And it's true. I know the hits come with the stuff everyone loves to hate on, but when you watch a hate letter to a movie you probably didn't watch, but that might even be longer than the film!…
Or you go see a film you know you won't like just because it seems like there's nothing better...
The big company just won, and everyone's taste is worse for it. Shouldn't you have just watched a movie that was good and uplifting instead?
I've been at least trying to limit myself to review channels with short videos that also recommend old stuff or off the beaten path films that they consider hidden gems.
And I will say, that when Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron and Spy x Family came out, even in small theaters!, that I knew Hollywood had gone to some bad place where they would never return, because theaters never relied on smaller budget foreign films in that way. (No matter how good they were.)
This was the kick in the pants I needed to trust my own path of making art instead of continually trying to "fit" or "break" into the system. We need some sort of way to support and network independent screenings with private theaters that benefits all indie filmmakers and builds an audience around that.
Nice article Phillippe. I try to think of Hollywood as gang money laundering, and Las Vegas a suburban subdivision of it - it puts it in proper perspective.
Your accounting doesn't quite check out; Hollywood has not actually shielded themselves from all losses on flops. Financial risk isn't something that can be "eliminated", only transferred like a hot potato, and a game of hot potato only works for as long as others are willing to play.
If "the house always wins" per part 1 because the flop movies can just declare standalone bankruptcy on a shell corporation basis, then that means the investors in those shell companies (i.e. the hedge funds, the TSGs, etc.) are repeatedly losing hundreds of millions of dollars in loan writeoffs to bankrupt shell companies. That's not a gravy train that will go on forever; whether on an individual project basis or on a slate basis, someone ALWAYS has to pay for the losses. The only way for the studios to "eliminate financial risk" would be push all that financial risk onto the investors, who will not put up with that "heads the studios win, tails the investors lose" arrangement for very long.
Similarly, merchandising, distribution deals, etc. are all subject to diminishing returns if the cost/benefit stops making sense for the counterparties. Toys-R-Us lost a shitload of money on overstocking merch for The Force Awakens that didn't sell, and adjusted by ordering significantly smaller quantities of merch for The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. Flop movies similarly won't generate strong VoD sales, broadcast rights, etc., so when a movie flops its entire waterfall is compromised, and repeated flops from the same studio can even cross-contaminate that studio's waterfall for its entire slate, not just the flops themselves. Adding more content to an IP library can be a net negative if it lowers the studio's brand reputation for quality (not to mention spending $80 million to produce a movie that only increases the IP library value by $500 bucks isn't a financial win).
So no, "the house" can delay its losses somewhat by temporarily passing the buck to distributors, merchandisers, investors, etc., but that's not the same as winning. Those screwed-over counterparties can always take their revenge later down the road by re-pricing, reducing, or even eliminating their future deals with those studios that left them holding the bag on a flop movie. There's nothing forcing Toys-R-Us to keep stocking up on the same volumes of merch to just throw it all in the trash because end customers aren't buying it.
It's also worth noting that the way tax credits work is they reduce the amount of taxes owed on profits. If there are no profits to speak of, then the tax credits are worthless. The downside to incorporating every movie production as a separate shell corporation is the credits on the flops cannot be transferred in any way to reduce the tax owing on the hits; they just remain unusable forever. Same goes for writing off interest; that only works if there are profits (at the shell company level) to apply the writeoffs against.
I went through a lot of the economics of movie studios last year in this article; basically business models that worked during ZIRP are unsustainable with new interest rates:
In the past few years of post-ZIRP, Hollywood has been forced to pivot from lowballing their wins (to avoid paying out residuals) to now covering up their losses (to avoid spooking investors any more than they already have).
Great and re-eye opening. Except the part about P&A. It used to be the responsibility of distribution but now distributors tell us producers that we need to come up with marketing funds.
I feel your rage through these words. I struggle to commit to such bold declarations. I was hoping your section titles weren't just click-bait sounding. But I'm glad I got hooked. You deliver. I'm coming at all this with one eye on AI. If you're interested, here's my tonally softer take: https://biggiantwords.substack.com/p/the-future-of-storytelling?r=3igs1
Thank you you David, I appreciate your candour. I will most certainly read it this week. I'm veering away from film, and been learning generative AI for a few months, so it's up my alley. ✌️
Thanks for this. All Real Artists have felt this for decades, but we fought like Miles Davis, the KLF, 2pac, and Lester Bangs in other areas. You have certainly shown and unveiled the Foolishness. As we all know - those people who measure reality by money - never lad souls in the first place. We have introverts, extroverts, ambiverts, and those losers !!!!!
Those guys were real tough SoB. We need artists of the calibre to speak. I have on good authority that a great many are fed up with the nonsense, but still keep quiet. Someone's gonna say something one day, and world's will collide.
Very bitter food for thought! A very thorough expose on how flagrantly false film financing and the corporate shell game have creatively bankrupted Hollywood.
Bravo Philippe! A definite thumbs up if you want to know the truth behind the Tinseltown Mafia!
Been reading Variety since I was 15 and wrote for them for four years, and can tell you first hand entertainment journalism is just as much about control and as you know is owned by the hand that feeds it!
That is your next analysis. How there really is no true independent entertainment journalism anymore. Case in point- the sponsorship of so-called industry disrupters by the corporations themselves.
I read Philippe Gosselin’s Culture Shock piece with a familiar ache. The kind that comes not from disagreement—but from recognition. He’s not wrong: Hollywood has become a machine that recycles myths and money, more interested in control than creativity. The criticism it attracts—especially online—is often just another version of that same machine. Nostalgia sold back to us, loud and monetized.
But here’s the thing: Hollywood’s no longer the center of cultural gravity. The feed is. The algorithm is the new studio exec. And more and more people are turning not to Hollywood—or even its critics—but to each other. Short-form videos, intimate podcasts, raw storytelling in the margins.
I agree, we shouldn’t try to save Hollywood. But we do need to ask: what are we building in its place?
Because burning something down is easy. Breathing life into something new—that takes art.
Agreed. I believe we're heading into the biggest decentralization of culture in history. Who knows if we'll be alive to see the day when it settles. Things are about to get very interesting. Much obliged for your time. ✌️
I deeply appreciate this article. I suppose you could call me an aspiring creator of motion picture content. I have many ideas I hope to have the opportunity to pursue. Currently I’m working on a project that looks like it might get funded-I’ll let youknow if it does-which I hope to leverage into future opportunities.
I have no interest in saving Hollywood, per se. What I want is for great motion pictures to be made and available to audiences that are interested. Distribution appears to be where the biggest challenge lies, but also where opportunities abound. Funding is also a challenge, but more accessible than it was ten years ago, it seems to me.
Your overall plan is bold and well argued. Hollywood as a business model sounds like it’s just fine according to your description. But, as you’ve pointed out, it’s in the business of laundering money not producing great content. Let them keep their washing machine, those of us interested in telling good stories can build something new.
I hope to contribute in some way to this effort, and maybe in the next year or two I might have some coattails upon which people with that same hope can ride. If so, I’ll be sure to hit you up. In the meantime, let’s keep in contact via substack.
I’d like to take a moment to expand upon a point you touched on. You mentioned that we need to be willing to forego short term profits for long term trust and sustainability. I would take that further and say that the goal of becoming a “rich and famous filmmaker” ought to be abandoned altogether. That’s useful in the Hollywood economy for the leverage it brings in the money laundering operation, but doesn’t necessarily have as much value in the new economy you’re proposing.
Those who are content with a reasonably comfortable working or middle class income can thrive as creatives in this new dispensation, and a handful of patrons can support the creative process. This, I’d point out, is how art has been funded in all other eras of human history, and it produced some truly remarkable work.
Thank you for taking the time to lay all this out and share with us. The field may lay fallow, but the soil remains rich. The time is at hand for artists to come together to, dare I say, make film great again! (To be clear, That’s not to be read as an endorsement of any kind of politics, just thought it was a funny way to put it).
Cheers to you, and I look forward to following you here on Substack, and elsewhere should you get the funding you need.
And I deeply appreciate someone who takes the time to write such a thoughtful comment. 🙏
To be clear though, about the short term dip in profits. That's what I mean, a dip, and not no profit altogether. What we do as filmmakers requires a tremendous amount of effort, and is quite valuable. The contracts should reflect that. That being said, I believe we should be more generous to our benefactors than what would normally be required.
I wish you the best of luck with your project. By all means, yes, let's stay in touch.
As for distribution, have you considered Loor? They already have an audience. Perhaps get in touch with either @Marcus Pittman or @Jason Farley and see if it's a good match, for both parties.
Thank you, sir. It was my pleasure to take the time to comment on a post so valuable and well thought out. Regarding the profit element, I don’t wish to suggest creators and labor/performers should be left out of the financial benefits, only that we should be prepared to recognize that, given the costs associated with making a film, we should all be prepared to be comfortable with a smaller pie (including the benefactors ROI). My point is more that we should be focused on creating good content, making a reasonable living, and letting the art be the motivation. Hollywood is driven by profit, and the content creators have to be oriented towards being a valuable product in order to do anything.
The new dispensation towards which you (and others like you and I) aspire shouldn’t be motivated by profit alone. Let everyone get their fair share, but recognize that the windfall we’ve associated with the film business will be smaller, but the caliber of the content can return to a level of excellence.
As for LOOR, I have their website permanently opened on my browser, lol. I hope to have something to bring to their table soon. Projects such as theirs are of great interest to me and I want to support in any way I can.
Once again, thank you for your efforts, and we will indeed stay in touch. These are uncertain but potentially exciting times. Let us hope the right people can come together and harness the opportunities!
Ha, I joke in emails with industry colleagues on meeting agendas that we will “warm our hands on the flames of Hollywood” sort of gallows humor but very true. Well written, I think you under rate the competition aspect, there is real competition between studios and some leaderships have genuine dislike of others and really try to beat them quarter on quarter.
I do agree that it’s a bit of a rigged game though and the mask is well and truly off.
Oh there is competition, and given the level of narcissism present in Hollywood, it is the dick-measuring kind. The mask may be off, but oh so few are aware, and this here essay was my contribution to help spread the word. I've been meaning to write this for a long time, and I'm glad it is off my chest. Thanks for reading!
I have friends that produce tik tok videos and YouTube bits for “creators” and the rates are horrible, even for extremely successful creators. That’s not great!
The economy that is coming next for rank and file crew just seems worse in almost every way.
Well, I stand by my "no-standing on the fence" policy proposed in the essay, and I strongly recommend you have a chat with your buds and insist they bring the grift to light.
I agree but people have signed NDA’s and also have mortgages and kids. It’s very hard to ask them to break relationships for a greater cause. I think the dam will break at some point though.
I may not look like it, but I've been directly, and heavily involved in the anti-woke fight for almost 5 years now. I've had dealings or am one degree away from all the major figureheads this movement has produced. On the cultural end of the fight let me tell you, it's not pretty.
Grift, and controlled opposition are rampant, and networking is close to non-existent, unless you happen to be connected with a few think tanks.
Hopefully, the dewokification of the NEA will help, but whatever efforts we are producing, they are but a few drops in the pond that's next to the Pacific. I've had my share of conversation with artists who quit, and that includes myself. Despite this article, I am almost out the door because I have to secure a future for myself, and so I'm doing something else. At this point, I'm simply keeping the door open.
At the end of the day, we all have decisions to make, and consequences to face. As far as I am concerned, and at the pace things are going, the dam is not going to break anytime soon.
I would categorize them as “personalities” they do different things including pop culture stuff. Though one is a legit celebrity and I was surprised to hear how low his rates were for crew on his videos.
To be honest, it annoys me when people start accusing those on our side of grifting. Seriously, you can't mindread people. Stop it.
As for trying to "save Hollywood" the only influencer I get that vibe from is WDWPro. He might just be overly optimistic. Everybody else is just giving the play-by-play commentary on the train wreck. And that commentary has given me far more entertainment value than anything these studios have put out as of late. Okay, *Maybe* Doomcock, but he seems to be in the "watch it burn" camp as of late.
Most everything else, I agree with you. I just think we should leave the accusations and infighting to the woke idiots.
I don't bother with Hollywood anymore. In the 90s, I went to the movies with family/friends 50-60x a year. Now? We might go once a year. It's not the same. And I don't subscribe to any streaming platforms. Amazon is BEGGING ME to sign up for Prime. It's all junk. Now I read old novels from a pool of authors who are mostly dead.
Great article, thorough article.
And it's true. I know the hits come with the stuff everyone loves to hate on, but when you watch a hate letter to a movie you probably didn't watch, but that might even be longer than the film!…
Or you go see a film you know you won't like just because it seems like there's nothing better...
The big company just won, and everyone's taste is worse for it. Shouldn't you have just watched a movie that was good and uplifting instead?
I've been at least trying to limit myself to review channels with short videos that also recommend old stuff or off the beaten path films that they consider hidden gems.
And I will say, that when Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron and Spy x Family came out, even in small theaters!, that I knew Hollywood had gone to some bad place where they would never return, because theaters never relied on smaller budget foreign films in that way. (No matter how good they were.)
This was the kick in the pants I needed to trust my own path of making art instead of continually trying to "fit" or "break" into the system. We need some sort of way to support and network independent screenings with private theaters that benefits all indie filmmakers and builds an audience around that.
Nice article Phillippe. I try to think of Hollywood as gang money laundering, and Las Vegas a suburban subdivision of it - it puts it in proper perspective.
It sure is my friend. Thanks for reading, and consider spreading it. ✌️
Your accounting doesn't quite check out; Hollywood has not actually shielded themselves from all losses on flops. Financial risk isn't something that can be "eliminated", only transferred like a hot potato, and a game of hot potato only works for as long as others are willing to play.
If "the house always wins" per part 1 because the flop movies can just declare standalone bankruptcy on a shell corporation basis, then that means the investors in those shell companies (i.e. the hedge funds, the TSGs, etc.) are repeatedly losing hundreds of millions of dollars in loan writeoffs to bankrupt shell companies. That's not a gravy train that will go on forever; whether on an individual project basis or on a slate basis, someone ALWAYS has to pay for the losses. The only way for the studios to "eliminate financial risk" would be push all that financial risk onto the investors, who will not put up with that "heads the studios win, tails the investors lose" arrangement for very long.
Similarly, merchandising, distribution deals, etc. are all subject to diminishing returns if the cost/benefit stops making sense for the counterparties. Toys-R-Us lost a shitload of money on overstocking merch for The Force Awakens that didn't sell, and adjusted by ordering significantly smaller quantities of merch for The Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker. Flop movies similarly won't generate strong VoD sales, broadcast rights, etc., so when a movie flops its entire waterfall is compromised, and repeated flops from the same studio can even cross-contaminate that studio's waterfall for its entire slate, not just the flops themselves. Adding more content to an IP library can be a net negative if it lowers the studio's brand reputation for quality (not to mention spending $80 million to produce a movie that only increases the IP library value by $500 bucks isn't a financial win).
So no, "the house" can delay its losses somewhat by temporarily passing the buck to distributors, merchandisers, investors, etc., but that's not the same as winning. Those screwed-over counterparties can always take their revenge later down the road by re-pricing, reducing, or even eliminating their future deals with those studios that left them holding the bag on a flop movie. There's nothing forcing Toys-R-Us to keep stocking up on the same volumes of merch to just throw it all in the trash because end customers aren't buying it.
It's also worth noting that the way tax credits work is they reduce the amount of taxes owed on profits. If there are no profits to speak of, then the tax credits are worthless. The downside to incorporating every movie production as a separate shell corporation is the credits on the flops cannot be transferred in any way to reduce the tax owing on the hits; they just remain unusable forever. Same goes for writing off interest; that only works if there are profits (at the shell company level) to apply the writeoffs against.
I went through a lot of the economics of movie studios last year in this article; basically business models that worked during ZIRP are unsustainable with new interest rates:
https://milesmcstylez.substack.com/p/progressives-have-become-cultural
In the past few years of post-ZIRP, Hollywood has been forced to pivot from lowballing their wins (to avoid paying out residuals) to now covering up their losses (to avoid spooking investors any more than they already have).
Great and re-eye opening. Except the part about P&A. It used to be the responsibility of distribution but now distributors tell us producers that we need to come up with marketing funds.
That's interesting. Would love to have more details, if you can indulge me.
Give me a shout.
I feel your rage through these words. I struggle to commit to such bold declarations. I was hoping your section titles weren't just click-bait sounding. But I'm glad I got hooked. You deliver. I'm coming at all this with one eye on AI. If you're interested, here's my tonally softer take: https://biggiantwords.substack.com/p/the-future-of-storytelling?r=3igs1
And some potential solutions: https://biggiantwords.substack.com/p/what-if-asimovs-three-laws-werent?r=3igs1
Thank you you David, I appreciate your candour. I will most certainly read it this week. I'm veering away from film, and been learning generative AI for a few months, so it's up my alley. ✌️
Thanks for this. All Real Artists have felt this for decades, but we fought like Miles Davis, the KLF, 2pac, and Lester Bangs in other areas. You have certainly shown and unveiled the Foolishness. As we all know - those people who measure reality by money - never lad souls in the first place. We have introverts, extroverts, ambiverts, and those losers !!!!!
Those guys were real tough SoB. We need artists of the calibre to speak. I have on good authority that a great many are fed up with the nonsense, but still keep quiet. Someone's gonna say something one day, and world's will collide.
Very bitter food for thought! A very thorough expose on how flagrantly false film financing and the corporate shell game have creatively bankrupted Hollywood.
Bravo Philippe! A definite thumbs up if you want to know the truth behind the Tinseltown Mafia!
Been reading Variety since I was 15 and wrote for them for four years, and can tell you first hand entertainment journalism is just as much about control and as you know is owned by the hand that feeds it!
That is your next analysis. How there really is no true independent entertainment journalism anymore. Case in point- the sponsorship of so-called industry disrupters by the corporations themselves.
I read Philippe Gosselin’s Culture Shock piece with a familiar ache. The kind that comes not from disagreement—but from recognition. He’s not wrong: Hollywood has become a machine that recycles myths and money, more interested in control than creativity. The criticism it attracts—especially online—is often just another version of that same machine. Nostalgia sold back to us, loud and monetized.
But here’s the thing: Hollywood’s no longer the center of cultural gravity. The feed is. The algorithm is the new studio exec. And more and more people are turning not to Hollywood—or even its critics—but to each other. Short-form videos, intimate podcasts, raw storytelling in the margins.
I agree, we shouldn’t try to save Hollywood. But we do need to ask: what are we building in its place?
Because burning something down is easy. Breathing life into something new—that takes art.
Agreed. I believe we're heading into the biggest decentralization of culture in history. Who knows if we'll be alive to see the day when it settles. Things are about to get very interesting. Much obliged for your time. ✌️
Nerdrotic, Heal v. babyface, drinkers, and others are now trapped into playing Stadler and Waldorf for their income. What an awful existence.
I deeply appreciate this article. I suppose you could call me an aspiring creator of motion picture content. I have many ideas I hope to have the opportunity to pursue. Currently I’m working on a project that looks like it might get funded-I’ll let youknow if it does-which I hope to leverage into future opportunities.
I have no interest in saving Hollywood, per se. What I want is for great motion pictures to be made and available to audiences that are interested. Distribution appears to be where the biggest challenge lies, but also where opportunities abound. Funding is also a challenge, but more accessible than it was ten years ago, it seems to me.
Your overall plan is bold and well argued. Hollywood as a business model sounds like it’s just fine according to your description. But, as you’ve pointed out, it’s in the business of laundering money not producing great content. Let them keep their washing machine, those of us interested in telling good stories can build something new.
I hope to contribute in some way to this effort, and maybe in the next year or two I might have some coattails upon which people with that same hope can ride. If so, I’ll be sure to hit you up. In the meantime, let’s keep in contact via substack.
I’d like to take a moment to expand upon a point you touched on. You mentioned that we need to be willing to forego short term profits for long term trust and sustainability. I would take that further and say that the goal of becoming a “rich and famous filmmaker” ought to be abandoned altogether. That’s useful in the Hollywood economy for the leverage it brings in the money laundering operation, but doesn’t necessarily have as much value in the new economy you’re proposing.
Those who are content with a reasonably comfortable working or middle class income can thrive as creatives in this new dispensation, and a handful of patrons can support the creative process. This, I’d point out, is how art has been funded in all other eras of human history, and it produced some truly remarkable work.
Thank you for taking the time to lay all this out and share with us. The field may lay fallow, but the soil remains rich. The time is at hand for artists to come together to, dare I say, make film great again! (To be clear, That’s not to be read as an endorsement of any kind of politics, just thought it was a funny way to put it).
Cheers to you, and I look forward to following you here on Substack, and elsewhere should you get the funding you need.
And I deeply appreciate someone who takes the time to write such a thoughtful comment. 🙏
To be clear though, about the short term dip in profits. That's what I mean, a dip, and not no profit altogether. What we do as filmmakers requires a tremendous amount of effort, and is quite valuable. The contracts should reflect that. That being said, I believe we should be more generous to our benefactors than what would normally be required.
I wish you the best of luck with your project. By all means, yes, let's stay in touch.
As for distribution, have you considered Loor? They already have an audience. Perhaps get in touch with either @Marcus Pittman or @Jason Farley and see if it's a good match, for both parties.
✌️
Thank you, sir. It was my pleasure to take the time to comment on a post so valuable and well thought out. Regarding the profit element, I don’t wish to suggest creators and labor/performers should be left out of the financial benefits, only that we should be prepared to recognize that, given the costs associated with making a film, we should all be prepared to be comfortable with a smaller pie (including the benefactors ROI). My point is more that we should be focused on creating good content, making a reasonable living, and letting the art be the motivation. Hollywood is driven by profit, and the content creators have to be oriented towards being a valuable product in order to do anything.
The new dispensation towards which you (and others like you and I) aspire shouldn’t be motivated by profit alone. Let everyone get their fair share, but recognize that the windfall we’ve associated with the film business will be smaller, but the caliber of the content can return to a level of excellence.
As for LOOR, I have their website permanently opened on my browser, lol. I hope to have something to bring to their table soon. Projects such as theirs are of great interest to me and I want to support in any way I can.
Once again, thank you for your efforts, and we will indeed stay in touch. These are uncertain but potentially exciting times. Let us hope the right people can come together and harness the opportunities!
Ha, I joke in emails with industry colleagues on meeting agendas that we will “warm our hands on the flames of Hollywood” sort of gallows humor but very true. Well written, I think you under rate the competition aspect, there is real competition between studios and some leaderships have genuine dislike of others and really try to beat them quarter on quarter.
I do agree that it’s a bit of a rigged game though and the mask is well and truly off.
Oh there is competition, and given the level of narcissism present in Hollywood, it is the dick-measuring kind. The mask may be off, but oh so few are aware, and this here essay was my contribution to help spread the word. I've been meaning to write this for a long time, and I'm glad it is off my chest. Thanks for reading!
I’m glad you wrote it!
I have friends that produce tik tok videos and YouTube bits for “creators” and the rates are horrible, even for extremely successful creators. That’s not great!
The economy that is coming next for rank and file crew just seems worse in almost every way.
Well, I stand by my "no-standing on the fence" policy proposed in the essay, and I strongly recommend you have a chat with your buds and insist they bring the grift to light.
Isn't time we start taking things seriously?
I agree but people have signed NDA’s and also have mortgages and kids. It’s very hard to ask them to break relationships for a greater cause. I think the dam will break at some point though.
I may not look like it, but I've been directly, and heavily involved in the anti-woke fight for almost 5 years now. I've had dealings or am one degree away from all the major figureheads this movement has produced. On the cultural end of the fight let me tell you, it's not pretty.
Grift, and controlled opposition are rampant, and networking is close to non-existent, unless you happen to be connected with a few think tanks.
Hopefully, the dewokification of the NEA will help, but whatever efforts we are producing, they are but a few drops in the pond that's next to the Pacific. I've had my share of conversation with artists who quit, and that includes myself. Despite this article, I am almost out the door because I have to secure a future for myself, and so I'm doing something else. At this point, I'm simply keeping the door open.
At the end of the day, we all have decisions to make, and consequences to face. As far as I am concerned, and at the pace things are going, the dam is not going to break anytime soon.
When you say "creators" do you mean pop culture critics and/or others?
I would categorize them as “personalities” they do different things including pop culture stuff. Though one is a legit celebrity and I was surprised to hear how low his rates were for crew on his videos.
"For all the years we looked like clowns
The joke is over, smell the smoke from all around
Burn Hollywood, burn
Burn Hollywood, burn"
- Public Enemy
I learned a lot, what a terrific ride. I do suspect, however, that you like films and would like to see them made again, someday
To be honest, it annoys me when people start accusing those on our side of grifting. Seriously, you can't mindread people. Stop it.
As for trying to "save Hollywood" the only influencer I get that vibe from is WDWPro. He might just be overly optimistic. Everybody else is just giving the play-by-play commentary on the train wreck. And that commentary has given me far more entertainment value than anything these studios have put out as of late. Okay, *Maybe* Doomcock, but he seems to be in the "watch it burn" camp as of late.
Most everything else, I agree with you. I just think we should leave the accusations and infighting to the woke idiots.
I don't bother with Hollywood anymore. In the 90s, I went to the movies with family/friends 50-60x a year. Now? We might go once a year. It's not the same. And I don't subscribe to any streaming platforms. Amazon is BEGGING ME to sign up for Prime. It's all junk. Now I read old novels from a pool of authors who are mostly dead.