Let’s talk a moment about Netflix and production. Black Mirror has changed in many ways. But how? And why?

Like any hip millennial, I like Black Mirror. I prefer anthology television, and I think it is an above-average quality show. This isn’t a review. I intend it to check out the unequivocal change that happened between the British and the American series. And I claim it is visually, tonally, and thematically changed.

I want to engage in some asshole armchair journalism and investigate what changed.

This article is written with the assumption that you are familiar with the show and don’t mind spoilers. So…there will be spoilers.

So now, relax, sit back, and let’s try to dissect this.

Mo’ money mo’ problems

The most apparent change is an increased budget. I am unable to find actual figures on the Internet regarding Black Mirror budget. I tried.

It is safe to say the Netflix series has more budget. They paid $40 million for exclusive rights. The British Channel 4 was no longer allowed to air it. This article cites an “increased budget”.

So, what can one do with an increased budget?

One is an increase in material. The first two seasons had 3 episodes each, followed by an extra-long Christmas special (which Netflix erroneously lumps in with Season 2). Furthermore, most episodes of Black Mirror were around 40 minutes. The Netflix series now has 60-minute long average episodes, with the final episode being, essentially, a 90-minute long short film.

More money means more staff, means more production, means more editing.

I question the artistic decisions following resulting production. With more money, Netflix has incorporated more constructed shots, and I think these constructed shots do not mesh well with its previous artistic tone and cohesion.

Let’s compare the production and visuals of pre- and post-Netflix.

The series had established a realistic visual format while still using modern angles and cinematography.

Cluttered, lived-in scene from “The Entire History of You”. Looks natural. Flat angle; it’s clearly a lived-in house. They wear nice, modern clothes, but they are rich and posh.

These two from “Be Right Back” are pretty unfashionable. He looks like a dork. They also dress completely real. They feel like real “people”. This is the most emotional scene in the episode, yet it is naturally, brightly lit.

The scenery and costumes, then, appear totally real. Each shot is clear and direct. The production does not call attention to itself, and, so, we focus on the seamlessly incorporated technology. I could provide more examples, but almost all episodes follow this trend.

Now let’s check out two examples from the Netflix series.

This is from “Nosedive”. Does this look like any airport you’ve ever seen? A composed scene, with light pastel colors and an extra, I assume, ironic touch of a generic “Airport” sign.

This alley from “San Junipero” is outside a club. But where is all this red light coming from? The purple light? The neon lights don’t seem strong enough to flood the alley in red. There’s probably a big club sign, but if so why would it be hanging above this side alleyway?

First. These scenes are deliberately produced. They are intentionally artificially shot, framed, and lit. “Nosedive” presumably uses its “clean” visuals to convey the falseness that the characters live in. “San Junipero” looks intentionally neon and exaggerated to convey a fantasy land. Got it. However, it does not for a moment feel like the world we live in, or any human world. It lacks grit. It’s hard to buy even the simulated world.

Second. The costumes are also exaggerated and artificial. In “Nosedive” everyone dresses like a pastel 1950s Americana wet dream. Fine. “San Junipero” has 80s outfits, often exaggerated and saturated. It is a simulation of the 80s so this at least makes sense for the plot. However, neither costume choice lends itself to realism. Who dresses like this? Even the “plain Jane” protagonist of “San Junipero” seems to have a flawless knack for color choice and 2017 nerd chic.

However, these are not films, they are a TV show, and one which 1) already has an established visual tone, and 2) is based on the premise of exaggerated extrapolation of modern technology. Thus we expect some sort of a realistic tone for grounded sci-fi and the cinematography should reflect this.

I do not buy the visuals of these episodes. I don’t think they look realistic, and they look blatantly, starkly different than the episodes before them. Other episodes in this season suffer from the same “overproduced” quality, though there are exceptions (I would say “Shut Up and Dance” looks natural).

Why the change? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, right? If it’s more expensive, why bother?

You see — this is now a Netflix Original Series™. Exclusively so. That means it is only seen through streaming. People can stream from their TVs, sure, but — now you can stream through your tablet. Or your phone. That means the colors pop out more to keep you watching and not switching to something else.

This is why a lot of modern TV favors intense colors and contrasts in their visuals. It’s more immediately riveting from whichever device you see it in, and it begs your attention more. If you want to be cynical, a “striking” art style may also result in more articles written about your production.

In summary, Netflix production has resulted in:

More episodes per season (which means episodes that may not have made the cut now get in anyway)

Longer episodes (often too long)

Overproduction (to stand out visually on any device)

2. America, nostalgia, and the Netflixian dream

The old series was very British. This has slowly transitioned, presumably due to Netflix production, toward American. It has changed in three key points:

First, its humor. It often satirized British politics, and it had a sardonic sense of humor even when mired in misery. The new series sometimes has a sense of humor (“Nosedive” and “Shut Up and Dance”) but often eschews this for a totally different — and very American — sensibility.

It either features clear American parody (“Nosedive”) or constant banter (“Playtest”, although here it almost seems a subversion; but being self-aware doesn’t change the fact).

The political satire is mostly gone. “Shut Up and Dance” seems to be the only exception of truly black humor remaining.

Second, its protagonists. Previously, we had one American protagonist, Jon Hamm’s character in “White Christmas”. Now, 4/6 of protagonists are American. This is not an issue in and of itself, it doesn’t matter, but rather an example, or even proof that, Netflix definitely seems to be adapting to its audience. Why else the switch in nationality?

Third, its tone and subject matter. This is the most impactful change. I offer two examples for the direct influence a new, broader American audience has had on the show.

Example 1: the first episode.

The first episode of Black Mirror, “The National Anthem”, is a weird risk. It is a satire on social media’s effect on politics and the media as the Prime Minister is forced to pork a pig. It is shocking, unusual, and totally unique for television. He actually completes the act. It is a fast-paced burst of an episode that is not loved across the board. In fact it is quite divisive. It is definitely a risk, something Channel 4 acknowledges.

Netflix is clever. This episode probably turned some people off the show. There is no place for risks in Netflix, not really, so the solution was ingeniously simple: the recommended starting place is now the first episode of season 3, “Nosedive”.

“Nosedive” is not a risky episode. It has a very du-jour subject matter: those damn millennials are always on their phones; they don’t know what real life is. It is an exaggeration of this concept to the highest degree. Regardless of what you think of the episode’s quality, it is clear that the subject matter is very, very relevant and trendy. And the episode even has a happy ending.

It is no coincidence “Nosedive” is now the de-facto first episode. Capturing a broad audience is now the prerogative.

Example 2: How “San Junipero” was altered.

This episode was and became two different things, as, it seems, the result of direct influence from Netflix.

I claim it was definitely the result of corporate meddling, which is why it feels so different from the rest of the show. Essentially, it was a “risk” without risks. A departure from the depressing mire that is Black Mirror into another genre, and a different kind of science fiction, but into one more culturally “mainstream”.

The episode was once radically different. It seems it was once directly about the afterlife, and also once about nostalgia therapy for the elderly. These elements remain but now it is a love story.

Here’s three changes during its production.

Happy endings are easier to digest. The counter-argument is Black Mirror is too reliant on bad endings, but I don’t necessarily agree. I think plenty of the previous endings were ambiguous. The ending was changed to be more pleasant. Dead children were deemed unsavory. There was a scene regarding dead children sent to this virtual world, which makes sense. It was cut. “We thought about it,” says series creator Charlie Brooker in this article. Indeed they did, but it was deemed “too sad and too poignant.” A relationship’s dynamics were changed for more impact. “San Junipero” had its heterosexual relationship changed to a lesbian one later in production. This change isn’t a negative one. Obviously it’s more than fine to have homosexual couples in shows and movies (they are lacking; I especially notice a lack of gay men). But it is a change, and the reason cited doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Here it’s claimed that in actual 1987 a homosexual marriage would be illegal, and now it isn’t. This is true, yes, but this story clearly takes place far in the future. As old as they are, I doubt these women were old enough to have been marrying in 1987 anyway; they probably were marrying age in our time at the earliest. I don’t know that this makes a “deeper story”, and the reason they get married is a plot point anyway. The episode itself doesn’t really raise the theme of “forbidden love” (which is fine)— this is only claimed in interviews. Again, I don’t think it’s a bad change, just a suspiciously late, and calculated one. There’s a reason they chose the 1980s. There were several time periods considered. “I did want to do something where you saw them in loads of different eras,” claims Brooker. It is no coincidence that Netflix’s flagship series, Stranger Things, was going to release its second season a few months after the season 3 debut, on October 27th. Both take place in the 80s, and use neon colors, pop music, and references. This decision seems a probable decision to link the demographics of the more popular show (“Stranger Things”) to a show they may not necessarily have otherwise been interested in.

To summarize, the “Americanization” and targeting of the third season is apparent in:

Its casting

Its setting

Its tone

In conclusion, season 3 is pretty good. But it was clearly the result of a change, and not one always for the better.

One interesting caveat. Charlie Brooker claims “Netflix has been brilliant”. But I can’t help but read between the lines. Note a couple things he says here: “very collaborative”…“thoughtful”… “annoyingly useful”. In the end he says he is happy with their help. He claims: “But I would say that.” Indeed he would, as he is employed by them.

I don’t mourn that Netflix is “ruining” the show or anything like that. I don’t think they’re villains. But I do think that something small, personal, and strange was lost in the transition. Channel 4 regrets the purchase immensely, and to them a small European show lost to Netflix is perturbing (so’s the loss in profits of course; everyone’s got an angle).

But sometimes it’s those restrictions that make art unique, and I’m afraid we may not ever have the truly weird, perturbing, British visions again.