Comedian Mark Normand crushes woke studio execs who wanted Muslim joke removed: 'On one condition ...'



Stand-up comedian Mark Normand believes in making fun of everyone, equally.

When asked about his latest Netflix special, Normand said he wanted to be "inclusive," meaning he wanted to make fun of people from all walks of life.

'I want you to admit on this call that they're a dangerous people.'

Normand told podcaster Shannon Sharpe recently that he gave "equal opportunity" mockery to every group, including "trans, Mexican, black, gay, Muslim, everyone."

It was one of those specific groups that executives confronted Normand about and wanted it removed from his hour-long set. The comic revealed a phone call he received from top brass recently, and while most would assume he was referring to Netflix — given that his "None Too Pleased" special was just released on the platform — a Normand voiceover told audiences multiple times it was actually Hulu he had the conversation with.

On the podcast "Tuesdays with Stories," the New Orleans native recalled, "About a week ago or two weeks ago, they said, 'Send us a couple jokes you like. We'll chop them up and use that as promo on social media.'"

A week later, representatives allegedly asked the comedian to have a conference call, which he was not looking forward to because it's "18 Jews on there with a speakerphone and my Jews," Normand joked with co-host Joe List.

"They go, 'Yeah, we got some bad news there. We reviewed the special again. We'd like to take out the Muslim joke.'"

Normand explained that staff told him that the last time "a comic did a Muslim joke," they got bomb and death threats. But the 42-year-old said he refused to take it out.

RELATED: Comic's hellish Ellen DeGeneres gig: How one word made her blow her top

"I like the joke. It kills. It's a hot joke," Normand said, adding, "And you know, no one touches 'Muzz,'" referring to Muslims.

The comic said he fought for his joke, telling the platform, "You approved it. Now you're going back."

The platform allegedly then focused its battle on not removing the joke from the special itself but rather getting Normand to agree that it would not appear in social media promotions. The platform apparently believed social media was where most of the turmoil and backlash spawns from, not from people actually watching the special.

In response, Normand then gave the reps an ultimatum:

"OK. I don't love it, but OK. I will take it off on one condition," he recalled saying. Normand then said he told those on the call that he would only approve the social media plan if they admitted Muslims are dangerous.

"I want you to admit on this call that they're a dangerous people. And they were like, 'What? No. What, are you crazy?' And I'm like, 'You got to admit it, or I'm keeping it, or I'm posting it.'"

Normand said he could hear the commotion through the phone, until he was eventually told they would not adhere to his request, chiefly because it's "offensive."

That's when Normand called out the studio's hypocrisy.

RELATED: 'There's supposed to be freedom of speech': 'Saturday Night Live's' Kenan Thompson says movie studios suppress edgy comedians

Photo by Valerie Terranova/Getty Images for Bob Woodruff Foundation

"That's what the call is!" Normand remembered. "You're calling about this, and I just need you to say it out loud."

Remembering his phone call had Normand up in arms on the recent podcast, as he mocked the executive class for "signaling" about their beliefs but not standing behind them.

"You can say, 'Hey, I love this group.' But then you don't live near them. You know, we're all talk. We're all signaling. We're all virtuous, but you don't actually act that way."

"So they admitted it," Normand said to his surprise; and while he did reveal he was "half joking" when he made his request, the comedian had a good time getting "a group of HR homos" to say, "All right, they're dangerous. We'll see you later," before hanging up the phone.

As for which platform Normand spoke to, Netflix did not respond to a request for clarification; Hulu did not reply either. Normand seemingly had one special on the latter platform, "Out to Lunch" (2020), but it appears to no longer be available.

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

Should Christians watch Netflix’s ‘Stranger Things’?



Netflix’s five-part sci-fi series “Stranger Things” — a twisted tale of undercover government experiments, evil supernatural creatures, and a sinister parallel dimension — is one of the streaming service’s most successful and profitable shows in its history.

Despite its heavy supernatural horror elements, occult-adjacent references, and gory violence, “Stranger Things” has been popular among some Christian audiences that appreciate its spiritual warfare parallels, good vs. evil themes, and subtle nods to biblical concepts like sacrifice and resurrection.

But are these Christians just inventing a loophole to participate in sinful entertainment?

On this episode of “Strange Encounters,” BlazeTV host Rick Burgess addresses this controversial subject.

The answer to whether Christians should watch “Stranger Things” is a complicated one.

“Is the show satanic or demonic? Not really, because the separation of good and evil seems to be there pretty clear,” Rick says, “but it can be troubling because there are some scary things in it.”

Additionally, the show includes profanity and language that takes the Lord’s name in vain.

“But do they mock Jesus? Not really,” Rick says. “There’s actually an episode when they discuss getting the church involved against this evil force that they’re fighting against.”

But even if the show leans more into sci-fi than true paranormal horror and uses secular language without overtly blaspheming Christ, does that mean Christians should watch it?

For younger kids, Rick’s answer is no.

“If the kid is younger than 15, probably not,” he states.

For one, the show features characters and concepts that could be deeply unsettling and terrifying to a younger audience — “monsters ... that could cause nightmares,” he warns.

Second, there are LGBTQ+ themes, as two of the main characters are homosexual and embraced for their lifestyles.

Third, “astral projection” — the occult belief that a person’s consciousness or spirit can intentionally separate from their physical body and travel through an astral plane or other dimensions — is part of the “Stranger Things” plot line.

For these reasons, younger audiences are better off keeping their distance from the show, according to Rick.

But what about older kids and adults? Can they watch this popular series without opening themselves up to demonic forces?

“I would say it should be under a yellow flag caution more than a red flag,” Rick says, suggesting that participation or avoidance should be determined by personal conviction.

Citing Brent Crowe’s book “Chasing Elephants,” he says, “When dealing with what entertainment we allow in our lives from a spiritual standpoint, there’s questions to ask,” the most important being: “Does it have any redeeming quality?”

“You have to be careful being really legalistic about, ‘If it’s R, I'm not watching it.’ Well, then you wouldn’t have watched ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ Why is it rated R would be kind of the road you would go down,” he advises.

To hear more of Rick’s biblical wisdom regarding what kinds of entertainment Christians should and should not partake in, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rick Burgess?

To enjoy more bold talk and big laughs, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Stuckey doubles down on dinosaur skepticism after Netflix docuseries: 'This is a fantasy'



When BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey first publicly questioned the narrative surrounding dinosaurs, she was called “dangerous” and “disgusting” for attempting to poke holes in paleontology.

But that response only made her “more resolved” in her skepticism.

“It is not that I don’t think that giant animals existed a long time ago. It is just that I don’t think we know what they looked like and that we don’t know what they sounded like. I know we’ve got fossils and different things like that. We actually don’t have any complete fossil of a T-Rex, for example,” she explains.

“We’re just kind of going a little bit on deductive reasoning and vibes. We definitely don’t know that they had scales. We definitely don’t know what a pterodactyl sounded like, and we’re all just supposed to believe it because ‘the science,’” she continues.


And the latest Netflix docuseries “The Dinosaurs” isn’t putting Stuckey’s beliefs to rest either.

“Earth, 66 million years ago during the great reign of the dinosaurs. Majestic creatures, giants and monsters, that can often seem more imagined than real,” Morgan Freeman says in a clip from the docuseries.

“That was an Easter egg right there from Morgan Freedom, that they seem more imagined than real, because they are,” Stuckey comments.

As Morgan Freeman continues to narrate, he also continues to make grand claims about breeds of dinosaurs, which Stuckey points out may as well have the same bone structures as chickens.

“This is a fantasy they have. This is the paleontologist version of 'Lord of the Rings,'” Stuckey says.

“They Darwined a little too hard, and they came up with this world, and we’re all supposed to trust these people,” she says.

“I saw someone on Instagram say, ‘You’ll believe in the Ankylosaurus, but you won’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord?’” she continues.

“You have faith, atheist. You do. You might have more faith than me, because you watch this documentary, and you’re like, ‘This for sure happened,’” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

If Congress can’t oversee the FBI, who can?



The Federal Bureau of Investigation remains a crime scene.

Recent reporting by John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy adds more evidence that a once-vaunted law enforcement agency was used for overtly political purposes for nearly a decade, starting in 2016. Documents and interviews cited by Just the News describe four consecutive code-named countersurveillance operations that cast a dragnet around President Trump and his supporters.

The time for mean tweets and angry letters is over. If the republic matters, fundamental reform must happen now.

The files for these operations — Crossfire Hurricane, Round River, Plasmic Echo, and Arctic Frost — were reportedly tucked into “prohibited access” files, shielding them from routine disclosure and keeping them under the control of senior FBI leadership and those who knew where to look.

This reporting reopens a question Washington keeps trying to close: What does real FBI reform look like?

We are not dealing with a handful of discreet scandals. We are dealing with a pattern that was enabled by a systemically broken and corrupted agency. A scalpel won’t fix it. Only a sledgehammer will do — followed by a rebuild.

The fork in the road

The road to FBI reform is long, and the last year has been bumpy — with more than a few premature victory laps. This moment offers an opportunity to get the agenda back on track.

The fork in the road is simple: Continue with a piecemeal approach — or revive the demand for total accountability, not only for individuals but for the institution itself.

Yes, good people work there. That’s not the issue. The problem lies in the parts of the bureau most capable of using FBI authorities for political ends — federal public corruption, counterintelligence, and domestic terrorism — where ideological activism too often becomes a job requirement.

A decade-long pattern

Over the last 10 years, the FBI has engaged in an unbroken series of ideologically driven investigations targeting conservatives. That includes scorched-earth investigations of President Trump on the thinnest of pretexts — while, at the same time, the bureau appeared to show far less urgency toward well-documented questions involving the Biden family’s foreign-influence and money-trail allegations, including reports of millions of dollars routed to multiple Biden family members through a network of 20 shell companies.

The bureau also deviated from law, policy, and investigative procedure in ways that protected Hillary Clinton from the full consequences of her misconduct, while applying a very different standard to President Trump and those around him.

Worse, recent reporting suggests a sweeping, coordinated effort — more reminiscent of the old East German Stasi than a constitutional law enforcement agency — to suppress politically damaging evidence under laughable pretexts.

RELATED: The next big Supreme Court shift might not be abortion or guns

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Far beyond a single case

The pattern extends well beyond these investigations.

  • The FBI interfered in elections on a scale Americans had never seen.
  • The bureau helped censor First Amendment-protected speech at industrial scale.
  • FBI directors and senior officials routinely misled Congress.
  • The FBI stonewalled congressional oversight demands.
  • The bureau smeared peaceful dissenting groups — including faithful Catholics — as potential domestic extremists, as if disagreement with progressive orthodoxies amounts to a predisposition to violence.
  • The FBI routinely slow-walked or obstructed transparency obligations, including FOIA-driven document production.
  • The bureau benefited from a stable of media stenographers at legacy outlets whose livelihoods depend on illegal leaks and unchallenged talking points that reliably advance the same ideological narratives.
  • The FBI abused its authority in ways that look less like policing and more like intimidation: targeting families, punishing speech, and applying radically different enforcement standards depending on the target’s politics.

The FBI cannot fix itself

The FBI has not meaningfully corrected itself after repeated exposures. In case after case, the bureau offers the same ritual: Mistakes were made; things are not as bad as they look; reforms are under way; no one should worry. Then nothing changes.

One recent example says it all: A deputy assistant director of counterintelligence had the audacity to advise Congress that she had not read — or even been briefed on — the Durham report’s findings. That posture is not reform. It is contempt.

As of today, FBI senior leadership includes people who participated in these abuses or watched them unfold and did nothing. How many are now subverting efforts to expose the truth by slow-walking document production, limiting evidence releases, and dribbling out incomplete records?

The time for mean tweets and angry letters is over. If the republic matters, fundamental reform must happen now.

Start with the sacred cow

The first step is taking on the FBI’s most protected function: counterintelligence.

Israel’s Shin Bet and Britain’s MI5 offer an important contrast. Their governments separate intelligence collection from law enforcement power. Those agencies gather intelligence. They do not carry routine arrest and prosecution authority. That structural separation limits the risk of domestic spying on political dissidents and helps prevent the rise of an unaccountable secret-police state.

The FBI has repeatedly proven itself incapable of maintaining that boundary. It has refused congressional oversight, abused its powers, and used intelligence authorities to subvert a duly elected president. That cannot continue.

Reform means separating intelligence collection from domestic law enforcement. Strip the FBI of its counterintelligence function and reassign it to an intelligence agency that lacks routine police powers and is subject to tighter controls.

RELATED: Trump promised ‘retribution.’ Congress keeps funding the machine.

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Reform that imposes consequences

This step should set the tone for what follows.

There must be prosecutions for civil rights violations committed under color of law. There must be large-scale reassignments for those involved — not only the shot-callers but the enabling middle management that kept the machinery running.

Transparency and oversight need a full overhaul. Selective briefings to a handful of congressional offices have become a substitute for systemic reform. That approach has trained the public to tune out. People can’t absorb yet another “shocking” revelation that produces nothing but hearings and headlines.

Instead, the government should dump documents directly to the public — at scale — so that independent investigators can mine them. What a few gatekeepers do now should be done by many. The oversight and FOIA machinery is broken by design, and bureaucrats use delay as a veto.

One example should alarm every American: the FBI’s cozy relationship with Netflix. If the country’s dominant cultural propaganda machine coordinated with federal law enforcement, the public has a right to know. Those documents should not be trapped in the decaying Hoover Building.

This won’t be easy. It was never supposed to be.

The first year has been rocky. Now comes the test: whether the people in charge will rediscover the courage to destroy what is broken — before it can be turned back against Americans again.

Netflix didn’t lose to Trump. It lost to math.



After months of public back-and-forth, Netflix’s bid for Warner Bros. Discovery is dead. Paramount won. The company on February 26 said it had completed its purchase, and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr said regulators would approve it “pretty quickly.”

Some observers blamed Netflix’s loss on the Trump administration. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) labeled the Paramount deal a “disaster,” and allies implied that administration officials leaned on Netflix to stand down.

Netflix profits when audiences stay home. Theaters, restaurants, and the broader ecosystem built around going out don’t.

That’s revisionist history. Netflix lost for two reasons: Paramount offered more money, and Republicans have grown far less willing to wave through consolidation by mega-firms that already squeeze consumers and tilt the culture war leftward.

Paramount outbid Netflix

Start with the obvious. Netflix offered a little over $27 per share. Paramount offered $31 per share — roughly $111 billion in total value.

Netflix couldn’t match that price. Paramount could. Netflix walked.

That’s math, not corporate intrigue.

Why Washington had concerns

Money explains why Netflix lost. Politics explains why so few people in Washington felt inclined to rescue it.

Carr said Netflix’s bid raised “a lot of concerns.” President Donald Trump signaled skepticism. So did many congressional Republicans. They saw a company that already dominates streaming trying to turn itself into the dominant media conglomerate — and they saw the costs landing on consumers, creators, and competitors.

Consumers would have taken the hit first. As Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) noted during merger hearings, Netflix’s expansion has marched alongside higher prices. Subscribers pay more, then sit through more ads. The company pushes customers toward “cheaper” tiers that still interrupt programming people already bought access to watch.

Filmmakers would have taken the hit next. Director James Cameron warned that the sale would be “disastrous for the theatrical motion picture business.” Netflix profits when audiences stay home. Theaters, restaurants, and the broader ecosystem built around going out don’t.

RELATED: CNN’s biggest nightmare is one step closer to finally coming true

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Then comes culture. Paramount’s programming spans the spectrum. Nobody confuses it with a conservative company, but nobody defaults to treating it as a progressive messaging machine either. Its catalog ranges from right-coded “Yellowstone” to newer, openly left-wing “Star Trek” entries, with plenty of mainstream fare between.

Netflix plays a different game. Its board includes former Obama administration official Susan Rice. Critics on the right point to its content tilt, including an Oversight Project analysis that found left-leaning programming outnumbered right-leaning programming by a wide margin. Even Netflix’s CEO recently tried to walk back a 2020-era post supporting Black Lives Matter, a retreat that looked less like conviction than belated damage control.

Monopoly defeated

For years, conservatives answered complaints about corporate media with a libertarian shrug: Let the market decide. That posture collapsed once the market stopped functioning like a market. A handful of firms now gatekeep distribution, advertising, and cultural prestige. Consumer choice matters less when one company controls the pipes.

Netflix seemed to miss that shift. It still spoke like the scrappy upstart that crushed Blockbuster, not like the biggest player trying to swallow a legacy studio and reshape the entire ecosystem on its terms.

Netflix will survive. It will keep producing content, and it will keep pushing its worldview in much of that content. It just won’t do it with control over Warner Bros. Discovery — or over the broader media landscape.

Right-wing Ellisons snag Warner Bros. empire — a MASSIVE victory for American patriots, says John Doyle



In late February, the Paramount Skydance acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery was officially announced in a $110 billion deal after Paramount outbid Netflix.

BlazeTV host John Doyle celebrates the news as a massive win for American patriots.

Warner Bros. “owns everything from Harry Potter to HBO ... Batman, DC Comics, Cartoon Network, [and] CNN,” he says, cheering the fact that “right-wingers and key Trump allies Larry and David Ellison” will now be the top dogs at a historically left-wing company.

Television programming, Doyle explains, is “somewhat indicative of the state of the American consumer's mind — their soul, even.”

“It is far better in the hands of people who are expressly sympathetic to the patriot cause rather than being allowed to be acquired by people who are obviously subversive and hostile to it,” he notes.

While Paramount’s acquisition of Warner Bros is “one of Hollywood's most dramatic takeover battles in recent years,” the implications “[extend] beyond entertainment,” Doyle says.

“This is political in nature. ... The left recognizing this is in total shambles, which is awesome,” he quips.

Several prominent Democrat politicians and officials, most notably Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, have publicly decried the merger as a potential “antitrust violation,” citing risks of reduced competition, higher prices for consumers, job losses, and undue concentration of media power in light of the Ellisons' alliances.

“They would say absolutely nothing when Netflix was the main contender. They had no interest in invoking antitrust laws to break up monopolies. This is literally only because they recognize this to be a threat to their cultural hegemony,” Doyle declares.

“They are being threatened culturally, and they're trying to sell that in terms of higher prices ... [but] American families would be willing to pay more money for not having their kids just stumble across content that's about sexualizing them and grooming them.”

The left can frame the merger however it wants, but at the end of the day, “all this means is that media is going to stop being deliberately subverted,” says Doyle. “We're going to stop lying to people and trying to inundate them with just completely disordered propaganda.”

But will it also shape the culture in a conservative direction?

Doyle says yes, but not the way the left is framing it. If Paramount “just [tells] the truth,” he contends, culture will be “right-wing by nature of that.”

“We are winning. We gave up on our little stint in Hollywood. We gave up on trying to make freaking movies. Now we are just going to buy the people who make movies and tell them, ‘Hey, cut it out with the gay stuff,’ and then just like that, we have the American golden age,” he chuckles.

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from John Doyle?

To enjoy more of the truth about America and join the fight to restore a country that has been betrayed by its own leaders, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump’s Iran week: The hidden wins you didn’t hear about



The daily news cycle around President Trump moves at a pace that buries accomplishments most presidents would tout for weeks. Several developments in late February fit that pattern. The headlines fixated on Iran, but other wins piled up in the background.

On February 22, CNBC reported that the average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage fell to 5.99%, its lowest level since 2022. A year earlier, the rate sat at 6.89%. That drop matters because mortgage rates drive affordability. When rates fall, more families can buy a home, refinance, or move without swallowing a punishing monthly payment. Home ownership still anchors the American dream for millions of households, and lower rates expand access.

In Trump Time, one week can carry the weight of a season.

The news barely lingered there.

Last week, Trump delivered his State of the Union address and used it to draw a bright line between two governing priorities. He framed the choice in plain language: “The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.” Republicans applauded. Democrats looked unsure how to respond, caught between the demands of their activist base and the public’s expectation that government first serve citizens.

A CNN poll afterward reported that 54% of respondents supported the president’s priorities and 64% reacted positively to the address. Trump notched another measurable win in a week already packed with news.

On Thursday, another development landed. Netflix dropped its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery. That retreat looked like a setback for a streaming giant that critics often associate with a “woke” programming agenda. It also reopened the field for Paramount and Skydance to pursue a deal involving Warner Bros. Discovery.

If corporate maneuvering eventually places CNN under new ownership more sympathetic to Trump, the political and media implications could prove significant. Even the possibility signals a shift in leverage and influence.

RELATED:CNN’s biggest nightmare is one step closer to finally coming true

Photo by Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to watch one of their own tactics rebound.

For years, many on the left and in legacy media downplayed Jeffrey Epstein’s world, treated the story as politically inconvenient, or framed it as tabloid excess. When Democrats and their allies tried to turn Epstein-related scrutiny into a weapon against Trump, the blowback reached prominent Democrats as well.

Reports circulated about possible testimony and renewed scrutiny for figures long treated as untouchable. Bill Clinton again faced questions about his proximity to Epstein and Epstein’s network. And, once again, the former president insisted: “I know what I did and, more importantly, what I didn’t do. I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong.”

Then Iran swallowed the rest of the news.

As reports surfaced about a rare gathering of Iran’s senior leadership, Trump authorized a combined strike with Israel that killed more than 40 prominent Iranian figures. Iran has served as a major sponsor of terrorism for decades and has threatened the United States and Israel openly, with chants of “Death to America” and repeated vows to destroy Israel. The regime’s proxies and partners have fueled violence across the region and beyond.

RELATED: Iran, China, and Trump’s ‘art of the squeal’

Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images

Trump framed the strikes as a turning point and spoke directly to the Iranian people afterward. He argued that past presidents refused to do what he did and urged Iranians to seize the moment. His message carried a theme he returns to often: American strength, applied decisively, can change the calculus abroad and open space for change at home in hostile regimes.

Democrats struggled to land on a coherent response. Many want to condemn the Iranian regime. Many also want to attack Trump for acting against it. That tension keeps surfacing in real time, especially when Trump moves quickly and forces the opposition to choose between moral clarity and partisan reflex.

Trump’s week ended with a dramatic shift in the U.S. posture toward Iran and the broader Middle East. At the same time, the mortgage story, the polling bump, and the corporate shake-ups showed how much else moved beneath the Iran headlines.

In Trump Time, one week can carry the weight of a season.

Bloodbath Imminent: CNN's Overpaid Hacks on Alert as Paramount Set To Acquire Failing Network's Parent Company

Paramount is closer than ever to acquiring CNN parent company Warner Bros. after Netflix declined to raise its bid for the media conglomerate. That's bad news for the failing network's stable of overpaid hacks, many of whom will be first in line for layoffs (or drastic salary reductions) once the acquisition goes through. Not surprisingly, the Trump administration has already signaled its support for the move.

The post Bloodbath Imminent: CNN's Overpaid Hacks on Alert as Paramount Set To Acquire Failing Network's Parent Company appeared first on .

Matt Damon: Netflix dumbs down movies for attention-impaired phone addicts



In Matt Damon's new Netflix thriller, "The Rip," a bunch of cops and crooks fight over a $20 million cash stash.

Making the movie required fighting for an even more precious commodity: the viewer's ever-dwindling attention span.

'It wouldn't be terrible if you reiterated the plot three or four times.'

Appearing with long-time friend and co-star Ben Affleck on the "Joe Rogan Experience" last week, Damon revealed what his first collaboration with a streamer taught him about the new economics of the movie biz — and how it affects storytelling.

Dumbed down

Damon said that the "different level of attention" audiences are giving at home has started to affect how films are being made.

"Like, for instance, Netflix. The standard way to make an action movie that we learned was, you usually have three set pieces. One in the first act, one in the second, one in the third," Damon began.

"You spend most of your money on that one in the third act. That's your kind of finale. And now they're like, 'Can we get a big one in the first five minutes? We want people to stay tuned in,'" he continued.

Furthermore, the filmmaker explained that the reason dialogue has become simple and repetitive, in many cases, is that people are splitting their attention.

"'It wouldn't be terrible if you reiterated the plot three or four times in the dialogue because people are on their phones while they’re watching,'" Damon laughed, relaying notes he might receive from the platform.

RELATED: Is real-life 'Star Wars' America's manifest destiny?

'Casual' vacancy

These types of notes and guidelines could really "infringe" on how writers are telling their stories, Damon stressed.

This theory of "casual viewing" was popularized and widely discussed in 2025, with outlet CBR calling it a style of filmmaking that is "overly descriptive, breaking basic rules of cinema and contributing to a dumbing down of the art."

Affleck cited British crime drama "Adolescence" as a show that "didn't do any of that s**t," and that's what made it "f**king great," he added.

"There's long shots of the back of their head. They get in the car, nobody says anything. ... My feeling is just that it demonstrates that you don't need to do any of that s**t," Affleck said.

RELATED: Almost half of Gen Z wants AI to run the government. You should be terrified.

Photo by Arturo Holmes/WireImage

Du cinéma au smartphone

Affleck's clear position when it comes to filmmaking and technology throughout the episode was that there will always be an audience for quality films.

"It's like supply and demand," he said. "People want to look at their phone, they can look at TikTok, they're going to do that. I think what you can do is make s**t the best you can. Make it really good."

When it comes to making movies for mobile viewers, Damon joked that he likes to rile up directors that he works with by asking them if they are thinking about how their film will look on a cell phone.

"That's a joke that I like to make with every director I work with. Like, when they're really puzzling over a shot or really grinding out something, I go, 'You know, it's not going to look as good on the phone.' ... Everyone gets angry."

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