. Finally, he has some biases against certain Americans that clearly shine through. Apparently, only minorities and white people on the Coasts are able to appreciate the more sophisticated programing of HBO, while the people of flyover country are only into dumb reality programs.


Overall, this book is an informative look and is generally well written.

[Alex Nagler · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's not TV, it's HBO. It's not HBO, it's streaming. It's not streaming, it's why the WGA and SAG are striking/about to strike. Peter Biskind's "Pandora's Box" covers the history of how TV became today's TV and why we will likely never see anything akin to one show receiving four Leading Actor nomination for a single show on broadcast television. Biskind gets everyone relevant to talk on the record about the last 24 years of television and content. A must read for everyone either interested in watching TV or working in TV.

My thanks to NetGalley for the advanced copy

[Marissa Dobulis · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book felt like a series of those "for you" articles that hold your attention for only half the story.

Part 3 was the most interesting.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

My thanks to both NetGalley and the publisher William Morrow for an advance copy of this new book that looks at the rise of prestige television, streaming services and the regression that both seem to be experiencing as money and smarter-than-thou executives leave their prints on the market.

I watched a lot of television as a child, but the rise of prestige television was never that interesting to me. I watched a few episodes of Sopranos, tried Breaking Bad, hated Walking Dead, didn't care a bit for Game of Thrones. They just weren't for me. Working in bookstores it would be all that you heard, especially when books came out for these shows around the holidays. I might be more of a movie person, its hard to say. Maybe growing up in the 80's and 90's I still think of television as a junky medium, cop shows, evening soaps, and shows that one could just watch, laugh and walk away. Not binge, which is something I can not imagine doing. Maybe I watched two episodes of a Marvel show once, to be honest. I was late to streaming, still using Netflix for the DVD's by mail as the selection was better. And to see what has happened in the last five years is amazing. And depressing for what might have been, and what has been lost. Peter Biskind, journalist and writer for many Hollywood magazines and great books on movies has turned his all seeing-eye on the rise of television, from shows to streaming and what the future holds, for the companies, writers, producers and actors.

The book begins with a look at HBO starting from a small company with little dreams, but one that used existing technology and sheer gumption to get ahead. HBO was also gifted with a unique group of executives, men who cared little for social niceties, and women who were willing to overlook the rampant sexual discrimination that was prevalent at the time. Desperate for content, and having enough shows that had Sex in the title, ie Real Sex, Hunt's Point Hookers, etc, HBO began to look at expanding their lineup and attracting talent. Drawn to HBO as they had nothing in the way of Standards and Practices came creators like Darren Star with Sex and the City, sure it had sex in the title, but it was aimed at woman, David Chase whose Sopranos put HBO on the playing field and make others take notice. Take notice in that others began to make television shows, upstarts like AMC and Showtime. Meanwhile a little company that sent DVD's by mail was starting to gain marketplace acceptance, and borrowing a lot of cash to make their presence known. A company that many HBO, Amazon and others had a chance to buy out, but didn't to their detriment, Netflix.

What an amazing read. A page-turner in that one knows what happens, but not how we got there. Peter Biskind can write both from the talent's point of view, why these channels offered more opportunities than networks, what working for this show biz geniuses was like, and from a business point of view, hemorrhaging budgets, stupid executives, sexual accusations. Biskind has done the research, talked to everyone that matters, mostly on the record, and told a history of an amazing time in entertainment where great things were being done, and suddenly money got in the way. And technology. And egos. And more. The book is both straight non-fiction with a bit of gossip that really makes one feel like an insider. And sometimes glad that one is not involved in this world.

I have been a fan of Peter Biskind's writing since Easy Rider, Raging Bulls Biskind's look at the 70's and its cinema. I really think this is Biskind's best as the scope is so large,and yet so well explained. Many of the problems that writers and actors have gone on strike for are here as nascent little hiccups, ready to metastasize into huge conflicts. Recommended for television fans, entertainment readers and for those like myself who want to see what all the hype is. This is the perfect gift for anyone who like media of any kind.

[Maynard Handley · Rating 3 out of 5]

The worst sort of journalistic crap. Peter Biskind has zero curiosity, but absolute fidelity to virtue signal whatever he is told to.
And so we get a book that should be fascinating and merely ho-hum.

The basic problem is that because Biskind has never had an original thought in his life, all we get is one damn cliche after another. At the start, during the HBO years, all we hear is how important it is that creators get the control they want. But then, once we hit the streaming years, it suddenly becomes unimportant that they have the control they wanted, now the issue of money (which we were told was so unimportant 100 pages ago) becomes all important as we complain how unfair the new deals are.

We begin by being told that it's a tragedy how few ideas can make it to the screen; of course by the time we hit streaming it's now a tragedy that so many ideas are hitting the screen. The analysis is that of a petulant child, unaware of what it wants, but still furious that the world will not deliver it. There's zero thought given to the idea that, perhaps the *very fact of so much content* (what you claimed you wanted) is the reason there's no longer any worthwhile backend. There's zero thought given to the economics of this new world - apparently Netflix makes mean deals because they are mean, not because they were bleeding money and still are not especially secure.

And of course there is the endless fscking woke thread throughout the book. Never interesting, never valuable, just a constant whining that someone was fired because they were the wrong gender, or sexuality or race or whatever. There's no interest in the idea that the viewership does not care about the identities of characters WHEN THOSE CHARACTERS ARE INTERESTING; no, if people reject a show that's all about sexual identity, that's because the viewers are awful people, not because the show is boring as heck.
We start off with some obvious analysis (Sopranos kickstarted things, Oz, Deadwood, the usual suspects) but once that gets going, Biskind has zero interest in the shows that were actually extremely successful, and why; all he wants to do is repeat the usual cliches about the oh-so-predictable politically correct shows that we're all supposed to watch (but don't, because most of us lost our tast for propaganda at around 8 yrs old). He has zero interest in either finance or economics, so no usefuls analysis on that front. All he can offer up is a stream of complaints about why even the wokest shows were not woke enough, and insider gossip about how this spoiled brat executive was replaced by that spoiled brat executive. Even in this space, apparently his specialty, he has no useful analysis as to the differing levels of competence of different executives and what made some more successful than others; his only trick is to count the number of trans or black or female or whatever shows and flunkies were hired, and score based on that.

It's worth skipping through it rapidly if you want something of an overview of how we got from HBO to Netflix to today, but only until a better book (which will not be hard) comes along.

[Dave Morris · Rating 3 out of 5]

There's a lot here that interested me, but I quickly tired of the "storyteller journalist" approach of introducing every character with a little quirky prose sketch -- "a slender man with deep-set eyes, a broad expanse of forehead, and a mouth that alternates between wry amusement and a frown, as if he has bitten into a lemon." If it's intended to help the reader remember who's who, the effect is cancelled out by Biskind's practice of referring to people by only their surnames even though every quote he gives us from their co-workers tends to use only the first names. So you have to keep flipping to the index to figure out who we're hearing about.

The main takeaway is that many of the showrunners behave like extremely obnoxious children who have been badly parented, constantly throwing tantrums and pens and laptops around the room and maltreating everyone who they are able to bully. One of them liked to piss in his colleagues' pen cups. It's not like you have to be a jerk with poor impulse control to manage a cast and crew, so I guess these guys just enjoy it.

Biskind gets a few things wrong. He says that the character in The Shield who strangles a cat is a "bad-good guy", but he's not. That's Dutch, who is one of the honest, conscientious cops in the show. Biskind also says, "Audiences want to see Captain America, not Chris Evans, who is more or less indistinguishable from the other three Chrises -- Pine, Pratt, and Hemsworth -- especially when they're hooded." Pine's and Hemsworth's characters are not masked even in the comics, and Evans and Pratt leave their comic book masks off for most of their movies. Also, Biskind goes on to say that nobody cares who plays Batman, despite having told us a few pages earlier that Michael Keaton is "everybody's favourite Batman" and that his presence in the Batgirl movie was supposed to be a huge draw.

Anyway, it's a quick read and if you like some of the shows there are some interesting behind-the-scenes details. What I particularly liked was the emphasis on how the best shows (The Americans, Breaking Bad, The Shield, The Sopranos) eschew resolutions, predictable arcs, payoffs and "closure" -- all the Hollywood snake oil that is peddled to wannabe scriptwriters these days.

[Sean Wicks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter Biskind has written some of the best books about film and the entertainment industry, but this one is one of his weakest efforts. It feels like a whole lot of proclaiming "the sky is falling" with an extra doomsday vibe that it always has been falling and always is. A lot of the information felt like it has been relayed better in other books (the HBO sections for instance) and while all the companies have huge hits which he talks about, it seems they are always followed by massive failures where Biskind claims companies like HBO are suddenly in the doghouse. I remember the shows he mentions as dropping in quality as being so-so (John From Cincinnati, the on-set disaster that was Luck, etc.), but I don't remember ever thinking HBO was in a disastrous glut following Deadwood, The Sopranos or Sex In The City. It's this handwringing of "everything is a pending disaster" that gets frustrating after a while. He does thankfully and correctly call out many of the toxic creators that are often tolerated because they are "artists", not to mention the lack of diversity in many of the writer rooms and executive suites.

Yes, entertainment is broken (for the moment) and the fact that the book covers the business right up to the recent strikes makes it up-to-date. Entertainment has been broken before, then righted itself, and will break again. That's just how things go. This gives you at least a snapshot of where we are at now, but the how we got here feels weak and overblown. You can get this information and handled more competently from listening to Kim Master on The Business podcast, Matt Belloni on the Town podcast or via the Puck newsletter (which Biskind does reference in this book a few times) or by reading the trades.

[Beth]

I greatly enjoyed this book until I got to Part IV: Back to the Future. Why? because in that section, the author's bias over what is "worthwhile" entertainment and what isn't became glaring apparent.

Up until that point, the book seemed to be an unvarnished look at and deep dive into how the television landscape changed, starting with the evolution of HBO from ho-hum cable to "appointment television" and how its success rolled out to influence changes at AMC, FX, Netflix, and more, leading to the creation of shows like The Sopranos, Mad Men, The Shield, House of Cards, etc. And for the first three parts of the book, it seemed pretty even handed in covering the successes, failures, and excesses of the various executives along the way.

But then in Part IV, when new streaming services emerged that carved out identities for themselves through genre entertainment like Marvel and Star Wars at Disney+, Rings of Power and Wheel of Time at Amazon Prime, For All Mankind and Foundation at Apple TV+, etc., less attention is paid and the comments about those services and existing ones incorporating genre entertainment, such as HBO's transformation into Max, the comments aren't just snarky. They're utterly dismissive. Warner Bros is called out for having nine Batmen, completely ignoring counterparts like the six official James Bonds (not counting the comedic version of Casino Royale), or the many versions of Robin Hood throughout the history of film, etc.

So terrific reporting in Parts I-III but pathetic bias in Part IV. I'd be fine if the author called out mistakes and bad behavior related to those other streaming services -- I loved the book Disney War -- but the problems would be bad executive choices, not the genre of the entertainment.

[bencreeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

A deeply strange reading experience, to be honest. The overall message - the TV landscape is slowly morphing into the cable landscape that it disrupted - is interesting. But whenever our man Peter Biskind ventured onto a topic I was familiar with, I realised that a lot of his points are either weird or just plain ... wrong. "There are no shootouts in The Wire", he says, except there are - there are loads. Jeff Bezos praises squid game in 2012, a full decade before it came out, while Martin Scorsese uses the success of Wolf of Wall Street to fund another project in 2008, five years before WoWS was in cinemas.

This is lazy stuff, but at least it's obviously unintentional. I was more weirded out by some of the cultural commentary, particularly Pete's coverage of Transparent, which came to a rocky end when Jeffrey Tambor was accused of sexual harassment. The lesson, for Pete, was that this proved "you can't bring a straight male to a trans party". What?! The lesson is don't sexually assault anyone! On that topic, Pete also claims that an executive who had an affair with an actress was "#MeToo-ed off the lot" - Pete, #MeToo doesn't mean "don't have affairs", it means, once again, don't sexually assault anyone. That, and a description of Issa Rae's "dazzling white teeth which she displays in an ear to ear smile", had my dinosaur-grandad radar on full alert.

Biskind is an 84 year old man who seems to have cobbled together this book from existing interviews and Wikipedia, and he just doesn't seem to have the knowledge or cultural nous to provide the nuanced commentary that this topic deserves. Sorry, Pete.

[Chris Barsanti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun yet frustrating, as Biskind so often is. It would be nice to see him getting back to the business of movies, which is really where he excels, but in the meantime this busy and gossipy chronicle of Peak TV and the coming crash will have to do. The tale is most enjoyable when he's tracking the rise (and rise and rise...) of HBO at the pinnacle of its decadent The Sopranos arrogance and reporting on what seems like some truly detestable behavior from most every big showrunner out there. There's a miniseries just in that for somebody to run with.

But once the story hits the streaming wars, the parade of indistinguishable executives with big egos, short fuses, tens of millions in unearned compensation, and tunnel vision becomes a bit hard to track. Also, unlike in Easy Riders, Raging Bulls, Biskind doesn't seem to have a strong opinion on the art he's writing about, relying too often on what random critics said. Sure, he doesn't have to think TV is its own art form, and we could use more writers willing to puncture a few balloons there. But there's little appreciation for the fact that some of the mid-tier shows being chucked out there by even second-rate streamers are incomparably better than what was being broadcast a few decades ago. Also, given his distaste for the genre, wasn't it "broke" to begin with?

[Ed Bernard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Peter Biskind is an insightful critic and a wonderful writer, and both traits are here in spades in this review of “peak TV,” basically from the Sopranos to, I dunno, Homeland, let’s say. Biskind provides the perfect balance of inside information, intelligent commentary, and human (and humane) profiles of the strong personalities responsible for these excellent programs. Sadly, nearly every one is kind of an asshole, but that’s often the cost of doing business with a visionary who refuses to compromise, as with David Chase, David Milch, and many of the other show runners responsible for shows like these. Biskind is also willing to expose those he considers overly egotistical, or even lesser talents, such as Cory Fukunaga, who had a hit with the first season of True Detective, then stood by as the series fell apart and followed that with the weak third part of the WWII trilogy, Apple TV’s Masters of the Air. The book is just wildly entertaining to read and makes me want to watch some of the shows I haven’t seen, such as Oz, Deadwood, and the final season of Homeland. This book is the perfect combination of frothy entertainment and legitimate commentary, a rare combination in my experience. I didn’t want it to end.

Grade: A

[Brandon · Rating 1 out of 5]

There is a lot to like about this book, but there is also a lot to dislike, and for me, the dislike won. On the one hand, it is an interesting look at the rise of the modern "golden age of television" and what has happened to it due to streaming. On the other hand, it is a book that sets out to praise the work of white men who focus on entertainment for white men. At the beginning of the book, you can hear the complete enrapture of the author over the creation of shows like OZ, Sapranos, and HBO in general. As the book continues, you can hear the author's complete disdain for "wokeism," "diversity," and "#metoo." Every man is unjustly kicked out of power just because they are little handsy or a bit too crass for "women." The only woman he talked positively about in the book is a show writer who has spoken out against "PC culture." Multiple times in the book, he calls female antagonists bitches, while speaking lovingly of men who do the same thing. I think Cracked did a better job of explaining the "New Golden Age of TV." https://youtu.be/UHWM2r-UWzs?si=eedYi...

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I remained engaged with this book for about the first 80-85%, but it petered out towards the end, possibly because the ground it covers in the last 20-30 pages is such recent history that it just felt like stuff I was reading in The Hollywood Reporter just a few months ago. Didn't get as much enjoyment out of this book as I did Biskind's "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" and "Down and Dirty Pictures", though there were plenty of interesting/entertaining anecdotes. One thing that stood out to me in this book more than in his prior ones is the insertion of his personal opinion/his judgement of a person or piece of art, that I found a little off-putting. Looking at some reviews of his prior books, I see that this is something that he has been called out for in the past that I just didn't notice or didn't mind before, but I think if I were to give those books a re-read now, Biskind's personal swipes at actors, directors, producers, movies, or tv shows would probably take me out of the book a bit and I would read the rest of it with a skeptical eye. That's what happened with this one.