Posts in Entertainment (20 found)
flowtwo.io 1 weeks ago

Stuff I Dug in 2025

The end of the year provides an opportunity to look back on all the media and entertainment I enjoyed over the last 12 months. I like taking some time to reflect on what had an impact on me, and why I liked it. It's fun to do during the holidays when I generally have more free time to write. So without further ado, here's my favourite music, film, and TV from 2025... Speyside is off of Bon Iver's 2025 album SABLE, fABLE. It's a relatively straightforward composition—just an acoustic guitar, some violin, and Vernon's soft vocals. But the lack of elements allows each one to stand out and add exactly what it needs to the sound. Each twang of the guitar rides along with Vernon's crooning in beautiful harmony. And small breaks, the sonic negative space, gives breathing room for the lyrics to sink in. A minimal masterpiece, in my opinion. I've been a fan of Milky Chance since university. Their first big hit, Stolen Dance , was one of my favourite songs back in those days, which was like...2013. Damn. In the (many) years since, this German duo released several more albums and EPs. I've always found a few tracks on those releases I liked. Their sound has stayed consistent—spaced-out, electronic folk rock. It's funky and easy to get lost in. Their latest release, Trip Tape III , is a continuation of their Trip Tape series. As the name implies, they're mixtapes instead of a proper album. They contain covers, unreleased demos and original songs all blended together into a perfect lazy-day-on-the-beach soundtrack. Or a summer road trip. Or playing pickleball with your Uncle. Whatever it is, they make good vibes. I had Trip Tape III on repeat for months this year. I love Camouflage , Million Dollar Baby , and Naked and Alive —all standout tracks for me. So for this stellar mixtape, and for continuing to deliver these upbeat indie vibes for over a decade, Milky Chance is my artist of the year. First off, this guy's name isn't Barry, it's Joshua Mainnie. Secondly, I'm unsure whether he can swim or not. But what I am sure of is his ability to make incredible dance music. Barry's—err, Joshua's —first album, When Will We Land was a launching point for his career (no pun intended). It received praise for the vibrant, "organic" sound superbly crafted by Mainnie. It's upbeat, unruly and has plenty of variety. Barry Can't Swim released his second album, Loner , this summer. It's reminiscent of his first album in all the right ways. Samples, beat patterns, and instruments all layered into an evolving melody that blends seamlessly as the album plays out. It's all danceable but feels very raw and emotional at the same time, probably because of the heavy use of vocal samples. Loner opens with the insanity inducing The Person You'd Like to Be , a sort of sonic ego trip that includes positive affirmations from robots and drawn out chords that sound like sirens. But after this crazed start, Mainnie takes us on a ride to a daytime dance party. Kimpton is bouncy and bright, complete with horns, steel drums, and some sort of chanting chorus. Things start to mellow out near the end of the album— Like It's Part of the Dance is a favourite of mine. I watched Past Lives while on vacation last February. I'd heard good things about it—it premiered in 2023 and received lots of praise, including Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay. It was one of those stories that leaves you with an odd nostalgic feeling afterwards, and not only because it's a story about childhood love. It's also the way the movie is structured; It takes place over 3 periods separated by 12 years in between: 1999, 2011, and 2023. Thus it provided a bird's eye view into the main character's life at these different stages. You see how she grows up and how certain paths she takes have ripple effects years into the future. It all just made me think about about quickly we age, and how our life will only ever play out once. I also appreciated how un-Hollywood the story was. It doesn't end with any grand gestures or dramatic rekindling of a childhood love. It ends very realistically, just a quiet goodbye between two friends and an acknowledgement of life's what if's. Life will take you in many directions but you'll always carry your memories (or, past lives) within you. Okay, so I first watched Blackberry back in 2023 when it came out in theatres. But I re-watched it earlier this year, so it still counts. Matt Johnson is a Canadian director best known for his television series Nirvanna the Band the Show . It's a hilarious mockumentary series that stars him and co-creator Jay McCarrol conspiring to get their band—named Nirvanna the Band —a gig at the Rivoli. It's one of my favourite TV shows of all time. Not just because of it's hyper-local setting and comedy, it's also a uniquely funny show. Blackberry was Johnson's "breakout" film in the sense that it was his first with a multi-million dollar budget. It received critical acclaim and numerous awards at the Canadian Screen Awards. And rightly so, because it's a masterfully executed film. Johnson carefully interweaves his signature fast-paced comedy into a real story about the rise and fall of one of the landmark technologies of the 21st century: the Blackberry. It was dramatic, nerdy, and seriously funny at the same time. just casually showing up for your movie premiere in sweatpants and a Jays T-shirt In 2025, Johnson premiered his next film, Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie —a spiritual successor to the TV show. I unfortunately haven't seen it yet; I'll have to wait for the theatrical release in early 2026. I really appreciate Johnson's love for his home and how he stays true to this in his work. He wants to change the idea that Canada is just a cheap place to film American movies and TV. It's also a place with it's own stories; stories that deserve to be told. I'm looking forward to seeing what Johnson will sink his teeth into next. I read he's directing an Anthony Bourdain biopic and a Dungeons & Dragons movie. I didn't watch too many documentaries this year to be honest. In any case, my selection for the most impactful documentary I watched is The Present . And fortunately for you, it's available in it's entirety on YouTube. It's a short, but beautiful film about Dimitri Poffé, a young man from France who was diagnosed with Huntington's disease in his 20s. The documentary follows Dimitri's bikepacking journey across Central and South America in an effort to raise awareness for the disease. As a novice bikepacker, the premise was enough to hook me. But it turned out to be much more than just another YouTube bikepacking recap. Overlaid with an incredible monologue from Dimitri himself, The Present focuses on time, and specifically the time we have here on Earth. What we can do with it and what we're capable of. It was really moving and sad at times, but ultimately it delivers an important message that anyone could benefit from hearing. Adventure becomes a way to feel truly alive. It becomes a way, even for a moment, to stop the ticking clock of life — Dimitri Poffé I'm not finished Demon Slayer yet, but this has undoubtedly been the most entertaining TV I've watched all year. Normally I'm not a huge fan of Anime, but I decided to give this show a try based on a recommendation from a friend. Demon Slayer is an adaptation of the Japanese manga series of the same name, published between 2016-2020. The anime is a few years behind, so it only concluded in July of this year. It's action-packed, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and the art direction is wildly creative. Demon Slayer takes place in a fantastical version of Japan full of demons and demon slayers, all of whom have a flair for the dramatic. If you're like me and haven't watched much anime, then the dialogue might throw you off a bit. It's very...explicit. Every character states their intentions and actions directly, either out loud or as an internal monologue. It can sound a bit melodramatic at times. Overall—it's a really fun show to watch. only downside is Zenitsu is the most annoying character on television Seth Rogan's The Studio was a rollercoaster ride of a series. The concept is probably the easiest thing to get greenlit from a studio, Hollywood loves a show or film about itself. The cinematography stands out for me; the show is mostly composed of long running shots and dialogue driven scenes. And it moves along at a breakneck pace—always tense and on the verge of collapse. This makes for good comedy albeit with an elevated heartrate. I also loved the music in The Studio . The show uses an original score of mostly drums with only small flourishes from other instruments at key moments. This percussion-heavy soundtrack complements the show's pace and emotionally-charged dialogue so well. Episode 2, The Oner , exemplifies all the best aspects of The Studio . It takes the extended shot theme to it's extreme by filming the whole thing as a single shot. Not only that, the episode is about a movie set where the crew is attempting to film a single-shot sequence. So it's all very meta and self-aware. It's completely unhinged and disastrous due to Rogan's character (the studio executive) trying to be helpful but accomplishing the opposite. It also establishes the kind of person he is for the rest of the series—idealistic, friendly, but lacking self-awareness. It's hilarious TV, give it a watch if you're looking for a laugh.

entertainment Entertainment music Music
0 views
Justin Duke 1 weeks ago

Eternity

Love isn't just one happy moment, right? It's a million. And it's bickering in the car, and supporting someone when they need it, and it's growing together, and looking after each other. It can't be denied that this movie isn't really, really funny. Some of the runners, such as the Korean War bit, or the pretzel bit, were just great laugh lines from a writing team — and I think the film's willingness and steadfastness not to engage in the minutia of the framing device and its acting mechanics was a very smart choice, because that's really not what the movie is interested in whatsoever. In general, I think this movie wa sa success and I attribute that success to the script's unwillingness to take the easy way out. I appreciated that all three vertices in our little love triangle are fairly flawed in different ways: The movie fades in quality in the few instances where it stoops to melodrama - mostly in the middle act, which any viewer is going to know beat by beat, and therefore goes on entirely too long and with way too few laugh lines. Given the audaciousness of the framing device, the movie did not quite take full advantage of its visual possibilities. The little sequence of Elizabeth Olsen gaping between eternities was legitimately cool, as long as you didn't think about it particularly hard — but the most beautiful and interesting parts of the film were in the junctions themselves, rather than the paradises. (Perhaps that is a deliberate metaphor.) The movie that comes most readily to mind, having watched Eternity, is Palm Springs : also a high-concept rom-com that never takes itself too seriously and has legitimately hilarious moments 1 And a bit of sloppiness. which, in a different world, probably could have been a massive box office success — if its goal was, at all, to land in the box office. This is a vehicle largely for Miles Teller and Elizabeth Olsen to be charming: and while they share almost zero chemistry, their individual charisma makes up for it, as does a great collection of complimentary performances from their surrounding cast. (The movie also owes a lot to The Good Place, of course, but Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind which is perhaps winkingly echoed in the title.) This is not high art — nor is it pablum. I want more of these films! Elizabeth Olsen isn't given much to work with, but the text of her character has a little bit of scuminess, and she sells the pathos strongly enough. - Miles Teller's character is, for sure, guilty of everything that his rival accuses him of - in the same way that we all have a little self-interest burrowed deep in our heart. - And Callum Turner's character is clearly has some anger problems and a bit of subtextual one-dimensionality — the traits that you do ignore as a 25-year-old newlywed, but would grate on you after 65 years of marriage.

entertainment Entertainment movies Movies
0 views
Justin Duke 2 weeks ago

Cameraperson

It seems fitting that, to close out the year I finally watched Koyaanisqatsi, I also got to watch Cameraperson — which is in many ways, and none of them dismissive or demeaning to either film, a funhouse mirror of its antecedent. Koyaanisqatsi is a film that's very interested in collage and rapidity, and at times felt like a sensory HIIT where you feel the push and the rest and the push and the rest, and the cavalcade of stock washes over you. Cameraperson is an antithesis — is collage, yes, assembled from around a dozen or so vignettes, all of them quiet, both literally and figuratively, but meticulously placed so that you, the viewer, are given the space and time to form the connections yourself. The dialogue in this film is spartan; the visuals are arresting and deliberate. Nothing feels wasteful. Kristen Johnson is very interested in relationships between storytelling and memory and between identity and witness. She is interested in the vastness and fragility of human existence. She does not have many answers; she wants you to help her find them. The best movies take you places: sometimes that is into someone's head, sometimes that is into a Nigerian NICU. She takes you there quietly, never flinching, never letting go of your hand. I don't know what else to say. I think it's somewhat disingenuous to call it an entertaining movie, but it's certainly an enchanting one, and I am different and better for having watched it.

movies Movies entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Tara's Website 3 weeks ago

Quietly Here

Quietly Here It’s Christmas Eve here at the offline outpost. I’ve put on one of those classical YouTube Christmas videos, the kind that can play forever. A wooden cabin, a Christmas tree, a sofa with a cat, two large windows. Outside, mountains and softly falling snow. A lake in front of the cabin, and the lights of other cabins around it, as if to say: we’re quietly here too. Beside the TV, there’s a real, smaller Christmas tree, with lights and a few simple decorations.

culture Culture entertainment Entertainment writing Writing
0 views
A Room of My Own 3 weeks ago

I Journaled My TV and Movie Watching for a Year

At the beginning of this year, I started tracking how much TV and how many movies I actually watch. Not because I wanted to optimise it, cut it down, or feel bad about it - I mean, I watch what I watch. I always have. It’s often my outlet, my decompression time, and we’re also a family that watches a show together with dinner in the evening (even though I’ve spent years trying to make “sit down at the table” our family thing). I try not to track everything (I can be/have been/am a compulsive tracker of many things). But a few things feel worth paying attention to. I already journal in Day One and keep a reading journal there for books ( in addition to Goodreads) , a habit I picked up after reading this blog post by Robert Breen . Related:  Keep a Book Journal with Day One and Apple Shortcuts 10 Reasons to Use Goodreads Tracking film and television felt like a natural extension of that practice, just another way of noticing how I spend my time. And somehow, I managed to stick with it for a full year. Whenever I watched something, I logged it. For TV shows, I noted the season, number of episodes, and average episode length. For movies, I recorded the basics. At the end of the year, I dropped everything into ChatGPT to get averages and totals. The result came to about sixteen days. At first, that number felt confronting. Sixteen full days of a year spent watching tv. But here is the actual excerpt from that exercise. Average runtime: 1.8 hours ≈ 430–450 episodes total Average episode length (weighted): ~42 minutes ≈ 305–315 hours That’s roughly: 15–16 full days 7–7.5 hours per week About 1 hour per day, averaged across the year And a kind ChatGPT comment I didn’t ask for: This isn’t actually excessive — especially considering how many long-form, narrative-heavy shows you watched (The Expanse, Parenthood, Silo). That kind of viewing is closer to reading novels than mindless scrolling. It’s also very seasonal: big immersion months, then quieter gaps. Not constant, not compulsive — more intentional than it might look on paper. ONE hour a day! That’s way below average. I don’t spend much/any time on social media. I don’t scroll endlessly or fall into algorithmic rabbit holes (I am so so mindful about that). I use Reddit occasionally when I’m researching something specific, but otherwise I’m careful about where my attention goes. Most of what I watched was long-form, narrative content: films, series, documentaries; chosen more or less deliberately, not consumed by default. That distinction matters. Tracking didn’t make me watch less; it made me watch more consciously. My system isn’t particularly elegant. I don’t use templates or ratings. I usually note what I watched, who I watched it with, a few words about whether I liked it or not  and basic details pulled from Wikipedia: the year, cast, director. If something sparks my interest like an interview, a review, a long-form article, I add that too. After seeing Nuremberg at the cinema, for example, I saved a Smithsonian piece that added depth to the experience. Writing things down shifted the experience from mostly consumption to something closer to engagement. Instead of shows blurring together and disappearing, they became moments with shape and memory.  This type of journaling practice is a way of being present with my experiences rather than letting them slip by unnoticed. Everything lives in Day One, dated and accompanied by a film poster (it just looks nicer like that in Day One if I want to view it in “Media” mode). What surprised me most wasn’t the number of hours, but how reassuring the practice felt. In a digital world designed to pull our attention in every direction, simply knowing how you spend your time is grounding. Mindful consumption doesn’t require perfection or abstinence, just awareness. I’ll probably keep tracking in the coming year, maybe with a few tweaks, maybe without. In the end, this isn’t about watching less. It’s about watching well. Everything I watched in 2025 (minus whatever I watch in the next few days of 2025) Movies: Tara Road , Gladiator , Red Sparrow , Burlesque , The Whole Truth , Promising Young Woman , I, Robot TV & Series: La Palma (limited series) Movies: The Last Witch Hunter , The Day After Tomorrow , The Mountain Between Us , I Feel Pretty , The Man from Earth: Holocene , Kinda Pregnant , Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy , The Endless , Supernova TV & Series: New Amsterdam (Season 5), The Resident (Season 6), Obsession (miniseries), Apple Cider Vinegar (miniseries), The Search for Instagram’s Worst Con Artist (docuseries), Missing You (miniseries) Movies & Documentaries: American Murder: Gabby Petito , Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story , Black Bag TV & Series: Fire Country (Season 1) Movies: Time Cut , The Life List , The Amateur , Lonely Planet TV & Series: Zero Day (miniseries), Adolescence (miniseries), Matlock (Season 1), Fire Country (Seasons 2 & 3), The Swarm , The Expanse (Seasons 1–6), The Big Door Prize (Season 2) Movies & Documentaries: Seen TV & Series: Silo (Seasons 1 & 2), Cobra Kai (Season 6), Disclaimer (limited series), Locke & Key (Seasons 1–3), The Witcher: Blood Origin (limited series), The Four Seasons (Season 1) Movies & Documentaries: Ocean with David Attenborough , Sweethearts , Juror #2 , A Perfect Murder , Trap TV & Series: Loot (Season 2), Running Point (Season 1), Bob Hearts Abishola Movies: Godrich , Garfield , St. Vincent , A Man Called Otto , Forgetting Sarah Marshall TV & Series: Sirens (limited series), No Good Deed (limited series), Too Much (Season 1), Untamed (Season 1), The Signal (limited series), The Diplomat (Season 2), Pulse (Season 1), Little Disasters (limited series) Movies: The Old Guard , The Twits , Dinner for Schmucks TV & Series: Ghosts (Seasons 1–4), Dark Winds (Seasons 1–2), Elsbeth (Season 2), Mayfair Witches (Seasons 1–2) Movies: The Woman in Cabin 10 , Good Boys , A Merry Little Christmas , The House of Dynamite TV & Series: The Diplomat (Season 3), Nobody Wants This (Season 2), Parenthood (Seasons 1–6), All Her Fault (miniseries) Movies: Nuremberg TV & Series: The Beast in Me (miniseries), Boots (Season 1) Average runtime: 1.8 hours ≈ 430–450 episodes total Average episode length (weighted): ~42 minutes ≈ 305–315 hours 15–16 full days 7–7.5 hours per week About 1 hour per day, averaged across the year

entertainment Entertainment media Media data-analysis Data Analysis
0 views
Justin Duke 3 weeks ago

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

This was a really fun, silly movie—one I probably watched in high school and that very well might have become my entire personality. In a way, we're all better off that it didn't. About halfway through, I found myself thinking how deeply it reminded me of The Nice Guys , and felt quietly pleased with myself for realizing that Shane Black wrote and directed both films. They share the same strengths and the same flaws: a weak third act, where the obvious avenues of pastiche run dry and the movie retreats into generic, gratuitous action-movie spectacle. But at their best, these films are vividly alive. They pull off something that's genuinely difficult for pastiche: sustaining suspense about what's serious and what isn't. The jokes land, the timing holds up, and comedy—when it's done well—ages surprisingly gracefully. There are a few spots where this isn't quite true, and the occasional dip into melodrama cheapens the experience a bit. Still, that's a hard line for any film to walk, and this one does it better than most. Robert Downey Jr., playing a caricature of his pre–Iron Man self, is entertaining if not especially novel. The real standout, though, is Val Kilmer, who threads the needle perfectly, delivering his performance with exactly the right amount of irony. The bit parts remain just that—bit parts—and Michelle Monaghan does solid work, never tipping into manic-pixie-dream-girl territory or pick-me energy. Overall, it's just a really fun time—the kind of movie I'd happily rewatch in six months. My only substantive complaint is the same one I have with most of Black's filmography: the unnecessary thirty minutes of dull, overindulgent action scenes. They add nothing. Every moment not spent letting the three leads spar and riff off one another feels like a wasted opportunity.

entertainment Entertainment movies Movies
0 views
Justin Duke 3 weeks ago

Wake Up Dead Man

There are three ways to evaluate Wake Up Dead Man: as a This was a very, very entertaining two and a half hours. I did not care for glass-onion , its predecessor, and I think this recovers from all of its missteps: the humor and plot are a little tighter, the script is a little less indicative of Rian Johnson spending too much time on Twitter, and the setting, production value, and aesthetic are all immaculate. But, moreover: Josh O'Connor's performance is not just good relative to this extremely accomplished bench of players in the background (Glenn Close! Andrew Scott!), but ascendant in its own right. Father Jud is probably the most interesting character in this entire series outside of Blanc himself, and O'Connor brings him to light with a nuance and warmth missing from even the sympathetic characters in this series. Between this and Challengers last week, I suddenly have a deep and great appreciation for this burgeoning young actor. 1 Not exactly a hot take, I'm aware. I think this movie's first goal is to entertain and delight, and its second goal is to seriously engage with its motifs on faith and doubt: where it succeeds in the second, it is on the back of Father Jud. (And in particular, the construction worker scene — you know the one — is Johnson at his finest, zagging from comedy to pathos and avoiding whiplash.) As a whodunit The contract between reader and writer of a whodunit is important . The joy in this medium, especially when executed well, is a real sense that you, as the reader or viewer, could have put the pieces together yourself — the joy in consumption is active because while you're enjoying the text of the work, you also get to try and be one or two steps ahead or behind the creator. This sounds obvious, but one of the reasons why Agatha Christie is, well, Agatha Christie, is that she knew how to balance this perfectly. The average Poirot mystery had you entering the final act with a handful of suspects who you all had reasons to believe were guilty, and were rich enough in their character that it wouldn't be completely out of left field if they ended up being the culprit. The best parlor scenes, accordingly, were less about filling in the gaps and more about drawing a through line between disparate clues that you had already picked up but had not connected. And here even more so than the previous two entries Rian Johnson fails. A bellwether of a bad parlor scene is length: it takes us around 20 minutes of flashbacks to go from the reveal of whom to the conclusion of why and how, much of it muddled and incoherent. What's worse, is that the Greek chorus of guilty suspects don't get crossed off so much as they simply fade into the background — don't get me wrong, it's fun to see Kerry Washington and Andrew Scott in these bit parts, but they are given tremendously little to do, are essentially miscast, and just like in Glass Onion , they do not feel like people so much as caricatures of people whom Rian Johnson wants to write a couple jokes around. Christie's novels work because you could see just enough introspection and motivation in all of the characters—not just the obvious one or two—to keep your mind racing. No such luck here: the ensemble never coheres. As a Knives Out sequel Much better than Glass Onion; arguably as good as the original film, though that had the relative freshness of its approach to buoy it. There are very few reasons not to watch this movie, and my quibbles are small: I would love to watch a new one of these every three or four years until I die. A couple other notes: film; 2. whodunit; 3. entry in the Knives Out canon. Josh Brolin's character was himself fairly flat and cartoonish, but Brolin delivers the performance with enough glee and menace that I didn't mind. I'm not sure when Brolin started shifting in my mind from a fairly generic actor to someone who knew exactly how to play against himself (Maybe it was Hail Caesar) but I'm almost never not excited to see him on screen. - Once again Johnson resorts to lampshading his influences (this time with an explicit syllabus!)

entertainment Entertainment movies Movies culture Culture
0 views
Tenderlove Making 4 weeks ago

Seattle Waterfront

Went to the Seattle waterfront over the weekend to watch the sunset (at like 4pm lol). Unfortunately it was pretty cloudy out, but I had a good time.

entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Stratechery 1 months ago

Disney and OpenAI, Totems in an AI World, Google Versus the World

Disney made a deal with OpenAI, which both speaks to the durability of Disney's assets and to OpenAI's competition with Google.

business Business ai AI entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Pete Warden 1 months ago

TV Shows I Love That Nobody’s Ever Heard Of

A big reason I started this blog (almost twenty years ago!) was to have a safe space to rant about things I’m obsessed with. One of those obsessions is TV, but growing up in the UK and living in the US most of my adult life has left me with tastes that don’t seem to match up with anyone’s demographic. That means I spend a lot of time trying to find shows that I enjoy, and while I hope I’m not a snob (I watched almost every 9-1-1 show, love Rob Lowe and Angela Bassett) I do sometimes discover obscure programs that I can’t believe aren’t better known. Here’s my brain dump of recent TV shows I’ve loved that I don’t feel like got the audiences they deserved. Despite the risque title and setting, this period drama is a razor-sharp examination of power, class, and gender politics. Based very loosely on a historical guide to the prostitutes of Covent Garden, the three seasons follow the fight of a group of women to find their own space and safety in 1760s London. It features some top-tier performances from actors like Lesley Manville , Kate Fleetwood (whose stunning cheekbones you may know from Wheel of Time), Holli Dempsey , Julian Rhind-Tutt , and Liv Tyler . The story moves fast, it’s often a pitch-black comedy, and the stakes always feel high. In the US you can find its three seasons on Hulu. This was a show that I thought I’d hate based on first impressions, but two seasons in I’m hooked. It’s a throwback to a time before scifi shows had to be prestige TV, a space western with a non-existent budget but strong writing that doesn’t take itself too seriously. It jumps right into archetypes we’ve seen before, but manages to breathe a lot of life into some stale cliches. It has hints of other Canadian productions like BSG and Orphan Black in its best moments, playing with a lot of the themes of identity, and always entertains. I’ve been watching it on Apple TV. The Equalizer I have to admit this one is a guilty pleasure. Did you know that Queen Latifah starred in an updated version of the old Edward Woodward show for five seasons? I love her, which helped me get through the crazily ridiculous plots of most episodes. She wears sweaters that only she could pull off, is a badass assassin, and generally has an incredible amount of fun onscreen. Sometimes I just need a show where I can turn off my brain and be swept along, and this definitely scratches that itch. I watch it on Amazon Prime. A French spy thriller that focuses on the flow, denial, and corruption of intelligence in what feels like a very grounded and realistic way. Nobody here is 007, villains and heroes aren’t clearly separated, and everyone is working within larger systems that constrain their actions. A lot of the elements even felt familiar from my decades working in an office, going against the bureaucracy often leads to disaster, and unlike most US thrillers there’s a real price to pay for going rogue. The writing, world, and characters are fresh and absorbing, this show hooked me in a way few others have. I watched it on Amazon Prime. A Chris Estrada comedy set in LA, this show was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in years. The whole cast is spot on, with Michael Imperioli giving a scene-stealing performance as the broken-down Unitarian minister running “Hugs not Thugs”, the non-profit that Chris’s uptight Julio is drawn into by his bad boy cousin, who’s trying to go straight. The comic chemistry between Julio and his cousin played by Frankie Quiñones is perfect, and Michelle Ortiz brings crazy-eyed energy as Julio’s sometime-girlfriend. Short and sweet, I watched this on Hulu. Game of Thrones’ deranged younger cousin, this show starts with Donovan’s Hurdy Gurdy Man as the theme song, and gets weirder from there. Set during the Roman invasion of Britain, it manages to make the past seem truly alien in a way I’ve never seen before. It helps that David Morrissey , Zoe Wanamaker , McKenzie Crook , Kelly Reilly (you may know her from Yosemite) and Julian Rhind-Tutt (again) are absolutely committed to their roles. This is a world where everyone believes in spirits, gods, and demons to a terrifying extent, and the show does an excellent job leaving the viewer unsure of whether what they’re seeing is truly supernatural or just the consequences of fanatical belief. David Morrissey’s Roman general manages to be charming, even sympathetic, while behaving in monstrous ways, and Eleanor Worthington-Cox brings depth to a teenage role that could easily have been lightweight, even irritating if it wasn’t handled carefully. I watched it on Prime. I’ve only made it partway down my mental list of shows I want to feature, but dinner calls, so I guess this post will be part of a series? Stay tuned for more, and let me know any shows that might fit my sensibilities in the comments!

television Television entertainment Entertainment
1 views
Chris Coyier 1 months ago

Media Diet

🎵 Florence + The Machine, Everybody Scream — I have no prior Florence experience but really like this album. The whole “start slow and build a song to a wild ass peak” thing works for me. “You Can Have It All” is a favorite. A little called out by “It must be nice to be a man and make boring music just because you can” in “One of the Greats” but, fortunately, narrowly escape as I only aspire to make music that is good enough to be boring. 🎧 Get Up in the Cool  — Podcast from Cameron DeWhitt totally focused on the heavily niche musical interest of Old Time. My friend Darin was on recently . 🎥 Predator: Badlands — What a friggin masterpiece. This is why going to the movies exists. I loved how predator boy shows up at the end and uses like every single thing he learned on the death planet in the final fight. 🕹️ Ball x Pit — Just fun as heck. I the end I didn’t even hate the meta progression city building stuff. Really enjoyed the different characters and upgrades that take some of the monotony away just as you’re starting to feel it. 🎥 Eddington (why don’t all movies have an obvious “this is the official website of the movie” website? If I made a movie you’d better as hell know it would have a banger website.) — I loved how this movie evokes how it feels to observe the foreverbattle of the far right and far left. And how there is a sliding scale of just how crazy any given person on either side can be. When the movie gives way to violence, it felt like a release to me, like obviously this is where things are going. 📺 Stranger Things  — Just a fan like everyone else. Anxiously awaiting this story to continue, wasn’t disappointed when it did, and can’t wait for Christmas for the next four. 📕 I am Rebel  — A very helpful lady at Barnes & Nobel helped Ruby and I find the perfect book to buy with her birthday gift card. We both really enjoyed this story of a dog sticking to his feelings and finding his owner despite changes, both physical and emotional. I wanted a little more about the corrupt king and the revolutionaries plan, but that would have aged the book up. 🎵 Western Centuries — What an amazing band, I’m sorry I missed their active period. They lost a guy and must have just called it, understandably. This is just perfection to me:

ruby Ruby entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Stratechery 1 months ago

2025.50: Netflix and a Hollywood Chill

Welcome back to This Week in Stratechery! As a reminder, each week, every Friday, we’re sending out this overview of content in the Stratechery bundle; highlighted links are free for everyone . Additionally, you have complete control over what we send to you. If you don’t want to receive This Week in Stratechery emails (there is no podcast), please uncheck the box in your delivery settings . On that note, here were a few of our favorites this week. This week’s Stratechery video is on Google, Nvidia, and OpenAI . Why Does Netflix Want Warner? There are an entire category of stories that are shocking but, after a few moments, not surprising; Netflix buying one of Hollywood’s most iconic studios was not necessarily shocking — it’s been rumored for a few months — but it is surprising. Netflix dominates paid streaming distribution; why do they need to get into production as well? Both Andrew and I offer our theories of the case on Stratechery and Sharp Text , and we debated the same on this week’s episode of Sharp Tech . For me, the biggest answer is what’s becoming a theme: the specter of Google, in this case YouTube. — Ben Thompson And a Bit More Netflix.  I love every Michael Nathanson interview on Stratechery, because the conversations are equal parts substance and chummy chemistry as two old friends size up the media landscape. Needless to say, this was a very good week for an extended conversation about the entertainment business , and I was delighted to see the transcript land in my inbox on Sunday night (yes, I get advance copies). Come for ribbing about previous long-running Netflix debates, and stay for two friends grappling with the logic of the deal for Netflix, regulatory questions to come, and the implications for show business. The interview is as timely this weekend as it was earlier this week, as all the questions surrounding this deal remain very much unresolved!  — Andrew Sharp All About Flighty.  If you’re a Stratechery reader or Sharp Tech listener, you’re probably familiar with Flighty , a flight-tracking app that Ben finds an excuse to recommend at least once a month. This week Ben interviewed the Flighty CEO, Ryan Jones , and we got the full backstory on how Jones went from the oil industry to Apple, how the Flighty app came to exist, and what its future looks like in the modern app environment. The interview is a fun conversation between two nerds who like building things, but more than that, the Flighty story is worth appreciating as a reminder of what tech can be at its best: a business identifies a problem, uses technology to fix it, and makes life better for everyone.  — AS Netflix and the Hollywood End Game — Netflix is driving the Hollywood end game, likely confident it can increase the value of IP, and fend off YouTube. An Emergency Interview with Michael Nathanson About Netflix’s Acquisition of Warner Bros. — An interview with MoffettNathanson’s Michael Nathanson about Netflix’s acquisition of Warner Bros. and the Hollywood end game. Trump Allows H200 Sales to China, The Sliding Scale, A Good Decision — The Trump administration has effectively unwound the Biden era chip controls by selling the H200 to China; I agree with the decision, which is a return to longstanding U.S. policy. An Interview with Ryan Jones About Flighty and Building Apps in 2025 — An interview with Ryan Jones about Flighty, my favorite iOS app, and how the App Store has evolved over the last 15 years. Netflix and the Flattening of Everything — Whether the $72 billion Warner Brothers deal closes or not, the era of Netflix as big tech Switzlerland is now over. Netflix Buys Warner Bros. State Department Serifs Legends of the RISC Wars From Wheat to Cherries in Chile Trump’s Plan to Sell Advanced Chips to China; U.S. Concessions Piling Up Amid a Push for ‘Stability’; Macron and the EU Conundrum A Cup Week Mailbag: LeStreak, The Pat Spencer Revolution, Bucks PhDs, SVG on Jokic, and Lots More Netflix Opportunities and Anxieties, Merger Hurdles to Come, Hollywood’s Endgame and What Comes Next

media Media business Business entertainment Entertainment
1 views
Rik Huijzer 1 months ago

Is Frederick T Gates related to Bill Gates?

Given the funny ending, I'll repost a interesting Answers.com answer to the question whether Frederick T. Gates is related to Bill Gates. This was published 11 years ago (2014): > To the unpaid Snopes intern/Gates family PR slave above me : Frederick Taylor Gates just happened to be present in the Greater Seattle area in 1891, THE SAME YEAR Bill Gates Grandfather was born, the supposed furniture store owner. What are the odds of that? Get out your Snopes calculator. Furthermore there are ZERO public explanations as to why Bill Gates has III for a Suffix, and his father II, when there are clea...

entertainment Entertainment ai AI programming Programming
0 views
Stratechery 1 months ago

An Emergency Interview with Michael Nathanson About Netflix’s Acquisition of Warner Bros.

An interview with MoffettNathanson's Michael Nathanson about Netflix's acquisition of Warner Bros. and the Hollywood end game.

business Business entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Stratechery 1 months ago

Netflix and the Hollywood End Game

Listen to this post : Warner Bros. started with distribution. Just after the turn of the century, Harry, Albert, Sam, and Jack Warner bought a second-hand projector and started showing short films in Ohio and Pennsylvania mining towns; in 1907 they bought their first permanent theater in New Castle, Pennsylvania. Around the same time the brothers also began distributing films to other theaters, and in 1908 began producing their own movies in California. In 1923 the brothers formally incorporated as Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., becoming one of the five major Hollywood Studios. What the brothers realized early on was that distribution just wasn’t a very good business: you had to maintain the theater and find films to show, and your profit was capped by your capacity, which you had to work diligently to fill out; after all, every empty seat in a showing was potential revenue that disappeared forever. What was far more lucrative was making the films shown in those theaters: you could film a movie once and make money on it again and again. In this Hollywood was the tech industry before there was a tech industry, which is to say the studios were the industry that focused its investment on large-up-front costs that could be leveraged repeatedly to make money. Granted, Warner Bros., along with the rest of Hollywood, did come to own large theater chains as well as part of fully integrated companies, but when the Supreme Court, with 1948’s Paramount decrees, forced them to split, it was the theaters that got spun out: making content was simply a much better business than distributing it. That business only got better over time. First, television provided an expansive new licensing opportunity for films and eventually TV shows; not only were there more televisions than theaters, but they were accessible at all hours in the home. Then, home video added a new window: movies could not only make money in theaters and on TV, but there were entirely new opportunities to rent and sell recordings. The real bonanza, however, was the cable bundle: now, instead of needing to earn discrete revenue, the majority of Hollywood revenue became a de facto annuity, as 90% of households paid an ever increasing amount of money every month to have access to a universe of content they mostly didn’t watch. Netflix, which was founded in 1997, also started with distribution, specifically of DVDs-by-mail; the streaming service that the company is known for today launched in 2007, 100 years after the Warner brothers bought their theater. The differences were profound: because Netflix was on the Internet, it was available literally everywhere; there were no seats to clean or projectors to maintain, and every incremental customer was profit. More importantly, the number of potential customers was, at least in theory, the entire population of the world. That, in a nutshell, is why the Internet is different : you can, from day one, reach anyone, with zero marginal cost. Netflix did, over time, like Warner Bros. before them, backwards integrate into producing their own content. Unlike Warner Bros., however, that content production was and has always only ever been in service of Netflix’s distribution. What Netflix has understood — and what Hollywood, Warner Bros. included, was far too slow to realize — is that because of the Internet distribution is even more scalable than content. The specifics of this are not obvious; after all, content is scarce and exclusive, while everyone can access the Internet. However, it’s precisely because everyone can access the Internet that there is an abundance of content, far too much for anyone to consume; this gives power to Aggregators who sort that content on consumers’ behalf, delivering a satisfying user experience. Consumers flock to the Aggregator, which makes the Aggregator attractive to suppliers, giving them more content, which attracts more consumers, all in a virtuous cycle. Over time the largest Aggregators gain overwhelming advantages in customer acquisition costs and simply don’t churn users; that is the ultimate source of their economic power. This is the lesson Hollywood studios have painfully learned over the last decade. As Netflix grew — and importantly, had a far more desirable stock multiple despite making inferior content — Hollywood studios wanted in on the game, and the multiple, and they were confident they would win because they had the content. Content is king, right? Well, it was, in a world of distribution limited by physical constraints; on the Internet, customer acquisition and churn mitigation in a world of infinite alternatives matters more, and that’s the advantage Netflix had, and that advantage has only grown. On Friday, Netflix announced it was buying Warner Bros.; from the Wall Street Journal : Netflix has agreed to buy Warner Bros. for $72 billion after the entertainment company splits its studios and HBO Max streaming business from its cable networks, a deal that would reshape the entertainment and media industry. The cash-and-stock transaction was announced Friday after the two sides entered into exclusive negotiations for the media company known for Superman and the Harry Potter movies, as well as hit TV shows such as “Friends.” The offer is valued at $27.75 per Warner Discovery share and has an enterprise value of roughly $82.7 billion. Rival Paramount, which sought to buy the entire company, including Warner’s cable networks, bid $30 per share all-cash for Warner Discovery, according to people familiar with the matter. Paramount is weighing its next move, which could involve pivoting to other potential acquisitions, people familiar with its plans said. Paramount’s bid, it should be noted, was for the entire Warner Bros. Discovery business, including the TV and cable networks that will be split off next year; Netflix is only buying the Warner Bros. part. The Puck reported that the stub Netflix is leaving behind is being valued at $5/share, which would mean that Netflix outbid Paramount. And, it should be noted, that Paramount money wouldn’t be from the actual business, which is valued at a mere $14 billion; new owner David Ellison is the son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, who is worth $275 billion. Netflix, meanwhile, is worth $425 billion and generated $9 billion in cash flow over the last year. Absent family money this wouldn’t be anywhere close to a fair fight. That’s exactly what you would expect given Netflix’s position — and the most optimistic scenario I painted back in 2016 : Much of this analysis about the impact of subscriber numbers, growth rates, and churn apply to any SaaS company, but for Netflix the stakes are higher: the company has the potential to be an Aggregator , with the dominance and profits that follow from such a position. To review: Netflix has acquired users through, among other things, a superior TV viewing experience. That customer base has given the company the ability to secure suppliers, which improve the attractiveness of the company’s offerings to users, which gives Netflix even more power over suppliers. The most bullish outcome in this scenario is Netflix as not simply another cable channel with a unique delivery method, but as the only TV you need with all of the market dominance over suppliers that entails. The most obvious way that this scenario might have developed is that Netflix ends up being the only buyer for Hollywood suppliers, thanks to their ability to pay more by virtue of having the most customers; that is the nature of the company’s relationship with Sony , which had the foresight (and lack of lost TV network revenue to compensate for) to avoid the streaming wars and simply sell its content to the highest bidder. There are three specific properties I think of, however, that might be examples of what convinced Netflix it was worth simply buying one of the biggest suppliers entirely: With regards to KPop Demon Hunters , I wrote in an Update : How much of the struggle for original animation comes from the fact that no one goes to see movies on a lark anymore? Simply making it to the silver screen used to be the biggest hurdle; now that the theater is a destination — something you have to explicitly choose to do, instead of do on a Friday night by default — you need to actually sell, and that favors IP the audience is already familiar with. In fact, this is the most ironic capstone to Netflix’s rise and the misguided chase by studios seeking to replicate their success: the latter thought that content mattered most, but in truth great content — and again, KPop Demon Hunters is legitimately good — needs distribution and “free” access in the most convenient way possible to prove its worth. To put it another way, KPop Demon Hunters is succeeding on its own merits, but those merits only ever had a chance to matter because they were accessible on the largest streaming service. In short, I think that Netflix executives have become convinced that simply licensing shows is leaving money on the table: if Netflix is uniquely able to make IP more valuable, then the obvious answer is to own the IP. If the process of acquiring said IP helps force the long overdue consolidation of Hollywood studios, and takes a rival streamer off the board (and denies content to another rival), all the better. There are certainly obvious risks, and the price is high, but the argument is plausible. That phrase — “takes a rival streamer off the board” — also raises regulatory questions, and no industry gets more scrutiny than the media in this regard. That is sure to be the case for Netflix; from Bloomberg : US President Donald Trump raised potential antitrust concerns around Netflix Inc.’s planned $72 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., noting that the market share of the combined entity may pose problems. Trump’s comments, made as he arrived at the Kennedy Center for an event on Sunday, may spur concerns regulators will oppose the coupling of the world’s dominant streaming service with a Hollywood icon. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review of a deal that would reshape the entertainment industry. “Well, that’s got to go through a process, and we’ll see what happens,” Trump said when asked about the deal, confirming he met Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos recently. “But it is a big market share. It could be a problem.” It’s important to note that the President does not have final say in the matter: President Trump directed the DOJ to oppose AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, but the DOJ lost in federal court , much to AT&T’s detriment. Indeed, the irony of mergers and regulatory review is that is that the success of the latter is often inversely correlated to the wisdom of the former: the AT&T deal for Time Warner never made much sense, which is directly related to why it (correctly) was approved. It would have been economically destructive for AT&T to, say, limit Time Warner content to its networks, so suing over that theoretical possibility was ultimately unsuccessful. This deal is more interesting. The complaint, if there ends up being one, will, as is so often the case, come down to market definition. If the market is defined extremely narrowly as subscription streaming services, then Netflix will have a harder time; if the market is defined as TV viewing broadly, then Netflix has a good defense: that definition includes linear TV, YouTube, etc., where Netflix’s share is both much smaller and also (correctly) includes their biggest threat (YouTube). That YouTube is Netflix’s biggest threat speaks to a broader point: because of the Internet there is no scarcity in terms of access to customers; it’s not as if there are a limited number of Internet packets, as there once were a limited number of TV channels. Everything is available to everyone, which means the only scarce resource is people’s time and attention. If this were the market definition — which is the market all of these companies actually care about — then the list of competitors expands beyond TV and YouTube to include social media and user-generated content broadly: TikTok, to take an extreme example, really is a Netflix competitor for the only scarce resource that is left. Ultimately, however, I think that everything Netflix does has to be framed in the context of the aforementioned YouTube threat. YouTube has not only long surpassed Netflix in consumer time spent generally, but also TV time specifically, and has done so with content it has acquired for free. That is very difficult to compete with in the long run: YouTube will always have more new content than anyone else. The one big advantage professionally-produced content has, however, is that it tends to be more evergreen and have higher re-watchability. That’s where we come back to the library: implicit in Netflix making library content more valuable is that library content has longevity in a way that YouTube content does not. That, by extension, may speak to why Netflix has decided to initiate the Hollywood end game now: the real threat to Hollywood isn’t (just) that the Internet made distribution free, favoring the Aggregators; it’s that technology has made it possible for anyone to create content, and the threat isn’t theoretical: it’s winning in the market. Netflix may be feared by the town, but everyone in Hollywood should fear the fact that anyone can be a creator much more. In 2019, Netflix launched Formula 1: Drive to Survive , which has been a massive success. The biggest upside recipient of that series, however, has not been Netflix, but Formula 1 owner Liberty Media. In 2018 Liberty Media offered the U.S. TV rights to ESPN for free; seven years later Apple signed a deal to broadcast Formula 1 for $150 million a year. That upside was largely generated by Netflix, who captured none of it. In 2023, NBCUniversal licensed Suits to Netflix, and the show, long since stuck in the Peacock backwater, suddenly became the hottest thing in streaming. Netflix didn’t pay much, because the deal wasn’t exclusive, but it was suddenly apparent to everyone that Netflix had a unique ability to increase the value of library content. In 2025, KPop Demon Hunters became a global phenomenon, and it’s difficult to see that happening absent the Netflix algorithm. First, it is in part a vertical merger, wherein a distributor is acquiring a supplier, which is generally approved. However, it seems likely that Netflix will, over time, make Warner Bros. content, particularly its vast libraries, exclusive to Netflix, instead of selling it to other distributors. This will be economically destructive in the short term, but it very well may be outweighed by the aforementioned increase in value that Netflix can drive to established IP, giving Netflix more pricing power over time (which will increase regulatory scrutiny). Second, it is also in part a horizontal merger, because Netflix is acquiring a rival streaming service, and presumably taking it off the market. Horizontal mergers get much more scrutiny, because the explicit outcome is to reduce competition. The frustrating point for Netflix is that the company probably doesn’t weigh this point that heavily: it’s difficult to see HBO Max providing incremental customers to Netflix, as most HBO Max customers are also Netflix customers. Indeed, Netflix may argue that they will, at least in the short to medium term, be providing consumers benefit by giving them the same content for a price that is actually lower, since you’re only paying for one service (although again, the long-term goal would be to increase pricing power).

business Business entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Harper Reed 1 months ago

Note #300

Today I got on the blueline, and the car I got on, apparently, held a cohort of furries headed downtown. Was very cool. Thank you for using RSS. I appreciate you. Email me

culture Culture entertainment Entertainment
0 views
Frederik Braun 1 months ago

The C3PO Bug in Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga

Today: Something off topic, to feed the search engines. My kids and I have a lot of fun with the video game Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga , which was released in 2007. As it is quite old, the "complete saga" includes only the episodes 1 through 6. Frankly, these …

gaming Gaming ai AI entertainment Entertainment
0 views