Apple TV+ has done an amazing job of finding and funding buzz-generating TV shows.  While critics initially worried that Apple would simply use its financial power to buy its way to success (take, for example, the very mixed reviews of and reactions to “The Morning Show” and “Foundation”; the former spending on star power like Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon, the later spending on licensing one of the most iconic science-fiction works of all time and then spending even more on massive sets and VFX), a much bigger factor has been its executives’ willingness to back high-quality shows that, on the face of it, sound insane.

For example, “Ted Lasso” is about a Midwestern football coach who moves to England to coach soccer, and was based on a set of decade-old commercials.  That’s the opposite of pitching “Die Hard on a bus.”  But it turned out to be a breakthrough hit.

Another recent success is “The Studio”, which is Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s satirical look at the world of Hollywood by following the life (and cringeworthy antics) of the head of a movie studio.

But there’s something that keeps bugging me about “The Studio”.

Though I think the show is well-done, and successfully skewers the subject of its satire, it simply isn’t as much fun to watch as its spiritual ancestor, “Action”.

The plots of the two shows are similar.  Where “The Studio” follows the new head of Continental Studios, Matt Remick (played by Rogen) as he tries to make a successful “Kool Aid” movie, “Action” follows producer Peter Dragon (played by Jay Mohr) as he tries to make a successful action movie, “Beverly Hills Gun Club”.  Both are wealthy, over-entitled narcissists who are aided (and hindered) in their respective quests by a colorful ensemble of associates and an even more colorful assortment of real celebrities playing themselves (Martin Scorsese and Ron Howard are excellent in “The Studio”; Sandra Bullock is hilarious in “Action”).

If anything, Remick is more sympathetic than Dragon.  Remick has a true love of movies and filmmaking, and is genuinely upset by the kinds of compromises he has to make to get and keep his job.  Meanwhile, Dragon is gleefully immoral to the point of nihilism; at one point, he breaks an actor out of his addiction treatment to secure him as the lead of his film.

Both shows offer a slightly exaggerated version of Hollywood, and while “The Studio” looks more realistic (“Action” is full of quick cuts and has a much more intrusive soundtrack) they’re at roughly the same level of absurdity.  For example, one episode of “The Studio” centers around how everyone, including the stars of a movie, and even studio head Remick, are afraid to give Ron Howard negative feedback on his movie; Remick eventually gives the “note” and Howard reacts with a foul-mouthed tirade and physical assault.

So why is “Action” so much more fun than “The Studio”?

For me, it boils down to the nature of the conflict.  In “The Studio,” Matt Remick deals with a lot of external conflicts, but much of the show centers on his internal conflicts.  He loves the movies and wants to make great art but gets his job by promising to make a blockbuster about the Kool-Aid man.  He knows what needs to be done to improve Ron Howard’s movie but is afraid to speak up because a prior humiliating incident involving “A Beautiful Mind.”  Remick’s struggles with his inner conflicts make him seem indecisive and more than a little pathetic.

In contrast, Peter Dragon has few internal conflicts.  His plans are often thwarted, but usually by external factors.  When the show starts, he’s headed to the premiere of his latest movie, which bombs.  Rather than self-flagellate and wallow in self-pity, Dragon first tries to get the studio to greenlight a sequel, and when that fails (he is flatly refused by the studio head, who humiliates him and is also married to Dragon’s ex-wife) he turns his energies to making his comeback movie.

Objectively, Matt Remick is more successful than Peter Dragon.  He is a studio head, one of the five most powerful people in Hollywood.  Yet Peter Dragon is much more fun as a show protagonist.  His energy and purpose make him fun to root for even though he is lying asshole.  I guess I’m rooting for Matt Remick, but a lot of the time, his wishy-washy behavior makes me not want to root for him.

It’s generally dangerous to use examples from television to draw lessons for the real world, but I guess I’m feeling lucky (punk).

We now seem to be living in the Attention Age.  The ability to attract and hold people’s attention has become one of the most valued superpowers.  After all, what is an influencer but someone who has found an effective way to grab the attention of a valuable audience?

If you want people to root for you, the most important thing isn’t to be a good person.  A saint who is also a bore might get a statue, but won’t get clicks.  The most important thing is to attack your challenges with contagious energy and purpose.

Sadly, it is all too easy to come up with examples of bad people who have attracted massive amounts of attention by attacking challenges with contagious energy and purpose.  But the fact is that energy and purpose are power tools that can be leveraged for weal or woe.  The people you most admire are likely people who act with energy and purpose to strive for goals you agree with, just as the people you most dislike and fear are those who strive with energy and purpose towards goals you strongly disagree with. Find something that lets you act with energy and purpose, and attracts the kind of people you want around you.

And as long as you’re here, enjoy this Peter Dragon speech to a hypocritical Senate committee: