Has Apple TV+ Produced Anything Worth Subscribing For?

Last week, Apple TV+ unveiled its newest series, Amazing Stories. Like many of the dozen some odd original projects Apple has released thus far, this one gave viewers a lot to be excited about: the show sports splashy names (executive produced by Steven Spielberg and created by the producers of Lost) and a neat concept (a sci-fi anthology inspired by the classic magazine and the original 1980s series). A few months after the launch of Apple TV+, buzz around the sleek new streaming giant has audibly fizzled. Would this be the show that won it back the spotlight—and better yet, attracted coveted new subscribers?

I don’t have access to the company’s internal numbers, but if headlines are any indication, the clear answer is: no. Most publications have treated the show like a sniffling person on the subway (don’t touch). Vanity Fair declared, “Apple’s Amazing Stories Reboot Doesn’t Live Up to Its Name.” And in a more lukewarm take, Indiewire called it “safe” and “inoffensive.” The harsh reviews are on the money: the show is indeed not very good—its time travel logic contrived; its sets extremely staged; its dialogue clichéd (a character indignantly says, “This marriage is only about money. And that’s not who I am!”). But paradoxically, the mild reviews—and the absent ones—are more cutting. By being “inoffensive” in a crowded streaming landscape, Amazing Stories is also inessential. 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.

And in that way, Amazing Stories is emblematic of Apple’s broader lineup one trimester in: it verges from bland to expendable. And yet, the service’s issues are not for lack of trying. The company has spent a reported $6 billion on original content—which, for context, is 12 times as much as Michael Bloomberg spent on his presidential campaign, with about as much to show for it. If Apple’s initial big budget series’ (the convoluted blind civilization fantasy SEE and the star-studded #MeToo drama The Morning Show) landed with a thud, its subsequent ones have landed without a sound.

In addition to a handful of modest efforts—Snoopy in Space, a docu-series on imaginative homes (called Home)—Apple has put its weight behind a twisty M. Night Shymalan supernatural religious nanny thriller called Servant and an Octavia Spencer-as-Sarah Koenig true crime podcast show called Truth Be Told. These shows, like SEE and The Morning Show, were meant to establish a brand and make Apple an essential service. But instead they feel like they were manufactured in a lab—not with iPhones, but by iPhones. There’s the veneer of prestige—dark palettes, big names, weighty issues—but no soul. (Little America, an anthology of immigrant stories from Lee Eisenberg, Emily V. Gordon, and Kumail Nanjiani, has the opposite problem: it’s sweet, but small.)

Apple, of course, has plenty of time and remaining capital to figure things out. Industry experts I spoke to said that the company’s substantial resources and loyal consumer base give it some leeway; the lack of an initial hit won’t shoo consumers away indefinitely. All it takes is one House of Cards to rebound. And Apple indeed has exciting projects coming down the pike, like a Spike Jonze-created Beastie Boys documentary and a Chris Evans-starring crime drama. And yet, thus far, the company’s output isn’t merely disappointing; it’s 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?

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.

For our money, he's the best Bond yet—a searching soulful actor who managed to turn the campy secret agent into a three-dimensional character. Now as the world gears up for Daniel Craig's final film as 007 nears, he offers some rare reflection on the franchise he redefined and the icon he reimagined.

Originally Appeared on GQ