And Nathan Bransford is here to tell you why:
Sharknado and why substance matters more than flash
by Nathan Bransford
We live in an era of flashes in the pan. Something pops up one day, we all go haha wow look at that, and then we wait for the next interesting thing to come along.
In fact, you probably haven’t thought about Sharknado in a while. Remember Sharknado? How innocent we were three months ago.
In case you lived under a social media rock, Sharknado was all the rage on Twitter in July, the eminently mockable tongue-in-cheek ultimate disaster movie title. Lots of people made Sharknado jokes, there was a vote conducted for the title Sharknado sequel (Sharknado 2: The Second One), and it was pretty much the definition of virality.
But here’s the thing: Despite all the hype, no one actually watchedSharknado.
Well, some people did. About as many people as watched the un-Twitter-hyped Chupacabra vs. the Alamo a few months prior. (Update: An anon points out that subsequent airings received more viewers, peaking at 2.1 million. That’s not nothing, but it’s still not as much as, say, re-runs of the Family Guy.)