By Haoran Xia
Published on: DeepFocus
January 21, 2021
This may be television’s finest era.
Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, Hollywood’s increasingly conservative film production system has driven countless creators toward the small screen. There, they discovered television’s structural advantages: longer narrative time, broader frameworks, and more complete systems—qualities that compensate for cinema’s inherent limitations.
During the first decade of the century, television production was largely shaped by competition between broadcast networks such as ABC and CBS, and premium cable channels like HBO and Showtime. Landmark series including The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Lost, and Dexter emerged, defining the thematic concerns and philosophical foundations of television in that era. Their intricate plotting, refined cinematography, and first-rate production values propelled television to a new status within the audiovisual industry, allowing it to shed its long-standing “soap opera” stigma and assert a distinctive artistic identity.
If the first decade can be seen as a period of accumulation, then the second - roughly 2010 to 2020 - was television’s moment of full-scale eruption.
In the early years of this second decade, broadcast networks receded as cable television rose to prominence. HBO’s Game of Thrones, Showtime’s Homeland, and AMC’s Mad Men and Breaking Bad became the era’s frontrunners, redefining television’s themes and trajectories and formally inaugurating its Golden Age. These series inherited the first decade’s hallmarks - precision, narrative density, and a focus on central characters - while expanding television’s scope across genres, professions, and social groups. Subjective storytelling intensified; narrative ambition deepened. Television began to probe human philosophy and the complex relationships between individuals and society, producing a landscape of extraordinary diversity and creative plurality.
As time moved forward, streaming platforms entered the arena. Netflix and Hulu, led by series such as The Handmaid’s Tale, Ozark, and The Crown, disrupted cable’s dominance. Today, Disney+, Apple TV+, and Warner Bros.’ restructured HBO Max have further diversified genres and themes, while simultaneously escalating competition in the streaming wars.
This is also, undeniably, an era in which audiences possess unprecedented power over what they watch. In the past, television held the authority - only exceptional series survived the jungle of programming. Now, with hundreds of shows released each year, choice has shifted decisively to viewers. Regardless of quality or taste, there will always be something tailored to you. Yet this democratization has also lowered thresholds of quality and entry. HBO, once defined by its boutique prestige model, has been overwhelmed by Netflix’s strategy of volume, dragged into the streaming vortex, and forced into a struggle for survival.
So what, then, defines television in this second decade? How does it resemble/ differ from its predecessors? What advantages do we, as consumers, truly enjoy? And most crucially: what kind of television will we need in the decade to come?
The Antihero Remains Central, and the Question “Who Am I?” Dominates the Screen
As early as the turn of the millennium, HBO began popularizing the concept of the antihero, overturning traditional models of television protagonists. Tony Soprano in The Sopranos and Carrie Bradshaw in Sex and the City exemplify this shift. These characters are no longer idealized elites adorned with moral purity; they are flawed individuals driven by personal desire, reflecting everyday life like a fractured mirror.
This paradigm inaugurated the age of the television antihero, a legacy that carried into the second decade. Unlike their predecessors, antiheroes emerging around 2010 became more fragile, more vulnerable. Often exceptional within their professions, they nonetheless fail to fulfill their aspirations due to life’s contingencies. No longer confined to black-and-white moral binaries, they inhabit ethical gray zones, bound by conscience yet constrained by principle.
Walter White (Breaking Bad) and Don Draper (Mad Men) embody this evolution. Building upon the groundwork of the first decade, screenwriters delved deeper into psychological motivation, crafting layered inner lives rather than merely staging actions. As these narratives unfold, we learn that their descent into darkness is fueled by fear of reality and distrust of the self. These deeply internal impulses give rise to characters who resonate profoundly with viewers: figures of apparent grandeur who are, in truth, ordinary individuals crushed by life’s trivialities, bearing destinies akin to classical Shakespearean tragedy.
In a society that ostensibly celebrates “truth, goodness, and beauty,” antiheroes may seem an unlikely model. Yet reality contradicts this ideal. Antiheroic protagonists continue to proliferate, exposing human hypocrisy and cowardice, and revealing our insignificance in the face of disaster and systemic injustice. Paradoxically, it is precisely through this depiction of smallness that television communicates the strength of life itself, uncovering perseverance beneath weakness, effort beneath deceit. These antiheroes remind us that greatness is forged through hardship, and that they are, ultimately, reflections of ourselves.
Saul Goodman in Better Call Saul survives relentless destruction by abandoning the collective order and embracing individual destiny. The Jennings couple in The Americans walk the razor’s edge between nation and family, ultimately reclaiming personal freedom. Post-2013 antiheroes are more transparent, more human. Though still marginal figures in moral gray zones, they dare to confront fate, challenge society, and wage internal battles of astonishing intensity in pursuit of self-worth.
Over time, the antihero’s arc has become complete: from behavioral display, to psychological depth, to resistance against reality, and finally to self-redemption. By the end, distinctions between “good” and “evil” dissolve. Black, white, and gray merge into a single continuum. Contemporary antiheroes trace circular lives of self-recognition, establishing a new value system for television: the perfect protagonist is obsolete; imperfection is the true condition of human centrality.
The profoundly philosophical question “Who am I?” became a defining obsession of this decade. Originating again in Mad Men and Breaking Bad, writers extended psychological inquiry into existential territory. Character development became fluid rather than predetermined, as protagonists appeared consciously to explore unknown destinies. This openness allowed for deeper characterization, granting creators the temporal and narrative space to sculpt complexity.
Much like the antihero, this question reoriented television’s value system, especially after 2010, compelling writers to focus on ordinary confusion. Art, after all, emerges from life or is life refined. “Who am I?” engages viewers in constant dialogue, immersing them in character evolution while prompting recognition of their own lived experiences.
Kevin Garvey in The Leftovers transitions in an instant from respected police chief to a man persecuted by religious zealots. Amid relentless upheaval, he follows fate without pause. And he is not alone: every character in The Leftovers is forced by an indifferent world to search for personal exits from the labyrinth of destiny, guarding their faith while confronting the mystery of existence.
Their turbulence mirrors our own. As children, we dream of becoming scientists or artists; later, we strive for elite schools; eventually, we scatter into separate professional paths, becoming versions of ourselves shaped by society. Reality may lack television’s dramatic intensity, yet we too are worn down by daily life, occasionally drifting, forgetting who we are.
Television’s recurring “Who am I?” calls us back: What are you pursuing? Are you willing to live an unremarkable life? Do you wish to rebuild the system like Elliot in Mr. Robot—or wander in existential stasis like Barry in Barry, retreating into a self-contained capsule of repetition?
Marginalized Voices Regain Momentum: Entertainment and Politics Are Never Separate
The MeToo movement, LGBTQ+ movements, and last year’s Black Lives Matter protests pushed Hollywood’s political correctness debates to a breaking point around 2020. From Gone with the Wind’s temporary removal from HBO Max to public reckonings with systemic racism, racial tensions resurfaced with violent intensity.
Yet Hollywood - and television in particular -has never entirely lacked diversity, at least in relative terms. Through sustained effort by marginalized communities, post-2010 television increasingly foregrounded minority narratives.
HBO’s Looking portrays the communal lives of gay men on the U.S. West Coast; Netflix’s Orange Is the New Black constructs a powerful ensemble of Black women; FX’s Atlanta explores dreams and survival in the American South. Individually, these series shine like gemstones; together, they form a necklace of irreplaceable brilliance within Hollywood.
Crossing race, gender, religion, and sexuality, these narratives expand not only representation but also television’s ethical horizon, extending its gaze across social strata. In recent years, minority stories have evolved further, transforming personal specificity into shared human memory.
Fleabag articulates love and helplessness through the misfortunes of a thirty-something London woman, speaking for an entire generation of urban youth. HBO’s I May Destroy You confronts trauma and self-reclamation with humor and surrealism, affirming that before human vulnerability, we are all equal.
Political correctness, however, has its limits. In the rush toward ideological alignment, some series sacrifice emotional resonance in favor of political messaging. These works become casualties of their moment, unable to survive on narrative substance alone. Entertainment and politics, both elements of cultural superstructure, remain bound together, but when politics overwhelms entertainment, the latter loses its essence.
Earlier political dramas like The West Wing treated politics as a contained ethical space, largely detached from viewers’ realities. After Donald Trump’s election in 2016, writers encountered a crisis: no fictional dystopia could rival the absurdity of real politics. Veep succeeded precisely because it returned to humanity beneath satire, reminding viewers that political farce is transient, and empathy endures.
Black Mirror follows a similar trajectory - beginning with technological indictment, yet concluding with fragile hope rooted in human kindness. Throughout this decade, Hollywood has navigated between reality and fiction, constructing bridges that reveal their interdependence.
Streaming: The New Rule-Makers
By 2010, streaming platforms led by Netflix became television’s new sovereigns. They dismantled the traditional pilot system, releasing entire seasons at once and drastically reducing financial risk while extending a show’s cultural lifespan. Viewers no longer feared abrupt cancellation; stability reshaped consumption habits and investor confidence alike.
Season-based production further stabilized capital flow, encouraging larger investments and elevating production standards. HBO had long been synonymous with high costs: Band of Brothers, Rome, and Boardwalk Empire all exceeded one million dollars per episode. Game of Thrones amplified this scale. Yet Netflix rewrote the rules entirely: The Crown, with a reported $150 million per season, became the most expensive series to date. Disney+ soon followed with The Mandalorian, produced at blockbuster-level budgets.
Streaming’s fast, efficient model reshaped both production and structure. Episodes became shorter, seasons more concise. Ten-episode formats reduced viewer fatigue and accelerated the rise of limited series: Olive Kitteridge, Small Axe, Patrick Melrose, and Normal People exemplify this shift.
Compression has benefits, forcing creators to treat television like a ten-hour film - but also risks, constraining narrative scope. Yet regardless of outcome, this evolution is inevitable. Concentrated budgets and refined craftsmanship will continue pushing television upward in spirals of technical advancement.
This decade has witnessed seismic transformation. Television has grown more cinematic, more diverse, more abundant. It has given audiences unprecedented choice and reflected our own lives back at us.
And so, in the next decade, we will still need this television. Because we love it. Because we choose to believe. And because we choose to remain hopeful.
作者：夏浩然
发表于：深焦DeepFocus
二零二一 一月二十一日
这或许是电视最好的时代。
二十一世纪以来，好莱坞电影保守的制作系统让众多制作人转战小荧幕，让他们发现电视时间长，构架宽，体系完整的优点，弥补了电影制作的局限性。第一个十年，电视制作与出品集中于公众台，如ABC（美国广播公司），CBS（哥伦比亚广播公司）等与有线台，如HBO（Home Box Office）、Showtime之间的较量，涌现出《黑道家族》、《大西洋帝国》、《迷失》、《嗜血法医》等定义第一个十年电视主题和电视哲学的杰出剧集。扑朔迷离的剧情，精致的摄影和一流水准的制作让电视在影视业逐渐崛起，摆脱过往的“肥皂剧”标签，展现着电视独一无二的魅力。如果把第一个十年看作电视行业的沉淀，那么第二个十年，也就是2010年至2020年，则是电视力量的爆发。
第二个十年初期，公众台退居二线，有线台声名鹊起。HBO的《权力的游戏》，Showtime的《国土安全》，AMC的《广告狂人》和《绝命毒师》成为了第二个十年电视的领头羊，二次定义了电视行业的主题和发展方向，成功开启电视的黄金时代。他们既继承了第一个十年电视行业独家精致、叙事性强、集中构造核心人物的特点，又在此基础之上，扩大各个电视类别的选择，在多个领域，多个职业，多个群体加强叙事的主观性和剧集的可观性，深入探讨人类哲学和人类与社会的多元关系，营造出百花齐放、百家争鸣的电视奇观。
时间推进，流媒体进入视野，Netflix和Hulu分别带领《使女的故事》、《黑钱胜地》、《王冠》等新一代网络剧集加入这场盛宴，冲击了有线台的首要地位。当今，Disney +，Apple TV和华纳兄弟重新打造的HBO Max丰富了电视行业的类别与题材，同样在另一方面，加大了当下流媒体战役的竞争性。诚然，这同样或许是消费者拥有最多权利消费电视内容的时代。过去，选择权在电视手里，优秀的剧集才得以在电视丛林中生存，成为电视中的佼佼者，如今，每年多达百部电视剧可供观众选择，选择权被交接至观众手里，无论电视质量高低，无论观众品味优劣，总有一部电视合你口味。在一定程度上，该新标准相对降低了电视的质量和开播门槛，导致以出品小众精品剧集的HBO被Netflix的海量战术吞噬，被卷入流媒体漩涡，难以生存。那么，这第二个十年的电视是怎样的？他与以前有何相似之处又有何不同？作为消费者的我们又享受到何种优势？最重要的，下一个十年，我们需要什么样的电视？
反派英雄仍是主流，“我是谁”哲学遍布小荧幕
早在千禧年交接之际，HBO剧集便着手普及“反派英雄”这一观念，颠覆着传统电视的主角设定。《黑道家族》的托尼·所普拉诺和《欲望都市》的凯莉·布雷萧则是该时期最好的例子。这类主角不再是拥有人道主义光环的完美精英，而是拥有个人私欲，如菱镜般折射大众生活的不完美角色。这类角色开辟了电视反派英雄设定的先河，同样该设定原则也在第二个十年得到传承。不同于早期的反派英雄，2010前后出现的这类角色变得更加脆弱，更不堪一击。他们往往是一个领域或者一个行业的杰出人物，但因种种人生轨迹，未能实现人生理想。相比以前的黑与白，10年后出现的反派英雄常常行走在灰色地带，被道德束缚，被原则捆绑。
《绝命毒师》的沃特·怀特和《广告狂人》的唐纳德·德雷普展示新一个十年反派英雄的命运走向。通过第一个十年的沉淀，好莱坞编剧们更进一步探讨反派英雄“不完美”的原因，加强该类角色的心理建设，为他们书写更深层次的个人故事，而不仅仅做单方面的行为展示。故事展开，我们得知这些角色拥抱黑暗和披上外衣的原动力都是对现实的恐惧，和对自己的不信任。这些来自内心深处的欲念为角色塑造了一各有一个与现实共鸣的个性，让观众体会到，这些看似伟大的反派英雄，实则都是被生活琐碎击垮，拥有古典莎士比亚悲剧命运般的平凡个体。或许在当下崇尚“真善美”价值观的社会中，反派英雄并非影视作品模范人物的首选，但现实却背道而行，反派主角纷涌而至，横向展示人类在现实中的虚伪和懦弱，在接二连三的惨案后，揭示人类在社会灾难和命运不公前的渺小。但或许正是因为反派英雄展示了人类的渺小，才成功传递了生命强大的信息，描绘了虚伪背后的努力，懦弱背后的韧劲，告诉我们伟大的背后都是磨难，反派英雄实则是我们每一个人。
《风骚律师》的索尔·古德曼在无数次的打击和摧毁下，告别母体社会，拥抱个体社会，成为拯救个人命运的英雄；《美国谍梦》的詹宁夫妇行走在家国一体的冷战刀刃上，如履薄冰，最终解放个人命运，重获自由。2013年后的这些反派英雄变得更加真实，更加透明。不同于2010初的主角们，他们为观众带来了希望，虽然他们仍是灰色地带的小人物，但他们却敢于与命运叫板，与社会争斗，与现实打着一场又一场精彩的精神战役，尝试实现自我价值，拥有着独善其身却不屑于平负天下的个人精神。至今，反派英雄的人物曲线更加完整，从最初的行为展示，到10年初期的心理建设，到中期的抗争现实，到现在的自我救赎，反派英雄披荆斩棘，最终成为自我认可的正派英雄。但这时，“正”与“反”已不再重要，因为角色内心已得到释怀，黑白灰三色也融为一体，当今的反派英雄正在书写属于自己的环形人生。他们为当代电视树立了全新的价值观 - 完美主角已被淘汰，不完美主角才是人生主角。
“我是谁”这个拥有绝对哲学性的问题，在这个十年，被好莱坞编剧所青睐。同样起源于《广告狂人》和《绝命毒师》，编剧深层次挖掘反派英雄的心理建设后，为该类角色发展旅程画上一个哲学的符号 - 我是谁。传统定向的人物发展变得流动，每个主角似乎都有意识般得探索自己未知的命运，也是在这个流动的探索过程中，每个主角的更多特质得以剖析，为剧集创作人提供更多时间和空间来塑造更立体的角色。与“反派英雄”类别有异曲同工之妙处是，“我是谁”同样为当代电视，特别是2010年后的电视确立了新的价值观，让编剧和制作人更加关注普罗大众的困惑，因为艺术来源于生活，或艺术是生活的加工，“我是谁”时刻与观众进行双向的对话，让观众始终沉浸于角色的发展，寻找与真实的相似之处。
正如《守望尘世》的凯文，分秒之间从受人爱戴的警察局局长变为一名遭受宗教团体攻击的普通人，在一次次世事变迁之中，凯文追随命运的脚步从未停止，而不仅仅是凯文，大环境的无情迫使《守望尘世》中的所有角色在命运迷宫中探索各自的出口，找到属于生命之谜的答案，守住自己的信仰。动荡之中的角色，活在起伏之间，他们的命运与处于现实中的我们息息相关。小时候我们梦想成为科学家、艺术家，而进入学校后励志考所好大学，进入社会后各自却分道扬镳，走上属于自己的专业道路，成为属于大家的自己。也许现实中的起伏不如剧集中的精彩激烈，但在点点滴滴中，我们也无不不被生活击垮，偶尔随波逐流，忘记“我是谁”。而剧集中的“我是谁”也时刻提醒着我们，你在追求着什么？你是否愿意碌碌无为一生？还是想和《黑客军团》中的艾略特一样凭借一己之力建立一个崭新的资本帝国？或是想和《巴瑞》中的巴瑞一般，在人生道路上反反复复，走走停停，停歇在自我胶囊里，不得前行。
边缘群体二次蓄力，娱乐政治从不分家
在METOO平权运动，各大LGBTQ平权运动和去年BLM平权运动中，好莱坞的政治正确矛盾似乎在2020年达到巅峰。先有《乱世佳人》被迫下架HBO Max，后有各大社交媒体上好莱坞名人被暴种族歧视，时隔百年，一时之间，种族仇恨再次在好莱坞掀起另一场腥风血雨。但好莱坞，甚至是电视业，也从来不缺相对定义上的多样性（对于白人群体而言的相对性）。在边缘群体的不断努力下，2010年以来，越来越多的剧集开始叙述少数群体的故事，为我们展示少数群体的生活。
HBO的《寻》揭示了美国西海岸男同性恋群体的群居生活，Netflix的《女子监狱》群像描绘了黑人女性的强大和无畏，FX的《亚特兰大》聚焦美国南部城市亚特兰大，讲述一个无名之辈的梦想与奋斗。这一个个聚焦个别群体的剧集，如同一串精美项链上的各个珠宝，光彩夺目，串联在一起后，更加耀眼，成为好莱坞无法取代的唯一。这些跨种族，跨性别，跨宗教，跨性向的多样选择不仅仅为叙事增添了多样性，同样拓宽以往好莱坞选择的局限性，让剧集类别和剧集价值取向延展至社会各个阶层和各个群体，全方位地筛选那些值得被阐述的主题，传递着属于不同社会个体的价值观。值得一提的是，在近两年，通过不断的磨合和再定义，少数群体将自己的故事，链接至所有人脑海深处的感知和回忆，将其打造为属于所有人的故事。
Amazon Prime Video的《伦敦生活》让所有人感受到爱的力量和人在生活云云中的无力，这个30岁出头的伦敦女人的不幸经历替所有当代都市青年发声。HBO的《我可以毁掉你》，这部诞生于2020年的黑马剧集，真实地展示了种族和性少数群体的勇敢和自我救赎，用诙谐而又超现实的表现形式，直击每个人的内心，告诉我们，所有人在人性前都同为一体。
不过政治正确也有局限性。在排山倒海式的政治倒向宣传下，不少剧集被政治正确中的“正确”挟持，专注于渲染故事中的政治色彩，却遗忘故事本身的共情性。这类剧集是当下好莱坞政治风波中的牺牲品，他们虽竭尽全力尝试夺得一席之地，却因故事质量的单薄被无情淘汰。娱乐与政治，这上层建筑中的两个因素，始终是命运共同体。单方向一味追求政治立场，娱乐的本质则会被泯灭。
2010年前的政治题材剧集，如NBC的《白宫风云》，仅仅通过政治这一媒介，单一展现政治群体的生活和其背后的伦理，并没有将政治延伸至现实当中，与观众产生共鸣，更像在设计一场虚拟的政治游戏。2016年特朗普当选总统后，好莱坞的编剧则在政治题材上遭遇了瓶颈，因为他们发现无论在政治上如何构造反乌托邦或乌托邦，打造荒谬的政治幻想，都不及现实政治的讽刺和荒诞来得猛烈。HBO的《副总统》，2010年后这个十年最为经典的政治讽刺喜剧，却在这场现实政治戏剧中获胜，因为在荒谬背后，《副总统》回归现实，告诉观众现实中的戏剧虽强烈，但短暂，乌云背后总有幸福线，人走茶凉后的政治现实也终将被共情的人文色彩包容。原为BBC后转至Netflix的《黑镜》系列也如此。编剧以讽刺现实，弹劾科技为起点，但以爱和人性中的微弱善良为终点，在冷漠的现实社会中为我们给予一丝来自明天的希望。的确，娱乐与政治息息相关，这个十年，好莱坞不断游走在现实政治与虚构政治之间，尝试搭建一个稳固而又具有传送性的桥梁，让观众体会到真实与虚构之间的客观联系。
流媒体 - 新规则制定者
进入2010年，以Netflix为首的新一代流媒体成为了电视行业的王者。他们打破了传统“首播集”试播的投资运行方式，一次性将剧集全部呈现在网站上共观众消费，大大降低了以往好莱坞电视制作的风险成本，也相对保证了每部剧集的有效期，使得剧集在市场上的影响能延续，并加强每个流媒体品牌的核心竞争力。以往国内观众埋冤的“被砍”现象大大减少，因为“一次性”播放保障了观众能时刻享受剧集这一权利，自然而然地，消费者也更倾向于这一稳定的电视消费模式，而不用日日担心心爱的剧集是否会被高层投资人取消（如当年的《汉尼拔》）。
如今流媒体剧集以一季为单位的制作方式，一来保障了产品的可消费性，二来稳固了投资人的投资心理，让他们大胆放心投资，使得更多投资人愿意将大量资金投入剧集，这也侧面刺激了剧集在制作上的水平。
HBO一直以来以“昂贵”的成本出名，早在2000年，《兄弟连》、《大西洋帝国》、《罗马》等剧集的单集预算高达百万美金，超出许多电影制作成本。2010年后，《权力的游戏》成为HBO的头号种子，大量的资金投入更保障了剧集的质量，成功打造出这个电视史上最庞博的奇观。但HBO仍坚持“首播集”试播的选剧方式，Netflix则大相径庭，彻底颠覆电视剧的资本运营模式，其旗下的《王冠》是目前为止最昂贵的剧集，单季成本高达1.5亿美金。如今Disney +的《曼达洛人》也加入其中，运用相等于好莱坞商业片成本的数量来打造Disney +的首要剧集。
流媒体其短、快、简的创作方式影响着好莱坞电视业的投资模式和制作方式，2010年前称霸电视行业的HBO如今在流媒体的冲击下，其订阅者大量流失，且在每年颁奖季上，遭受多方流媒体夹击，不过瘦死的骆驼比马大，追求精品的HBO仍有他的一席之地。在多家流媒体的争霸之下，几家主流流媒体只会增加其对剧集的投资，打造完美无疵的电视精品。
不过，流媒体改变的不仅仅是投资方式，也改变了剧集的制作结构。2010年前后，以《广告狂人》、《绝命毒师》等诞生于黄金时代初期的剧集为例，他们纷纷将剧集浓缩化，避免以往的“10季，24集一季”的普遍现象，将电视剧往精致方向发展，使得剧集质量不会像过去一般每况愈下，并且保障了观众不会过度疲乏。
进入新流媒体时代，剧集更浓缩至“10集一季”，大大减少了观众的时间成本，一定程度上让观众更乐意选择电视，在恰当的时间长度中享受娱乐，而不会出现两小时电影带来的意犹未尽。该发展模式也促进了“迷你剧”或“限定剧”的普遍。HBO的《奥利芙·基特里奇》，Amazon Prime Video的《小斧头》，Showtime的《浮生若梦》以及Hulu的《正常人》，都是这一趋势的产物，也迎合了这个十年电视结构的发展趋势。
剧集浓缩或许是一件好事，因为这种方式让制作集中化，迫使制作团队竭尽全力打造一部“10小时”的电影，提高整个电视行业的制作水准，为观众带来更精美的视听盛宴；但他也有可能是一件坏事，因为这样精致方式或许会让一些制作人感到棘手，无法在特定时间长度内制造相应效果。但无论好坏，这一趋势是必然存在的，它督促了剧集精致化的发展，将制作成本高度集中，剧集的质量或许无法得以保障，但从制作和技术层面上来分析，必然会以螺旋向上式的发展。
这个十年，我们看到了电视行业翻云覆雨的变化；我们看到电视逐渐走向精致，贴近电影制作；我们看到剧集数量大幅度上涨，为消费者创造了在电视史上拥有最多选择的时代；我们也看到世事变迁，小荧幕逐渐多样，多元，勾勒全球万千；我们更看到了我们自己。所以，下个十年，我们仍需要现在的电视。我们因为热爱，所以选择相信，选择保持希望。