Overview of The Watch
Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald spend this episode on three big areas: the changing business of superhero TV, the early reports and production backstory behind HBO/Max’s Lanterns, and the latest episodes of Furious plus the season 3 premiere of Lioness. The larger argument underneath it all is that the era of sprawling, must-watch franchise television is shrinking: streamers and studios are retrenching, canceling projects, and focusing more on a smaller number of shows that actually feel creatively necessary.
The State of Superhero TV
The core thesis
- The hosts argue that the grand streaming-era experiment — using TV to extend and support superhero and franchise movies — has largely failed.
- A lot of the “mandatory viewing” TV that once surrounded Marvel and DC has either been canceled, reduced, or narrowed into animation, YA, or special-event storytelling.
- Their takeaway: audiences still show up for big superhero movies, but the TV side has become a lot less vital.
Examples they discuss
- DC/Warner Bros.
- Lanterns is moving ahead.
- Other projects like Waller and Paradise Lost are no longer moving forward.
- A Jimmy Olsen series is still in development.
- Marvel/Disney
- Vision Quest is still on track, with James Spader returning as Ultron.
- Disney’s cancellation of Wonder Man season 2 is treated as a major sign of retrenchment.
- The hosts note that Marvel seems to be pulling back from a lot of live-action TV, with more emphasis on animation and select special projects.
Bigger business trend
- Streaming services are increasingly trying to become the place where subscribers spend more money and stay longer.
- The hosts talk about:
- subscription creep,
- churn becoming harder,
- services adding sports, live programming, and bundles to keep users locked in.
- Their point: the streaming-era model of “just make everything for the shared universe” was expensive, messy, and often creatively weak.
Lanterns: Why It Matters
What they’re excited about
- Lanterns comes from Damon Lindelof, Chris Mundy, and Tom King, with oversight from James Gunn and Peter Safran.
- The hosts see it as a potentially important example of what superhero TV should become: a show with a clear creative purpose rather than a content-expansion mandate.
Why the show’s development is notable
- The project reportedly went through many versions over years, including earlier development under Greg Berlanti.
- The hosts connect that history to the larger question: why make a show at all if there isn’t a strong reason behind it?
- They argue the best version of franchise TV happens when:
- a creator has a real point of view,
- the network/studio supports it,
- and the result is a show that stands on its own.
Their bottom line
- If Lanterns works, it could signal a healthier, more selective future for superhero TV.
- They’d rather have fewer projects that are actually good than a flood of shows designed only to serve future movies.
The Shards and the Problem of Adaptation
Why they bring it up
- They use The Shards as another example of a project shaped by shifting corporate and creative agendas.
- The show began as an HBO project tied to Bret Easton Ellis, then moved to Ryan Murphy at FX.
Their read on the early episodes
- Murphy is praised as a director who understands glossy, decadent Los Angeles.
- But the hosts think the first two episodes are too slavishly devoted to recreating the novel rather than finding a new dramatic life on screen.
- They’re more interested in the question behind the adaptation:
- What is this show trying to be?
- Why is it being made now?
- Is it just transposed IP, or does it have its own reason to exist?
Key observation
- Murphy apparently takes the show in a more overtly “Murphy-verse” direction after the first two episodes.
- That makes the project more interesting to them, because it suggests a genuine creative transformation rather than a museum-piece adaptation.
Furious Through Episode 5
Why they like it
- Both hosts are enthusiastic about Furious, calling it very well thought out and consistently surprising.
- They highlight that it’s a crime show that keeps changing the emotional and narrative angle of every scene.
- The show is not just “good genre TV”; it is doing active work with character, trauma, and power dynamics.
What stands out
- The series is focused on:
- the consequences of crime,
- the trauma that shapes behavior,
- the way women in particular have to process danger and power differently from men.
- They praise how the show reveals information:
- not as a standard procedural,
- but as a dynamic, character-driven thriller.
Performances and casting they single out
- Emmy Rossum as Alice: they say the performance is layered and becomes more impressive as the show goes on.
- Lola Petticrew as Catherine: they appreciate that the show gives the villain full humanity without excusing her.
- Campbell Scott: singled out as a scene-stealing casting choice.
- Quincy Tyler Bernstein as Nora: also praised for adding depth and making every scene feel alive.
- They also mention Danny McCarthy as ASAC Ed George and note how small roles are being used to add surprise and texture.
Their thematic takeaway
- The show understands trauma without reducing everyone to trauma alone.
- It lets characters exist as full people before, during, and after terrible events.
- That makes the show both disturbing and compelling.
Lioness Season 3 Premiere
Initial reaction
- Chris and Andy move from irony to genuine exasperation and amusement about Lioness.
- The episode includes the now-familiar Taylor Sheridan ingredients:
- military intensity,
- geopolitical posturing,
- heavy-handed dialogue,
- and lots of macho fantasy.
What they describe
- The episode begins with Zoe Saldaña’s character doing a hard-edged wellness routine.
- The hosts joke about the show’s obsession with physical discipline, cold showers, and “body doing it, not a pill” logic.
- The story quickly escalates into covert-op territory involving Russia, Ukraine, drones, and U.S. operatives.
Their main criticism
- They find Sheridan’s worldview fascinating but blunt:
- it’s often suspicious of elites and institutions,
- but also deeply credulous about power, military force, and rich/powerful people getting their way.
- They think the show can be entertaining on pure momentum, but they wish it had more curiosity about the world it depicts.
What they acknowledge
- Even while mocking it, they admit the show is gripping in a bizarre way.
- They’re both engaged enough to keep watching, which they treat as its own kind of proof of concept.
Main Takeaways
- Superhero TV is contracting: the big “everything must connect” model is fading.
- Creative clarity matters more than IP volume: projects like Lanterns may succeed because they have a better reason to exist.
- Streaming economics are changing: services are trying to become stickier, more expensive ecosystems.
- Genre TV is thriving when it surprises you: Furious gets a strong endorsement for its writing, performances, and perspective.
- Taylor Sheridan remains polarizing but watchable: Lioness frustrates the hosts, yet they can’t entirely dismiss its pull.
Quick Watchlist
Worth checking out
- Lanterns — as a test case for the future of DC TV
- Furious — especially if you like crime drama with emotional and thematic complexity
Still debated
- Lioness — entertaining to them, but ideologically messy and often ridiculous
- The Shards — visually strong, but they’re still weighing whether it has a real purpose beyond adaptation