I love Anna Kendrick but I've simply hit my wall of seeing much younger women with old, or old, gross men. So, though this was the only Quibi show I thought it might be okay, based on the trailer, after a few minutes of the show realizing they're expecting me to believe not only is Anna Kendrick dating Donal Logue, who is 20 years older and appealing to no women, but he's also got a doll on the side because "she's" not good enough for him. I mean, give me a break. Are we living in the 1950s? Trying to push him as a Hollywood writer changes nothing. A smart girl like her would still never date him, and Hollywood guys like that date D-list actresses with huge, fake you know whats.
I only watched a Quibi show after reading an extensively negative article in The New Yorker because my attention was peaked, like a train wreck of, "How bad is it?" I think everyone thought Quibi would be bad. If Sophie Turner can't convince me to watch it, Jeffrey Kattzenberg sure as heck won't. I think the thing that really struck with me in that article is how Kattzenberg in a wide sweep took full credit for all those Disney and Dreamworks films despite there being hundreds of names credited to each one, which doesn't include the hundreds who work on those films who don't get a credit. How unprogressive. Another was Kattzenberg saying the channel "would" be progressive and then taking a pitch with Gal Gadot who said in her meeting she wanted to do projects empowering to women and girls and he interrupted her to say she could be their next Jane Fonda workout girl. And here, yet again, we see with Dummy, this network is in the dark ages trying to program women that they deserve less and are worth less.
And, the whole 8-10 minute concept is dumb. It works for some cartoons, but that's it. And TV, it's simply a commercial break between 11 minute installments. It's not like Quibi is rocket science. And as far as "premium" channel Kattzenberg promised, I'm not getting that from trailers I watched. Quibi is more Hallmark Channel kind of quality that dumped a bunch of money into A-listers. That's another thing, Anna Kendrick, an A-list star gets cast against a C-list star who is 20 years older and attractively challenged? (hey, it's nicer than saying ugly). This was going out of fashion in the '90s and yet, still, here we are. But I guess that's what happens when you have a 70-yr-old exec who claims he knows what millennials want more than they do. I wonder if he'll still be getting that $125 million severance pay when he gets fired from his own network.
I only watched a Quibi show after reading an extensively negative article in The New Yorker because my attention was peaked, like a train wreck of, "How bad is it?" I think everyone thought Quibi would be bad. If Sophie Turner can't convince me to watch it, Jeffrey Kattzenberg sure as heck won't. I think the thing that really struck with me in that article is how Kattzenberg in a wide sweep took full credit for all those Disney and Dreamworks films despite there being hundreds of names credited to each one, which doesn't include the hundreds who work on those films who don't get a credit. How unprogressive. Another was Kattzenberg saying the channel "would" be progressive and then taking a pitch with Gal Gadot who said in her meeting she wanted to do projects empowering to women and girls and he interrupted her to say she could be their next Jane Fonda workout girl. And here, yet again, we see with Dummy, this network is in the dark ages trying to program women that they deserve less and are worth less.
And, the whole 8-10 minute concept is dumb. It works for some cartoons, but that's it. And TV, it's simply a commercial break between 11 minute installments. It's not like Quibi is rocket science. And as far as "premium" channel Kattzenberg promised, I'm not getting that from trailers I watched. Quibi is more Hallmark Channel kind of quality that dumped a bunch of money into A-listers. That's another thing, Anna Kendrick, an A-list star gets cast against a C-list star who is 20 years older and attractively challenged? (hey, it's nicer than saying ugly). This was going out of fashion in the '90s and yet, still, here we are. But I guess that's what happens when you have a 70-yr-old exec who claims he knows what millennials want more than they do. I wonder if he'll still be getting that $125 million severance pay when he gets fired from his own network.