transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:07] Well, greetings and salutations, everybody. Welcome to the Best Damn Mover related show on the planet at the John Campea Show. Kind of human right here in our quaint little studio. I'm of course your host, John Campea. I'm joined in studio today by our technical director, Jonathan Voico.

Speaker 2:
[00:22] Just heard Black Flag Resync is coming out in July.

Speaker 3:
[00:25] I'm gonna be real busy with that game.

Speaker 2:
[00:26] Wow.

Speaker 1:
[00:27] Rider director producer about to make a long road trip to Seattle.

Speaker 2:
[00:31] Long road trip back from Seattle.

Speaker 1:
[00:32] Robert Meyer, Robert Meyer, Bert Burnett. Oh, that's right, you're gonna fly there.

Speaker 2:
[00:35] Yeah, and you know what the first thing I'm gonna do when I get to Seattle is, John?

Speaker 1:
[00:38] Weed.

Speaker 2:
[00:39] I'm gonna eat a bag of dicks.

Speaker 1:
[00:42] Oh, that's... Yes, took me a second to clue in on what that was.

Speaker 2:
[00:45] Dicks driving.

Speaker 1:
[00:46] That's right.

Speaker 2:
[00:47] I mean, it's our version kind of of in and out, but...

Speaker 1:
[00:50] Do you want to tell everybody what you're doing up there? Just quickly, or do you want to keep that a secret?

Speaker 2:
[00:54] I want to keep it a secret.

Speaker 1:
[00:55] Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, keep it a secret. It's a pretty cool thing. I was gonna say, it's a pretty cool thing.

Speaker 2:
[00:59] Because I can show, I'll show things. I'll bring a few artifacts. I'll reveal it later.

Speaker 1:
[01:03] Okay, I get it. But anyway, guys, most importantly, of course, you guys are here. Thank you so much for being here. Special big hello to everybody who's joining us in the live stream. Good to see all you guys here. And we got a bunch of things to talk about here today. So let's not waste any time and get right into it, shall we? And we're gonna start off with this. Now, yesterday, they dropped publicly DC's trailer for the upcoming new Clayface. Now, of course, we saw the Clayface trailer at CinemaCon, and we were really wowed by it. And I think you guys had the same reaction to it that we did, too. I mean, it looks truly like a horror film. It truly looks like a movie that is going to, you know, have a shocked and all that kind of stuff. The visuals look great. And, you know, when James Gunn said it was going to be a body horror film, I think a lot of us want to take that with a grain of salt. But it really does truly look like that. Now, the question is, a lot of people are asking, even before the trailer came out, like, why are you doing a Clayface movie, even before a Batman and all that kind of stuff? And one of the questions has been, where in the timeline of DC does this happen? Is this happened after the events of the things that happened in Metropolis and the events of Superman, all that kind of stuff? Well, James Gunn addressed that, but when he was asked directly on threads, does this happen before or after Superman, to which this comes up from Coming Soon, where James Gunn confirmed on threads that this, Clayface, is set before all other DCU shows and movies thus far, including Superman. It's the first DCU film out of chronological order, he commented. When asked about how it connected the movie will be to the other stories that are happening in the DCU, James Gunn said, it's very connected, but as always, the stand alone story is what's important. Alright. Two things I take away from this that I both really, really like. One is, there's been a question even before the trailer came out, is this Clayface in the DCU or is it an Elseworlds story? And by James Gunn saying, oh, it's very connected, well, that tells us this is our DCU Clayface. Some people were wondering if it wouldn't be, but apparently this is the DCU Clayface. So I'm excited about that because I'm excited to see a character like this in that world. I think it's going to be a lot of fun. But the second thing he said is something he's kind of implied before that I really, really love, which is, yes, it's connected, but we don't make these movies to be connected pieces. We focus on the individual movie. It's the movie. And then if we can have this movie connect to the other things, great. But the connection is secondary, primary. First of all, total top of the heap is can we make a great stand-alone movie? That's what's most important. And, you know, Rob, to me the two big philosophies that James Gunn seems to be bringing to the DCU, him and Peter Safram seem to be bringing to the DCU that continually have me in a perpetual state of optimism about the future of DCU. Not counting when James Gunn leaves DC after his contract expires at the end of 2027 because of the Paramount stuff, but we'll talk about that later. But the thing that gives me perpetual hope in all of it is that his main philosophies are, number one, we do not green light a movie until we have a fully finished, fleshed out, ready to shoot script that we love. None of this announcing a movie and then bringing on a writer and seeing if we can come up with something, none of that. It's when we've got it. Connected to that is that you're not even worried about what order they tell these movies in. Best idea wins in James Gunn's DCU. If you bring us a great script with a great story, we'll make that movie. We'll make that movie now. The second thing that I really appreciate about it is what he just mentioned here is the fact that their primary focus is making the individual films great. Because, you know, Rob, I've always contended, and you and I have debated this a little bit, but I think in general we have a lot of common ground on it, which is, you know, one of the big problems with the MCU post-Endgame is not that it's felt really disconnected, although it has felt very disconnected, and it's impossible not to notice that, of course. But I've always thought that if the individual movies, disconnected or not, were strong movies, we wouldn't have worried about the disconnection as much. And I love the fact that James Gunn is saying, our first concern is, don't shoot anything until we have a complete, ready-to-go script that we love, and number two, the primacy of the movie itself over everything else. That stuff to me is really encouraging. Anyway, I am still surprised to hear that this happens before the events of Superman, but what did you think about these comments?

Speaker 2:
[06:20] Well, as one of our viewers pointed out, it's the same clay face that's in Creature Commandos, the animated series, which I think is interesting. But what I like about this is, the real world, John, there's stuff happening in Los Angeles today, and there's stuff happening in New York. Same country, same stuff, they're not connected at all. People, we don't even know what half the stuff is going on in the rest of the world. That's the reality. I love the fact in the DC Universe, I mean, clay face might have no reason to ever come across Superman, or anybody that Superman knows, or even go to Metropolis. I don't know where this movie takes place. It makes sense that they're building a tapestry of the universe. But everybody doesn't have to walk through everybody else's movie, you know? So you can have, there is a clay face that lives in, I don't know, Cleveland, where he lives, and he doesn't have much opportunity to get to Gotham until he has Batman in his sights.

Speaker 1:
[07:15] Although I will say this, I think it does take place in Gotham because one of the big promo images they put out was the cover of the Gotham Gazette.

Speaker 2:
[07:24] Sure.

Speaker 1:
[07:24] I mean, that doesn't 100% guarantee that it's in Gotham.

Speaker 2:
[07:26] And if it does take place in Gotham, I mean, there's a lot of people I never run into in LA. So, I mean, I like that idea. And what I really like about that is this looks like, like we said, a straight up horror movie. But the thing is, this story can be a straight up horror movie. But then Clayface, his next tale, as described in the DC Universe, might have nothing to do with horror. Because it was a horrific story that turned him into Clayface. But that doesn't mean, I mean, I don't think they're going to do this, but he might be the star of a romance. He might fall in love with Maxima, I don't know. You never know. But that would be a totally different kind of a movie. And I think that that's what is so unique about what James Gunn is trying to do, is it's not like, in the MCU, we just expect everything to be interconnected, but interconnected to our characters somehow. Like the Avengers are always going to run into somebody from another movie, which I think is kind of weird. We didn't have to have Daredevil in She-Hulk, because She-Hulk took place in California, and Daredevil wanted to do costumes, so that's why it comes out to the West Coast.

Speaker 1:
[08:36] But I still contend the best part of She-Hulk was Daredevil.

Speaker 2:
[08:39] Totally. But I mean, another thing I wanted to say that, like in Eternals, when Arishem the Judge shows up at Earth and says in the sky, he's twice or three times the size of Earth and says, I'm going to judge you, and nobody mentions it again. That's a problem.

Speaker 1:
[08:57] Another Tuesday in the MCU world.

Speaker 2:
[08:58] I mean, and that's what...

Speaker 1:
[08:59] They were all knocked out, though, weren't they?

Speaker 2:
[09:01] No, people are looking at it in the sky. I thought he knocked him out. No. And I think that's one of the problems. That was another problem that if the MCU, like you pointed out, told really great standalone stories, like the Eternals in a way, nobody really knows who they are. So you could have told that story and had nobody know. The nobody's the wiser. Why didn't the Eternals interfere with the Chitauri attack New York? Because they were keeping a low profile. But not when you have Arishem the Judge show up in the sky. I shall return for judgment. Then it's like, okay. That was a problem. I'm still waiting. Is he going to come back during Doomsday? No. He saw his baby brother at the America.

Speaker 1:
[09:39] He's never coming back.

Speaker 2:
[09:40] What happens when the Earth turns into battle world and turns back into, is Arishem the Judge going to still be pissed at us? Do they live outside of the universe? They kill the celestial. I don't know how the celestial, do they live outside of time and outside of the universe?

Speaker 1:
[09:53] No, they live in the universe. They create stars.

Speaker 2:
[09:55] Yeah, they're in our universe. So technically, I guess...

Speaker 1:
[09:58] It's not like eternity where... We're getting off away from Clayface.

Speaker 2:
[10:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, let's talk about Marvel during Clayface. But I think, look, I'm excited for Clayface. I think, you know, it's... I like the fact we're having a banger year for horror movies. I've seen more horror movies this year than any other year. And this, even though it's a DC Universe movie, this looks straight up body horror. I can't wait to see it. I'm so excited.

Speaker 1:
[10:22] Anyway, guys, question is for you. What do you think about this? James Gunn has confirmed that this Clayface, number one, is indeed in the DCU, something that's been implied before, but I think this is the most explicit they've ever made it. But more importantly, that it sits outside of the chronological order of DC so far. It's gonna happen before the events of any of the things we've seen so far. How far back? I don't know. 2020? 2005? 1989? I'm not really sure. Whatever you guys think, jump down to the comment section below and let us know your thoughts. Most of us are just guessing when it comes to supplements, and honestly, that gets expensive really fast. We're buying things hoping that they work, but your body is unique, and what works for somebody else might not work for you. And that's where True Diagnostic comes in. It's an at-home health test that takes the guesswork out and gives you real data-driven insights into your specific body. For example, the True Age Test is incredibly simple. Just a quick finger prick at home, and it measures over 100 biomarkers to show how your body is actually aging. From there, you get personalized, actionable steps to improve your health, boost your energy, and even slow down the aging process. No generic advice, no guessing, just a clear 90-day plan that you can follow, then reset and actually see your progress. And what's really impressive is this isn't just some trendy wellness thing. True Diagnostic uses advanced epigenetic testing and analyzes over a million data points, and it's trusted by top longevity clinics and health professionals. I've tried it, and honestly, the process couldn't be easier, and the insights were eye-popping. Right now, my listeners can get 20% off at truediagnostic.com using the code CAMPEA at checkout. That's truediagnostic.com, and use the code CAMPEA for 20% off today. Choose true age, true health, or the combo kit as a one-time purchase or a subscription.

Speaker 3:
[12:17] Starting or growing your own business can be intimidating and lonely at times. Your to-do list may feel endless with new tasks, and lists can easily begin to overrun your life. So finding the right tool that not only helps you out, but simplifies everything as a built-in business partner can be a game changer. For millions of businesses, that tool is Shopify. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world, and 10% of all e-commerce in the US from household names like Gymshark, Rare Beauty, and Heinz, to brands just getting started. Shopify has hundreds of ready-to-use templates that can help you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand style. And you can tackle all the important tasks in one place, from inventory to payments to analytics and more. No need to save multiple websites or try to figure out what platform is hosting the tool that you need. And if people haven't heard about your brand, you can get the word out like you have a marketing team behind you, with easy-to-run email and social media campaigns to reach customers wherever they're scrolling or strolling. Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/realm. Go to shopify.com/realm. That's shopify.com/realm.

Speaker 1:
[13:43] All right, guys. With that down, let's move on to this, shall we? You know, we were just talking about the other day about how Joseph Kaczynski, the director of Top Gun Maverick and the Academy Award nominated F1. Actually, both those films of his were nominated for Best Picture. He was not going to be coming back to direct Top Gun 3. And one of the reasons that he's not coming back to direct Top Gun 3 is because he's got this little project. According to the Hollywood Reporter, it's now official. We've known for a while that it's coming. We've known they were looking at Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler, but now it's now officially locked and we've got the title. Joseph Kaczynski's Miami Vice reveals the title. 80 setting as it locks Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler. The name of the movie is Miami Vice 85. And again, it's now locked and confirmed Michael B. Jordan, Austin Butler coming in. Now, you guys may remember a little while ago, there was a story that got out that said I correct me on my numbers. I'm sure my numbers are off a little bit, but Michael B. Jordan was going to be paid like $5 million to do the film. And then he was asking for like 15, 20, 18, something like $18 million, something like that. From what I've learned, he did not get that, but he did get a bump. How reliable that information is, I don't know. But the word I heard a little while ago was that he did not get what he was asking for, but he did get a bump from what he was going to get.

Speaker 2:
[15:11] Well, if this is set in 85, he's going to have a lot more bumps to do.

Speaker 1:
[15:13] Oh, boy.

Speaker 3:
[15:16] Cocaine jokes.

Speaker 1:
[15:17] All right. First of all, I'll just say what I already said before when it first came up a long time ago, that they were looking at Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler. These are two Oscar caliber. One's been nominated, one's won one. Oscar caliber actors. And I think their chemistry is going to be great. I think Austin Butler's gonna be a great Crockett.

Speaker 2:
[15:42] I do too.

Speaker 1:
[15:42] I really, really do. And honestly, I have a hard time imagining who I could see as a better fit for Tubbs than Michael B. Jordan.

Speaker 2:
[15:51] Well, Jamie Foxx was great as Tubbs and Michael B.

Speaker 1:
[15:54] And Colin Farrell was a great Crockett as well. But I mean, I think these two are gonna have great chemistry, they're fantastic performers, and, you know, doing a Miami Vice I love. Tell you what I don't like. Number one, stupid title. It's a dumb title. Just call it Miami Vice. Or call it Miami Vice Demons or Miami Vice Regret, or I don't care. Miami Vice 85 sounds like a cheap, not even video game of Miami Vice. It sounds like a mobile Miami Vice game. Miami Vice 85, I think it's super title. I also don't like that they're putting it back in that era.

Speaker 2:
[16:34] I love it. I love that part. See, because I'm already on the name.

Speaker 1:
[16:38] Miami Vice was not a period piece. Miami Vice was a modern contemporary show. And I just kind of feel like if you're going to do Miami Vice again, do what Miami Vice is, a modern contemporary show. So listen, this may end up being my favorite movie of the year. I'm not saying setting it 1985 means it's not going to be good. I'm just saying it's not my preference. Movie could still be utterly fantastic and fabulous in that era. I just kind of wish it was a modern film, but I don't like the title regardless. I don't like, like I wouldn't, let's say they did make it modern. I wouldn't have liked calling it Miami Vice 27. I wouldn't have liked that either. I just, I don't like the title, but whatever. It titles a title. It's just a piece of marketing. Doesn't mean anything for the movie. Anyway, Rob, it's now official. We got Austin Butler, Academy Award-nominated actor. We got Michael B. Jordan, the reigning best Academy Award-winning actor, and Joseph Kaczynski of F1 and Top Gun Maverick directing Top Gun 1985. What do you think about it?

Speaker 2:
[17:40] Well, first of all, I'm a huge Miami Vice fan. You know, I both love the series, even though it had one of the worst last episodes ever. And I love, I'm a, I don't even want to call myself an apologist, but I love Michael Mann's Miami Vice movie. Absolutely love it. The thing about, and I was wondering, the title reveal yesterday, I've been thinking about this since yesterday. Is this going to be a movie that's like Lord Miller's Jump Street movies?

Speaker 1:
[18:10] I don't think so.

Speaker 2:
[18:11] I don't think it's going to be a movie. I mean, because they're calling it Miami Vice.

Speaker 1:
[18:13] I see Kaczynski doing that.

Speaker 2:
[18:14] But I don't either. But the fact that they're calling it Miami Vice 85, how do you go back? I mean, Miami Vice, the original, was a trend. It wasn't just a TV show. It was a trend setting. It set trends with cars, with music, with fashion.

Speaker 1:
[18:30] I had a white linen suit simply as a kid, just because Crockett had it on.

Speaker 2:
[18:35] When I was in college, I was so Miami Vice-ed out. We go to Palm Springs, Spring Break. I was all linened out. I was in a Janara loafers with no socks. I was into it, man. But the thing is, how do you do that again? When you put them in those fashions, if you're going to have pads, shoulder pads and your linen jacket, how do you do that? How do you do that now? Because the fashion of the era was such a part of Miami Vice. How do you do that now without making it kind of... I mean, it's amusing. If you see them dress like this, look, I still think they look badass here. But how do you then... And you've got all the pastel colors and South Beach and all that. How do you then make this? Because both Miami Vices, Michael Manz, opens in a club, you know, Jay-Z and, was it Lincoln Park playing Numb? You know, that's a do, do, do, do, do, do. I mean, it's so cool. And how can this be cool? How do you make this cool if it's a retro look at the past? That's what I'm, I don't know one way or the other. I'm curious to see what they're gonna do. But how do they get away from that? How do they get away if it's set in 85? That's what I'm wondering. Does it have some kind of a comedic bent to it?

Speaker 1:
[19:59] I doubt it. I don't think you get Joseph Kossinski and I certainly don't think you get Austin Butler. No, I agree.

Speaker 2:
[20:05] But it's weird to me because, like, if you make a movie like Public Enemies, Johnny Depp is going to play a gangster. We all know what gangster clothes look like in the 20s. It's far enough away that it's going to be, you can make that cool. But how do you make Miami cool in 85?

Speaker 1:
[20:22] I think you make the characters cool and I think you make the story cool. Here's an option.

Speaker 2:
[20:28] I agree. But I'm just curious how they're going to do it.

Speaker 3:
[20:30] You'd be surprised how popular 80s fashion is right now.

Speaker 2:
[20:33] Dude, I love it. I mean, it was my era. I grew up in the, I graduated from high school in 85.

Speaker 1:
[20:37] But what if, just throwing a theory out there. What if it's not set in 1985? What if the title Miami Vice 85, like 85 refers to an event that happened in 85 that sets, that is the basis for what's going on now. It's like, oh my God.

Speaker 2:
[20:56] That's interesting.

Speaker 1:
[20:57] I don't think I'm right. I think it is going to be set in 1985.

Speaker 2:
[21:01] Yeah, I just think it's going to be, because you're going back to all the music, because listening to, look, I grew up on 80s music. I have hundreds of CDs of 80s music. As a matter of fact, I just had Tears for Fears album, The Hurting, the new Dolby Atmos version, shipped to me from the UK. So that's coming too. I am all 80s out. I love that era, but I don't know how you depict that on film now, because everything in it's kind of amusing.

Speaker 1:
[21:26] I don't agree with that. Like, okay, when you think of Miami Vice, other than John Zimmer's or John Hummer's, right? The very first song you think of, there's nothing corny or cheesy about In the Air Tonight.

Speaker 2:
[21:38] That's the most badass song. When they play that in the episode, it's just Crockett and Tubbs driving in silence. Yeah, but that's it.

Speaker 1:
[21:46] That's the mood. There's lots of music from that era that we do that.

Speaker 2:
[21:50] I know I have it all.

Speaker 1:
[21:51] I don't expect we're gonna hear any Tiffany playing as Crockett kicks in the door now. I think we're alone now.

Speaker 2:
[21:57] She probably guest starred in the original Miami Vice.

Speaker 1:
[22:00] Everybody guest starred in the original Miami Vice. Now watch this. Joseph Kaczynski is watching this. Tiffany. Yeah, so anyway, guys, question is for you. What do you think about this? We have an official title for the brand new Miami Vice movie and it's official now. Michael B. Jordan and Austin Butler are gonna be our Crockett and Tubbs with Joseph Kaczynski directing. Do you like the title? Do you think it will indeed be set in the 80s? Are you worried about the fashion? Whatever you guys think, jump down to the comment section below and let us know your thoughts because there doesn't seem to be anyone around. All right, with that down, guys, let's move on to this. Speaking of 80s music, went to go see Michael last night. Of course, it opens wide today. They had some advanced fan screenings last night that Anna and I went to. Now, look, for those of you who watch my show, you know I've been very excited for this movie. Number one, because I'm a big fan of, like Michael Jackson's not my all-time favorite artist, but I grew up on his music. I'm a big fan of his music and I love Antoine Fuqua as a director. And so I've been really stoked about this film. Now, I got a little bit concerned when the early reviews came out and I think it was, Jonathan, look at where it's at now, but last I checked on Rotten Tomatoes, Michael, I think, was sitting at a 34 percent. 38 now. It's at 38. It's gone up. It was 147 and. It made me kind of adjust my expectations a little bit. Still nonetheless, went off to go see Michael last night. And I put out my quick out of the theater reaction, which is up and online now. And I will say this overall. You know, if coming out of the theater, if you're asking me, did you enjoy it or did you not enjoy it? My overall thing is I enjoyed it. I enjoyed watching it. But it should have been better. Michael Jackson deserved a better movie than this. Let me break it down here. There's a bunch of music in it, obviously, it's Michael Jackson. When the movie is the musical numbers, the movie hums. I mean, it really hums. ABC, talking to one, two, three. The whole thing. The funny thing is, when some of the more, not for every song, but for some of the more iconic ones in the movie, a quick look around the theater, people were moving. Like my wife, Anne, I looked over at Anne, and when they were doing the thriller thing, like even Anne was. And so you can't help it. Like even I myself, I'm sitting there when they're doing Beat It. I'm like. Like you just can't help but be swept up in it. The filmmaking of the musical scenes was quite good. It had that energy. And I would say as a project, not a movie, but as a project designed to celebrate the music of Michael Jackson, it works. If you're just going in there to get the greatest hits and get the energy of it and see it in some some dramatic context and stuff like that, it works. And so that's the best part of the movie. Also, Coleman Domingo. When is he not great? As Joseph, I think it's Joseph, is that his name? Joseph Jackson, unbelievable. A little one note. Like I like my characters, my good guy characters, my bad guy characters to have a little bit of depth to them. And Joseph Jackson is just portrayed as a son of a bitch right from frame one to frame to the end of the movie. Like never even a moment where he has a glimmer of humanity in him. Like he's just a jackass asshole the entire film, which I didn't know the man. Maybe it was, but there have been very few human beings that have been like that. I would have liked for them to have given the character a little bit more dimension. But Coleman Domingo's portrayal of him was intimidating, like really, really intimidating. You know, Steven Spielberg has really grown fond of working with Coleman Domingo lately. And this movie will show you why. I mean, he's incredible. Let me talk for a second about Jafar Jackson. Michael Jackson's nephew, Jafar, who played his uncle in the movie, was fantastic. Now, I will differ with a lot of people are saying, Jafar Jackson is going to be a superstar. I don't know that. What I do know was that he imitated his uncle really well in the movie, right? Like, but I'm not ready to say that somebody who is, who looks like his uncle and sounds like his uncle and does a great impersonation of his uncle, that doesn't necessarily mean he's going to be a superstar actor. Put him in Othello. Can he still do that? I don't know. I'm not saying he won't. I'm just simply saying this performance doesn't tell me that he's going to be a big superstar. But I will say in this movie, he's great. You almost have to pinch yourself at times to remind yourself that you're not actually looking at Michael Jackson or listening to Michael Jackson or seeing Michael Jackson. He was incredible, like doing that. Whether or not he can do any real acting outside of that, I don't know. I'm not saying he can. I'm not saying he can't. But in this film, holy crap, he's good. He's really good. One of the odd things in the movie was even when the whole family is together and they're sitting around the breakfast table and they're on their outings, no Janet. There's only one daughter. If all you knew about the Jackson family was this movie, you would think there was one daughter.

Speaker 2:
[27:55] She's just at a friend's house.

Speaker 1:
[27:56] Yeah, the whole movie. Janet's always at a friend's house.

Speaker 2:
[28:00] She's founding the Rhythm Nation.

Speaker 1:
[28:02] I saw Latoya made a comment in the press just saying, Janet respectfully declined to allow herself to be portrayed in the movie. So there's no Janet, which is a little bit odd. But you know, that's fine because none of the siblings ever have anything to do. I don't think any of the siblings, any one sibling had any more than one line in the movie. Like they were just really window dressing to the film. They were background. That being said, the musical numbers kicked. Again, the thriller sequence, big highlight for me. The Beat It sequence, big highlight for me. The problem is, and listen guys, I'm just going to be honest with you, the rest of the movie is very weak. Not garbage, just weak. It's very, very thin. The rest of the movie, when it's not the musical numbers, it doesn't feel like a narrative flow. It just feels like this happens, then this happens, then this happens. Here's this one incident, and we're only going to touch on it slightly. Then this incident, and we're only going to touch on it slightly. We're not going to get into any of the meat of it. Then this incident, and we're only going to touch on it. Like, it never flowed as a film. When you watch Bohemian Rhapsody, forget Queen. That movie flows and works as a motion picture. It works, it's perfect storytelling. The through lines, the connective tissue, everything just works and flows great. That's what I mean when I say I think Michael Jackson deserved more care in the making of a biopic. I just think they could have made a better movie. They made a great project that celebrates the music of Michael Jackson. I think they let Michael Jackson down a little bit by the quality of the movie as a movie, though. I wish it could have been better. Now, the positives for me outweigh the negatives. So I still had a good time. And lest anybody, I've seen this excuse be thrown around. Well, yeah, maybe it was thin, just because you got to remember it's a part one. Does not matter. If you're doing a movie in part one, two, three, four and five, every movie needs to be able to stand on its own. A New Hope was a great movie. Two Towers is a great movie. They don't make weak ass movies to go, don't worry about it. We still got Return of the King coming. No, you make every movie a good standalone movie using good filmmaking fundamentals. And I'm going to be honest with you, it did not feel like. An Antoine Fuqua movie to me, because Antoine Fuqua is a just an absolute Kaiser when it comes to detail and when it comes to depth and stuff like that. And this didn't feel like that to me. Now, you do have to keep in mind, and I do keep in mind that this was a movie that they had to butcher because at the last second they realized that the Michael Jackson estate forgot, oopsie, you're not allowed to make this entire third of the movie. And they had to go back and scrap it and scramble. I'm sure that had a lot to do with it. But yeah, overall, enjoyable film as a Michael Jackson fan. I just think Michael Jackson deserved better and have an actual really good movie made out of it, not just a great, prolonged music video. So that was my impression of it. Would I recommend it? If you are somebody like me who likes the music of Michael Jackson, yes, because those moments are fantastic. I think some of my favorites might have been the Jackson 5 stuff. Yeah, actually, like when they were younger. By the way, everybody's given Jafar Jackson his flowers and they're deserved, but the kid who plays young Michael, I don't know his name, he was fantastic as well. Like really, really great. So yeah, it's a tale of two sides of the coin. The musical aspect, fantastic, which you could argue is the most important part. The biography part, I've seen much better. So I kind of wish they could have put the two things together and given us something on the level of Bohemian Rhapsody or Walk the Line or Rocketman, all of which I think are better musical biographies than Michael. But anyway, Rob, I know you haven't had a chance to see the movie yet. I know you're anxious to see it.

Speaker 2:
[32:18] Yeah, I am. I mean, just because also, because I grew up with Michael Jackson, you know, before he even put out Off the Wall or Thriller as a kid, like you brought up 123ABC and the Jackson 5 was a staple of my childhood. I'm curious, do they delve into, you know, obviously he was an arrested adolescent building Neverland Ranch and Bubbles the Chimp and all that stuff. Do they get into his eccentricities like where they came from?

Speaker 1:
[32:48] And well, yeah, there's a scene in the movie where he gets Bubbles, okay? And if this movie had come out in 2014, I would have thought that's pretty good CGI on that monkey. There's a little off putting here, a little, but it was fine. It was fine. But again, that's a great segue into the discussion about the fact that this didn't feel like the story had any flow. It was just like one, there was a scene about one thing going on. And then hard cut to the Jackson Estate, which I think they used the Playboy Mansion as the Jackson house. Anyway, hard cut to this scene out of nowhere where a truck pulls up and a guy gets out of the truck and Michael had bubbles delivered to him. Like completely out of nowhere. And then there's a couple of scenes with bubbles in it, but it was never for any purpose. Like if you took all the stuff with bubbles out of the movie, it wouldn't affect anything else in the film. So that's just a great example of how they didn't make anything mean anything.

Speaker 2:
[33:56] Yeah, like I would have... The juxtaposing the fact that he never really had a childhood led to so many, you know, childlike interests.

Speaker 1:
[34:02] And he escaped into his childlike interests. So you see him as a kid reading Peter Pan. As a kid, he's reading the story of Peter Pan, right? And they reveal early that animals are his friends. He doesn't consider them as pets, he considers them as friends. So they always portray him as a little bit weird. My one other criticism, and I say this as a fan of Michael Jackson, and we saw some of the other reviewers say this, Michael, the character, flawless. Absolutely flawless. We don't need to have one scene where Michael goes around to visit sick kids in hospitals. We need four scenes of Michael going and visiting sick kids in hospitals. And everything he ever says or does is the absolute right thing to say and do. Other than the fact that it does cover a little bit that he feels a little self-conscious about his appearance and he goes and gets a nose job. Other than that one little bit of self-doubt, morally everything about him is absolute perfection. And again, very one-dimensional character, much like Joseph was very one-dimensional, just on polar opposites.

Speaker 2:
[35:13] Do they show like the recording session of We Are the World?

Speaker 1:
[35:16] No. I think that happened after, did that not happen after?

Speaker 2:
[35:19] No, that was before he recorded Bad.

Speaker 1:
[35:23] It was before, okay, so no.

Speaker 3:
[35:25] Before Bad, yeah, but not Thriller.

Speaker 1:
[35:26] They do say it goes up to when he does Bad, right?

Speaker 2:
[35:29] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[35:29] But only for a moment. So after the Thriller album, literally the final thing of the movie is him on stage performing Bad.

Speaker 2:
[35:37] Right.

Speaker 1:
[35:37] And then that's it, that's the end of the film.

Speaker 2:
[35:38] Because one of the things about, the reason I ask that is there's, you can see clips where he didn't necessarily like the way Huey Lewis was singing. And you can see the expression on his face if you're watching the footage of the actual recording of We Are the World. And I was curious if they got into any of his perfectionism, like I know when he's working with Quincy Jones. I mean, I guess I'll see it. But I wanna know who, like, okay, performance numbers are great, but who is he? Does it give us any more insight than we already have into what kind of a person he was, like, was he mercurial when he was working? Was he a total perfectionist? Did it cost people around him to stress out because of how many takes of a song you would want to do? Does it get into any of the real-

Speaker 1:
[36:19] A little bit, yeah. I think it's fair to say a little bit of that. I think when you say, like, he's, he's very, like, the whole idea about his separation from the Jackson 5 was him really wanting to explore his creativity. He wanted to create. And, you know, there's this great scene that he has with his mother as a child. That kind of becomes the foundational thing for how you view Michael throughout the rest of the film, and his mom says to him, you have a light. And this is in one of the trailers, one of the early trailers says she says to him, you have a light, let it shine, let everybody see it. And so, from there on, it's kind of constructed in a way that for the rest of Michael's life, it's about him wanting to show his light to the rest of the world. Thinly, but it's there.

Speaker 2:
[37:04] Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[37:04] It's there. Again, I just...

Speaker 2:
[37:07] It's interesting, because there's an online clip I watched when they were on the Carol Burnett Show, the Jackson Five, and they're all introducing themselves, I'm the cutest Jackson, I'm the this, and when they get to Michael, he's clearly on the way he says his little bit, he's way above his brothers. Like in real life, you can see that.

Speaker 1:
[37:27] Oh, and he was right from the beginning.

Speaker 2:
[37:28] Yeah, right, and you could see that. I just wondered if they got into that, like his brother's feeling resentful.

Speaker 1:
[37:34] Nope, like I said, all the rest of those brothers and his siblings, I think a few of them don't have any lines in the movie, and a couple of them have like one line in the movie. And then there's a scene where LaToya and Michael are sitting in his room talking about something for a minute, but that's it. Like they really have no role to play other than the fact that they're there. You know, there's a scene where Michael comes back from a store, and I guess the whole family is still all living together. And he gets back from the store, he's like, hey, guys, and all the all the brothers are playing basketball. And they're like, hey, Michael, like they do let it be shown that all the brothers have affection for each other, right? Like the family loves loves each other, right? But again, they considering how big of a piece the Jackson five plays in who Michael is, you would think there'd be something of it. But really, the brothers are not touched on it.

Speaker 2:
[38:30] Like even as he gets older, did he have relationships with his brothers?

Speaker 1:
[38:33] Never shown any of them.

Speaker 2:
[38:34] See, they were they come did they have was he did they talk? Did Michael ever express having a hard time with this to his brother? That to me seems odd.

Speaker 1:
[38:42] You know, it was and it's something that you could have used to give more depth to and made the movie feel larger, right? Because really there are there's only a handful of characters that have anything more than one line of dialogue in the movie.

Speaker 2:
[38:57] I think that's a problem.

Speaker 1:
[38:59] I mean, they spent a lot of time on his bodyguard, which is good because I think the character of his bodyguard was really good in it. I just think they could have paired some of that away and gone to like his relationship with Tito or his relationship with LaToya or his relationship with any of his siblings at all, considering how big of a piece the Jackson 5 are and the motivation of his father to keep trying to bring Michael back into the Jackson 5. But again, I'm focusing on the negative right now.

Speaker 2:
[39:27] Yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1:
[39:28] There was a lot of this movie where I'm, where I was like kind of dancing in my seat a little bit, right? That I cannot underestimate or undersell how good those parts of the movie were. And like I said, yeah, if you are a fan of Michael Jackson's music, I think you will have a good time watching it. I just, again, as a film guy, as a movie guy, I just wish they had made a better movie around it to go with it. But that's just me. Guys, question is for you. Did you have a chance to see Michael at the early fan screenings last night? If not, are you planning to go this weekend? Whatever you guys think, jump down to the comment section below and let us know your thoughts. All right, guys. With that down, there are a bunch of other things in the world of movie news that we simply don't have time to talk about, but we want to make sure you guys are at least caught up a little bit. So this is the little segment that we call In Other News. And we'll get started with this. Well, The Punisher One Last Kill has officially received its TV rating as exactly what you wanted it to be. It's been hit with a hard TVMA. This confirms that Disney Plus is not watering down the character after his move from Netflix. Reports from Variety confirm that John Bernthal's return as Frank Castle will maintain the gritty, uncompromising violence that made the original series a cult classic. This rating is a huge signal that Marvel is leaning back into the spotlight content for mature audiences, ensuring that the Punisher brand of justice stays as dark as it's always been. All right. Next up. I have been looking forward to the new Henry Cavill, Jake Gyllenhaal movie in the gray, but maybe not everybody is. We're looking at some early box office projections for Guy Richie's, and I love Guy Richie's, latest action film in the gray starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Henry Cavill. Despite having two big named leading men in the business, tracking data covered by Deadline and Box Office Pro suggest a bit of a rocky start. Projections are currently leaning towards a modest opening weekend of somewhere between $6 million and $11 million, with analysts worried that a crowded spring release schedule might overshadow this heist thriller. While Richie has a dedicated fan base, the film will need some serious strong word of mouth if it's going to have success at the box office. Guy Richie's not had a great run of it at the box office at Leigh, and I think he's a great director, but they have been giving hardly any marketing to this movie. They need to do better with that. Alright, next up, let's talk about Star Wars for a second, shall we? Jon Favreau recently dropped some information regarding the future and past of The Mandalorian. It turns out that Season 4 of The Mandalorian was originally written to directly set up the return of Grand Admiral Thrawn for Ahsoka Season 2. However, as reported by Variety, those plans shifted significantly when Lucasfilm decided to pivot the story into its own upcoming theatrical film, The Mandalorian and Grogu. This explains why the timeline feels a bit more fluid lately. Favreau is essentially retooling TV scripts to fit a cinematic scale. Next up, in some more surprising box office news, Hugh Jackman's upcoming film, The Sheep Detectives, is also facing some worrying projections. Based on the hit novel 3 June, this unique live action CGI hybrid is a big swing in the studios, but outlets like The Hollywood Reporter and Puck News are questioning the quirky premise will translate into ticket sales. Right now, the projections are for only a $10-20 million opening weekend. While Hugh Jackman is a massive draw, analysts are concerned that the film's high budget and niche detective sheep concept might struggle to find a broad audience in an era when original IPs are a tough sell.

Speaker 3:
[43:21] I heard it's bad.

Speaker 1:
[43:22] Oh my god.

Speaker 2:
[43:25] Well done. Well done, sir.

Speaker 1:
[43:26] I remember when they first showed us clips of this at last year's CinemaCon. I didn't think it looked all that great, and I questioned whether audiences would go, and it seems like it might have a bit of a struggle.

Speaker 2:
[43:35] I loved it. I can't wait to see this movie.

Speaker 1:
[43:38] People in the studio are saying they like it a lot. Like, I've heard the people in the studio really like the film. We'll see how it turns out. All right. And finally, let's end on a high note for the TV screen, shall we? HBO's medical drama, The Pit, just wrapped its second season and it was awesome, by the way. And the numbers are in and it is a massive series, high in viewership. This season, The Pit averaged 15.4 million viewers per episode, which is up 50% from last year's season one numbers. That is incredible. According to Deadline, the Noah Wiley-led series has successfully captured that prestige procedural audience, proving that there is still a huge appetite for grounded, high stakes medical storytelling. I thought I was over medical procedurals until I saw The Pit. If you haven't started this one, now is a perfect time to go and binge it on HBO Max because guys, The Pit is awesome. Go check it out. And that will do it for In Other News.

Speaker 4:
[44:42] Hi, Diva. It's Rachel.

Speaker 1:
[44:44] And Jordan.

Speaker 4:
[44:44] Yeah.

Speaker 2:
[44:45] Hi.

Speaker 1:
[44:45] Quick question.

Speaker 4:
[44:46] Why are you not spending your Venmo balance?

Speaker 2:
[44:48] Yeah, we're concerned.

Speaker 4:
[44:49] You can like buy stuff with it.

Speaker 2:
[44:50] You love buying stuff.

Speaker 4:
[44:52] And earn cash back on eligible purchases.

Speaker 2:
[44:54] You love purchasing eligible things.

Speaker 4:
[44:56] So the money your friend sent you yesterday, that's today's ramen or ride share or eye patches.

Speaker 2:
[45:01] The skincare kind, not the pyro kind.

Speaker 4:
[45:03] Spin with Venmo and you can earn cash back with the mustache. The mustache bundle terms and exclusions apply.

Speaker 1:
[45:08] That's one hundred dollars cash back per month.

Speaker 4:
[45:09] See terms at Venmo dot me slash terms.

Speaker 3:
[45:10] ID verification required to use a Venmo balance.

Speaker 1:
[45:13] All right, guys, with that down, we got to talk about Warner Bros, Paramount, the shareholders voted today. We're going to talk about that. But before we do, we're going to take a quick second and thank the sponsor of today's episode of the John Campea Show, our friends at HIMS. Guys, we want to take a second to thank a sponsor today's video, HIMS. I know a lot of us have weight loss goals, but actually hitting them, that's the hard part. HIMS now offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the Wegovy Pill at its lowest price ever and the Wegovy Pen. And when combined with diet and exercise, Wegovy can help you lose up to 20% or more of your body weight by helping regulate your appetite so you eat less. You connect with a licensed provider who determines if treatment is right for you. And if prescribed, your medication gets delivered straight to your door, no insurance needed. Plus you get 24-7 access to your care team and in-app support like meal plans, recipes, fitness videos and more. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.com/campea to get a personalized affordable plan that gets you. That's H I M s.com/campea. hims.com/campea. Based on advertised cash price for a 30-day supply of medication only. Membership required, fee not included and billed separately. Weight loss by HIMS is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk AS. To get started and learn more, including important safety information, Wegovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit hims.com. And thank you to our friends at HIMS for sponsoring today's episode of The John Campea Show. All right, guys, with that down, let's get into this. Well, a journey that started last year when Paramount made its first unsolicited bid for $19 a share to buy Warner Bros. Of course, got to the stage where Paramount won the bidding process with a $31 per share bid that knocked out Netflix. But the big thing that needed to be cleared, there are others, but was that the actual owners of Warner Bros. had to approve the sale. That is, of course, the shareholders. Well, today was that day. The shareholders voted today on whether or not they were willing to sell their shares for $31 a share to Paramount and allow Paramount to take over Warner Bros. And as is reported here in Variety, the Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the Paramount mega deal. Now it says here in the headline, but vote against the exit pay package for Zaslav and other execs. Let me touch on that second part here first, before we get into the shareholders voting to approve the Paramount deal. I had a lot of people writing to me today, going, John, did you hear the shareholders voted against David Zaslav's pay package, blah, blah, blah. Guys, guys, listen, make sure you spread the word of this. It doesn't mean anything. David Zaslav is still getting that pay package. The shareholders actually have no authority to approve pay packages. Shareholders do not have any direct control on the day-to-day operations of a company. The shareholders really only have two jobs. One, vote in the board to represent them and to run the company. And two, vote to whether or not to sell the company. That's it. Shareholders really don't, for any real things, they don't have any other things. As the Variety article itself points out, the shareholders voting against the pay package is really just symbolic. The board of governors has already approved the pay package. He's getting that pay package. So are the other executives. This same thing, Rob, you might remember, happened a couple of years ago, when, a bunch of years ago, when the Disney shareholders voted against Bob Iger's pay package. Didn't matter. He still got his pay package. So that part is an absolute non-story. Absolute non-story. He's getting his pay package. Doesn't matter what the shareholders voted. But now let's get to the main thing. The shareholders selling their shares have agreed to sell their shares for 31 bucks a share. Now, it needs to be noted that this is not the final hurdle. Listen, there are still some issues that I don't think are going to stop it, but the possibility exists that they could. I know there are some branches of the government that are looking into and are very concerned about the fact that there is Middle Eastern money that's going to be used in buying the company. That could prove to be problematic for them. I know there are some state attorney general's offices that are looking into it. And I did a video on this before. Even if the federal government approves it, state attorney generals could block it. I'm not saying they will. I'm just saying there are still a couple of hurdles that they need to overcome. But this was the big one. This was the one the shareholders, the owners of the company saying, yes, we agree to sell. Now, look, I'm going to cheer for this company to succeed, but I have been against this merger. I'm still against the merger. If it happens, it happens, and I'll get on board. But I am against this merger. But I've had zero doubt that the shareholders were going to approve it. And since they did, I've seen some really stupid people, and I mean that with love, saying stuff like, the shareholders are being greedy, made it. Guys, look, as somebody who is against this merger, can we just operate in reality for a second? Anybody who, listen to the word, invest. There is only one purpose for investing in something. You're hoping to make a profit. That's all investing is. You buy stocks in something for only one purpose, to hopefully profit from buying those stocks. People who own shares in Tesla don't care about car driving technology any more than it affects their profitability. People who buy stock in, I don't know, Kroger's or whatever a big chain is.

Speaker 2:
[51:51] I like groceries.

Speaker 1:
[51:52] Yeah, I like groceries, yeah. But they only invest to make profit. Shareholders are not really interested in the movie making business. They're shareholders, just investors who buy stock in something that they hope will be profitable. And when they bought stock, and probably most of them did, when David Zaslav first took over this company and it was like six, seven dollars a share, to have Paramount come in and make an offer. The overmarket value, Paramount is way overpaying, way overpaying. And remember, Variety did this article yesterday pointing out that one of the reasons David Zaslav couldn't stop the sale is because he could not make an argument to the board or to the shareholders that Warner Bros on its own could get to $31 a share in the next five to ten years. If he could have made that argument, he could have stopped this from getting sold, but he couldn't. So if you're a shareholder and you get offered triple, quadruple, five times, six times your money, investors have one job, profit. That's the only job of an investor. It's different from a board member, it's different from a CEO, it's different from a president. As a shareholder, the only reason you're in it is to hopefully profit. And somebody comes along and offers you triple your investment, quadruple your investment, you're going to take it. Yeah. It's not, and quite honestly, nothing else is any of your business. As an investor, nothing else is your business. You don't really care. I had somebody in the live chat earlier say, well, some shareholders try to force change on a company. Yes, but the only time shareholders try to force change on a company is when they think it will make them more money if the company makes that change. That's the only time that happens. So, listen, I think there's a lot of blame to go around for the situation that we're in. I don't think any of the blame is on the shareholders. The shareholders are just doing what shareholders do. You buy stock at a certain price, and if you can sell it for a higher price, you sell it. Period. That's it. End of story. I have some opinions about David Ellison. I have some opinions about how they're financing this. I have some questions about how this whole thing came together, but none of it is the shareholders' fault. No. It just is what it is. So anyway, the shareholders have voted to let it go through. Now if it's going to be stopped, it has to come from... It has to be regulatory if this is going to be stopped. You know, the theater organization that represents all the movie theaters, Cinema United, they were trying to fight it, but then AMC's Adam Aaron, the CEO, completely backstabbed and double crossed his own industry and everybody else in it, so that's not going to work now. So again, it's still possible this thing doesn't happen, but I think we're going to have to rob. I think we're going to have to just start getting used to the idea of Warner Bros. disappearing or becoming Paramount Warner Bros. or whatever it's going to do. I think we're just going to have to start getting ourselves ready for that reality and hope that it works, but yeah. Anyway, Rob, you read this. Any surprise, any shock? What do you think?

Speaker 2:
[55:17] No, I'm not surprised and I'm not shocked. I mean, late stage capitalism is only about profit, profit, profit. And I understand that. Like that's what Milton Friedman said. But at the end of the day, do we want to live in that kind of a world where everything is only motivated by profit? I would say this. I mean, one of the things that never factors in anything these days is also a quality of life issue. Now, as we talk about on this show, our favorite things, movies and movie news, TV and streaming, right? Well, this is the epicenter of that. And we are discussing here, is our world better off with Warner Bros, one of the oldest, most venerable studios in the world that's doing very well, that has a great legacy? Is it better off being controlled by the Ellisons? My problem, and for all intents and purposes, I think that David Ellison loves movies, he wants to be in the movie business. But also, there's other motives that are driving this, like for instance, the control of media outlets, the control of our news based on certain political ideologies. Is that something that's good?

Speaker 1:
[56:27] I don't think that was a big motivation here.

Speaker 2:
[56:29] But I do, I think it's certainly some of that.

Speaker 1:
[56:32] Because you and I talked about before, they could have literally just waited for David Zadzad to spin off CNN and bought it for $1 billion instead of $110 billion.

Speaker 2:
[56:41] And of course, you know, if they're getting Saudi money, I mean, I just don't, I'm not saying that there's something necessarily nefarious here. But look, since Disney purchased 20th Century Fox, it's not like Disney has maximized the 20th Century Fox library. Sure, they've made another A Plan of the Apes movie or a Predator movie, but their back catalog, they've done nothing with. Like even putting out doing new, they've done, to be fair, they've done new versions of like Kingdom of Heaven and Master and Commander and put those things out. But you know, Warner Bros has an incredible library. And I understand what Paramount wants is that IP. They want Harry Potter. Well, now it looks like they're gonna get it. And I totally get that. And our friend from Paramount explained that to me. Look at all that IP that we're gonna now control. And I get all that. I just don't know if they are the best stewards for that IP. I mean, I.

Speaker 1:
[57:36] No, it's not. They're not. And they're not the best stewards. That's why I'm against this.

Speaker 2:
[57:41] Yeah, I mean, and that's the thing. I think that you need people. Look, they don't even have, they've been making Star Trek. Why is there no executive that oversees only Star Trek? You've got Lucasfilm, you've got Marvel, you know. And I don't think that Paramount, especially over the last 20 years, has necessarily been the best steward of their own IP. And so it's interesting to see what they're going to do now. I mean, I think that Warner Bros and Paramount, you know, coming together, I don't think that the Fox Disney merger has shown that Disney has the best interests of all the IP that they acquired. Have they been the best stewards of it all? I mean, Star Wars and Lucasfilm, I know Lucasfilm was a separate thing, but have they been? Have they? I mean, I just don't see it. I don't see it. I don't think these big mergers are necessarily good for audiences and getting the best movies that we should get. I just don't.

Speaker 1:
[58:43] No. But, you know, it's part of the reality we live in. People might start singing a different tune now that we're getting X-Men in the MCU, but I mean, yeah, it is. By the way, I've seen some comments in the live chat. There seems to be this perception that the shareholders are like these 20 people. Do you know how many people, how many individual people own shares in Warner Bros. Discovery? Anybody want to take a guess? The best estimations are, because it changes daily.

Speaker 2:
[59:14] Yeah.

Speaker 1:
[59:14] Daily it changes. But at minimum, there are 500,000 people who own at least some degree of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Speaker 2:
[59:24] Get those people on the phone right now.

Speaker 1:
[59:26] Up to 5 million people. Yeah, right.

Speaker 2:
[59:29] On days of high volume.

Speaker 1:
[59:31] One share, 10,000 shares, 50,000 shares. There's over half a million shareholders. Like anywhere between half a million to 5 million shareholders. So it's not like it's like some small little group of people. This is just people who invest, bought stock in Warner Bros. at $7 and now get to sell it at $31. That's all it is. It's all it is. It just sucks that it's come to this. I never would have thought I would ever say the words, man, I really wish Netflix was taking over Warner Bros. But anyway.

Speaker 2:
[60:05] And the funny thing is, is that, you know, Warner Bros. shareholders don't necessarily care at all about movies or TV. Investors are investing in companies. They're not investing because I love the movie business. They're looking for an opportunity to make money, like you pointed out.

Speaker 1:
[60:20] Yeah, that's the only thing, that's the only reason anybody buys stock is to make money. And so this is a bad thing, but it's not a situation that was created by the shareholders at all. Anyway, guys, question is for you. What do you think about this? The Warner Bros. Discovery owners, the shareholders have approved the sale to Paramount. Now, that does not mean it's a done deal. It probably will all go through. But there are a few other hiccups that could come along, and I'm sure we'll cover those in the coming months. They're still months and months and months away from this getting finalized. So this is not a done deal. Paramount does not own Warner Bros. as of today. So we'll keep covering this to see how this thing all goes. Anyway, guys, what do you think about all this? Jump down into the comments section below and let us know your thoughts. All right, guys. With that down, I want to let all of you guys know, there are a whole bunch of you that are watching that are channel members of this channel. And I want to let you guys know, for those of you who are members of the channel, that at 4 p.m. Los Angeles time today, that's 7 p.m. New York time, we're going to be doing a channel members town hall meeting here on the channel. So if you are a channel member, I hope you'll come to that town hall meeting. I'll have some information and announcements about the channel and stuff like that. Hopefully you guys, if you are channel members, you will come by and join us for that. Once again, this is going to be at 4 p.m. Los Angeles time, or three hours from now, and 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. I hope to see you guys there. All right, guys, and that'll do it for today's installment of The John Campea Show. Thank you so much for being here and making our little show part of your day. Big special thank you to you guys for taking time out and being here. We know you could be doing other things, and we're awfully grateful that you decide to come here and spend some time with us. I want to thank, of course, our technical director Jonathan Voico.

Speaker 2:
[62:25] See you guys later.

Speaker 1:
[62:26] Writer, director, producer Robert Meyer Burnett.

Speaker 2:
[62:28] See you next week.

Speaker 1:
[62:29] My name's John Campea, guys, and until next time, my friends, bye-bye.