Apple TV+'s biggest flaw was pursuing big names: Amazing Stories is emblematic of its bland to expendable lineup

GQ

Last week, Apple dropped Stephen Spielberg's Amazing Stories to very little fanfare. The reboot of Spielberg's 1980s anthology series is the latest Apple show to arrive with a big name attached. But by being "inoffensive" in a crowded streaming landscape. Amazing Stories became inessential, says Max Cea. "It’s the type of show you might leave on if it happened to be playing on CBS, but one that you—no matter who you is—wouldn’t seek out." Cea adds that Apple shows have not only been disappointing, they've been puzzling. "Why do none of its shows add up to their considerable parts? Who is the service’s audience? What lessons can even be gleaned from its initial experiments?" he says. "Allow me to suggest one: Rather than place a few big bets on established names and tried and tested formats, the company should place a lot of small bets on up-and-coming talent with fresh ideas. Think of what an A24 or an HBO could do with a $6 billion budget. You could fund 300 Uncut Gems! Or 2,000 The Farewells! Or a—bats cloud of smoke away from calculator—whole lot of High Maintenances! Better yet, you could think even smaller. Apple’s products have enabled an entire generation to create and distribute videos. The company could scour the Internet, and give a sizable platform to thousands of young people doing the most with the least. You know, anything to think different."