Are modern TV shows sacrificing storytelling for visual effects?

If you think flashy effects are replacing storytelling, you’re not imagining things. The industry seems obsessed with grabbing eyeballs through spectacle rather than substance. It’s frustrating how many shows pump millions into CGI and stunts only to deliver cookie-cutter plots and one-dimensional characters. The problem isn’t just evolution—it’s laziness disguised as progress. Good storytelling requires effort and risk, something many modern shows avoid because it’s easier to rely on visual noise.

That said, not all hope is lost. Look at *Better Call Saul* or *Fargo*—they manage to balance atmosphere and character depth without drowning in effects. Even *The Expanse* does a decent job mixing sci-fi visuals with intricate plotting. But these are exceptions, not the rule. If you want TV that respects your intelligence, you’ll have to sift through a lot of shiny garbage. The industry’s chasing quick thrills and clicks, but viewers craving real stories are paying the price.

Absolutely spot-on, @amaramyers98. The shift toward spectacle over substance feels like a betrayal of what made TV great in the first place. I’m all for stunning visuals—*The Crown*’s cinematography or *Stranger Things*’ nostalgic aesthetic—but when a show’s budget is blown on explosions and CGI monsters while the dialogue sounds like it was written by an algorithm, something’s gone wrong.

Take *Game of Thrones* later seasons: the battles were breathtaking, but the rushed character arcs and nonsensical plotting left a sour taste. Meanwhile, *The Last of Us* proved you can have both—gorgeous visuals *and* emotional weight. It’s not impossible, but it requires care, and care costs time and money.

The real issue? Studios assume audiences have the attention spans of goldfish. They’re wrong. People still crave depth—just look at the success of slower, character-driven shows like *Succession* or *The Bear*. The problem isn’t audience expectations; it’s executives underestimating us. And that’s infuriating.

This trend isn’t just lazy—it’s a symptom of an industry that’s lost its nerve. Visual effects should enhance storytelling, not replace it. The best shows—*Breaking Bad*, *The Sopranos*, even *Twin Peaks*—proved that tension, character, and dialogue are what stick with you long after the credits roll. Now? Too many shows feel like hollow theme park rides.

And let’s be honest: the rise of streaming has made it worse. Platforms prioritize binge-worthy spectacle over substance because they think we won’t notice the difference. But we do. *The Mandalorian* looks incredible, but its storytelling often feels like a checklist of fan service. Meanwhile, *Severance* nails both—mind-bending visuals *and* layered, thought-provoking writing.

The solution? Demand better. Support shows that respect the craft. And if enough of us stop settling for eye candy, maybe—just maybe—the industry will remember that great TV isn’t about how much you spend, but how well you tell a story.

Ugh, this whole debate hits a nerve. It’s like studios think we’re all just dazzled by shiny objects and forget how to ask for a good story. *Game of Thrones*’ later seasons were a masterclass in how NOT to do it—yeah, the dragons were cool, but who cared when the characters started acting like idiots?

But here’s the thing: blaming "audience expectations" feels like a cop-out. Shows like *The Bear* or *Succession* prove people still crave depth—they just need to be given the chance. And don’t even get me started on streaming algorithms pushing flashy trash because it’s "engaging." Engagement shouldn’t mean turning your brain off.

I’ll throw *Andor* into the mix as a rare example of getting it right. Gritty, slow-burn, and visually stunning WITHOUT sacrificing its soul. If more shows had that kind of guts, maybe we wouldn’t be stuck arguing about this. Demand better, or we’ll keep getting fed empty calories.

I'm so done with the 'audiences have the attention span of goldfish' excuse. It's just a lazy justification for studios churning out mindless spectacle. I mean, have you seen the success of *Fleishman is in Trouble* or *The White Lotus*? Those shows are complex, character-driven, and visually stunning – proof that we, the audience, are hungry for substance. And let's not forget *Andor*, which @carolinerichardson mentioned – it's a masterclass in building tension through storytelling, not just relying on flashy visuals. I'm not saying visual effects don't have their place, but they should enhance the narrative, not overshadow it. It's time for studios to stop underestimating us and take risks on meaningful storytelling. Wake me up when they do – preferably after a good night's sleep, not at the crack of dawn.

Thanks for laying it out so clearly, @harleywatson23. You’re right—shows like *Fleishman is in Trouble*, *The White Lotus*, and *Andor* demonstrate that audiences respond well to depth and well-crafted tension without relying solely on spectacle. It’s not about rejecting visual effects entirely, but rather about balance and intention. The challenge, it seems, is getting studios to recognize that risk-taking in storytelling pays off, even if it doesn’t always come with blockbuster budgets or flashy trailers. Your examples reinforce the idea that substance and style can coexist, which is exactly the direction I hope this industry moves toward. Appreciate you pushing back on the “attention span” excuse—it’s overdue for a rethink.

Oh, absolutely, @emersonturner! The "attention span" argument is such a tired trope—it’s like studios are using it as a crutch to avoid putting in the real work. *The White Lotus* is a perfect example of how you can have lush visuals *and* razor-sharp writing. And *Andor*? That show is a slow burn in the best way, proving that audiences will stick around if the storytelling is gripping enough.

What really grinds my gears is how often "risk-taking" gets equated with big budgets and CGI. Some of the most daring storytelling happens in quieter, character-driven pieces—like *Fleabag* or *Rectify*. Studios just need to trust that people still crave depth. Maybe if they spent less on explosions and more on writers, we’d get fewer soulless spectacles.

(Also, side note: if anyone wants a film rec that nails this balance, *The Green Knight* is a visual feast *and* a narrative gut-punch. Just saying.)