Netflix buys Warner Bros. and HBO — here's what it'll control



Netflix announced a massive deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., a company that controls huge entities like HBO and CNN.

Which networks Netflix will control, however, is a bit complicated.

Warner Bros. put itself up for sale last month, and as Blaze News reported, was simultaneously being eyed for acquisition by Amazon.

'Our mission has always been to entertain the world.'

Netflix has seemingly won the battle though, with a cash and stock transaction valued at $27.75 per share for Warner Bros. Discovery, totaling approximately $82.7 billion, which equates to an equity value of $72 billion after debt, according to CNN and Netflix.

The deal is expected to close in Q3 2026, which will give WBD a chance to conclude the separation of its company, which has huge implications in terms of which channels Netflix takes control of.

Split decision

In June 2025, WBD decided to split itself into two companies, WBD Global Networks and WBD Streaming & Studios. The split is expected to take effect in summer 2026, after which Netflix will take over the Streaming & Studios company.

RELATED: Netflix features trans teen kissing scene in kids' cartoon — but it's not the only one

NEW YORK - JUNE 10, 2007: Actor Ray Abruzzo attends an HBO screening of the series finale of 'The Sopranos.' (Photo by Evan Agostini/Getty Images)

This means Netflix will gain Warner Bros Pictures/Television/Games, HBO, streaming service HBO Max, TNT Sports (international), and studio New Line Cinema.

The acquisition also comes with the rights to some of the most highly sought after shows around, such as "Friends," "Game of Thrones," "The Sopranos," "The Big Bang Theory," and those in the DC Comic Universe. As well movies like the "Harry Potter" franchise will move to Netflix.

CNN not included

There were questions as to what it would mean for CNN should WBD be acquired by a different platform, but the news network will fall under WBD Global Networks and not move to Netflix.

The same goes for networks like HGTV, Discovery, TBS, the Cartoon Network, TNT Sports (U.S.), along with the rights to the NHL, NCAA, and Olympics in terms of sports.

RELATED: Elon Musk claims to have canceled Netflix subscription over Charlie Kirk mockery and transgender indoctrination

Photo Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Shareholder service

Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of Netflix said, "Our mission has always been to entertain the world."

He added that the combination of Warner Bros.' library and Netflix's catalogue will "give audiences more of what they love and help define the next century of storytelling."

Greg Peters, the other co-CEO of Netflix, said the acquisition will "accelerate" their business for decides.

"With our global reach and proven business model, we can introduce a broader audience to the worlds they create — giving our members more options, attracting more fans to our best-in-class streaming service, strengthening the entire entertainment industry and creating more value for shareholders."

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav added that the sale to Netflix will "ensure people everywhere will continue to enjoy the world's most resonant stories for generations to come."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Go home, gov! Halle Berry slams fake feminist Gavin's presidential run



Did Halle Berry just go MAGA?

Sadly no. But the Oscar-winner did take a strong stand against Gov. Gavin Newsom’s chances at becoming the next U.S. president.

Former video store clerk turned Oscar-winner Quentin Tarantino unloaded on this actor in ways that you just don’t do in Hollywood circles.

Did Berry cite his abominable record in the Golden State? His silly social media memes designed to out-Trump Trump? His state’s abysmal record on homelessness, gas prices, and more?

Maybe she cited those super-creepy leg crosses?

Nope. The actress is anti-Newsom due to a single bill that she feels could help menopausal women. Turns out Newsom doesn’t support the Menopause Care Equity Act, which would have, according to Time, “ensured insurance coverage for evidence-based treatments and required physician training: practical, cost-effective steps backed by leading medical experts.”

"And with the way he's overlooked women, half the population, by devaluing us in midlife, he probably should not be our next president either. Just saying."

Meanwhile some heavy Hollywood hitters are flooding the zone for Newsom’s 2028 presidential campaign because, as they see it, he’s a “fighter.”

Now if he could only fight on behalf of his fellow Californians ...

Mad Maddow

Rachel Maddow gets the big bucks for a reason. She’s the biggest draw on her low-rated MS NOW network, and she’s as stubborn as the proverbial mule.

How stubborn? You know that Russian collusion hoax she helped peddle for far too long? Well she’s still living in a pre-Mueller Report world. In fact, her recent appearance on “The Late Show” was hilarious for all the wrong reasons.

“I don’t know what Putin has on [Trump], but he works for Putin, and it’s an embarrassment to this country.”

Stephen Colbert, to the shock of no one, didn’t correct the MS NOW anchor. The only surprise from the segment was that neither Colbert nor Maddow brought up the “very fine people” hoax for good measure ...

RELATED: Why Gavin Newsom’s Bible quotations should alarm Christians — before it’s too late

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

King of cringe

This prince isn’t a fan of kings.

Prince Harry also visited “The Late Show” this week, and he proved a quick study on the show’s demographic. Think TDS sufferers and shut-ins. Except Meghan Markle’s lesser half couldn’t even get the show’s audience on his side.

Harry pretended to interrupt Colbert’s nightly monologue Wednesday. The two exchanged a few words, including how Harry wanted to endear himself to Americans by starring in a Christmas movie. Besides, he argued, Americans are obsessed with royalty.

Colbert scoffed at the idea, setting up this droll quip.

“Really? I heard you elected a king,” Harry said.

The crowd, to everyone’s shock, booed and groaned. That response was brutal, but imagine the reaction he got when he returned home ...

Goin' 'South'

Did Cartman’s creators lose their nerve?

We all know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone cast aside decades of apolitical comedy to skewer Trump this season on “South Park.”

You never go the full “Saturday Night Live.” But they did.

Now Parker and Stone are wrestling with a long-delayed project described as a “slave comedy.” The film’s original premise had a black slave re-enactor learning that his white girlfriend’s family once owned slaves in the pre-Civil War South.

It’s a provocative setup, the kind that the “South Park” duo once would tackle sans fear. But now? The pair just signed a billion-plus deal with Paramount, and their TDS-themed “South Park” season has made them beloved in the media and the DNC. (But we repeat ourselves.)

Would they risk that love and affection by creating an unwoke comedy?

Regardless, the film is troubled, to say the least. The title was originally slated for a 2025 release, but now the best-case scenario will have it land in theaters in 2027. That’s assuming they get the actual film done. A new report suggests major reshoots are in order.

Let’s hope for their sake they didn’t “put a chick in it! Make her lame and gay!”

Wong turn

BD Wong made a tasteless joke on social media.

Never mind that the vast majority of people missed it completely. And a good portion of that group is probably asking themselves, "BD who?"

As a woke revolution hold-out, the veteran actor is determined to grovel like it's 2020 and so posted this overwrought gesture of self-flagellation:

As most people in hot water do, I deleted it for Damage Control but it’s out there & continues to hurt & disappoint & I’m really sorry about the hurt part. Super dumb, but I tried to follow the "Wrong Answers Only" prompt with the wrongest answer. This succeeded only in that it was Super Wrong. I know nobody gets a free pass. I’m sorry if this #wtfbd moment tarnished any respect you may’ve had for me. & thanks if you advocate for an internet that’s safe for everybody.

Apologies are fine. He trafficked in a crude gag on social media, and some people didn’t get the joke or appreciate the irreverent tone.

Still can we stop pretending that we can be “hurt” by a tacky or tasteless joke? Or do we need to keep up the Apology ToursTM in perpetuity?

Foot in mouth

Did Paul Dano forget to be kind and rewind his VHS tape?

Former video store clerk turned Oscar-winner Quentin Tarantino unloaded on Dano in ways that you just don’t do in Hollywood circles.

Here’s what the “Inglourious Basterds” director said about Dano, best known for films like “There Will Be Blood,” “The Batman,” and “Love and Mercy.”

"And the flaw [in ‘There Will Be Blood’] is Paul Dano," Tarantino said. "Obviously it's supposed to be a two-hander, and it's also so drastically obvious that it's not a two-hander. ... He is weak sauce, man. He's a weak sister.”

It could be worse. Tarantino could have said Dano has ugly feet.

'The American Revolution' keeps founders at arm's length



If America had an official "documentarian laureate," Ken Burns would be a shoo-in for the job.

Over the last four decades, the filmmaker has devoted his career to capturing the country's history and culture, in works ranging from "Baseball," "Jazz," and "The National Parks: America's Best Idea" to his groundbreaking 1990 masterpiece "The Civil War." And despite his avowed "yellow-dog Democrat" tendencies, he has done so with remarkable nuance.

Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals.

Now, just in time for America’s 250th anniversary, Burns has returned with a new six-part PBS series exploring how it all got started.

Fanfare and apprehension

"The American Revolution" arrives with suitable fanfare — and an almost absurdly star-studded cast of voice-over artists. Tom Hanks, Morgan Freeman, Samuel L. Jackson, Paul Giamatti, Josh Brolin, Meryl Streep, Ethan Hawke, Edward Norton, and Michael Keaton are among the luminaries who provide narration.

Even so, there has been a level of apprehension surrounding the show, particularly among conservatives. Could a commemoration of America's founding even work in our current moment — when even mild appeals to patriotism and national unity seem to stir up bitter partisan disputes?

Burns seems to have a found a way around this by making his retelling as clinical and unromantic as possible. He is clearly passionate about the American project, but he is unwilling to embrace the mythological or nationalistic sides of that passion.

Whose revolution?

“It’s our creation story,” historian Rick Atkinson says as he discusses the importance of the Revolution. But most of the experts Burns showcases prefer to focus on the negative, puncturing what one calls the “unreal and detached" romanticization of the founders.

Instead, we're invited to ponder the role that slavery and the theft of Native American land played in the fight for independence — not to mention a fair amount of unsavory violence perpetrated by the revolutionaries.

While the series does a good job of covering the conflicts between 1774 and 1783, it takes frequent detours to discuss the issues surrounding the revolution: the role of women contributing to the war, the perspectives of English Loyalists as they became refugees fleeing the conflict, the madness of the Sons of Liberty’s antics, and the perspectives of slaves trying to survive and find liberty too.

RELATED: Yes, Ken Burns, the founding fathers believed in God — and His 'divine Providence'

Interim Archives/Boston Globe/Getty Images

Living in the tension

A pronounced classical liberalism pervades the storytelling, one reflecting the secular Enlightenment idealism that a “new and radical” vision for mankind could be found through self-determination and freedom, apart from the aristocratic and theocratic haze of Europe.

This vision acknowledges progressive criticism of the era’s slavery and classism, but tries to integrate those faults rather than use them as grounds to discard the entire experiment. It attempts to live within the tension of history and sift out what is still valuable, rather than abandon the project altogether.

Indeed, Burns is generally good about avoiding any sort of score-settling or modern politicking, shy of a few buzzwords. He constantly uses the word “resistance” and ends with a reflection on the potential ruination of the republic by “unprincipled demagogues,” proudly quoting Alexander Hamilton that “nobody is above the law.”

The show’s consensus is overwhelmingly that the values of the Revolution were greater than the severely flawed men who fought it. To Burns, it was not merely a war, but a radical ongoing experiment in human liberty that escaped the colonies like a virus and changed the world forever. He certainly doesn’t want to throw out the liberal project, and so he constantly circles back on defending the war’s idealism.

Idealism and discomfort

This accounts for the show’s title, focusing on its revolutionary implications. It wasn’t just a war, but a change in the way people thought. The show argues that “to believe in America … is to believe in possibility,” and that studying the Revolution is important to understanding “why we are where we are now.”

Unfortunately, the intervening 12 hours require the viewer to swallow a fair share of dubious and rather inflammatory claims, including that George Washington was primarily driven by his class interests as a landowner, that popular retellings often “paper over” the violent actions of the revolutionaries, and that the founders were, on balance, hypocrites.

Its overall perspective is that it is impossible to tell the nation’s origin story in a way that is “clean” and “neat,” with clear heroes and villains. Those rallying around the American cause are portrayed as a loose collection of criminals, anarchists, slavers, and exiled aristocrats united by high Enlightenment ideals.

"The Revolution" wants both this idealism and discomfort to sit equally in your mind, as you ponder how morally compromised men could change the world. As one of the historians asks, “How can you know something is wrong and still do it? That is the human question for all of us.”

Overall, Ken Burns’ latest proves a very bittersweet watch, hardly the sentimental reflection on Americanism that the country’s approaching 250th anniversary demands, but also too idealistic and classically liberal to comfortably fit anyone’s agenda. It wants to lionize the founding’s aspirational values of democracy, equality, and revolution, while assiduously avoiding praising the people involved.

It's a remarkably watchable and entertaining work of sober disillusionment.

Karen Carpenter starved herself in public; today's celebs have pharmaceutical help



“Pop singer Karen Carpenter died this morning from complications of anorexia nervosa,” said the perfectly made-up anchorwoman on KTLA while I sat at the table eating my Raisin Bran.

It was one of those bright Southern California mornings in 1983. There’s something jarring about hearing awful news in a chipper tone of voice when the sun is out and a new day is starting. Of course I was sad to hear about Karen’s death; she was that nice lady with the prettiest voice in the world who sang “the Sesame Street song.”

I fear we’re watching a replay of what happened in the 1970s and ’80s, when anorexia nervosa spread rapidly through the culture.

Sing of good things, not bad
Sing of happy, not sad

A voice from God

It wasn’t until many years later that I felt a deeper sadness and loss when I contemplated Karen Carpenter’s death at 33. She had a voice from God that comes along once in a century if we’re lucky. We had all watched her slowly kill herself right there on television. Like most deeply troubled people, Karen denied that anything was wrong, even as she sat under the interview lights as a skeleton in a sweater.

We’re seeing the same thing today in our “stars,” but unlike the early 1980s, grown-up America seems to think it’s normal. Maybe even “empowered.”

“There are rumors, though, that you were suffering from the slimmer’s disease, from anorexia nervosa. Was that right?” a British interviewer said to Karen in 1981.

“No,” said Karen, rolling her eyes inside a face that looked like a moving skull, all jagged planes and bone surfaces shining through translucent skin.

No looking away

Two years later, Karen died on the floor of her mother’s upstairs closet in Downey, California, before she made it down for breakfast. Despite having recently been treated for anorexia and gaining back a modest amount of weight, the long-term damage Karen did to her heart and organs made them give out.

And everyone knew it would. Everyone talked about it. Most adults in that era had looked on with worried skepticism at the gaunt Twiggy when she became a top model in the 1960s. Everyone knew women on TV or at the office who dieted a little too hard. But America had never seen something as extreme as what happened to Karen Carpenter.

There was no looking away, no denying it. Karen stood on stage with Ella Fitzgerald for a TV special. She was barely able to stand up, and if she weighed 90 pounds, I’ll eat my hat. That velvet syrup voice was almost enough to distract from the approaching death, but not quite.

Do we even notice when our stars kill themselves in public today?

The Ozemporexia nervosa era

We’re entering our Ozemporexia nervosa era. As usual, few people are saying out loud what everyone already knows: People with troubled minds and troubled relationships to substances including food are taking the drugs to cover over, or to enhance, an eating disorder. The semaglutide injectable diabetes drugs work in part by chemically controlling appetite, so the primary reason these drugs are prescribed today is, of course, weight loss.

If you have turned on a computing device or entered a store within the past few months, you cannot avoid noticing the oversaturation of advertisements for the movie "Wicked: For Good." This is the sequel to the movie "Wicked," based on the long-running Broadway musical, itself based on Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel.

Maguire tells the story of the young Elphaba, the innocent green-skinned girl who would go on to terrorize Oz as the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguire's novel pioneered what has now become commonplace in our entertainment: recasting the evil, the sinister, and the villainous as misunderstood and traumatized wee harmless ones who are actually the heroes.

RELATED: Out-of-control Ozempic use means sad, saggy future for TL;DR generation

PHAS/Getty Images

Folie à deux

Cynthia Erivo plays Elphaba, although her knife-edged cheekbones and six-inch acrylic talons are less witchy and more "Nosferatu." The actress certainly seems to have the strange, self-absorbed charisma of a vampire, wasting away before our eyes even as she mesmerizes Hollywood into all manner of unnatural acts. Like casting her as Jesus in "Jesus Christ Superstar."

But it is in Erivo’s jarring relationship with fellow extreme ectomorph Ariana Grande — who co-stars as a young Glinda the Good — that we really sense the vampiric.

Like Erivo, Grande seems much frailer than she did just a few years ago. The two appear in public as if they were sewn together at the hip. In nearly every press interview for their "Wicked" movies, Erivo clicks her claws around Grande’s neck and head, fiddling with her jewelry in a creepily proprietary way. Or the two are holding hands as if they were waifs being introduced to grown-ups for the first time outside the orphanage.

Celebrities looking and acting weird. Big shock, right? This is Hollywood we’re talking about. The town is a magnet for dysfunctional people. Neglected, abused, and exploited children run for the big city lights so they can be beautiful, adored, and good enough in a way they could never be for their parents.

Eating disorders, addiction, and declining mental health all stem from these childhood circumstances, and they are worsened for those who choose fame as a means of “getting over” them.

The influence of anxiety

This is not to say that Erivo or Grande suffer from any of this or even that they use Ozempic. But their alarmingly thin bodies and their brittle, performative intimacy do not exist in a vacuum. While young people have been entranced by celebrity culture since the mid-20th century, the desperate absorption and imitation of every star’s psychiatric distress by ordinary American kids has never been as extreme as it is in 2025.

One can make a reasonable argument for using the semaglutide drugs to lose weight when one’s health is in jeopardy and other methods have not worked. Every patient has to run that calculation for herself and consider it with her doctor.

But I fear we are watching a replay of what happened in the 1970s and ’80s, when anorexia nervosa spread rapidly through the culture and clinicians noted that the intense public focus on Karen Carpenter’s illness seemed to accelerate the trend.

But this has a pharmaceutical assist that will give a “normal” brand name to what is just old-fashioned self-starvation.

All-ages contagion

British researcher Gerald Russell first described bulimia nervosa (binge eating, followed by purging, usually vomiting) in some of his anorexic patients in a paper published in the 1970s. He later shared his alarm that his paper, and the spread of terms and diagnostic language around the condition, may have caused it to spread among women in the Western population.

Russell was arguably correct, though he can’t be blamed for trying to help sufferers. Young women are especially vulnerable to trends and fads; they will do almost anything, no matter how potentially dangerous, to keep up with what their friends are doing. If Becca manages to keep her figure by discreetly puking up her lunch, why shouldn’t Caitlin?

Michelle Obama has recently displayed an alarming weight loss on a frame that didn’t have much to lose. On her Instagram she shared an behind-the-scenes image from her recent shoot with photographer Annie Leibovitiz.

At 61 years old, Obama is dressing in teen-style distressed jeans and clingy, skin-baring tops, showing off how her female curves are melting away.

Look at her face. Does this woman look healthy or happy?

No one left to notice

The problems that celebrities, normal young women, and some men and boys face about body image aren’t about a particular drug or a time-limited fashion trend. What we see today in Hollywood is not different from what we have always seen in the entertainment industry and among the kids and teens who consume it.

The problems begin at home — the home that no longer exists. Fatherlessness, divorce, and normalized neglectful, hands-off parenting have left today’s kids even more vulnerable to self destruction than those of my generation in the 1980s. And if you are old enough to remember what that was like, you remember plenty of screwed-up kids from screwed-up families.

It’s worse today because we’re pretending that it’s not wrong, that it’s not unhealthy. It has brand names and “rizz,” and besides, everyone is doing it. How can it be wrong?

In 1983, adults spoke about what happened to Karen Carpenter with alarm, and they said it out loud. Today, cool moms get glammed up along with their daughters in officially licensed Wicked(™) outfits and stand in line for tickets to watch the actresses perform “fun” while their minds and bodies decay.

Isn’t modernity wonderful?

Marvel star's racist Tinseltown tantrum: 'Put some asians in literally anything right now'



Actor Simu Liu is begging Hollywood studios for more race-based casting — specifically, his race.

The Chinese-born, Canada-raised Liu recently took to social media to share a collage of screenshots of some of his fellow Asian actors lamenting how hard it is to land leading roles.

"Put some asians in literally anything right now," Liu added as commentary. "The amount of backslide in our representation onscreen is f**king appalling."

'We’re fighting a deeply prejudiced system. And most days it SUCKS.'

White on rice

Citing Hollywood's apparent fear that Asian-centric films are "risky," Lui pointed out the success of movies like his 2022 Marvel debut, "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings," as well as 2018's "Crazy Rich Asians," which grossed $174 million in 2018 against a $30 million budget.

"No asian actor has ever lost a studio even close to 100 million dollars," Liu ranted. "But a white dude will lose 200 million TWICE and roll right into the next tentpole lead. We’re fighting a deeply prejudiced system. And most days it SUCKS."

RELATED: 'The Acolyte' star: Asians need a Tom Cruise of their own

Simu Liu says Asian representation in Hollywood remains "f*cking appalling."

“Put some Asians in literally anything right now. The amount of backslide in our representation onscreen is f*cking appalling. Studios think we are risky... No Asian actor has ever lost a studio even… pic.twitter.com/EY30BNmhGn
— Variety (@Variety) November 26, 2025

Chinese checkers

Liu’s cries of systemic discrimination did not receive the eager welcome they might have just a few years ago.

On X, investigative journalist Robby Starbuck noted that the film industry in Liu's native China largely employs Chinese actors.

"Almost none are White. Is that some kind of unfair prejudice too?" he asked. "No, it's not."

As Fandom Pulse reported, others mocked Liu's apparent recycling of "woke talking points from 2018."

Another reader stated, "Speaking as an asian: representation does not matter. Good stories matter. The right casting for the roles matter. Good acting matters."

About 99% of actors in films made on mainland China are Asian. Almost none are White. Is that some kind of unfair prejudice too? No, it’s not. It makes sense because most of the market viewing them are Asian too. People need to stop whining. https://t.co/uSZfgm3B1p
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) November 28, 2025

Asian persuasion

Back on Threads, however, Liu received a plethora of support from women who agreed that more Asian men should be in lead roles.

"The stories of Asians in the US go deep ... the stories deserve to be told," wrote Karen Johnstone.

Leanne Dinverno said, "We can’t get Asian leads in a romcom despite talent and audience appeal and proven success."

While Jayne Nelson added, "I swear it's slipping back to 'third henchman from the left in a big fight scene' and COME ON. It's not the 1980s anymore."

One of the actors cited in the original post Liu shared was "The Good Place" star Manny Jacinto, who complained about being cut out of a Tom Cruise movie in 2024.

"It's up to us — Asian-Americans, people of color — to be that [for ourselves]," Jacinto said at the time. "We can't wait for somebody else to do it. If we want bigger stories out there, we have to make them for ourselves."

The other actors cited as making remarks were John Cho ("Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle"), and Daniel Dae Kim ("Lost").

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Matrix' co-creator: 'Trans rage' drives my work



At 57 years old, writer Lilly Wachowski is still doing a lot of soul-searching.

Born Andrew, and one-half of the famous Wachowski Brothers, Wachowski and his older brother, Lana (60), born Laurence, are known for their iconic movie series "The Matrix."

Both claim to be transgender.

'As a trans person, the dark question that I had as a trans person was, "Who will ever love this?"'

Andy became Lilly in 2016, while Larry was four years ahead, becoming Lana in 2012. Since then, the duo have leaned into their new identities, going so far as to retroactively characterize "The Matrix" trilogy as a "trans metaphor" in 2020.

Freedom fried

During a recent interview on "So True with Caleb Hearon," Lilly Wachowski took another look back at his previous work and explained that he has a new perspective that helps him see how his work got him to where he is now, in relation to his gender status.

I look back on all of my previous work, and I see it because I'm looking at it from this higher place. It just creates this different perspective from this point of view up here, and I can see "Bound" — the first shot of the movie is a closet. And it's like, "Okay, it looks like we're going to be working on some stuff."

Noting that "The Matrix" was about "liberation and identity and, like, freedom," Wachowski then repeated a liberal trope about making art that can "will things into being that you need to see in the world," before further saying that his movies have also been about finding love, while also being subliminal instruments for transgender storytelling.

RELATED: Dave Chappelle calls out censorious transsexual activists who claim his jokes cause violence

"A lot of the things that me and Lana were also writing about was love — that we needed to create stories that gave us a grounding to see that love was possible," Wachowski tried to explain. "As a trans person ... the dark question that I had as a trans person was, 'Who will ever love this?' ... And it gave us this reminder that there was a future for us."

Mad for it

Wachowski also noted another powerful source of creativity his new identity has given him: "trans rage."

In 2017, he and a partner began working on a trans-themed screenplay — a process he described as "purging all this rage and horror out of the world and onto this page."

After a few years executive producing the Showtime series "Work in Progress" — a vehicle for comedian and self-described "masculine queer dyke" Abby McEnany — Wachowski returned to the script in 2021, finding "catharsis" in responding to a world he found had become "way s**ttier for trans people."

Wachowski channeled some of his rage into "creating caricature[d] buffoons of the right wing." He also used it to inspire a vision of "an idealized family, a network, a Weather Underground of trans people coming together and supporting each other and holding each other up, trying to create a story that is the best of us."

RELATED: 'X-Men' writer 'really happy' that 'X2' was referred to as the 'gayest film' — claims the movie was about 'exclusion'

Larry Wachowski, now Lana (L), and Andy Wachowski, now Lilly (R). Photo by Bob Riha Jr/WireImage

Flip-flop

Wachowski's new creative direction hasn't been great for the bottom line.

A fourth installment of the beloved Keanu Reeves saga, "The Matrix Resurrections," flopped when released in December 2021, making only about $38 million on a $190 million budget.

That's less than a third of the $139 million its predecessor, "The Matrix Revolutions," pulled in 2004 — and a far cry from 2003's "The Matrix Reloaded," which took in over $280 million.

The first "Matrix" made $171 million in 1999.

Do we love the 'Wicked' movies because we hate innocence?



As I watched Jon M. Chu's "Wicked: For Good" last week, I kept thinking about another, very different filmmaker: David Lynch.

Specifically, the Lynch that emerges from Alexandre Philippe's excellent 2022 documentary "Lynch/Oz," wherein we discover just how deeply the infamously surreal filmmaker was influenced by one of cinema's sweetest fantasy films: the original "Wizard of Oz."

In the era of #WitchTok ... a story like 'Wicked' has built-in appeal.

Philippe's film includes footage from a 2001 Q and A in which Lynch confirms the extent of his devotion: "There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about 'The Wizard of Oz.'"

The logic of fairyland

And that shouldn't be surprising given how much it shows up in his work. From Glinda the Good Witch making an appearance in "Wild at Heart," to the hazy, dreamlike depiction of suburbia in "Blue Velvet," his films exist in a dual state between the realm of fairyland and the underworld.

Indeed, Lynch doesn't reject either. In proper Buddhist fashion, these two forces exist in balance, equally potent and true. There is both good and evil in his world. Neither negates the other's existence. And when darkness spills over into the light, it may be tragic, but it is also just another part of the world. Like Dorothy, his protagonists find themselves walking deeper into unknown territory. The protagonists of his films truly "aren't in Kansas anymore."

"The Wizard of Oz" is potent because it captures the logic of fairyland better than almost any film ever made. Channeling the fairy stories of J.R.R. Tolkien, Lewis Carroll, and George MacDonald, it transports the mind to a realm that is more real than real, where even the most dire intrusion of evil can be set right according to simple moral rules.

As G.K. Chesterton famously puts it:

Fairy tales do not give the child his first idea of bogey. What fairy tales give the child is his first clear idea of the possible defeat of bogey. The baby has known the dragon intimately ever since he had an imagination. What the fairy tale provides for him is a St. George to kill the dragon.

Wicked good

"Wicked" and its new sequel reject this comforting clarity for something altogether more "adult" and ambiguous. Instead of presenting good and evil as objective realities that can be discerned and defeated, the films show how political authorities manipulate those labels to scapegoat some and exalt others.

They do so by swapping the original's heroes and villains. The Wonderful Wizard is a cruel tyrant. Glinda is foppish and self-obsessed. Dorothy is the unwitting tool of a corrupt regime. And Elphaba — the so-called Wicked Witch — is reimagined as a sympathetic underdog with a tragic backstory, a manufactured villain invented to keep Oz unified in ire and hatred.

Elphaba exudes a whiff of Milton's Lucifer — an eternal rebel in a tragic quest to upend the moral order. But unlike "Paradise Lost," "Wicked" presents rebellion against its all-powerful father figure not as a tragic self-deception, but as a justified response to systemic cruelty.

Witch way?

"Wicked: For Good" takes the ideas of its predecessor even further than mere rebellion. If "Wicked: Part One" is about awakening to the world's realities and becoming radicalized by them, "Wicked: For Good" is about the cost of selling out — the temptation to compromise with a corrupt system and the soul-crushing despair that follows.

This is where the irony of the film's title, "Wicked: For Good" comes in. Once a person sees the world for what it truly is, they can't go back without compromising themselves. They've "changed for good." They've awakened and can't return to sleep.

It's worth considering why the "Wicked" franchise is so wildly popular. Gregory Maguire's original 1995 novel has sold 5 million copies. The 2003 stage show it inspired won three Tony Awards and recently became the fourth longest-running Broadway musical ever. And the first film grossed $759 million last winter, with the sequel poised to make even more money.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that this outsize success comes at a time when Wicca and paganism have grown into mainstream cultural forces. In the era of #WitchTok, in which self-proclaimed witches hex politicians and garner billions of views on social media, a story like "Wicked" has built-in appeal. It offers glamorous spell-casting and a romantic tale of resistance to authority.

RELATED: 'Etsy witches' reportedly placed curses on Charlie Kirk days before assassination

Photo by The Salt Lake Tribune / Contributor via Getty Images

A bittersweet moral

The temptation of witchcraft is one that always hovers over our enlightened and rationalistic society. Particularly for young women, witchcraft offers a specific form of autonomy and power — over body, spirit, and fate — that patriarchal societies often deny. Many view witchcraft as progressive and empowering; "witchy vibes" have become a badge of identity.

Thus the unsettling imagery of Robert Eggers' 2015 film "The Witch" comes into focus: A satanic coven kidnaps and kills a Puritan baby, seduces a teenage girl, and gains the power to unsubtly "defy gravity" through a deal with the devil.

"Wicked" is all about this power to transcend. Even as its protagonist grows despairing in the second film and abandons her political quest for the freedom of the wastelands, the film presupposes that it is better to resist or escape a corrupt system than submit to it.

Ultimately, the two films leave their audience with a bittersweet moral: Society is dependent on scapegoats. The Platonic noble lie upon which all societies rest cannot be escaped — but it can be redirected. A new civic myth can be founded that avoids sacrificing the vulnerable and overthrows the demagogues atop Mount Olympus. And the witches play the central role in overturning the world of Oz. Their rebellion sets it free.

But because the films blur the clear, objective distinction between good and evil — even while acknowledging that real evil exists — the characters in "Wicked" often drift in moral grayness, defining themselves mainly in relation to power. The world becomes overbearing, radicalizing, and morally unstable.

Sad truth

This is far afield from the vision of Oz presented in the 1939 film, the one David Lynch venerated as vital to his understanding of the world. But it reflects how modern storytellers often grapple with Oz. Almost every sequel or spin-off struggles to recapture the sincerity of the original. The 1985 sequel "Return to Oz" reimagined the land with a dark-fantasy twist. 2013's "Oz the Great and Powerful" comes closest to the original tone but centers on fraudulence and trickery.

"Wicked," too, falls in line with the modern tendency to subvert and complicate traditional stories of good versus evil. "Frozen," "The Shape of Water," "Game of Thrones," and "Star Wars: The Last Jedi" all explore morally conflicted worlds where bravery is futile or where Miltonian rebellion is celebrated.

Of course, seeing the stories of our childhood with a jaundiced adult eye can be quite entertaining; it's perfectly understandable why even those not in covens love these films. They are well-made, well-performed, and especially irresistible to former theater kids (I am one).

Their popularity isn't inherently bad either. They are perfectly fine in isolation. It is only when we contrast them with the clarity and beauty of the original — and place them within the context of our society — that a sad truth emerges: Finding fairyland is hard. Most of us prefer to live in the Lynchian underworld.