Netflix’s The Perfect Couple and the reason TV was so poor in 2024 – but we watched anyway

This year was defined by a host of average TV shows that were glossy and watchable enough but insubstantial and forgettable – as epitomised by the Nicole Kidman thriller. Here’s why.

As the year comes to an end and everyone takes a look back over 2024’s best TV offerings, for some there may be a collective form of amnesia. What was that Apple TV+ crime series with that big actor in you watched – was it Presumed Innocent or Sugar? What was that nice rom-com starring Adam Brody called again? Did you watch that series where Nicole Kidman played a wealthy woman who floated around in designer dresses looking worried because her son went missing (Expats), or where she played a wealthy woman who floated around in designer dresses looking worried because someone was murdered on her estate (The Perfect Couple)?

If, perhaps with a quick Google search as a prompt, you realise you did watch The Perfect Couple, it’s a show that seems to encapsulate where such interchangeable TV is at in 2024. The Perfect Couple burst onto Netflix in September, a soapy, glossy and silly adaptation of Elin Hilderbrand’s 2018 novel of the same name. With a decent cast – including Kidman in a dodgy wig, Liev Schreiber, Meghann Fahy and Dakota Fanning – the six-episodes series unravelled a murder mystery set at an upper-class wedding in Nantucket. The tone of the show was off, slightly; was the melodramatic telenovela-like style in earnest or was this some kind of satire on the murder mystery genre? It was unclear. Also shoe-horned in was a cringey all-cast dance routine on the beach to Meghan Trainor’s song Criminals that introduced each episode; even Fahy told Variety: “Everyone [the actors] was saying they didn’t want to do this because we just didn’t understand.” The audience lapped it up – it was most watched on Netflix’s TV chart for two weeks in a row – then it seemed to vanish from memory.  

“I had actually forgotten I had watched The Perfect Couple,” says Manori Ravindran, a TV industry journalist who writes for The Ankler and Broadcast. “And all I can remember about that now is the dance, which, even when I was watching it, felt like a very orchestrated device to make it stick in people’s minds; a visual element to make a show memorable.” While the dance gave the show a viral moment at the time,  the drama as a whole didn’t inspire the same cultural conversation. The Perfect Couple was the essence of a 2024 television phenomenon: the rise of Mid TV. 

That term was first coined by New York Times journalist James Poniewozik in a piece for the publication in April 2024, where he suggested that the so-called “Golden age of TV” was over. Gone were the captivating and creative dramas of the mid-noughties that were a masterclass in storytelling, like The Sopranos, Mad Men and Breaking Bad, which then led to streamers like Netflix and Amazon breaking further creative boundaries as they entered the market with shows such as Orange Is the New Black, BoJack Horseman and Transparent.

Now, Poniewozik argued, the small screen is increasingly being populated by shows that look good, are fun to watch, and often feature A-lister actors – but are the very dictionary definition of “nice”, and as such are instantly forgettable. Shows he placed under this banner include the likes of Apple TV+’s Palm Royale and Platonic, Amazon’s Mr & Mrs Smith, and Peacock’s Poker Face.

Poniewozik expanded: “Mid is not a strict genre with a universal definition. But it’s what you get when you raise TV’s production values and lower its ambitions. It reminds you a little of something you once liked a lot. It substitutes great casting for great ideas… Mid is based on a well-known book or movie or murder. Mid looks great on a big screen. Mid was shot on location in multiple countries. Mid probably could have been a couple episodes shorter. Mid is fine, though. It’s good enough.”

“I think it has been extremely prevalent this year,” Ravindran tells the BBC. “I would characterise Mid TV as shows with big stars, generic characters, well-trodden storylines; nothing distinctive and just forgettable.”

With a glut of shows that could be classed as Mid TV hitting screens this year, and with many of these coming from streamers such as Netflix, Apple TV+ and Amazon Prime Video, cynics might say that the decision to have its cast bopping on the beach was indeed a move to make The Perfect Couple stand out from the other Mid shows of the time. Showrunner Jenna Lamia even signalled that it was there to indicate the show was not meant to be taken seriously, despite revolving around a murder case. She told Tudum: “Susanne [Bier, the director] had this really brilliant thought that if we were to use a dance like that as the opening credits, it would tell people right away that, yes, this is a murder mystery, and yes, it’s a thriller, but you’re also going to have so much fun, so sit back and enjoy the ride.”

However, Ravindran believes that Mid TV is something that viewers themselves have identified as a phenomenon, rather than a concerted strategy coming from TV makers. “I wouldn’t say Mid TV is something the industry – producers, broadcasters and streamers – are necessarily talking about,” she says. “But from an audience perspective, this is how it’s received and it’s quite right.” 

Certainly, the idea that we are living in an age of Mid TV is supported by many of the tepid reactions to the TV year from critics. Inkoo Kang of The New Yorker says that until a few late arrivals at the end of 2024, “I wondered whether I’d have enough entries for a conventional top 10 list”, while Jen Chaney at Vulture said: “It was surprising how much 2024 felt like an uneventful wake for the Peak TV era. There was still great television, but there was so much more mid or meh television and far fewer exceptional offerings or moments when a critical mass of viewers seemed equally excited about the same series.” 

On the other hand, perhaps Mid TV is not necessarily such a bad thing, argues TV critic and commentator Dan Barrett, who writes the newsletter Always Be Watching. “TV is actually at its best when it helps serve the function that most viewers ask of it: they want TV to help them relax and unwind,” he tells the BBC. “While it’s great to be able to sit down and really get stuck into a weighty, substantial drama, most viewing is done after a long day at work or looking after the kids. TV that pushes the boundaries and strives for excellence should be respected, but we need to be better at celebrating the TV that meets the viewer’s needs by striking that delightful balance of being a bit smart, while also not being too taxing.”  

There are several reasons that we’ve seen so many of these distinctly average shows about recently, believe Ravindran and Barrett. “The demand for such a high volume of content from the streaming services has resulted in a lot of money spent on TV shows that look amazing with lush production values, but are often created by writers with limited TV experience,” says Barrett. “It results in a lot of TV that isn’t very memorable. The shows seem prestigious from the outset, but once you start watching, very quickly you realise they are 100-minute feature film ideas stretched out to 8-10 hour-long episodes.”

On top of that, the straitened financial situation streamers have found themselves in recently has had an impact on the types of shows they choose to focus on. 2022 saw what bankers Morgan Stanley described to the Financial Times as “the first streaming recession”. In the first quarter of 2022, Netflix revealed that they had lost 200,000 subscribers, while in the second quarter of the year, they shed another 970,000, leaving them with 220.6 million subscribers in total. “It was a really cataclysmic event for the market,” says Ravindran. “Wall Street began applying more pressure on profitability. Before that it was all about growth: ‘Load up on the debt and just see what happens.’ But then after that it was a real turning point for the streamers as there was more accountability in terms of their bottom lines, keeping their subscribers, and growing in a meaningful way.” 

Netflix, who were once seen as disruptors and who pushed boundaries in the 2010s, changed tack: Netflix VP Jinny Howe was quoted in a New Yorker feature in January 2023 saying that the company’s strategy for shows was to commission a “gourmet cheeseburger”, ie, something “premium and commercial at the same time”, a description that could be applied to many Mid TV shows. In the same article, Netflix Chief Content Officer Bela Bajaria inadvertently explained why the audience might be feeling a bit of deja vu around these samey, safe-bet series now: “What we can do is be always audience-centric: Who is this show for? If you like this show, then we’re gonna give you this other thing you like. If you do that, people are gonna watch the shows, and all of those things will help the stock.” 

Amazon Prime Video, meanwhile, had a bigger content spend than Netflix in 2023 at $18.9 billion, but is currently tied in first place with Netflix for market share in the US streaming market. Mid TV commissioning is working for them too, says Ravindran, because they “want things that are truly mainstream and will appeal to people in multiple different markets, whereas all of the other streamers [including Netflix] are more focused on local stories as they want local hits in domestic markets that then build out”. 

Jesse Whittock, international TV co-editor at Deadline, takes umbrage with the term Mid TV – he believes it is offensive and reductive – but says that we have landed here based on financial decisions. “I don’t agree that it is a genre,” he says. “If anything, it’s a budgeting trend, and I think the term Mid TV is disrespectful to both the people making the programmes and the people watching them.”

“What we have seen is streaming services moving into the [network] TV space that might have [previously] been the only place for what some might call a kind of ‘background noise’ TV,” he adds, “which is probably why we’re seeing more of it. They’re doing that because data tells them people are watching those shows and because costs have had to come down.”

It was notable, too, that one of Netflix’s more genuinely boundary-pushing shows this year, the modernised Greek myths drama, Kaos, was swiftly cancelled after it launched in August, causing some online uproar. As some pointed out, it was commissioned way back in 2018, and arguably wouldn’t have been given the greenlight in the more risk-averse landscape of 2024. “Pre-pandemic, the market was completely different, and was seeing commissions from Netflix left, right and centre,” says Ravindran. “They’re still being digested and worked out of the system, in a way.”

One thing that is still going strong from the so-called “before times” is the flocking of Hollywood A-listers to the small screen: Kidman has appeared in no less than three shows this year, while the likes of Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman and Cate Blanchett have all taken on their first leading TV role. But these days, there is less excitement around such signings, with big-name, award-winning talent increasingly coming on board for shows that are pretty generic and/or simply underwhelming.

Another phenomenon tied to Mid TV that has become wearying for some is the sheer quantity of shows devoted to the exploits of super-rich people. Some of these shows like The White Lotus or Succession have explored these environs meaningfully with dramatic or comedic bite. But there’s an increasing number of pale imitators that notionally gesture at saying something about wealth and privilege while really just using an “eat the rich” theme as an excuse to revel in shots of amazing furnishings and big kitchens. As Vinson Cunningham of The New Yorker observed of The Perfect Couple: “[It] is doubling past media – not critiquing it so much as wearing its hand-me-downs and more or less pulling off the look.” 

Mid TV, whether an acknowledged phenomenon or not, is working for the streamers. And it’s working for viewers: we’re watching these shows, after all. As Cunningham adds: “[It’s] like [when] Lynyrd Skynyrd plays Free Bird or Billy Joel plays Piano Man: because we’re all asking for it, and because we won’t stop.”

But if Mid TV is the new norm, then where does this leave truly prestige TV, the kind that critics have salivated over since the beginning of the “golden age of TV” all those years ago?  We shouldn’t worry too much, says Whittock. Among all the many series thrown out across the streamers, “There are edgy and prestige programmes launching all the time and finding success. Shōgun, a Japanese-language historical drama for Disney+, won more Emmys than any other single season of TV in history and [Netflix series] Baby Reindeer, a wild story from a Scottish stand-up comedian about mental health, is arguably the year’s most-talked about show.”

“HBO will be back in a meaningful way next year,” predicts Ravindran. “They were hard hit by the strikes, but things like the Harry Potter show are going to be massive for them. Prestige TV will still exist, but will be reduced, and I think we’ll have to get used to returning shows focused around crime, hospitals and police procedurals.”

Barrett agrees: “The buzzword now is to make ‘returnable dramas’ – shows that are more [in] the old-school [episodic] TV format where plots are established and resolved in a single episode, with viewers able to pick up a show at any episode and have a fulfilling viewing experience.”

Jackson McHenry of Vulture noted the move towards this format in his publication’s end-of-year round-up, too, writing: “I’ve given in to the power of the procedural, and I think television has, too… This year, as prestige TV contracted, some television producers determined that the old ways might be better, so long as they’re well written and well cast.” 

Whether it’s full of episodic procedurals or glossy but insubstantial miniseries like The Perfect Couple, it seems like we could be in for a less creatively exciting era of TV ahead. But if that’s what audiences want – and what makes streamers financially sustainable – then critics’ complaints may fall on deaf ears.