Based on a by Mike Isaacs, this book chronicles the definite rise and fall of Uber founder Travis Kalanick (played by), a tech innovator who was passionate about sustaining the rideshare era despite numerous harsh accusations about a toxic culture at the company. It's a fascinating portrait of ambition, confidence, hubris, and, well, the frivolity of consequences when you're talking about Gods and money monsters who move a thousand feet over our heads and cash out
If you watch the show and don't feel a mix of outrage and envy, then you get better. For me, I couldn't help but wonder how much I could get with less effort and more confidence. Similar to how I've seen a lot of these recent shows that focus on technology and similarly centered around people who can talk their way into power and out of trouble. Is there something else that makes these programs so watchable? Following Sunday's season finale of the planned anthology series from the minds behind (
What's the sort of friction between... okay, we want to show what Travis loses, but again, at the end, Travis gains a lot. From a financial standpoint and from a power perspective. What's the level of thought as far as showing the downfall, the climb, and then concern about not wanting this guy to appear like a rockstar or something that people should strive to emulate?
David Levien: In the writer's room, everybody had used the book. We kind of understood that it had gone public and that he had left it, and that there were some issues. But the thing really started with Mike Isaac's book. He gave it to Brian and then Beth gave it to me and then Beth read it. We thought that he retelled this incredible story about the company's inner processes that we had all our lives, but we weren't sure how it got there and what happened.
These are the examples and anecdotes in his book that were so intriguing that we didn't have to look at a lot of them before. Despite this, you begin to realize that this group of rebels believe they're going to dethrone the entrenched power in an area, in this case, the taxi and livery industry. And then they do it only to increase to power and then do themselves in the same way or worse corruption-wise, than the previous group. Perhaps it's just something
Did we feel like a responsibility, or would we, be able to lionize these people? I think that we do it in a way where we want them to understand them. We don't feel like it's our duty to judge them, and we want the audience to learn to read it, as long as it's a complete cautionary tale or a negative portrayal. They simply believe that he is fantastic. A lot of others are unaware at the end that he has seen something.
And for us, we felt like we wanted to put everything out there and it is for the audience to decide how they feel about it. And the fact that society provides a huge financial aid to these people... And he was able to enlist hundreds and thousands of people in his vision of the company. So that part had to come across and then the rest of it happened. So we wanted to do that, but the way people add it up at the end has to be to the viewer.
I don't see anything here, but I see it as a picture: "You're in a room with a tiger who'll punch you. Do you need to understand the motivation or do you need to try and protect yourself? Many times, we see that with the way that we sort of analyze and over-analyze conspiracy theorists, or deep conservative thinking, or some of the profiles that the New York Times has been debunked. Is that a worry? The over-analysis