Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Netflix's Monster Series Dominates Streaming Charts

Transcript

Netflix's Monster Series Dominates Streaming Charts · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: So imagine spending like 1.4 billion minutes of human life
0:04
Speaker 1: consuming something that you absolutely despise.
0:07
Speaker 2: It sounds like some kind of dystopian punishment, honestly. Right.
0:10
Speaker 1: It sounds horrible. But last week, that is exactly what
0:14
Speaker 1: millions of people did like voluntarily on their own televisions.
0:18
Speaker 2: Which is wild because it just completely shatters our traditional
0:22
Speaker 2: understanding of how entertainment is supposed to work.
0:25
Speaker 1: Exactly, because normally we just assume there's a direct correlation
0:28
Speaker 1: between quality and viewership. Like, if millions of people are
0:31
Speaker 1: tuning in, the logical assumption is that it must be
0:34
Speaker 1: universally beloved.
0:35
Speaker 2: Right, you think the reviews would be glowing.
0:37
Speaker 1: Yeah, but what happens when the most-watched thing on a
0:40
Speaker 1: platform is also, like, the most reviled thing on that platform?
0:44
Speaker 2: Well, you end up with this fascinating cultural paradox. And honestly,
0:48
Speaker 2: I think it tells us far more about the mechanics
0:50
Speaker 2: of modern media and... our own psychological impulses than it
0:54
Speaker 2: does about the actual show itself.
0:56
Speaker 1: Welcome to another deep dive. I am so incredibly glad
1:00
Speaker 1: you are here with us today tuning in because we
1:02
Speaker 1: have a truly wild case study to explore with you.
1:06
Speaker 2: We really do.
1:07
Speaker 1: Today we are focusing on Monster, specifically the Lizzie Borden story.
1:13
Speaker 1: It's the latest installment in Netflix's true crime anthology series.
1:17
Speaker 2: Created by Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan, of course.
1:20
Speaker 1: Right. And if you have logged into a streaming service
1:23
Speaker 1: in the last month, you have definitely seen the massive
1:26
Speaker 1: banner ads. I mean, you literally could not avoid it
1:29
Speaker 1: if you tried.
1:30
Speaker 2: No, it is undeniably taken over the cultural conversation. But
1:36
Speaker 2: treating this not just as a piece of Sunday afternoon
1:39
Speaker 2: binge watching, but as a hard data point, that provides
1:43
Speaker 2: a really revealing window into how we consume media in 2026.
1:47
Speaker 1: OK, so let's unpack this. because today we aren't just
1:51
Speaker 1: doing a TV review.
1:52
Speaker 2: Definitely not.
1:53
Speaker 1: No, we are going on a mission to investigate the bizarre,
1:57
Speaker 1: sometimes deeply uncomfortable intersection of massive streaming data, highly controversial storytelling,
2:04
Speaker 1: and our absolutely insatiable appetite for true crime.
2:08
Speaker 2: And to do that properly, I mean, we really have
2:10
Speaker 2: to start with the raw data.
2:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, hit us with the numbers.
2:13
Speaker 2: Well, before we even touch on the art or the
2:15
Speaker 2: acting or, you know, the narrative choices, We need to
2:18
Speaker 2: establish the sheer, undeniable scale of the phenomenon we're dealing with.
2:23
Speaker 1: And the numbers are, frankly, staggering. So we're looking at
2:26
Speaker 1: the Nielsen charts for the week of September 14th through
2:29
Speaker 1: the 20th of this year, 2026.
2:31
Speaker 2: Right, which is right when it dropped.
2:33
Speaker 1: Exactly. The Lizzie Borden story debuted in mid-September, and in
2:37
Speaker 1: its very first week, it racked up over 1.4 billion
2:41
Speaker 1: minutes watched.
2:42
Speaker 2: Let's just sit with that metric for a second. 1.4
2:44
Speaker 2: billion minutes watched.
2:47
Speaker 1: In just a single seven-day window.
2:49
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, it's one of only three shows to
2:51
Speaker 2: cross that one billion minute mark in the recent charts.
2:54
Speaker 1: Which puts it in this extremely rarefied air. It's sharing
2:57
Speaker 1: that spot with Prime Video's Reacher and its spinoff Neegly.
3:01
Speaker 2: And what's fascinating here is what that metric actually signifies mechanically. Because,
3:05
Speaker 2: you know, we throw around words like billions so often
3:07
Speaker 2: in the tech and streaming space that they sort of,
3:09
Speaker 2: they lose their gravity.
3:11
Speaker 1: They really do. It just sounds like monopoly money at
3:13
Speaker 1: this point.
3:14
Speaker 2: Exactly. But we have to remember, Nielsen isn't measuring viewers
3:17
Speaker 2: in the traditional, like, 1990s broadcast sense. They are measuring
3:22
Speaker 2: session time.
3:23
Speaker 1: Right. The actual time spent looking at the screen.
3:27
Speaker 2: Yeah. So 1.4 billion minutes of human attention means people
3:30
Speaker 2: aren't just sampling the first 10 minutes, deciding it's not
3:33
Speaker 2: for them, and turning it off.
3:35
Speaker 1: They are sitting on their couches just letting the autoplay
3:38
Speaker 1: roll hour after hour.
3:39
Speaker 2: Precisely. And platforms care about this metric far more than
3:43
Speaker 2: traditional sentiment ratings.
3:44
Speaker 1: Because minutes watched. translates directly to algorithmic engagement, right?
3:49
Speaker 2: And ultimately, platform retention.
3:52
Speaker 1: Okay, wait. Let me wrap my head around this, though,
3:54
Speaker 1: because I just don't get it. If everyone hates it,
3:57
Speaker 1: and we will get to those abysmal reviews in a minute,
4:00
Speaker 1: why wouldn't Netflix cancel it to protect their brand?
4:02
Speaker 2: That's a common question, yeah.
4:04
Speaker 1: Doesn't bad word of mouth actually hurt them?
4:06
Speaker 2: Well, because you're applying 20th century television logic to a
4:10
Speaker 2: 2026 algorithmic economy.
4:11
Speaker 1: Oh, interesting. Yeah.
4:13
Speaker 2: Brand prestige doesn't pay for server costs. You know, engagement does.
4:17
Speaker 2: The algorithm does not know why you are watching. It
4:19
Speaker 2: doesn't track sentiment.
4:21
Speaker 1: So it doesn't know if I'm angry or happy. Nope.
4:24
Speaker 2: It can't tell if you are watching with a smile
4:26
Speaker 2: on your face or if you're like furiously live texting
4:29
Speaker 2: your friends about how much you hate it. A minute
4:31
Speaker 2: watched in anger keeps you on the platform just as
4:34
Speaker 2: effectively as a minute watched in joy.
4:36
Speaker 1: So engagement is just engagement.
4:38
Speaker 2: Precisely. And look at the company it's keeping. I mean,
4:40
Speaker 2: you mentioned Reacher and Neekly.
4:42
Speaker 1: Yeah, which makes zero sense to me, honestly. Reacher is
4:45
Speaker 1: this high-octane, punch-em-up action thriller. You know exactly what you're getting. Right.
4:50
Speaker 2: It's very straightforward.
4:51
Speaker 1: There's a visceral, propulsive momentum to an action show on
4:53
Speaker 1: Prime Video that naturally lends itself to binge-watching. Somebody gets
4:57
Speaker 1: punched through a wall, the episode ends on a cliffhanger,
5:00
Speaker 1: and you just let the timer tick down to the
5:02
Speaker 1: next episode.
5:03
Speaker 2: Exactly. It's designed for that.
5:05
Speaker 1: But the Lizzie Borden story is a historical true crime
5:07
Speaker 1: drama set in the 1890s. It is a completely different genre,
5:11
Speaker 1: completely different pacing, and yet it's pulling the exact same
5:14
Speaker 1: gravitational weight as an explosive action thriller.
5:18
Speaker 2: Which brings up the core question of how people are
5:20
Speaker 2: watching it. With an action thriller, the appeal is usually
5:23
Speaker 2: straightforward entertainment dopamine.
5:25
Speaker 1: Yeah, you just want to see the bad guy get caught. Right.
5:27
Speaker 2: But with a dramatized true crime tragedy, especially one as
5:30
Speaker 2: heavily marketed as this one, The motivation for viewing is
5:34
Speaker 2: vastly more complex.
5:36
Speaker 1: It really makes me wonder about the user interface itself.
5:39
Speaker 1: Are we just clicking because it's thrust onto our homepage?
5:42
Speaker 2: It's definitely part of it.
5:43
Speaker 1: Like you log in, the trailer autoplays at full volume,
5:47
Speaker 1: the banner takes up three quarters of your screen, or
5:50
Speaker 1: is there like a genuine gravitational pull to the story?
5:53
Speaker 2: Well, the algorithmic placement certainly initiates the context, right? Netflix
5:57
Speaker 2: has the power to place this show in front of
5:59
Speaker 2: millions of eyeballs simultaneously on day one.
6:02
Speaker 1: They can force us to see it.
6:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, but UI placement only gets a show to the
6:06
Speaker 2: first few million minutes. To reach 1.4 billion minutes, you
6:11
Speaker 2: need sustained behavior.
6:13
Speaker 1: So I want you, the listener, to think about your
6:16
Speaker 1: own viewing habits over that mid-September week. Think back to
6:19
Speaker 1: those days between the 14th and the 20th.
6:21
Speaker 2: Were you part of that 1.4 billion?
6:24
Speaker 1: Exactly. Did you hover your remote over that title card?
6:28
Speaker 1: And if you did, how much of that was algorithmic fatigue? Just,
6:31
Speaker 1: you know, letting the platform choose for you because it
6:33
Speaker 1: was the biggest button on the screen? And how much
6:36
Speaker 1: was a genuine, morbid curiosity about what they were doing
6:39
Speaker 1: with the material?
6:40
Speaker 2: Because it's really a question of active versus passive consumption.
6:44
Speaker 2: To sustain a billion minutes, the content itself has to
6:48
Speaker 2: offer a psychological hook that keeps the viewer anchored.
6:51
Speaker 1: Even if that hook is pure disbelief at the narrative
6:54
Speaker 1: choices unfolding on the screen.
6:56
Speaker 2: Exactly. Disbelief is a powerful hook.
7:00
Speaker 1: And that takes us directly into the narrative itself, because
7:02
Speaker 1: now that we understand the mechanics of how many people
7:05
Speaker 1: are watching, we really have to look at what exactly
7:08
Speaker 1: they are consuming.
7:09
Speaker 2: Right. Because what Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan have put
7:12
Speaker 2: on the screen is definitely not the standard historical retelling.
7:16
Speaker 1: No, it is a complete and total reimagining.
7:20
Speaker 2: It really is. I mean, we all know the basics
7:22
Speaker 2: of the 1892 case. We know she was tried and
7:24
Speaker 2: acquitted of murdering her father and stepmother.
7:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, the true crime community knows the lore inside and out.
7:30
Speaker 1: But instead of playing it straight or leaning into the
7:32
Speaker 1: idea of her as a cold-blooded sociopath, which is how
7:36
Speaker 1: pop culture has largely framed her for a century, the
7:39
Speaker 1: series executes this massive tonal pivot.
7:42
Speaker 2: And what's fascinating here is the deliberate shifting of the lens.
7:46
Speaker 2: The creators have taken the historical framework and built a
7:49
Speaker 2: deeply subjective psychological narrative around it.
7:53
Speaker 1: So they position Lizzie not as an inherent monster, but
7:56
Speaker 1: as a complex victim of her environment.
7:59
Speaker 2: Yes, specifically focusing on her life under a highly abusive
8:03
Speaker 2: stepfather and a completely disinterested, emotionally vacant father, Andrew Borden.
8:09
Speaker 1: And this is where the casting becomes like a psychological weapon.
8:13
Speaker 1: They cast Charlie Hunnam as the father, Andrew.
8:16
Speaker 2: Yes. And we need to dissect what that casting actually
8:20
Speaker 2: does to a viewer's brain. Charlie Hunnam, who actually appeared
8:24
Speaker 2: in a previous season of Monster as well, brings a
8:27
Speaker 2: very specific... undeniable type of brooding, charismatic presence to the screen. Right.
8:33
Speaker 1: I mean, he's a traditional Hollywood leading man.
8:35
Speaker 2: Exactly. So when you cast a leading man with that
8:38
Speaker 2: kind of inherent screen magnetism as the disinterested, neglectful father,
8:44
Speaker 2: it completely complicates the viewer's reaction.
8:46
Speaker 1: It creates cognitive dissonance.
8:48
Speaker 2: It does. Because the historical Andrew Borden was an austere,
8:53
Speaker 2: famously frugal, highly unlikable businessman in his 70s. Oh, wow.
8:57
Speaker 1: So totally different. Yeah.
8:59
Speaker 2: By putting a charismatic actor in that role, the show
9:02
Speaker 2: softens the edges of the historical reality and subtly shifts
9:05
Speaker 2: the dynamics of empathy in the household.
9:07
Speaker 1: And they do the same thing across the board. They
9:10
Speaker 1: have Ella Beatty stepping into the role of Lizzie, and
9:13
Speaker 1: she is trying to ground this incredibly heavy, infamous name
9:17
Speaker 1: with real modern human vulnerability. Plus, they brought in Rebecca
9:21
Speaker 1: Hall playing Abby Borden, the stepmother. These are powerhouse, highly recognizable,
9:27
Speaker 1: compelling faces.
9:28
Speaker 2: It is a brilliant, if controversial, mechanism for manipulating the
9:32
Speaker 2: audience's empathy. That is the core function of modern dramatization.
9:37
Speaker 2: How so? Well, when you read a dry, factual, historical
9:41
Speaker 2: transcript from the 1892 trial, you are emotionally distanced. You
9:45
Speaker 2: are basically acting as a juror.
9:47
Speaker 1: You're just looking at the facts on a page. Right.
9:49
Speaker 2: But when you watch Ella Beattie weep on screen or
9:52
Speaker 2: see these incredibly tense, complex dynamics played out by actors
9:55
Speaker 2: like Rebecca Hall and Charlie Hunnam, your brain automatically bridges
9:59
Speaker 2: that historical distance.
10:00
Speaker 1: You stop being a juror and you become an emotional participant.
10:04
Speaker 2: Exactly. You start to understand, or at least you feel
10:07
Speaker 2: like you understand, the emotional truth of the characters.
10:10
Speaker 1: Even if it wildly diverges from the literal, documented truth
10:14
Speaker 1: of the historical figures.
10:15
Speaker 2: Precisely. The show prioritizes emotional resonance. over historical fidelity.
10:20
Speaker 1: But then they take it a massive step further, because
10:23
Speaker 1: it's not just about reframing the family dynamic. The show
10:26
Speaker 1: also dives incredibly deep into Lizzie's relationship with the housemaid
10:30
Speaker 1: Bridget Sullivan.
10:31
Speaker 2: Yes, this was a huge talking point.
10:33
Speaker 1: The narrative has them form this profound bond, and the
10:36
Speaker 1: series actively, heavily leans into the rumors of a potential
10:40
Speaker 1: romantic connection between the two women.
10:42
Speaker 2: A rumor that, we should clarify, has circulated in niche
10:45
Speaker 2: historical and true crime circles for decades. but was never
10:49
Speaker 2: definitively proven in any capacity during the 1892 trial or
10:52
Speaker 2: its aftermath.
10:53
Speaker 1: Okay, I have to jump in and push back on this,
10:55
Speaker 1: because this is where I start to really struggle with
10:58
Speaker 1: the intent of the creators.
10:59
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
11:00
Speaker 1: When a show takes unconfirmed, incredibly speculative rumors from over
11:04
Speaker 1: a century ago and centers them as the absolute core
11:07
Speaker 1: emotional tentpoles of a nine-hour narrative, does that actually serve
11:12
Speaker 1: to humanize these historical figures for a modern audience, or
11:15
Speaker 1: does it cross the line into outright historical fan fiction.
11:19
Speaker 2: That's the big debate right now.
11:20
Speaker 1: Right? Like, at what point are we just projecting our
11:23
Speaker 1: 21st century desire for complex, dramatic, interpersonal dynamics onto real
11:27
Speaker 1: people who lived in a completely different, vastly more restrictive era?
11:31
Speaker 2: This raises an important question about the fundamental responsibility of
11:34
Speaker 2: the storyteller when dealing with real lives.
11:37
Speaker 1: Do they even have a responsibility?
11:40
Speaker 2: Well, the creators, Murphy and Brennan, would likely argue that
11:42
Speaker 2: the historical record is inherently flawed. History is written by
11:46
Speaker 2: the victors. Or in this case, history was recorded through
11:49
Speaker 2: the highly puritanical, patriarchal lens of 1890s Massachusetts.
11:54
Speaker 1: So they're saying the official record is already biased.
11:57
Speaker 2: Exactly.
11:57
Speaker 1: Okay.
11:58
Speaker 2: And they might argue that exploring these rumored margins is
12:01
Speaker 2: actually a way to find a deeper, more resonant truth
12:04
Speaker 2: about female oppression.
12:06
Speaker 1: But does a deeper truth justify making things up, like
12:09
Speaker 1: literally fabricating relationships?
12:11
Speaker 2: That is the exact friction point. You are absolutely right
12:15
Speaker 2: to question the mechanism. It completely blurs the line between
12:18
Speaker 2: historical exploration and narrative exploitation.
12:22
Speaker 1: It just feels so manipulative.
12:23
Speaker 2: It does. But if we look at it strictly from
12:26
Speaker 2: a modern viewer psychology standpoint, we have to ask why
12:30
Speaker 2: this approach is so wildly successful.
12:32
Speaker 1: Why do modern audiences seem to demand these complex, morally
12:37
Speaker 1: gray antiheroes or these tragic victims of circumstance over straightforward villains? Right.
12:42
Speaker 1: If they just made a show where Lizzie was a greedy,
12:44
Speaker 1: cold-blooded sociopath who wanted her father's money, would it have
12:47
Speaker 1: generated 1.4 billion minutes watched?
12:51
Speaker 2: Almost certainly not. We have experienced a massive shift in
12:54
Speaker 2: our narrative appetites over the last two decades. Think about
12:57
Speaker 2: it mechanically. Okay. A straightforward, one-dimensional villain allows the audience
13:02
Speaker 2: to comfortably distance themselves. We look at the screen and say,
13:05
Speaker 2: that person is pure evil. I am not evil. Therefore,
13:08
Speaker 2: I am safe. The viewing experience ends there.
13:11
Speaker 1: It's clean. It's clean. We can go to sleep feeling fine. Right.
13:16
Speaker 2: But an antihero or a protagonist driven to horrific extremes
13:20
Speaker 2: by systemic abuse and neglect, that forces the viewer to
13:23
Speaker 2: engage in moral calculus.
13:25
Speaker 1: We are forced to ask ourselves, what would I have
13:27
Speaker 1: done if I were trapped in that house?
13:29
Speaker 2: Exactly. It turns passive viewing into an active, highly uncomfortable
13:33
Speaker 2: psychological exercise. The viewer is constantly negotiating their own empathy.
13:39
Speaker 1: And frankly, from a structural standpoint, that internal negotiation makes
13:43
Speaker 1: for vastly more addictive television.
13:46
Speaker 2: It really does.
13:47
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting, though. Because if completely
13:51
Speaker 1: reframing the 1892 myth and playing fast and loose with
13:54
Speaker 1: the interpersonal dynamics wasn't enough, the creative liberties don't stop there.
13:59
Speaker 2: Not at all.
14:00
Speaker 1: Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan made a structural choice in
14:03
Speaker 1: this season that is genuinely completely startling. They didn't just
14:06
Speaker 1: reimagine the 19th century. They literally forced a collision of eras.
14:11
Speaker 2: This has become a hallmark of the Monster Anthology's evolving format.
14:14
Speaker 2: But you are right. They took it to an absolute
14:17
Speaker 2: extreme in this specific installment.
14:19
Speaker 1: They wove in a completely different century. Like previous iterations
14:23
Speaker 1: of the show, they decided to intertwine the historical figure
14:26
Speaker 1: of Lizzie Borden with modern-day instances of crime.
14:29
Speaker 2: Specifically female killers. Yes.
14:31
Speaker 1: They bring in famous modern-day female killers. And the anchor
14:35
Speaker 1: for this modern timeline is none other than Sarah Paulson
14:38
Speaker 1: playing Aileen Wuornos, the serial killer who was active in
14:41
Speaker 1: Florida between 1989 and 1990.
14:44
Speaker 2: It is an incredibly jarring narrative leap to go from
14:47
Speaker 2: the repressed, corseted parlors of 1892 Fall River, Massachusetts, directly
14:53
Speaker 2: to the gritty, sun-bleached highways of late 1980s Florida.
14:57
Speaker 1: It's insane. I was trying to figure out how to
15:00
Speaker 1: describe this feeling, and the best way I can think
15:03
Speaker 1: of it is like... thematic money.
15:06
Speaker 2: Laundering thematic money laundering walk me through.
15:09
Speaker 1: That okay think about it you take the messy deeply
15:13
Speaker 1: unpalatable horrifying reality of real victims the actual people who
15:17
Speaker 1: died in 1892 and 1989 that's the dirty money okay
15:22
Speaker 1: I see where you're going it's too raw too grim
15:25
Speaker 1: too real to just consume for fun on a Tuesday
15:27
Speaker 1: night so the creators run it through this glossy highly
15:31
Speaker 1: stylized cross-century Hollywood filter the laundromat right You cast Sarah Paulson,
15:36
Speaker 1: you use incredible cinematography, you weave these complex thematic parallels
15:40
Speaker 1: about the patriarchy, and suddenly that dirty reality comes out
15:44
Speaker 1: the other side as clean, consumable pop entertainment. The structure
15:48
Speaker 1: basically justifies the true crime exploitation by pretending it's a
15:52
Speaker 1: high-minded sociological study.
15:54
Speaker 2: That is a remarkably incisive analogy. Because if we connect
15:57
Speaker 2: this to the bigger picture, we have to look at
16:00
Speaker 2: what directors like Max Winkler and Sarah Adina Smith did
16:03
Speaker 2: along with the creator, Ian Brennan, they're fundamentally trying to
16:06
Speaker 2: achieve with this whole structural mashup.
16:09
Speaker 1: What's the goal?
16:10
Speaker 2: Well, by placing a convicted 1980s serial killer directly next
16:14
Speaker 2: to an 1890s acquitted murder suspect, right, they are trying
16:19
Speaker 2: to make a macro statement. Okay. They want the audience
16:22
Speaker 2: to look for the connective tissue and how society creates, views,
16:26
Speaker 2: and ultimately punishes female violence across a hundred-year gap.
16:31
Speaker 1: But they don't stop with Paulson. They have this incredibly
16:33
Speaker 1: deep bench of talent in the cast. We're talking Vicky Creeps,
16:36
Speaker 1: Billy Lord, Jessica Barden.
16:38
Speaker 2: It's an incredibly stacked cast.
16:40
Speaker 1: There is so much acting firepower packed into this structure.
16:43
Speaker 1: But jumping timelines like that, does it actually enhance our
16:46
Speaker 1: understanding of the original 1892 crime? Or does it just
16:50
Speaker 1: completely distract from the gravity of the real, actual lives
16:54
Speaker 1: that were lost in both eras?
16:56
Speaker 2: That is precisely the debate that is raging in the
16:58
Speaker 2: critical community right now. And it is the exact reason
17:02
Speaker 2: the scores are so polarized.
17:03
Speaker 1: What's the argument for it then?
17:06
Speaker 2: The argument for this structure is that the monster anthology
17:10
Speaker 2: is attempting to evolve beyond cheap thrills. It's trying to
17:14
Speaker 2: be less about the individual sensationalized crimes and more about
17:18
Speaker 2: the concept of societal monsters.
17:21
Speaker 1: So less about Lizzie, more about society. Right.
17:24
Speaker 2: The show asks, how does systemic abuse or societal neglect
17:28
Speaker 2: operate over 100 years? How does the justice system treat
17:32
Speaker 2: a wealthy white woman in 1892 versus a marginalized sex
17:36
Speaker 2: worker in 1989?
17:37
Speaker 1: OK, I see the intellectual ambition there. I get what
17:40
Speaker 1: they're trying to do.
17:40
Speaker 2: But the argument against it is exactly what you just
17:42
Speaker 2: pointed out with your money laundering analogy. It flattens the
17:46
Speaker 2: distinct tragic realities of the individual victims. Exactly. When you
17:51
Speaker 2: force Lizzie Borden and Eileen Wuornos into the same thematic box,
17:55
Speaker 2: you risk stripping away the unique historical context of both cases.
17:59
Speaker 2: You turn real human suffering into neat little thematic puzzle
18:02
Speaker 2: pieces just to serve the creator's grand narrative thesis.
18:05
Speaker 1: Which brings us crashing directly into the reality of public opinion.
18:09
Speaker 1: We have this wildly ambitious, era-spanning narrative. We have A-list casting.
18:13
Speaker 1: We have Sarah Paulson doing what she arguably does best
18:16
Speaker 1: in a Ryan Murphy production.
18:17
Speaker 2: And we have 1.4 billion minutes of validated watch time.
18:21
Speaker 1: Right. So why is everyone seemingly so furious about it?
18:25
Speaker 2: This is where this streaming data... And the cultural sentiment
18:28
Speaker 2: become completely untethered from one another.
18:30
Speaker 1: Let me give you, the listener, the numbers, because they
18:32
Speaker 1: are genuinely bleak. Right now, this behemoth of a show
18:35
Speaker 1: sits at a dismal 38% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes.
18:40
Speaker 2: That's rough.
18:41
Speaker 1: And the audience score, it is even worse. It is
18:43
Speaker 1: sitting at 33%.
18:44
Speaker 2: Yeah, which means roughly one-third of the audience actually liked
18:48
Speaker 2: the show. They collectively spent 1.4 billion minutes watching.
18:52
Speaker 1: It's mind-boggling. The primary criticism across the board from both
18:56
Speaker 1: critics and the audience is how the show alters real-life
19:00
Speaker 1: facts to fit this grand, sweeping narrative. Right. Which, to
19:04
Speaker 1: be fair, is absolutely not a new problem for this
19:07
Speaker 1: specific franchise.
19:08
Speaker 2: Not at all. If we trace the history of the
19:11
Speaker 2: monster anthology's backlash, the formula is remarkably, almost predictably consistent.
19:17
Speaker 1: We saw this exact same cycle with the Jeffrey Dahmer
19:19
Speaker 1: season back in 2022. It did massive, record-breaking numbers, but
19:24
Speaker 1: faced massive ethical pushback from the families of the victims.
19:27
Speaker 2: Yep. The outcry was huge.
19:29
Speaker 1: Then they did the Lyle and Eric Menendez season in 2024.
19:32
Speaker 1: Same exact thing. Intense, furious criticism, especially considering they had
19:37
Speaker 1: heavy hitters like Javier Bardem involved, which elevated the profile
19:41
Speaker 1: and the controversy.
19:41
Speaker 2: And we can't forget the Ed Gein miniseries in 2025.
19:45
Speaker 1: Exactly. It is a documented cycle at this point. Staggering.
19:50
Speaker 1: platform-defining viewership paired with ardent, furious criticism from viewers, from critics,
19:56
Speaker 1: from the victims' families, and sometimes from the real-life inspirations themselves.
20:01
Speaker 2: This Rotten Tomatoes versus Nielsen paradox is arguably the defining
20:05
Speaker 2: media metric of our current era.
20:07
Speaker 1: How does that even work?
20:08
Speaker 2: Well, how can a show with a 33% audience approval
20:11
Speaker 2: rating sustain over a billion minutes of watch time? As
20:15
Speaker 2: we discussed earlier with the algorithm, the traditional model suggests
20:18
Speaker 2: that if people don't like a show, they change the channel.
20:21
Speaker 1: Right. You turn it off if you hate it.
20:23
Speaker 2: But that logic completely fails to capture the modern psychology
20:26
Speaker 2: of streaming.
20:27
Speaker 1: So I have to ask you, the listener, think about
20:29
Speaker 1: how you consume this kind of media in your own home.
20:33
Speaker 1: If you know going in that a show has a
20:35
Speaker 1: reputation for playing fast and loose with the tragic, factual
20:40
Speaker 1: details of real people's lives, does that change how you
20:43
Speaker 1: watch it?
20:43
Speaker 2: It's a great question.
20:44
Speaker 1: Do you sit there on your couch pausing the show
20:47
Speaker 1: to fact check the Bridget Sullivan rumors on Wikipedia? Or
20:51
Speaker 1: do you just accept it as content completely divorced from
20:54
Speaker 1: the reality it claims to represent?
20:57
Speaker 2: I think for most viewers, it operates on a spectrum.
20:59
Speaker 2: But there is an undeniable possibility powerful undercurrent of what
21:03
Speaker 2: we might call algorithmic hate watching.
21:06
Speaker 1: Algorithmic hate watching.
21:08
Speaker 2: I love that term.
21:09
Speaker 1: I love that term.
21:10
Speaker 2: The controversy itself becomes the primary marketing engine.
21:13
Speaker 1: Explain the mechanics of that. How does hate watching actually
21:17
Speaker 1: drive the numbers?
21:18
Speaker 2: Think about the social ecosystem. When you read a headline
21:21
Speaker 2: that families are upset or you see critics panning the
21:25
Speaker 2: historical inaccuracies on Twitter, it doesn't naturally deter you.
21:28
Speaker 1: It doesn't? No.
21:29
Speaker 2: For a massive segment of the population, it actually acts
21:32
Speaker 2: as a beacon. It drives viewership because people want to
21:36
Speaker 2: see exactly how egregious the factual changes are.
21:39
Speaker 1: Oh, they want to see the train wreck for themselves.
21:41
Speaker 2: Yes. They want to be part of the cultural conversation,
21:44
Speaker 2: even if their entire contribution to that conversation is saying,
21:48
Speaker 2: I can't believe they did that. Oh, absolutely.
21:50
Speaker 1: It's like you have to watch the disaster just so
21:53
Speaker 1: you can complain about it at the water cooler or,
21:56
Speaker 1: I guess, in the group chat with authority. Right. You
21:58
Speaker 1: can't critique the Eileen Wuornos timeline jump if you haven't
22:01
Speaker 1: actually seen it.
22:02
Speaker 2: Exactly. And every minute you spend hate watching it, so
22:06
Speaker 2: you can complain about it later, is a minute logged
22:08
Speaker 2: by Nielsen. Wow. The algorithm registers your session length, not
22:12
Speaker 2: your outrage. It sees you watched four hours, so it
22:15
Speaker 2: pushes the show to the top 10 banner for other users,
22:18
Speaker 2: creating a self-sustaining loop.
22:19
Speaker 1: So the low Rotten Tomatoes score doesn't kill the show.
22:22
Speaker 2: Not at all. It actually fuels the curiosity.
22:24
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for the future? We
22:26
Speaker 1: have abysmal sentiment scores. We have intense ethical pushback about
22:31
Speaker 1: the pain caused to living relatives in some of these
22:34
Speaker 1: past cases. And a general loud outcry about the altering
22:39
Speaker 1: of historical facts.
22:40
Speaker 2: Yes, all of that is true.
22:42
Speaker 1: But underneath all of that noise, the underlying business reality
22:47
Speaker 1: is crystal clear. The creators are doubling down.
22:50
Speaker 2: Because in the streaming economy, as we've established, a billion
22:53
Speaker 2: minutes is a billion minutes.
22:55
Speaker 1: Right.
22:56
Speaker 2: The platform advertisers and the subscription retention models do not
23:00
Speaker 2: care about a 33% Rotten Tomatoes score.
23:03
Speaker 1: Ian Brennan and Ryan Murphy have explicitly stated they have
23:06
Speaker 1: absolutely no plans to stop this machine. In a recent interview,
23:11
Speaker 1: Brennan revealed that they want to do 10 seasons of
23:14
Speaker 1: the Monster Anthology. Ten.
23:15
Speaker 2: That's a massive commitment.
23:16
Speaker 1: And he specifically noted that they have a, quote, fairly
23:19
Speaker 1: exhaustive list of potential subjects to cover.
23:22
Speaker 2: Now, from a factual standpoint, it is important to note
23:25
Speaker 2: that Netflix has not officially greenlit a fifth season yet.
23:29
Speaker 1: True. They haven't put out the press release, but let's
23:32
Speaker 1: be real here. With numbers like 1.4 billion minutes and
23:35
Speaker 1: a debut week, the success strongly hints that it is highly,
23:39
Speaker 1: highly likely. Money and engagement talk louder than critics.
23:42
Speaker 2: They absolutely do. And this raises an incredibly important question
23:46
Speaker 2: about the trajectory of this exhaustive list.
23:48
Speaker 1: What do you mean?
23:49
Speaker 2: Well, if the ultimate goal is 10 seasons, they have
23:51
Speaker 2: to source material. They've covered Dahmer, Menendez, Gein, and now Borden.
23:56
Speaker 2: What does the rest of that list look like?
23:59
Speaker 1: And more importantly, what happens when they run out of
24:01
Speaker 1: centuries-old cases like Lizzie Borden or even mid-century cases like
24:05
Speaker 1: Ed Gein? What happens when this massive dramatization machine starts
24:10
Speaker 1: creeping closer and closer to the modern day?
24:13
Speaker 2: That is the ethical cliff they are currently driving toward
24:16
Speaker 2: at full speed.
24:17
Speaker 1: It's terrifying to think about.
24:18
Speaker 2: Think back to the pushback for the Menendez and Dahmer seasons.
24:21
Speaker 2: It was intense. specifically because the trauma was still relatively fresh.
24:26
Speaker 1: Right. The families were literally speaking out against it.
24:29
Speaker 2: Exactly. There are people alive today who were directly impacted
24:33
Speaker 2: by those crimes. When you dramatize a case from 1892,
24:36
Speaker 2: there are no immediate living relatives to log on to
24:39
Speaker 2: social media and express their pain. The victims are historical figures.
24:44
Speaker 1: They're just characters in a textbook to us. Yes.
24:47
Speaker 2: But if their exhaustive list starts hitting high-profile highly sensationalized
24:51
Speaker 2: cases from the last 10 or 20 years, how will
24:54
Speaker 2: that push back scale? It would be deafening.
24:57
Speaker 1: It would just be a constant roar of controversy.
25:00
Speaker 2: It would. But the darker question is, will the backlash
25:03
Speaker 2: finally outweigh the viewership? Or will the algorithm just continue
25:08
Speaker 2: to gorge itself on the controversy?
25:10
Speaker 1: Oh, man.
25:11
Speaker 2: If algorithmic hate watching is the engine, then a modern,
25:14
Speaker 2: highly sensitive case might actually generate more minutes watched purely
25:18
Speaker 2: out of public outrage.
25:20
Speaker 1: I really want you to think about what case you
25:22
Speaker 1: suspect might be on that exhaustive list. We all have
25:25
Speaker 1: those massive cultural touchstone trials burned into our heads from
25:29
Speaker 1: the news. And if Netflix drops a trailer for it tomorrow,
25:33
Speaker 1: would you tune in?
25:33
Speaker 2: A thrill test, isn't it?
25:35
Speaker 1: Knowing everything we've just talked about, knowing the show's established
25:38
Speaker 1: track record of prioritizing dramatized themes and timeline mashups over
25:42
Speaker 1: factual accuracy, would you be part of the next billion minutes?
25:48
Speaker 2: It forces us to confront our own complicity in the ecosystem.
25:52
Speaker 2: We can critique Murphy and Brennan all day for their
25:55
Speaker 2: narrative choices and ethical compromises. But at the end of
25:59
Speaker 2: the day, they are ultimately supplying a demand that we,
26:02
Speaker 2: the audience, have proven exists to the tune of billions
26:06
Speaker 2: of minutes.
26:07
Speaker 1: It is a wild, self-perpetuating cycle. So just to recap
26:10
Speaker 1: the incredible journey of this single piece of media... We
26:14
Speaker 1: started with a staggering 1.4 billion minutes watched in a
26:18
Speaker 1: single week, proving that a 19th century true crime drama
26:21
Speaker 1: can effortlessly join the ranks of high-octane action juggernauts.
26:25
Speaker 2: Which is still hard to believe.
26:26
Speaker 1: We looked at the massive narrative risks of reframing the
26:29
Speaker 1: 1892 myth, shifting the lens from villain to victim, and
26:33
Speaker 1: literally intertwining it with a 1989 serial killer, bringing Lizzie
26:37
Speaker 1: Borden and Aileen Wuornos onto the exact same thematic stage.
26:41
Speaker 2: A truly bizarre creative choice.
26:43
Speaker 1: We stared down the barrel of a 33% audience score
26:46
Speaker 1: that somehow doesn't dent the viewership one bit, thanks to
26:49
Speaker 1: the mechanics of algorithmic hate watching. And we ended up
26:53
Speaker 1: looking at a roadmap for a potential 10-season empire built
26:56
Speaker 1: entirely on this exact formula.
26:59
Speaker 2: And as we step back and look at this entire
27:02
Speaker 2: messy landscape, I want to leave you with a final
27:05
Speaker 2: lingering thought to extrapolate directly from this data.
27:08
Speaker 1: Let's hear it.
27:09
Speaker 2: We've seen that 1.4 billion minutes of watch time can
27:12
Speaker 2: completely validate and sustain a 33% audience score. So are
27:17
Speaker 2: we entering an era of entertainment where creating a fiercely divisive,
27:22
Speaker 2: factually loose, culturally agitating conversation piece is actually a safer,
27:27
Speaker 2: more profitable business model for streaming platforms than taking the
27:31
Speaker 2: time to produce a universally beloved masterpiece?
27:34
Speaker 1: Oof, that is a heavy... necessary question to chew on
27:38
Speaker 1: next time you are sitting on the couch, letting the
27:40
Speaker 1: homepage autoplay. Thank you so much for joining us on
27:44
Speaker 1: this deep dive. Keep questioning the data, keep questioning the
27:47
Speaker 1: mechanics behind the narrative, and most importantly, keep questioning the
27:51
Speaker 1: media you choose to consume. We'll catch you on the
27:54
Speaker 1: next one.