Eric Bana, Sam Neill, stunning natural scenery — I was in.

The six-part series is well made: strong performances, solid direction, and, obviously, breathtaking landscapes that steal the show. But overall, Untamed suffers from the same problem as many streaming productions today — it’s interchangeable.

Aside from the nature shots, it’s just another crime drama about a burned-out detective character solving a murder case. Eric Bana is a great choice for the lead role, no doubt, but there simply isn’t much material for him to work with. The plot follows a familiar path, the story never shows us anything we haven’t seen before, and you can spot the final twist coming from a mile away.

Don’t get me wrong — Untamed isn’t bad. It’s just not special.

With so much content being released across dozens of streaming platforms, being “just okay” isn’t enough anymore. You’re either the next Stranger Things or Squid Game — or you’re forgotten within a week. Sadly Untamed falls into the latter category of streaming entertainment.

I enjoy watching adult animated shows from time to time. Splinter Cell: Deathwatch looked intriguing — although I have to admit that I never really played the games.

After watching the entire show on Netflix, I’d describe it as a mixed bag. The animation style really appealed to me. It’s gritty, dark, and grounded. The voice acting is excellent (at least in the German version). There are also some absolutely beautiful scenes. In particular, a few moments set in Japan — with a train passing in the background — have really stuck with me. Those scenes showcased animation at its finest.

However, the story didn’t fully convince me.

Once again, it feels like the creators took an established IP with an existing fanbase to draw people in — only to focus on a different character than the one the title actually promises.

As I said, I haven’t played the games, but I know that Sam Fisher is the main protagonist: a highly skilled, well-equipped one-man operative — essentially a mix of James Bond and Jack Reacher, with Navy SEAL elements thrown in.

The show uses Fisher more as a gateway to introduce a different protagonist — the character whose story the creators actually want to tell.

To me, that feels like a bait-and-switch. This approach has been used repeatedly over the past 15 years, with Star Wars being one of the most prominent examples. The question is: has it ever truly worked? One could even argue that this strategy contributed significantly to the decline of Star Wars.

It certainly didn’t help Splinter Cell, which could have been far better if the story had focused primarily on Fisher instead of introducing a new central character.

I like my sci-fi shows, and I’m also a fan of J.K. Simmons, so I was excited about Night Sky. My watchlist is completely packed, though, so I’m late to the party once again—the show was released almost four years ago. But I finally got to see the 8 episodes last week.

As usual with streaming services, if a show doesn’t go viral immediately, it gets nuked pretty quickly. Shame on them, because many shows only find their footing over time. Just look at the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was a mess. But in season two, the production quality improved, and the character development and world-building became genius for the six seasons that followed.

We’ll never know where Night Sky might have gone, because they pulled the plug far too early.

The show itself is well made. Acting is great, suspense is intriguing, and the cinematography pleasing. It starts slowly, yes, but the premise is a good one for every sci-fi fan. I would have loved to see where the story was heading.

But again—we’ll never know.

If you enjoy slow-burn sci-fi, it’s worth a watch. Just be aware that almost nothing is revealed: no real answers, no resolved storylines. What a shame.

You never really know whether entertainment media tells the true story of a historical event. They lie to us about many things, bend the truth to fit their narrative, and sometimes replace real historical figures, and even invert entire realities to serve political ideologies.

But when I watch shows that depict the sheer evil of communist Soviet Russia, I’m quick to believe most of it.

The current system clearly wants us to live under a state-controlled form of communism, which is why mainstream narratives often portray communism and its pre-form, socialism, in a more favorable light.

A show like Chernobyl is therefore not something I would expect to exaggerate the truth. If anything, I assume reality was even more disgusting than what we see on screen.

From a technical standpoint, the show is outstanding. The writing, cinematography, and acting are excellent throughout. It’s a top-notch production made by very skilled people. Stellan Skarsgård is in it—one of my favorites—and he delivers a fantastic performance as always. That said, the entire cast is great.

Ironically, the female protagonist who is willing to fight the communist system was entirely invented and serves as a placeholder for numerous male Soviet scientists. So yes—there’s your liberal feminist propaganda, pushed even into a show like this.

If you watch Chernobyl as a historical piece, it makes your blood boil. The communist regime “disappeared” far more people than we will ever know, and one of the greatest crimes it committed was Chernobyl. So many people suffered under state rule in the mass experiment called the Soviet Union that I genuinely can’t understand how so many people today see socialism, or even communism, as something good.

If you give the state absolute power, it will abuse it absolutely. Chernobyl was not just an “accident”; it was another example of state failure, killing innocent people on a massive scale.

Watch the show for an example of that, or what it for the entertainment value. But definitively watch it, as it’s a great show.