Welcome to IndieWire’s craft-focused roundup, where we dive deep into the artistry behind today’s most compelling television. While we may not be Emmy voters, we’ve been celebrating the nominated series that showcase exceptional creative achievement.
This week, we began with our comprehensive cinematography survey, gathering insights from 18 cinematographers about their visual storytelling techniques — from initial concept to final frame. Our exploration covered the production design of “Widow’s Bay,” the single-shot sequence construction in “Beef” Season 2, the casting strategies that sustain “Top Chef’s” fresh talent pipeline, and how Roger Deakins’ camera preferences influence wildlife cinematography in Kenya. We also examined how “Pluribus” has found remarkable visual depth in Albuquerque over three series and two decades.
While our regular contributor Jim is on vacation, we have exciting coverage coming next week including in-depth “Silo” analysis and an interview with Desi Lydic from “The Daily Show” that promises to be one of our standout pieces. In that conversation, Lydic shares her perspective on how traditional news parody adapts in today’s media landscape where everyone considers themselves part of the press.
Amidst this Emmy season buzz, one insight from Vince Gilligan’s recent Toolkit podcast appearance has resonated particularly strongly. Speaking about his team’s work developing Season 2 of Apple TV+’s sci-fi series, Gilligan addressed the creative pressures while maintaining an optimistic outlook on the streaming era’s storytelling possibilities.
With characteristic self-deprecation, Gilligan humorously acknowledged the challenge of following Season 1’s dramatic cliffhanger involving Carol Sutphin’s predicament. His jest about potentially revising the season finale — specifically the controversial nuclear device subplot — highlighted both the creative freedom and accountability that streaming platforms offer.
“he quipped with a smile. “I don’t think anyone will question it.”
Beyond the humor, Gilligan made a compelling case for streaming’s impact on creative development. He emphasized how extended production timelines allow writers to refine narratives organically, noting that the medium’s flexibility enables creators to truly listen to their stories and let them evolve naturally. This approach, he argued, ultimately produces better television when creators trust the process rather than forcing predetermined outcomes.
Vince Gilligan: We didn’t really have a writers’ room on “The X-Files.” it was more of an episodic show, so that was, in a way, the best of both worlds. We’d work in our individual offices on our own material, but then once or twice a week we’d all gather. We’d literally carry our three-by-five-foot cork boards across the parking lot from the writer’s office to Chris Carter’s office, which was sometimes intimidating because you’d have all these index cards attached with thumbtacks, and occasionally the wind would pick up just as you’re halfway across, and you’re thinking, “Oh, shit.”
That represented an ideal hybrid approach because you got to work independently plenty, but then you also joined together and experienced that camaraderie of everyone collaborating to figure out how to improve each episode. That was my first real experience working with other writers. And then, of course, there was the full writers’ room experience on “Breaking Bad,” where you’re immersed in the room for months at a time — it’s extraordinary when you’re surrounded by the right people. I’ve been fortunate throughout my career; I’ve consistently worked with exceptional colleagues.
“We are beneficiaries of a much more accommodating medium now, and a more flexible creative process — even when I think about how long we have to develop these episodes compared to what we had on network television. And for anyone listening who wants to pursue this career path, my best advice would be to not worry too much about streaming versus cable versus network versus podcast versus whatever else exists. I mean, I don’t know anything about podcasts, but I do know this: a good story is a good story. And every story has its natural rhythm.”
“If you’re making a James Bond film or a ‘Mission: Impossible’ movie, the pace should be energetic. If you’re writing something that’s more of a character study — not necessarily about a secret agent, but someone reflecting on their lost youth or whatever — then perhaps things should move at a more contemplative pace. My recommendation is to evaluate each project on its individual merits and terms, and try not to overthink, ‘Oh, this is what streaming audiences want.’
“Before streaming even existed — 30 years ago, for example — you’d talk to an agent, and they’d say, ‘You know what’s popular this year? Vampire movies. You should write a vampire movie.’ Well, no, you really shouldn’t — unless you’re genuinely passionate about vampires, in which case, by all means, go ahead and write that vampire movie. The thing is, people will tell you what they think they want, but it’s that old Steve Jobs quote, which I’m probably misquoting: it’s not the consumer’s job to know what they want. It’s our responsibility to discover that for them.
“People do crave something new. And all these ‘smart’ men and women — and I’m using air quotes around ‘smart’ — legions of producers and executives and whatnot are constantly saying, ‘This is what works, and this is what doesn’t.’ But we’ve all heard the William Goldman adage: nobody knows anything. And they don’t.
“People are simultaneously afraid of the new and drawn to it. If you can create a story that — first and foremost — excites you, if it floats your boat, if it keeps you awake at night thinking about a character or a narrative direction, then if you’re enthusiastic about it, chances are others will be too. But if you’ve got something genuinely fresh, somewhere out there is someone who will appreciate it, and perhaps that’s the right person who can provide the funding and bring it to life.”
