Inverse55%

Apple TV Just Quietly Released The Best New Thriller Series Of 2026 71%

By Dais Johnston61%

7/15/2026, 3:00:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 63.5% saturation with 337 hits. Analysis detected 1,469 faulty-reasoning hits from 531 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.2% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,534 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

What makes a feminine rage story worth watching? 
What keeps us rewatching Gone Girl and remaking Carrie over and over again? 
There’s something so invigorating about a woman leaving it all behind and seeking revenge on those who wronged her, and what makes that even more intriguing is when she’s constantly outsmarting those around her. 
Gone Girl and Carrie have another thing in common: they’re both book adaptations. 
Lucky , Apple TV’s latest thriller series, was also originally a book, but in the careful hands of Jonathan Tropper and Anya Taylor-Joy, it’s an instant classic full of heartstopping sequence after heartstopping sequence. 
Lucky opens with an episode-long chase scene, and it keeps up that momentum every step of the way. 
| Apple TV Lucky follows Luciana “Lucky” Armstrong on the worst day of her life: after running away with her husband (Drew Starkey) and millions of dollars, she wakes up groggy and alone, with both her spouse and their haul nowhere to be seen. 
What’s worse, it’s only a matter of time before the FBI, led by no-nonsense agent Billie Rand (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor), is onto her. 
Without a second thought, she smudges eyeshadow under her eyes and approaches a laundry delivery van driver. 
She whips up a few tears, saying something about her boyfriend. 
The driver is suspicious, but lets her in. 
This is the series in a nutshell: Lucky finds herself in a pickle that’s seemingly impossible to escape, but since she’s been trained by her con man father (Timothy Olyphant), she lies and cheats to find her way out of every chase and confrontation. 
That sounds like it would get old quickly, but the pace never lets up, making for an “oops, all set pieces” plot that plummets forward all in the course of a few days. 
Lucky’s criminal past with her conman father is played out in flashbacks throughout the series. 
| Apple TV Anya Taylor-Joy is an unstoppable force as Lucky, but there are a few immovable objects in her way from equally powerful performers. 
Olyphant is a seasoned morally gray actor after his iconic turn in Justified , but the real breakout is Annette Bening, who plays Lucky’s mother-in-law in a way that eschews the girlboss route for something a lot more similar to the glowering parents in Anora . 
Much of this series feels like the third act of a female-led thriller episode stretched out over eight episodes, but that’s one of its advantages. 
Showrunner Jonathan Tropper obviously knows his way around a fast-paced story  he’s the writer for the upcoming Shawn Levy/Ryan Gosling movie Star Wars: Starfighter  and he leans into that hard. 
If the climax is the best part of the story, why not make a show that uses what would normally be the climax as the baseline? 
It may get a bit overstimulating at times, but Lucky is a tour-de-force in all-in, fun, experimental television. 
This is the TV equivalent of a great time at the movies, and it should stand alongside its fellow feminine rage stories for decades to come. 
Lucky is now streaming on Apple TV. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.3%Dais Johnston: 4.4%Inverse: 4.0%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Dais Johnston: 3.6%Inverse: 3.6%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.4%Inverse: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 2.5%Inverse: 2.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 3.6%Inverse: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Dais Johnston: 5.1%Inverse: 4.7%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.7%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.7%Status Quo Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.3%Inverse: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.9%Dais Johnston: 5.9%Inverse: 3.8%Optimism Bias13.9%This article: 6.2%Dais Johnston: 1.9%Inverse: 2.1%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 22.2%Dais Johnston: 6.5%Inverse: 8.7%Negativity Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.9%Inverse: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 33.0%Dais Johnston: 6.0%Inverse: 5.4%Halo Effect33.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Dais Johnston: 2.2%Inverse: 1.9%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 3.4%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 0.8%Primacy Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.6%Inverse: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.1%Dais Johnston: 4.6%Inverse: 2.7%Appeal to Authority21.1%This article: 13.2%Dais Johnston: 2.2%Inverse: 2.1%False Dilemma13.2%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.3%Inverse: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Dais Johnston: 7.8%Inverse: 8.0%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.4%Dais Johnston: 5.3%Inverse: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion6.4%This article: 4.9%Dais Johnston: 1.3%Inverse: 1.1%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 2.8%Inverse: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.4%Inverse: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.4%Dais Johnston: 0.7%Inverse: 0.6%Composition/Division2.4%This article: 6.4%Dais Johnston: 1.5%Inverse: 1.3%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 2.0%Inverse: 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.2%Inverse: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 2.0%Inverse: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 63.5%Dais Johnston: 20.4%Inverse: 21.3%Biased Writer Voice63.5%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 1.0%Inverse: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.1%Inverse: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dais Johnston: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.6%Dais Johnston: 3.3%Inverse: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.6%

531 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.0%attributed speech499writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Tropper • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonathan Tropper

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+38.9 ptsWriter: 61.1%Jonathan Tropper: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Jonathan Tropper: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.