Check out my latest video analysis on StoryLines here:
I’m talking about The Cell from 2000, which I would call Jennifer Lopez’ best movie. Check it on IMDB here.
Netflix Buys Warner Bros
I actually received an email from Netflix announcing the takeover two days ago. It seems they’ve been flooded with messages from users asking about potential changes to the platform after the announcement that Warner Bros had been acquired.
The email didn’t offer any real details. It basically said: No changes are coming to Netflix for now, but we’re excited… — the usual corporate fluff.
Some people are saying lawsuits might block the deal on monopoly grounds. Others claim Paramount is trying to outbid Netflix again. And even Trump has been quoted as wanting to block the acquisition with an executive order or something along those lines.
I have no idea how this will ultimately play out. But for now, it really does look like Netflix has bought WB and all of its incredible IPs.
If the deal holds, it’s the right move for Netflix and the audience.
Netflix’s biggest problem is the quality of its original productions. For every Squid Game, Stranger Things, or The Last Samurai Standing, we get fifty mediocre shows nobody watches. Their strategy seems to be producing as much as possible and throwing it at the audience to see which handful deserve a second season.
HBO does it better.
How many valuable IPs has Netflix created on its own? Not many. HBO has created far more, with far fewer resources. Now, Netflix hasn’t only bought existing IPs (like Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, etc.) — they’ve acquired the company that created them.
Then there are the movies: most Netflix films are mediocre, some are decent, and only a few are genuinely good or great (like Knives Out). Meanwhile, Warner has delivered Harry Potter, The Matrix, the DC movies, The Lord of the Rings, and countless standalone classics that belong on any “1,000 movies to watch before you die” list. In short, WB has produced far better films than Netflix ever has.
Finally, Netflix might be gaining full access to the Warner back catalogue. The biggest issue with most streaming services is the lack of classic films. I enjoy watching older movies — I don’t even mind black and white. Warner has been producing films for over 100 years. If Netflix gets that entire catalogue on its platform, that alone would justify a subscription for me.
Sure, Hollywood isn’t thrilled, since it’s another blow to traditional theatrical releases. But honestly, going to the cinema just isn’t as fun as it used to be. Prices are too high, audiences can be annoying, and many movies simply aren’t worth the trip anymore. I’m perfectly fine waiting for theatrical releases to hit streaming — it’s more convenient, less stressful, and honestly safer as the streets are getting more dangerous.
Netflix might raise prices, but HBO Max might disappear, which could balance things out.
So far, I don’t see many downsides for users or audiences — while the potential advantages are pretty significant on paper.
Let’s see how things unfold over the next few months.
Jean-Claude Van Johnson (Movie/Show Review #9)
It’s a bit older now, but what a great show it is. Unfortunately, it was cancelled after just one season. Still, the six episodes we did get are very entertaining and surprisingly funny.
Jean-Claude Van Damme was one of my favorite childhood action stars, but he went off track in the mid-90s due to cocaine — as he has openly admitted. After being pushed out of Hollywood, he spent quite a while making direct-to-DVD and B-movies in Europe. But every now and then, there’s a real gem hidden among the forgettable stuff he has made after 1999.
JCVD, the movie, was a fantastic surprise — and Jean-Claude Van Johnson is as well.
The show is very self-referential and pokes fun at Van Damme’s most famous movies while still honoring them. The humor is nostalgic and meta; half the jokes are hard to understand if you haven’t seen those films — Timecop, for example.
But if you grew up with ’80s and ’90s action movies, the show is pure entertainment. And if you’re a Jean-Claude fan, you’ll definitely laugh out loud many times.
We by Yevgeny Zamyatin (Books to Read #7)
This novel is often cited as one of the major inspirations for Orwell’s 1984. It was written during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which ultimately led to the communist takeover. We depicts a collectivist future where a totalitarian state controls every aspect of human life. Conformity and mass surveillance define this world. Individuals no longer have names; instead, they are assigned numbers, like the protagonist D-503.
When D-503 meets I-330, a member of a revolutionary group, he begins to question his existence in the One State. Meanwhile, the regime attempts to eliminate imagination and emotion from the human mind through a newly invented psycho-surgical procedure called the “Great Operation.”
The book can be a bit challenging to read, as it’s written in the form of a journal. Whether due to the translation or the era in which it was written, the prose doesn’t always flow smoothly.
If We did inspire Orwell, it did so in the best possible way. Orwell didn’t merely adopt Zamyatin’s ideas and steal his vision—he instead added layer upon layer of new concepts. In the end, only the dystopian setting and the idea of a man rebelling against collectivism because of his fascination with a woman remain similar.
If you enjoy dystopias, We is a must-read. If you don’t, start with 1984 or Brave New World first—and pick up We only if you enjoyed those two.
Btw, you can read it for free at the Project Gutenberg here.
Why Hollywood Movies Keep Bombing
I stumbled upon this article by the New York Times. It’s behind a paywall, so don’t bother with the link if you don’t have a subscription. It discusses the recent trend of Hollywood movies bombing heavily, despite having plenty of “stars.”
Things like streaming, Marvel fatigue, the lingering shockwaves of Covid, and even inflation are often cited as reasons why modern movies underperform at the box office. Some people even argue that “wokism,” which they claim injects every story with a political agenda, is to blame.
Recent entries on the list of box-office failures include:
- After the Hunt
- Bugonia
- The Smashing Machine
- One Battle After Another
- Ballerina
- Snow White
I’ve already shared my opinion on why Amsterdam flopped a couple of years ago, despite having a massive all-star cast.
But I want to add one reason for current movie failures that I’ve never seen anyone mention: globalism.
Globalism has shifted the market from culturally isolated to multicultural. As a result, companies now design their products for a global audience. The problem is: if you try to make something for everyone, you end up targeting the lowest common denominator — which usually leads to a product that feels low-quality or generic to everyone.
In the world of movies, that looks like this: Imagine a film made for young men — primarily Western men — in the 1980s. You’re probably thinking about car chases, explosions, an action thriller starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, directed by James Cameron, John McTiernan, or Richard Donner. Maybe Mel Gibson shows up in the final act to save the day.
Now imagine a 1990s movie made for women — Western women, younger, maybe married or engaged. You’re likely picturing Meg Ryan in a Nora Ephron film. She falls in love with Tom Hanks, and every few scenes there’s a harmless little joke to ease the tension.
Filmmakers in the past knew exactly which demographic they were targeting. That’s why those movies worked — not just at the box office, but artistically as well.
But today’s filmmakers have decided they want to make movies for everyone. It’s like making a rom-com and casting Arnold Schwarzenegger as the lead. Or making an ’80s-style action flick and casting Charlize Theron or Ana de Armas as the hero (both of which literally happened).
And that’s still not enough for a global audience. “Representation” has to be included, no matter what. We need a gay character, a trans character, someone who’s Muslim, the Asian guy has to be the action star, and of course we need an Indian comedic side character. Where’s the mixed-race couple that shows how tolerant we are? And naturally, the one group it’s acceptable to offend — white heterosexual males — has to be the villain.
The result is a Frankenstein movie designed to please all demographics and cultures while being terrified to take any risks.
By trying to pander to everyone, Hollywood is getting almost no one into theaters anymore.
The only way to fix this — and bring people back to theaters — is to make highly targeted niche films again. Instead of producing a $100 million blockbuster for everyone (that no one watches), make ten $10 million niche films. You’ll attract ten different target demographics, and at the very least you’ll recoup your investment. Every now and then, one of those smaller films will go viral — your $10 million investment becomes a $100 million success.
That’s how Hollywood used to operate. And I don’t see any good reason why they couldn’t return to that business model.