In an Era of Mainstream Mediocrity, Creative Choices Remain Conservative

How the death of Paul Reubens and the legacy of Pee-wee Herman doubles as a call for more rebellious creativity, against all odds

There will never be another Pee-wee Herman. For the technical thinker, this is a given. For the nostalgia junky, myself included, we’d be hard-pressed to believe that if the strange, subversive and whimsical world of Pee-wee first emerged today, it’d be warmly welcomed by studio execs. And that’s not for a lack of people trying to create their own beloved, iconoclastic characters or working tirelessly to push eccentrically brilliant storylines forward.

This is because, today, creative choices are conservative choices. A time in culture where doing anything other than safely fulfilling a ubiquitous market need is actively discouraged by corporate infrastructure – until proven to be popular, profitable or patent-able. While the entertainment industry has always operated in this vein to a degree, the streaming and social media era has opened the floodgates of mainstream mediocrity even wider, making it that much more difficult for off-the-beaten-path ideas to flourish. We’re navigating a time where even entire feature films can be haphazardly scrapped after post-production is complete for tax write-off purposes (Warner Bros.’ $90 million dollar “Batgirl”) and streamers aren’t even making their own original content available on their platforms indefinitely (HBO’s “Westworld” or “Raised by Wolves”). How does one rise above that kind of ruthless C-suite decision-making in hopes of creating something meaningful?

These were among my first thoughts upon hearing the gut-wrenching news that the award-winning actor and comedian Paul Reubens died after privately fighting cancer the last six years. In a statement written before his passing at the age of 70, Reubens shared, “I have loved you all so much and enjoyed making art for you.” This simple expression of gratitude reflects how, in the end, it was about the experience of creating authentically that stuck by him, not commercial success. That’s a beautiful legacy, and one that feels increasingly rare to achieve these days.

First debuting in 1977, the Pee-wee Herman character was born out of improvisational sketches cultivated as part of Reubens’ experience at the Groundlings in Los Angeles, where he met longtime collaborators Phil Hartman and John Paragon. Over time, the character was further refined and developed, strengthened by sold-out stage shows, an HBO special and impactful guest appearances on “Late Night with David Letterman.” This all led to the now-classic 1985 feature film, “Pee-wee’s Big Adventure” and “Pee-wee’s Playhouse,” the Emmy Award-winning children’s series that ran from 1986 to 1991 on CBS.

While Reubens’ highly publicized indecent exposure arrest in 1991 would, as the Associated Press put it, “send the character into entertainment exile for years,” the cultural influence of Pee-wee remains both undeniable across generations and unfeasible to summarize in a few short paragraphs. You didn’t have to grow up in the 80s or 90s to see how Pee-wee — and the man beneath the bow tie — was special; a true one of one. He not only was given creative control by television executives at CBS but he ran with it completely and fearlessly, embodying how artistic value and cultural impact stretches beyond what any kind of numbers on a spreadsheet may (or may not) reflect.

Pee-wee Herman serves as a reminder that behind every creative pioneer is someone who took a chance or believed in a vision, and provided resources to help that exploration and execution beyond an initial “proof of concept” stage. Today, the odds are increasingly stacked against those trying to do something different, in favor of tried and tested intellectual property that is easier to justify in the boardroom. Currently, we are robbing ourselves of potentially iconic, groundbreaking work because studios would rather expand the Marvel universe than spend time and money and creative energy taking a chance on new ones.

Recently, potential layoffs and financial cuts at Turner Classic Movies riled up renowned directors Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson to the point of them personally getting involved. They called an emergency meeting with Warner Bros. head David Zaslav to protect the channel from a short-sighted restructuring that would have accelerated a regrettable demise of the heralded film network. But what happens when even those with influence of such magnitude can’t successfully convince an unwavering stalwart of protecting a company’s bottom line that art (regardless of medium) is worth preserving or worth investing in despite the possibility of not raking in massive profits?

We’re seeing this question remain unanswered with every passing day of the still-ongoing Writers Guild of America strike. Currently, the major studios that make up the majority of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers aren’t willing to budge an inch during negotiations, even when it could be just as simple as giving up less than 1% of their annual profits. Hollywood has already (reportedly) said the quiet part out loud, with a studio executive anonymously telling Deadline, “The endgame is to allow things to drag on until union members start losing their apartments and losing their houses.”

Now, with the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) joining the strike — facing similar battles for residuals and AI protections — existential threats holding the very real potential to eliminate entire career paths hang tangibly in the balance. With so much at stake in today’s competitive attention economy, it’s easy to understand how things like reboots, revivals and new franchise installments are safe bets. However, at what point does injecting the next semi-forgettable TV series or a subpar film with familiar IP take it from passable programming to mere background noise for those thumbing through TikTok?

From tasking writers with creating jokes that will “land” on social media (a phenomenon that has already backfired) to adding more pressure to already-shrinking writer’s rooms as a way to cut costs to attempting to turn to generative AI for answers (shortcuts), studios and streamers seem to be doubling down on the now-blatant expectation that on-screen stories must become massive commercial successes or spawn sequels to warrant being made in the first place, all while doing the opposite to support the creative minds they rely on.

In decades prior, VHS and DVD sales helped give showrunners and networks more opportunities to make mistakes and learn from them, because if something didn’t do well in theaters, there was a secondary market that benefited creators and investors financially, while also entertaining smaller, niche audiences. There was also more forgiveness in things like changing schedules on linear TV or giving characters time to marinate or grow even if initial ratings didn’t yield much promise. Reubens’ Pee-wee was given the grace of being able to experiment in real time, delighting audiences with quirks that most likely wouldn’t have been given the chance to fly today. In today’s streaming age, such freedom is seemingly kept on luxury reserve.

Crushingly common fates include shows being canceled, despite cultivating a fandom, before there’s a proper conclusion (i.e. Netflix’s “The OA” or NBC’s “Zoey’s Extraordinary Playlist”) or audiences worrying that a show’s record-breaking success may result in executives being tempted to run it into the ground (i.e. the will-they-won’t-they season 4 of “Ted Lasso” or the prospect of infinite seasons of HBO’s “White Lotus”). With these odds increasingly stacking up against genuine exploration of talent and potential, how is someone supposed to be creative at all? Alternatively, when will playing it this safe simply get old?

Testing the limits of such luck, Mattel is now working against its reputed 78-year history as a toy manufacturer to instead become primarily known as an “IP company” to the point that someone suggested in earnest they create a movie based on the card game Uno or the Magic 8 Ball and someone else said, ‘Yes, of course’ — to both. Reading their forthcoming plans to continue on the path that the tremendously successful and wildly brilliant “Barbie” movie forged reads like parody, with the company currently developing projects inspired by “Barney,” “Polly Pocket,” “Thomas and Friends,” “American Girl,” “Masters of the Universe,” “Wishbone,” “Matchbox,” and “Hot Wheels.” Plus, there’s also a “Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots” movie starring Vin Diesel in the works. Because why wouldn’t there be? With massive talent already attached to some of these freshly announced projects, it’s clear Mattel is embodying a ‘go big or go home’ mantra. None of this is all that surprising, but similar to those saying reality TV will “get us through” any lulls in content caused by the dual strikes, it is bittersweet to think ‘this is it, this is the entertainment we deserve.’

Even as it feels like the walls of wonder are closing in, the best way to honor the legacy of characters like Pee-wee Herman is to take rebellious risks, invest in those looking to inspire through their own distinctive voices and continue fighting against a far too normalized system that prioritizes profits over creative pursuit. Otherwise, we deserve what the algorithm dictates and that will be a travesty of incomprehensible consequence.

Thank you to Kim Bucci and Colleen Coburn for the tactful edits and kind feedback, and to Matt Mauldin, for having hours-long conversations with me while I was putting all of these rambling thoughts and ideas into words.