***ads play and podcast starts at 1:47
Intro (Timestamp: 1:47) - Rachel: Welcome back to another episode of Rachel Goes Rogue. This is your host, Rachel Savannah Leviss. Today, we are talking about part three of the Vanderpump Rules reunion. - Rachel: It has finally come to an end, season 11. It's been a long time coming, and we're here to react. I have my producers with me, and as usual, they will be asking me some questions to get my perspective on what we just watched during the reunion.
Well, first of all, I want to start off with asking you just your overall thoughts on the reunion, watching it. How do you feel? (Timestamp: 2:19) - Rachel: Overall, I just feel tired at this point. I don't enjoy watching this show, and (Rachel starts to get emotional) I'm just happy that it's over. It was good that they didn't talk about me very much this last episode, part three. - Rachel: That's great, but it's been really difficult watching each week. And I feel like I can finally start to move on from all of this, because it's been really difficult. It was really heavy and sad. - Rachel: And I think everyone on that cast is struggling. And I would be too if I was there. I mean, I'm struggling just watching it from the sidelines, so I can only imagine what it's like being on that stage.
So you're getting really emotional right now. Where is this emotion coming from? (Timestamp: 3:28) - Rachel: It's coming from a place of feeling like I haven't had much room to go. Feeling like stuck between a rock and a hard place, so to speak. Because this entire time, I have been preparing for them to slander my name, to paint me in the worst light. - Rachel: And my goal with this podcast was to be able to represent myself, to defend myself, to share what I've learned through my time that I took away and my recovery, and just to shed more light on the situation. - Rachel: And it hasn't been easy. It's been an extreme rollercoaster of emotions in a lot of different phases, getting sucked back into it, and then feeling like all consumed by all the comments and everything, and then completely cutting off communication with the outside world and living in my own reality in the moment. It's all about that balance, and it has not been easy to move on. - Rachel: I don't think it's been easy for any of the cast to move on rehashing it and talking about it and having other people tune in. It's not typical. It's not normal. And the day has finally come that the show, season 11, is over, and it's a relief to me because I don't have to keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. - Rachel: I don't have to think about what lies they're going to spread about me, and I don't have to think about what I need to defend myself about. And then following week, I feel like I can finally start to live my life again.
And so you're kind of talking about the boundaries that you've been setting by staying away and cutting people off, which obviously boundaries was a really big topic at the reunion. You obviously set some really strong ones by not returning to the show. What's your take on this discussion of boundaries? Do you agree with Lala or do you side more with Ariana when it comes to boundaries when it's in regard to filming the show? (Timestamp: 5:40) - Rachel: I could see both of their points of view. Setting a boundary for yourself is not an easy thing to do. And when other people are upset that you set a boundary for yourself, that's usually a telltale sign that that person is using you in some way and is not happy that you have this new boundary because it's not serving them. - Rachel: So, I can see why Ariana upholded her boundaries by not speaking to Tom, even though she actually did film with Tom this whole season, or for the later part anyway. But she refused to have that conversation with Tom at the end of the show, and I commend her for it because it would have been a fake conversation. You could tell that Tom, his only motive to having that conversation with her is for camera purposes and storyline purposes. - Rachel: Therefore, it's not an authentic conversation. It would have been crocodile tears, the whole thing. And I completely understand Ariana walking away. I walked away too, and people weren't happy about that either. - Rachel: For Lala's point of view, I can understand her perspective in wanting to have a good TV show for her livelihood and the longevity of her career. If you're going to commit to filming, then I can see why Lala is upset, because you are not only committing to filming with this person, I can see her point in that she is living under the same roof as Tom. - Rachel: They're living together, they're filming together, yet in Lala's eyes, Ariana is being stubborn by not filming with Tom, or that one scene. Who even cares about that one scene? I don't know. - Rachel: It's all so silly to me, but boundaries are important. I was in a place where I didn't have boundaries, and I was really trying to appease production and put on a good show. That became my priority season 10.
And where do you think the line needs to be drawn, you know? When at the end of the day, this is a paycheck and this is a job, versus this is someone's real life. You've talked a lot about wanting to live in reality. Where do you think that line should be drawn? (Timestamp: 8:32) - Rachel: I think that's an impossible question to answer when you're filming a reality TV show, because the line is so blurry, it's impossible to know what's real and what's not. And the more I'm out of it, the clearer I can see that. We see it with Tom Sandoval when he talked about production. - Rachel: He did the New York Times article, and he stopped talking mid sentence when a plane flew over or a truck drove by, whatever it was, because the audio, typically when we're filming a show and a plane flies by, you stop talking so that the audio can pick up normally without the distraction in the background. - Rachel: So it's like programmed in your mind to think a certain way, to act a certain way, to talk a certain way, to pursue certain things, where it becomes a part of your patterning. We also see the lines get blurred with Scheana and the comment section, and what is real life and what is not, what is her own true motivation for doing certain things, and what is influenced by outside commentary. - Rachel: That gets so blurry, and when you're all consumed in the perception of yourself, how can you really be sure that you're operating from a place of an inner knowing? That's a boundary that's blurred. With Lala, she clearly prioritizes the success of the show because she wants to secure her paycheck, and when people are setting boundaries for themselves and it's conflicting with what she wants and what is successful in her eyes, that sparks an anger within her. - Rachel: And it's all fabricated to a certain point because the bottom line is this show. So, I think it truly is impossible to live a real life and be on a reality TV show.
So, do you think it's fair for Lala to direct that anger towards Ariana? Or do you think she should be directing it more towards the show? (Timestamp: 11:12) - Rachel: Oh, no, not at all. I don't think that it's fair that Lala is directing that anger towards Ariana because Ariana has been very clear with her boundaries since the very beginning and…
I guess if she's feeling this way, do you think maybe she should have upheld her boundaries more if she was feeling so resentful towards someone doing the same? Do you think she's feeling like she regrets things that she had said in the past? (Timestamp: 11:35) - Rachel: I think she did uphold her boundaries. I think that she feels like she hasn't been supported the same way that Ariana is being supported. And it's probably not a good feeling, but she maneuvered differently than Ariana has. And Lala doesn't extend the same empathy towards others. So it's harder to support her, I believe.
She does make a point to say, many times, that she feels like things are not being honest on camera. She points out Tom and Ariana’s relationship being one of those things. Katie has a flashback moment where she also calls it out. Do you agree that things are not always honest on camera? (Timestamp: 12:12) - Rachel: Totally. Yeah. I think the point that Lala is making is that Tom and Ariana haven't been honest about their relationship on camera. - Rachel: And I think people are getting caught up in Lala being hypocritical because she wasn't honest about her relationship with Randall. Okay, yes, that might be true. But the point is that Tom and Ariana haven't been good for quite some time. - Rachel: And their relationship that was portrayed on camera for fans to see was not an accurate representation of their relationship. I see the frustration because I agree with that too.
Even on your part, how does it affect you as someone on the show when people aren't fully honest on camera? How does that affect the rest of the cast? (Timestamp: 13:21) - Rachel: Yeah, it affects everyone when people aren't fully honest on the show. I mean, I wasn't fully honest the season 10 reunion. I was still covering up for Tom Schwartz. - Rachel: I was still covering up for Tom Sandoval. I was still going along with that narrative, and it would have been much better to just be open and honest about it. But of course, Tom was like, no, that wouldn't be good for business. - Rachel: It wouldn't be good for Schwartz and Sandys if people knew that the Schwartz kiss wasn't authentic and we need that to seem real. So it does affect everyone when you're not being honest, because it portrays a certain picture that isn't reality, and the whole point of reality TV supposedly is to be real, following these real people's lives. - Rachel: So honesty would be like the most important value characteristic you would think that everyone on this show should have. But it seems like nobody does.
Well, speaking of honesty, Ariana kind of called out Tom and his motives behind wanting to apologize on camera. He finally does get that moment during the reunion to apologize to Ariana. He has some words when he does, he calls the affair something he regrets every day. He says that he wears it like a badge of shame. On your end, how did that feel watching that? (Timestamp: 14:46) - Rachel: It's hard to tell if Tom is being honest or not. Even in the Secrets Revealed episode, when he was asked how many girls he had sex with since me, and he had to pause and think about if he was going to be honest or not, he's just been caught in so many lies that it's hard to tell if he's being truthful. - Rachel: But hearing Tom say that he regrets getting involved with me every single day, I regret it too, so it is a little bit painful, but it's also like maybe something is registering for him. - Rachel: I don't know. But then again, his actions speak a lot louder than his words. He knows what words to say, and then it seems that he fails to follow through with meaningful action. And that's where true amends come into play.
There was just, I feel like, a lot of pain in the room all around. You kind of acknowledged that at the beginning of this episode. What do you think that this pain, and even Lala saying that she was okay seeing some of those friendships end, what do you think that means for the future of this group? (Timestamp: 16:07) - Rachel: I don't see much of the future for this group. It looks pretty shattered. It looks like these friendships are not healthy friendships. - Rachel: The dynamic between Lala and Scheana is not a healthy dynamic. It seems to be like a power imbalance. It seems like Scheana is trying to appease Lala to make sure she's secure, and she's getting certain needs met in that friendship because Ariana hasn't been around for Scheana the way that she's used to. - Rachel: Yeah, you could tell that Scheana’s struggling with coping with that. It seems like Lala's really on a wavelength of not effing with anybody on the cast right now. It seems like her friendship with Katie isn't strong because Katie's gotten really close with Ariana. - Rachel: It seems like even her friendship with Scheana is a little rocky. I think she sees Scheana as someone that's not...How do I want to say this? - Rachel: And I hate saying this word, because I don't want to like categorize somebody as something, especially because I've been called this before too. But I think seeing how Lala reacted to everything and how Scheana was trying to be the fixer and appease Lala, and it just didn't seem like enough for Lala. I think Lala sees Scheana as someone who is weak, perceived weakness. - Rachel: I'm not saying that Scheana is weak. And I think that there's a lot of alliances and manipulation happening, and none of that is healthy for our friendship dynamic. I can see why the show is taking a hiatus, because it just seems so fractured
Well, it definitely seems like at the very end of the episode, Scheana was very sure to get that last word in. I felt like she was looking directly at Lala and almost begging for her to hear her out that she was on her side. And it really did seem like the very end, Scheana had to choose. Is she Team Ariana or Team Lala? Do you think she made the right choice? Do you think she needed to make a choice, or do you think that she's putting this pressure on herself? (Timestamp: 18:21) - Rachel: Ooh, that's a good question. I think she feels a lot of pressure from the outside perspective, and she doesn't want to, obviously, like burn bridges with Ariana or anything. And I think Ariana has been very gracious towards Scheana. Do I think that she needed to choose sides? I don't think so. I don't know. - Rachel: I can see Lala's frustration probably because I'm sure Sheena and Lala have had conversations about the whole situation. And without Ariana there, I'm sure Sheena's singing a much different tune than what we're hearing at the reunion, and that's sparking some frustration in Lala. And I'm sure that was a similar feeling when she called out Katie about it too. - Rachel: So yeah, I think that Lala feels pretty isolated, I want to say, in her feelings. And now that it's aired, and I did check Reddit for the first time in a very, very long time, it seems like the majority of people are hating on Lala right now. I'm human. - Rachel: I do hold some resentment towards Lala for the way that she's treated me over the years. I do empathize with her a little bit because all the hate online is just a little bit ridiculous. And I think also people are afraid to speak a differing opinion than the team Ariana side because people are just ruthless online and they don't want to hear a differing opinion. - Rachel: And if you do, then you get shunned out, too. It's very, my therapist calls it tribal shaming, where if you're not following the rules of the tribe, spoken or unspoken, then you're cast out and you're shunned.
***ads play and podcast resumes at 23:24
I mean, it does feel like the fans have had more of an impact on this season than ever. Would you agree with that? (Timestamp: 23:24) - Rachel: Yeah, especially because as they were filming this show, the fans were boots on the ground. We're going to production, we're going to filming, and we're going to take photos and document what we saw and all that stuff. Like it was very interactive in a way. - Rachel: I think with after show this year, it was a little bit different because some things have changed since the ending of filming last summer. One of the things was me starting my own podcast and speaking freely about my experience and my opinion and the after show gave the cast an opportunity to rebut what I was saying and it provided more of a context. - Rachel: And I think with more time passing from the end of filming last summer to, you know, early January, February of this year, when they filmed the after shows, cast dynamics shifted because as we all know, now watching the finale, Lala and Ariana did not end on a good note whatsoever. - Rachel: And so, you know, she had some choice of words to say during the after shows. And it seemed like she really got Sheena to support her with that.
Speaking about the fracturing of this cast, something about her did recently open. Not many cast members were in attendance to this opening. What's your take on that? (Timestamp: 24:56) - Rachel: Interesting. Do you know who went? - iHeart Lady: I know Schwartz went - Rachel: It seems a little telling that maybe Sheena and Lala aren't on the best terms with Ariana right now, because they went to like the Broadway opening that Ariana did for Chicago. And they also went to Dancing with the Stars. But this is all before they knew that she didn't watch the show. And so that was all before the reunion and everything. So yeah, it seems like maybe they're not on the best of terms right now.
What are your thoughts on production holding the last five minutes until the reunion to show to everyone? (Timestamp: 25:47) - Rachel: I wonder if they got word that Ariana wasn't watching the season. And they did that as a way to ensure that they would get a reaction from her, kind of like forcing her hand a little bit, forcing her into a situation that she did not want to be in. It was very strategic in that way. And it was something new. Like, we've never done that before. It was creative, for sure, on production's part.
Do you think it was fair to Ariana? (Timestamp: 26:27) - Rachel: There's a commitment, and part of that is watching the show and having an opinion on what's happening besides your own story that you're sharing. So in a way, it's like ensuring that Ariana did have an opinion on it. So very eye opening, to say the least.
I want your take on Tom's final words. He says, I love it. It's good for me. A lot of people in the room were very shocked by that. Tom even has a reaction to it, where he shakes his head no. They didn't even really press him on what he meant by that either. What's your take on all of that? (Timestamp: 26:49) - Rachel: I wish they pressed him on what he meant by that a little bit more. And Ariana was pretty much the only person that called him out on it too. She caught it. - Rachel: She was like, that exactly proves my point, that you are doing things for the audience, for the production value, and for his own story purposes. I guess in Tom's eyes, having Ariana refuse to film and walk off was good for him because he felt like he completed his job and fulfilled his duty with what production was asking from him. And Ariana was not. - Rachel: And I think selfishly, he probably thought that it would give him a better chance of having more of a redemption story. - Rachel: Because, ultimately, production is the one picking and choosing what they're going to share on the show and edit and put certain music behind certain scenes to make it seem even more of a certain way. Tom knows how to play into that. But I would have loved to hear what his explanation for that comment would be.
Why do you think they didn't press him? (Timestamp: 28:34) - Rachel: I think that they're protecting him, like they always have been.
We did see something interesting at the very end with Lisa stepping up and taking Ariana's side, which is kind of a different tune. You've talked about this before, where she seems to protect the guys a lot of the time, but then she changes her tune at the very end of the episode and takes Ariana's side. What are your thoughts on that? (Timestamp: 28:39) - Rachel: I think Lisa is very strategic with what she puts out there as well. And she knows what people are saying about her, with her always supporting the guys. So that could have been a motivation behind her changing her tune and supporting Ariana in that way. Yeah, I don't know. It's hard because I think also Lisa is very aware of who the fan favorites are. It's her show. - Rachel: She's an executive producer on this show. So she's not a dummy when it's coming to that. I think it helps her if she is supporting Ariana because she'll praise Ariana for walking away and end up holding her boundaries. - Rachel: But then when it comes to me, I don't even remember what she said about me. But when it comes to me walking away and setting a boundary for myself, I've been told that I'm a coward and I'm running away from my problems. - Rachel: So that part for me gets a little frustrating because it's like, and also the fans praising Ariana for upholding her boundaries and walking away and supporting her and telling her like, you know, she's outgrown this show. - Rachel: She should move on and do something even better with her life. And she's finding out now that these aren't her true friends and like good for her for upholding her boundaries and walking away from this situation. And I've done the same thing and it has been met with scrutiny.
Lala compares her situation with Randall to Ariana a lot throughout this reunion. Do you think the two are similar at all? (Timestamp: 30:37) - Rachel: I don't think that the relationship that Lala had with Randall is comparable to the situation that Tom and Ariana were in. It's hard to get on Lala's side with some of the things that she's saying, because the way that she spoke about her relationship with Randall is like bragging about doing BJs for PJs and getting gifted a Range Rover very early in their relationship and not being honest about who she was seeing and the situation that was happening basically. And it just seemed like she was in it for the money and like to secure her success and fame. - Rachel: So it's hard to get behind that, especially when she's been so outright about it. Unfortunately, Randall wasn't the stand up guy that she was selling him to be. We weren't buying it. - Rachel: In Ariana's case, viewers got to see that relationship develop over the years, whereas with Lala's, he wasn't around, like it was secret for a while. And, you know, it's harder to develop feelings towards a person or a relationship when you're not seeing it play out on camera. I think Lala has a lot of anger, maybe even towards herself, for the situation that she allowed herself to be in. And I think she might be taking that out on Ariana.
How hard is it to be really honest when you're in this position? And do you think certain cast members have an easier time doing this? (Timestamp: 32:22) - Rachel: So this is like where your own values come in. Like, are you an honest person or are you not? Because there are people in this cast that are not, and we know who they are, and they have no problem lying, and it doesn't bother them when they lie. - Rachel: And for me, I'm working towards living a more authentic, honest life. And part of that is being honest with my emotions, thoughts, and feelings, and expressing that, and doing that in a way that is still respectful, because I'm not trying to hurt people in the process. And I am trying to express myself honestly and be true to myself. - Rachel: So I think it just depends on who you're asking. I mean, it's definitely not easy. It's definitely hard because you're on this platform, this public arena where you're opening yourself up to scrutiny. - Rachel: And if other people have differing opinions than you do, or if your opinion is the minority, you're basically going to be harassed and scrutinized. And so sometimes for people, it's easier to not be fully honest with their thoughts and feelings in order to save face or in order to go with more popular opinion because it's perceived to be safer that way. But I don't know. - Rachel: At this point, it's like your words aren't going to hurt me. You can say whatever you want to say about me online, and I've survived this far. So whatever else you say about me is not going to affect me any more than it already has. - Rachel: I've developed thick skin through this process, and I've come to the point where I value my friendships that are real in the sense of I interact with these people in real life. I care more about people's perception of me when they actually meet me and interact with me and the vibes I give off that way. So you get to a certain point where it's almost your duty to show up for yourself and be honest with how you feel and how you think about a certain thing in that moment. - Rachel: And your opinions can change with time too and with more information. It's not like I'm going to say this one thing and I'm always going to feel this way. It's always changing, it's always developing, we're always getting more information, and we're always experiencing new things that change our perspective on life. - Rachel: So it's just your duty to represent yourself in the most authentic way so that your people will find you.
***ads play and podcast resumes at 38:08
Well, I think there was one kind of shining moment, I'll say, even though it was a really emotional moment. But the moment between, and this is a little bit of a pivot, but the moment between Schwartz and Katie, I found really interesting, where Andy was asking about their relationship. It seemed like this season, they had a little bit more of a playful dynamic. But Schwartz gets really emotional, saying that he doesn't regret how their relationship ended. But you can kind of see in his eyes that he tears well up. He gets really emotional. What did you make of that moment? (Timestamp: 38:08) - Rachel: We don't think we've really seen a moment like that between Tom, Schwartz, and Katie. It really seems like they've come to terms with how the relationship ended, and that it was for the best. But it seemed like there was a lot of fond memories and just appreciation for one another, that I don't think I've really seen that dynamic between them before. - iHeart Lady: To me, it seemed like in a season where there was a lot of hurt, that seemed like the one moment of maybe seeing two people that are going through the process of healing. - Rachel: Viewing that, it did seem like they were both coming from a place of healing, because they weren't throwing insults at each other or trying to bring each other down. It was very respecting one another and appreciating the moments that they did have together while it lasted. And that's refreshing to see on this show.
Lala said something at the very end where she said it was really hard for her to show up to season nine reunion, I believe it was. You know, she didn't want to talk about certain things, but she showed up. Ariana said the same thing where she could say the same about the season 10 reunion. She didn't want to be there. You could probably say the same thing about the season 10 reunion. You didn't want to be there as well. Is it fair to say everyone's been in a position where they didn't want to be somewhere, but they did anyway? (Timestamp: 39:44) - Rachel: 100%. Yeah, totally. And that's like the part of committing to this show. It's a commitment. And even though you don't quite know what you're signing up for, you know that it's not going to be necessarily easy. And there's a challenge in that. - Rachel: And I think, just speaking for myself, there was an opportunity for growth for me in that. Yeah, I think we've all been in a situation where we didn't want to show up for something and felt, I don't think obligated is the right word, but we made a commitment to being there, and we followed through with our commitment. And it's hard.
You started this episode off by acknowledging that there was a lot of healing that this cast needs to do. As someone who has taken a step back from filming, you've had this time to kind of come back to your own reality. What can this cast expect when you have that moment to kind of breathe and have that separation and you rejoin reality for a minute? (Timestamp: 41:07) - Rachel: Oh, okay. That is a loaded question. Because I think that there's a little bit of fear with not being the current topic of conversation. - Rachel: I think addiction is the wrong word, but there's a little bit of the dopamine hits that you get when you're being talked about on a reality TV show and the fear of that going away permanently could be a scary thing. But taking time off and re-centering with yourself, I think is like the best thing for this cast right now, because we don't want to be forced into situations that we don't want to be in. That's not living an authentic life. - Rachel: I mean, I've been worrying about scenes and storylines, and I haven't even been a part of this show, but now it feels good not to worry about that. And I do have to say, just like reading all the comments on Reddit right now, it's like hardly anybody is talking about me, which is a great feeling. It's just so much more freeing when you're not living your life for somebody else's entertainment anymore. - Rachel: It just feels like you get your life back a little bit. It's so complex, and I think it's hard to understand if you haven't been through being on a TV show for millions of people to comment on and judge your life. I don't think humans are meant for that, and there's no way that that's healthy. - Rachel: Yeah, I said that I think the cast, we have a lot of healing to do. We, as in, I still do too, and part of that is coming back to reality. And I really don't think that we've had a minute this whole season. I think it's going to be good for everyone.
Has this year though felt different to you? I feel like you're like half in, half out (Timestamp: 43:42) - Rachel: Oh, yeah, it's felt so different. But I think like a large part of that has to do with going to the meadows and really reconnecting with myself and learning about my issues and how it was showing up for me and really coming to terms with like, what is this piece of external validation and how is that motivating me? And is it even real? - Rachel: And just like really re centering back into myself and gaining a lot more perspective with that. Without the meadows, I would not be where I am right now. There's no freaking way. So it is. I'm living a new life. I really am. - Rachel: And I feel like I haven't really been able to truly have the opportunity to live my new life to the fullest because this show has been holding me back. And I know that that's partially my fault too because I'm indulging and speaking about it, but I'm really looking forward to the days when I can truly move forward and evolve into something even more magnificent.
Outro (Timestamp: 45:02) - Rachel: Thank you so much for listening to Rachel Goes Rogue. Follow us on Instagram and TikTok for exclusive video content at Rachel Goes Rogue Podcast.
***end

• Over 163 stylish minutes, “Blade Runner 2049” wrestles with nothing less than what it means to be human, serving as a beautiful thematic companion to Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner,” a film that redefined a genre. It’s too soon to tell if the follow-up will have the influence and staying power of the groundbreaking original but it’s clear from the beginning that this no mere piece of nostalgic fan service. Unlike a lot of reboots or long-delayed sequels that merely remix the themes and characters of the beloved original to give viewers the hollow comfort of familiarity, Denis Villeneuve and his team are remarkably ambitious, using the topics raised by “Blade Runner” to continue the conversation instead of just repeating it to make a buck. To that end, they have made one of the most deeply philosophical and challenging sci-fi films of all time, a movie that never holds your hand as it spirals the viewer through its gorgeous funhouse of the human soul.
• Here’s where things get a little tricky for a film critic. Villeneuve and the team at Warner Brothers have asked critics to be incredibly precious with spoilers, not even revealing things that the film does mere minutes into its running time (and even a couple things I believe the trailers give away, but whatever). The way the film reveals its secrets, themes, and connections is one of its greatest strengths, so I’ll heed that directorial request, although I suspect some of the best writing about this film will be done when its themes can be discussed beat by beat and explicitly.
• Until then, I’ll just give you the very basics, as beautiful as they are. Riding a wave of gorgeous visuals from the legendary Roger Deakins and a crack effects team, Villeneuve brings us to Los Angeles in 2049. It’s been decades since the action of the first film, but the replicant-destroying Blade Runner is still a profession, personified here by Ryan Gosling as an agent known as K. His duty now is to track down old replicants who have gone into hiding, living long past their originally-programmed lifespan. In the film’s opening, Officer K tracks down a replicant who is just trying to live a peaceful life as a farmer (a spectacled Dave Bautista, doing a great deal with a small role). What he finds there will start what is essentially a detective story, spurring K to solve a mystery about his own past, the history of replicants, the power of memory, and what it means to be a human being. Robin Wright, Jared Leto, and Harrison Ford co-star.
• From the minute footage of “Blade Runner 2049” started to leak, it was clear that the director of “Prisoners” and “Arrival” had created a film with a confident, strong visual language. The Oscar talk for the always-an-Academy-bridesmaid Roger Deakins started with the first trailer. The film is undeniably gorgeous, the kind of work that could be appreciated with the volume turned all the way down. Not only are Deakins and Villeneuve great at the “futuristic” aspects of their vision, but they’ve made a film whose most striking imagery often relates to nature. When I think of “2049,” I think of waves crashing, snow falling, and, of course, rain pelting down—an iconic image from the first film that’s almost subverted here in the second half. And Villeneuve and Deakins are often playful within this visually striking world, capturing images that work thematically—I think of a “small” K against gigantic statues at a point when he’s questioning his place in the world or a moment with a hologram that comes off a billboard to remind him of what he’s lost in a fashion that’s ten stories tall—while never losing sight of the pure beauty of it all. It’s one of the most stunningly shot films of not just this year, but the last several. I can’t wait to just see it again, just to bask in its visuals without trying to follow its plot. And the sound design is so remarkable that it’s almost overwhelming—this is a film you don’t passively watch, you experience it.
• Don’t worry—this is no hollow visual spectacle. It’s grounded at the same time. As he did with Amy Adams in “Arrival” and Benicio Del Toro in “Sicario,” Villeneuve proves his skill with performance as well, particularly with Ryan Gosling, who gives one of the best performances of his career. Gosling is perfect for this part as he’s always had a vulnerability underneath the handsome façade, and he allows fear and confusion to become operating forces on K’s arc without ever overselling the deep emotion of the piece. It’s a fantastic performance, and Villeneuve draws great ones from Sylvia Hoeks and Ana de Armas as well. The film did drag a little for me near the end of the first hour when I wanted it to pick up the pace, and some of the characters feel like they do things dictated by plot necessity more than believable behavior, but that's a criticism that could fade on repeat viewing.
• It would have been incredibly easy to reboot “Blade Runner” directly, merely continuing Deckard and Rachel’s story from the first movie or even (gasp) remaking it. And yet while hundreds of writers and filmmakers were inspired by “Blade Runner,” it’s hard to believe any of them could have found a way to expand its legacy as completely as Villenueve does here with a movie that doesn't feel at all repetitive. He’s in no way seeking to improve or replace—the films now work together, enriching each other instead of mimicking. They ask timeless questions and, like all great films, refuse to give you all the answers, allowing viewers to debate and discuss their meaning instead of merely being passive recipients of mindless entertainment. In that sense, "Blade Runner 2049" answers one of its own questions about what it means to be human—to have free thought—and how vital it is to appreciate art so clearly designed to enrich the soul.

Side note :
I am well aware that this movie came out a long time ago, but I'd like everyone to see how amazingly it's portrayed. I was so sad when none of my friends liked it. I remember walking out of the movie theater in awe, but all of my friends were disappointed. They all thought it was too confusing and lacked action.
I still love this movie. The fact that it was a box office flop and yet Jumanji was a success simply means people's tastes in movies aren't evolving. However, I'm seeing a lot of the younger generation liking this movie recently, which makes me happy and the above text which is in bold is so well described

First Ross and Rachel, I found this relationship really toxic, the “We were on a break” incident changed their dynamic forever and it always bothered me that Rachel would always go crawling back to the man who cheated on her, the same man who is sexist (would not let Ben have a doll) and homophobic (“Are you gay” the first thing he said to the male nanny) the finale where she gets off the plane always bothered me as she threw away her career for an ungrateful man who felt entitled to have her. I know it’s controversial but I would have preferred them end as friends and friends only because she deserves better. Every time they fought he would not leave her alone, pressure her to take him back and put her in a reverse the positions scenario where he would flame he would take her back in a heartbeat when in reality he would not. He never got over her and it was extremely creepy (he said her name at the altar when he was marrying another woman who had every right to leave him after that) Rachel deserved better.
Also with Chandler and Monica, Monica wore the pants in the relationship in a bad way. Almost every time they had a fight Chandler was always wrong and had to go up and beyond to make things right with her when she never did the same for him (a turkey dance doesn’t make a toe grow back) I was shocked to find out that one of the FEW times where Chandler was right in the Vegas episode the original plan was to have him cheat on her (thank you for saving his dignity Matthew Perry! RIP) she also talked down to him constantly and acted like a mother instead of an equal partner. The writers also dumped him down on multiple occasions to make her look more sympathetic like with “the best sex I’ve ever had” and “the cranberry involvement in the last thanksgiving” incidents (it never worked for me) I get they didn’t want to have gender seterotypes for their relationship but I never got the impression that Chandler was equal in the relationship as she would insist they have a family dog even though he is afraid of them. Chandler deserved better too.
The Gellers are a toxic family that Rachel and Chandler unfortunately have to live with.
That’s my opinion on it, what are yours?

I noticed the engagement has seemed to be on the decline recently and just wanted to share a bunch of stuff I’ve been working on and that I’ve collected the last couple days. A lot is only loosely related to the Drake/Kendrick stuff, but if you’re bored or find something interesting I’d love to hear some of your thoughts or opinions. If you find any of the info valuable and you’d like to add on that’s just a bonus. I really just want to spark some conversations as per usual. I’m open to valid criticism and if any of my info can be proven false let me know. Also feel free to add any supporting evidence or connections you have made, they are always appreciated!
Recently I started digging and trying to determine what criticism against Kendrick may be valid or not. Starting with a popular one, I personally think the Kodak Black features on Mr Morale were an attempt and possibly a successful one by Kendrick to become a mentor for Kodak. Despite the horrific crimes he committed, I think Kendrick and many other rappers see the potential for Kodak to shed all of the assumptions made about him up to this point and to become one of the biggest voices of his generation. He’s still in my opinion one of if not the most talented Gen Z rappers in the game. Even though what he did should never be forgotten or forgiven, one thing that’s important to keep in mind was Kodak’s upbringing, the environment he grew up in, and his age at the time of his most serious allegations.
In my opinion, Kodak is one the few examples where it’s important to be able to separate the art from the artist and where external factors should even be taken into consideration when deciding the punishment for any crime that’s sexual in nature. As most people know the human brain usually doesn’t stop developing until you’re at least 25, especially the section dedicated to impulse control and decision making. In my opinion, until someone is close to or past that age their brain isn’t fully developed and it’s important to take special consideration when they’re facing the legal system. This is especially true for minors or adults with severe mental handicaps, regardless of the type of crimes they’ve been accused of.
I’m not saying that anyone shouldn’t face severe consequences if found guilty. I just think preventing recidivism should be the primary goal when considering examples like Kodak or any other young black men. Considering all this, I do think external factors should have at least been taken into account if they weren’t already when deciding the length of his sentence. The same thing applies when examining Kodak’s entire life story, including his contributions to Mr Morale. This album is among many things, a testament to how someone can never grow out of all their childhood trauma. Also how so many people who experience prolonged stress or trauma at a young age often end up becoming products of the unhealthy experiences they’ve had throughout their lives.
Even those who dedicate themselves entirely to self-improvement often find many reactive behaviors are hard to deprogram and often can be triggered much later in life no matter how much success they achieve. What most people can control is whether or not they decide to continue this cycle of generational trauma or create a better life for them, their children, and the future leaders in their communities. Something Kendrick clearly resents Drake for is the way he blatantly role plays being a gangster and being “for the culture,” despite his comfy upbringing and glaring evidence stating otherwise. Sometimes it seems like he thinks GTA is the same as real life. Although it’s possible, people who commit all their crimes from the safety of their homes behind a screen typically aren’t given the same respect as those running the streets.
Even though Kodak is from the opposite side of the country and a totally different generation, the way I see it is Kendrick isn’t ignorant, and he wouldn’t have taken the risk of featuring him if it didn’t have a bigger purpose. Remember all the shit he got especially during and after the beef? Clearly there were other motivations, especially considering the fact he rarely features other rappers on his albums. It may even be another example of him baiting Drake with material for disses. Most people who can see these types of things objectively realize they are nuanced and multifaceted issues. It’s funny that him and his fans are still seeming to have difficulty making these realizations themselves.
Judging by some of vivid descriptions Kendrick has provided fans throughout the years of growing up in Compton; it isn’t hard to believe he may have seen some of his younger self in Kodak. I think he chose him because he at least saw some potential most people don’t and possibly to make a statement about how much worse Drake is. It seems like Drake depicts this hardened, street tough, mafioso character who is a product of the streets so people are more forgiving of his indiscretions.
While both Drake and Kodak were old enough to know better when these allegations or offenses occurred, the difference is, Drake has all the money in the world and grew up with a silver spoon. He easily could have pursued acting or even producing movies and TV shows if his acting talent didn’t cut it. I’ll admit I’ve never seen an episode of Degrassi or any other examples of him trying to seriously act, so if he’s brutal at it forgive me. He also could have pursued a variety of businesses and still built the empire he has today. He could have gone the R&B route or if he really was that passionate about rapping he could have kept it fucking real and stayed true to himself. He used to be pretty goofy and straight edge, but as soon as he started acting hard and trying to get people to take him seriously he seemed to start rubbing the majority of the rap game the wrong way.
On the other hand as Kodak has said, he would most likely be selling drugs right now if he didn’t make it in music. I think he’s also very aware there was a good chance he wouldn’t survived this long if he had gone down that road. You can’t fake the type of determination when your life literally depends on whether or not you make it in the game. That’s why many up and coming and even the most established rappers will do anything to get a sliver of the spotlight.
Another reason Drake seems to be almost universally hated in the rap game is because he takes up so much of the spotlight and seems willing to do anything to maintain it. Obviously we don’t know all the details just quite yet, but it doesn’t help that Drake and many other people in the industry have allegedly done things that pale in comparison to any of the crimes committed by Kodak and lot of them still haven’t been held accountable. Even in the rare case they are, they often show no remorse for their actions. I’m looking at you R. Kelly! The worst for me though is when they point fingers at others while they’re doing the same thing or something even worse.The hypocrisy is really what kills me.
It’s also pretty likely Kendrick wanted to use his clout in the industry to help get Kodak’s career back on track and hopefully expedite the process of him overcoming his past. Despite a very long campaign by the media where they were seemingly trying to turn the public against him, it appears like he might just stand a chance. Coincidentally or not, the media attention really seemed to pick up steam after he publicly supported Trump. One thing to keep in mind is the main contributing factor that led to Kodak’s support was Trump commuting his prison sentence.
While it’s still dumb as fuck to say in public, can you really blame the guy? He doesn’t seem very versed in politics, although I try to never judge a book by it’s cover. Who knows he might like his financial policies. He could also be getting paid to say it. I’m guessing the latter is probably more likely. On the other hand I have no problem believing people like DJ Akademiks would suck Trump off if he had the chance.
Admittedly Kodak has made a lot of missteps even after he entered into adulthood and after the Kendrick feature. On the other hand none of them have been close to as severe as the crimes he committed as an adolescent. In the last couple years, most of his struggles have been drug and gun related and a lot were tied to his previous convictions and parole violations. He does seem to be making a little forward process recently, which is nice to see (minus the rock throwing).
I think Kodak can at least go California sober, maybe with some psychedelics, MDMA, and ketamine thrown in there if he wants to party or even for therapeutic reasons. If he can also maintain a steady enough cash flow to pay for a large security detail, some goons, and some bribes, and a solid legal team he could probably avoid a lot of trouble. These things could really help him to fully take advantage of his talent and reach his full potential. (I go into a lot more detail about Kodak’s substance issues, mental health, and possible solutions in part two which I’ll post when I’m done editing.
At this point Kodak’s pretty much just getting way too fucked up, saying and doing a lot of off the cuff shit which is nothing new, and constantly getting pulled over with drugs or guns in the vehicle even if they don’t belong to him. While it doesn’t make them ok, all of these infractions seem to be pretty common amongst a lot of rappers young and old. It’s definitely been a pattern for Kodak ever since his career started taking off a decade ago. Obviously these crimes are often related to obtaining street cred and other superficial reasons, but it doesn’t mean there aren’t other major contributing factors. Most would probably agree at least some of these contributing factors are the results of systemic racism.
As far as I’ve seen, very few people get hounded and targeted by the media like Kodak has his entire career. Considering the fact he’s constantly being targeted by his rivals as well, and the fact he got shot not too long ago, I can understand why he stays high and strapped constantly. The only rappers who arguably may have had it worse were SixNine, King Von, and maybe Xxxtentacion, before the latter two were killed.
Speaking of rappers who died too soon, I always think it’s interesting to look at the events leading up to their deaths. It seems to be an increasingly common trend the last couple years. Some more recent examples include Juice Wrld, Lil Peep, Mac Miller, Pop Smoke, Young Dolph, PnB Rock, Takeoff, and Drakeo the Ruler. I know there are a lot more that I’m missing as well. For a while it seemed like every rapper I started fucking with would die not much later. I thought I was cursed. The number who have been incarcerated is quite high as well including YNW Melly, Bobby Schmurda, 03 Greedo, Meek Mill, TayK, and YB.
What people often neglect to acknowledge is the similarities in a lot of their ages, careers, upbringings, surroundings, and circumstances at the time when all of these controversies occurred. It’s also interesting to look at their labels and who their “rivals” were in the industry. Again it doesn’t mean they should be given any lenience if they did commit any serious crimes; I honestly still can’t believe some of them got off so easily even when taking all these factors into consideration. I have a theory that most of the controversies these young rappers are involved in are often connected to the constant public scrutiny aimed at them from such a young age. There is also the never ending legal battles, the time they spend in prison, and the constant attempts on their lives/careers.
Obviously most people just blame the lyrics in rap music, gang ties, drug addiction, or violent video games, simple problems with simple solutions. Most people want the easy fix and pretty much everyone tries to deflect the blame from themselves. The truth is everyone plays a part in systemic racism, some are the victims, some are the perpetrators, and sometimes the line can be difficult to distinguish between the two. Since white people can’t be victims of systemic racism, they often fight to prove they’re not the perpetrators. Still the truth is, no matter how hard they try, they’re still indirectly part of the problem. As long as they accept and are willing to admit to that fact, most people aren’t going to hold it over them.
When it gets interesting is how the black and white communities treat light skinned and biracial people vs those with dark skin. Another is how Hispanic people are treated when they grow up in black neighborhoods or try to emanate the culture and again how skin tone can make a difference. Does anyone remember the J Lo song where she drops multiple N bombs? It was pretty common when I was growing up for my Hispanic friends to say it with no thought or repercussions. My personal favorite examples of the line being blurred are in the cases of Rachel Dolezal and Jussie Smollett. Whenever I’m reminded of them I can’t help but laugh at the pure absurdity. Again the whole issue of systemic racism is extremely complicated and divisive. At the end of the day no solution is going to please everybody.
The influence of music, specifically rap, is usually a direct product of all these things and not the source. A lot of people who experience what I’m describing or have witnessed it throughout their lives are well aware it’s extremely difficult to fix and there is no “one size fits all” solution. It’s a slow process and while things have improved steadily the past few decades, there is still a long way to go and a lot that needs to be addressed and fixed.
Either way the music about harming or killing others, the drug game, exploiting women, or any other shitty behavior, is often targeted at guys like me, Akademiks, or even Drake. People who didn’t grow up around these types of things and haven’t been traumatized by them from a young age. A lot of the rappers know this and a good amount will do the same thing as Drake and lie or exaggerate their back stories if they really didn’t grow up like that. Most listeners are young, bored, teens or twenty-somethings and could really care less whether it’s the truth as long as it gets the ladies wet when they drive around the ‘burbs with their 8,000 dollar sound systems blasting it and their windows down.
These types of lies and exaggerations can be really dangerous when they involve people who have a lot of influence and money. There’s nothing wrong with listening and enjoying any genre or type of music. The problem is when people start acting out their favorite songs or emanating their favorite entertainers or influencers. It seems more common than not that these people choose the bad traits to adopt into their personalities rather than the good ones. This can be especially toxic when people try to convince others they have to act or behave a certain way to be a rapper or even listen to certain artists or varieties or rap. Rarely do these people stop trying, usually they’d rather do some dumb shit to prove their worthiness.
You often hear about these square, suburban kids who listen to way too much trap and drill music or discover scam rap and end up finding themselves in a lot of trouble. Usually these are the same guys who end up snitching or causing problems for the ones who are really about that life. A good example of people clearly sticking their noses where they don’t belong are SixNine and Akademicz. It’s funny how they’ve always supported each other, even through the snitching and SA allegations. I still want to know what happened to the 14 year old in the tape with Daniel and his homie. Obviously no personal info, but I’ve heard rumors that she disappeared and no one knows what happened.
Although Kodak is 26 now and still has a long way to go, I’m confident he can get it together in the next 5 years, and hopefully he’ll be able to maintain some level of peace and normalcy. One thing I’m very concerned about though is it seems like a lot of the industry, his opps, and the media have all teamed up to make him the next member of the 27 Club. If he can survive to 28, and get clean before 35, he should be able to adapt and learn how to handle the pressure of superstardom.
I truly hope he is able to make it through this period in his life and continue to lead the Florida Soundcloud rap movement, which fell heavily on him after X was murdered. I would hate to see him become just another of the many talented artists in the industry who died much too soon or ended up wasting a good chunk in prison. While I love Ski Mask and he’s an awesome rappeperformer, his output can not come close to reaching Kodak’s level. Even Drake was obsessed with his album Dying to Live, which I agree is fantastic. I think a lot of people overlook Kodak intentionally or not because many don’t see him as a serious artist or can’t get past his history.
Something that has been working in his favor recently is the fact he has been doing a lot of good for his community for many years and has seemed to have taken an interest in philanthropy. Even though it’s a common rapper PR move and it’s often to help their public image more than the community they’re serving, but at least he’s showing some remorse. In my opinion all artists who truly started at the bottom should at least try to give back to the community they harmed with their actions even if their image is squeaky clean. They just need to be careful about living in the same neighborhood once they get famous like Nipsey and Dolph. Chief Keef definitely had it right by moving to LA once it got too dangerous in Chicago.
Interestingly Kodak doesn’t seem to fuck with Drake so much recently, and he may also be on the rocks with DJ AK. Considering the latter has been accused of having his hand in a lot of Florida’s recent rap beefs, deaths, arrests, and other controversies, and has also been accused of snitching, being a confidential informant, a repeated s. offender, and a r. apologist, it’s probably not a bad move on his part. It’s also no surprise most of the real ones in the game see right through his facade.
Most people in the industry know to avoid politics in general and you definitely should avoid publicly supporting Trump or any other politicians considered right-leaning. Kodak, Wayne, and Ye have all gotten massive amounts of shit for it, but if anyone has a solid excuse it’s the former two and possibly A$ap Rocky. I guess because Ye has presidential aspirations and considering his history of mania and possible psychosis he might deserve a little less shit. At least it isn’t as bad as supporting Hitler. Still anyone who hasn’t had a prison sentence commuted by the guy, and even those who have, should probably keep their political opinions to themselves (for example Cardi B and Lil Pump).
I also think there is a good possibility that their public support may have been a motivating factor in their release in the first place considering. Does anyone else find it odd that commuting Kodak’s sentence was one of the last things he did before running for re-election. The fact that AK has seemed to get away with his very public support for Trump and no one really seems to notice or care, (even though they really shouldn’t), just makes me more suspicious he’s working with the Fed’s or their may be some political ties or motivations behind him getting away with all SA’s, setups, and snitching through the years. Obviously it’s more likely no one cares about him enough to even give him any of their energy. Considering everything else though I think there is a definite push by the republican part to win over more voters of color.
Interestingly AK is still marked as a democrat on his voter records. This makes me wonder if his support for Trump could be bullshit and maybe he’s just trying to bait or confuse young rappers into agreeing with his political views so he can take it out of context and hurt their image. Since the majority of the game seems to lean in the other direction with their own political views it kind of makes sense. I could go much deeper, but I’m gonna practice what I preach, leave the politics alone, and get back to Kodak and eventually Kendrick.
There is a long history of Drake seeming to be obsessed with certain up and coming rappers. He especially seems to have taken interest in Kodak, going as far as calling him the best rapper of his generation. Kodak has accused many others of snitching on him in the past. It’s not unlikely one of those people he was referring to were Drake or Akademik’s following Drake’s order. This could explain why there seems to be some animosity there, despite all the love-bombing and dick riding.
Here are some interesting links I wanted to share, along with some theories and possible connections. The links are directly below the descriptions and some have more than one relevant link.
Drake praising Kodak’s album https://genius.com/a/drake-says-kodak-black-s-dying-to-live-is-one-of-his-favorite-albums-of-the-last-five-years
Earl Sweatshirt calling Drake culture vulture in 2015 for trying to ride Kodak’s wave https://hypebeast.com/2018/10/drake-cosigns-kodak-black-earl-sweatshirt-responds
Kodak talking about attempts to take him down https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/341804-kodak-black-says-people-are-trying-to-take-him-down-news
Him playing off Drake cosign https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/368888-kodak-black-says-drake-co-sign-wasnt-a-big-deal-news
Him saying he won’t work with Drake anymore after A$ap collab. This is the only article I could find hinting at any real bad blood between the two. Paints it as jealousy and nothing more https://www.complex.com/music/a/brad-callas/kodak-black-collab-drake-21-savage-her-loss-album
DJ AK discussing beef with Kodak. He briefly mentions in the interview that Kodak accused him of being a snitch, yet I’m still having an incredibly hard time finding any interviews or evidence it ever happened. It may have even been suppressed, because pretty much every video is AK talking shit about Kodak, or from one of the interviews they did. I included the link to the transcript of the interview where AK claims that Kodak had accused him of snitching. https://www.summarize.tech/www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNZy1MwVF0
Kodak speaking highly about his connection with Kendrick. https://www.reddit.com/KendrickLamacomments/wljoj0/kodak_interview_about_kendrick/
I believe that Drake possibly tried to exasperate Kodak’s addiction issues by sending him 600,000 in crypto for no reason. I’d bet he’s probably sent him a lot more because he started co-signing him before he even turned 18. I wonder if part of his 400 million dollar deal requires him to use a percentage of the money to recruit artists. On the other hand it could be to help take them out the acquisition of blackmail on whoever causes them problems or refuses to sign their blood contract. Drake always hyped Kodak up and was a huge supporter, up until recently. It seems around 2022, the same year as his Kendrick feature, Kodak seemed to start getting pretty disenchanted with Drake. It also could be possible that Drake may have distanced himself for PR reasons, considering both of their histories it’s hard to tell. Didn’t Kendrick say he didn’t want to be seen with anyone blacker than him? I wonder if it’s related to the issues with A$ap. Kodak was apparently pissed that he did a song with Drake, when Drake had been stringing him along with the same promises, but was being flaky.
More Drake cosigns https://www.rap-up.com/2022/01/11/drake-co-signs-kodak-black/?amp
https://thesource.com/2023/07/22/kodak-black-drake-favorite-rappe
I also worry that Kodak may have gotten wrapped up in the current drama with Drake, Kendrick, Ye, AK, Cole, and possibly Diddy and other big industry hitters. Obviously it’s very likely this could paint an even larger target on his back. Based on all my knowledge of the situation I believe it’s reasonable to assume team Drake/Akademiks/UMG may be partially responsible for some of Kodak’s recent issues. This could also help explain the media’s obsessive coverage of Kodak and his every mistake. Even taking his history into account, it seems pretty excessive for his level of fame and influence. I hope he is able to beat the odds even though they seem to be stacked against him. Hopefully if my theory about Kendrick’s mentorship has some weight, it will help him take the final steps needed to get his shit together and protect his safety and career.
More info about Mr Morale features https://www.xxlmag.com/kendrick-lamar-backlash-kodak-black-morale-big-steppers/
Article about Kodak’s philanthropy https://hiphopdx.com/news/kodak-black-wants-to-be-known-as-a-philanthropist
It seems like a lot of people may be trying to take him out. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2022/02/15/3-people-and-kodak-black-shot-los-angeles-super-bowl-party/6795686001/
Kodak proclaimed to be Hebrew Israelite after his prison stay, Kendrick is also known to identify with the group. https://forward.com/fast-forward/374727/first-kendrick-lamar-now-kodak-black-another-rapper-goes-hebrew-israelite/
Getting back to Kendrick, another controversial claim thrown at him was that he was allegedly a big supporter of R Kelly. The article below explains why it’s most likely bullshit and also contains an example of Kendrick’s history of taking on the industry. I’m sure he may have been influenced by R. Kelly’s music because most artists are, but I’ve personally never seen him personally vouch for the guy and his behavior. I just think he’s mature enough to separate art from the artist. The article linked below makes it pretty clear that Kendrick wasn’t the main deciding factor in this whole Spotify issue. Again it’s all about the money as usual. https://pitchfork.com/news/kendrick-label-head-confirms-he-threatened-to-pull-music-from-spotify/
Another example of Kendrick going against the industry is when he formed his current label, pgLang which he splits 50/50 with Dave Free. He started the label in 2022, and uses an independent online distributor to release his music ever since. I imagine at some point he’ll probably try to buy Dave out if he hasn’t already. I’m sure the article below describes the origins of the name, but knowing Kendrick it very well could have a hidden significance or multiple meanings. This may be interesting to some people and I’m curious to hear any theories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGLang
The Reddit post linked below contains an interesting counter example to the precious examples. It alleges Kendrick recently used Interscope, a UMG subsidiary, for licensing on one of the diss tracks. This may show some type of financial motivation behind the beef, and although it’s different from signing a legit deal, some may still see it as being a bit hypocritical. Every musician I know personally is independent, but I’m sure someone who knows more about the industry and can explain in more detail why he made the decision. There’s probably a good chance it was for legal reasons, like using a sample from one of the many artist’s masters that the labels usually have ownership of. https://www.reddit.com/KendrickLamacomments/1chdi9today_confirms_kendrick_is_still_on_interscope/
Another example of a rapper who was caught lying about their ties to the industry was Young Dolph. He’s still one of my favorite rappers of all time, and I respected his honesty when he publicly admitted to it. Most of his real fans took his side, but there is always the chance he only did it because someone threatened to blow up his spot or was messing with his money. In his defense there is also a good chance his life, career, or someone he loved may have been threatened or blackmailed to force his hand. https://www.xxlmag.com/young-dolph-admits-signed-two-major-record-label-deals/
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/203958-young-dolph-sounds-off-i-shouldve-never-signed-this-fu-n-deal-news
To his credit, he still went on to turn down a 22 million dollar record deal so he could keep his masters and ownership of his label. Sadly he was killed not long after this after multiple assassination attempts linked to Yo Gotti, or someone associated with him. no surprise his own label has been doing great since Dolph was killed. Dolph’s label, Paper Route Empire, was always extremely competitive with Yo Gotti’s. The different is one was independent and one was signed under a bigger label. Guess which one was which. The sheer amount of “coincidences” like this make it difficult to believe all of these examples don’t have some connection. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/young-dolph-retained-ownership-masters-191557215.html#:~:text=The%20Mic%20report%20later%20showed,to%20remain%20an%20independent%20artist.&text=Soon%20after%2C%20he%20signed%20with,have%20ownership%20of%20his%20masters.
Young Dolph is just one of many incredibly talented artists who died senselessly and much too soon. Many of the other artists also seemed to also have a history of speaking out against the industry. One of my favorite Dolph songs is actually titled “Shittin’ on the Industry. For anyone who didn’t follow his career too closely, the song “Play Wit Yo’ Bitch” is what sparked the beef and still to this day is my favorite diss track of all time. His next album 100 Shots was almost entirely dedicated to him trolling Yo Gotti after a failed assassination attempt.
Dolph is a great example of what happens when artists don’t sign a deal, but are still able to break through and compete financially with artists on major labels. Sadly many who do sign a deal usually end up getting fucked and face similar consequences if they try to leave or make too much trouble for their label. Ye is one of the few living examples of major artists who got out of their deal without dying prematurely, ending up in prison, or being left completely destitute. https://www.reddit.com/Kanye/comments/zz49to/okay_so_whats_the_deal_with_this_guy_almost/
Below is an interesting interview Ye gave in 2022, around the same time as his antisemitism scandal and him breaking his contract with UMG. Although I don’t support his politics and will be the first to call him out when he says something stupid, he’s still in my opinion one of the most relatable, honest, and decent billionaires. Although I don’t consider myself a god or a genius, I do find myself agreeing with about 90 percent of the stuff he says. In this interview he speaks about the media, Kim being super shady after divorce, systemic racism, Diddy, and much more. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OqkgyU-Tu84
If you haven’t seen his recent interview with The Download he speaks directly about Drake and his relationship with Lucian Grainge, the industry and some of their shady tactics, and covers a few more somewhat relevant topics. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ADSa-OSliak
Sometimes I wonder if Diddy is intentionally martyring himself, sort of like what Kanye did with his career. This may be a misguided attempt to try to make up for his past crimes. It could also be argued that it’s the best way someone could repent for such terrible sins. Recently it seems like Diddy may be trying to change the industry to make a better environment for future artists. He also seems to be trying to promote religious morals and values he previously disregarded. Although this another classic PR move. Both him and Ye have been very vocal about their religious beliefs lately, which is another thing that most celebrities typically avoid speaking about publicly. Who knows he may genuinely think this is necessary for him to stand a chance at escaping an eternity in the Christian version of hell. Obviously this is a big reach, but the article below, along with his recent instagram posts, kind of lend to these theories. https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66716206.amp
Sorry for another tangent, I’ll get back to Kendrick again. Here are some more allegations leveled by Drake and his fans along with some evidence that may point to whether they are true or not. One thing Kendrick does admit to in a few songs through multiple albums is his difficulty resisting temptation and his promiscuity. I think based on his track record of honesty and transparency, he probably has cheated on Whitney in the past. This is obviously scummy behavior and could explain the rumors that they were separated or having issues in their marriage.
Another one of the allegations made by Drake included Whitney having a kid with Dave Free unbeknownst to Kendrick. There definitely isn’t enough evidence to sufficiently draw any conclusions, but there are some possible connections that could be seen as contributing evidence. As i was told in the comments, Dave Free left TDE in 2019, then Kendrick after the release of his final album. Still this may have had to do with TDE signing under UMG. As far as I know he never denied the claims Drake made, but if I’m wrong I’ll update this part.
While their relationship still seems pretty good, a lot of times artists have to pretend to be friendly to their label owners or they risk having their careers or reputations damaged and possibly even worse. Kendrick seems to be very aware of this fact and I can see him playing dumb or knowing and pretending he doesn’t because he seems to always be very strategic and patient enough to play the long game. If there is any truth to these claims he may be waiting until he can get the full ownership of his label and rights to all his masters before putting Dave on blast too.
Here are some of my favorite examples of artists pretending to like each other featuring some relevant faces. I love how none of them smile lol
This was apparently when Ye and Jay Z squashed their beef. https://consequence.net/2019/12/kanye-jayz-awkward-reunion/amp/
This was after Ye and Drake apparently squashed their beef. Very convincing… https://people.com/music/kanye-west-hangs-out-with-drake-after-saying-he-wants-to-put-rappers-feud-to-rest/
Ye looking a little suspicious of Drake again https://highxtar.com/en/the-drama-between-kanye-and-drake-in-a-nutshell/
Weirdly Drake and Jay Z seem pretty buddy buddy sometimes, but also have a kind of back and forth history. https://www.instagram.com/p/B9MZWhZnz3w/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet
The three also all collaborated on a single from Drake’s album Views. https://www.eonline.com/news/754168/drake-drops-new-music-with-kanye-west-and-jay-z
Later their appearances on Drake’s song, and their collaborative album were involved in the Tidal v Apple bs. https://www.businessinsider.com/kanye-west-no-watch-the-throne-2-jay-z-due-to-tidal-apple-rivalry-2016-10?amp
What is this a crossover episode? https://powerboise.com/kanye-west-diddy-drake-fought-yeezy-fashion-show-jay-z-broke-up/
Another weird crossover. Either these guys are fake as press on nails or they’re all just playing up the drama for money, fame, or more attention. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/kanye-west-jay-z-50-cent-diddy-onstage-together-240230/
Bonus Illuminati pic, Jay or Ye always looked like they didn’t trust each other. Again it could be for the media, but I just find it hilarious considering everyone thought they were best friends after Watch the Throne. They do have a very long history of working together, but like any other work relationship, their money seems to come first. It seems like business interests always take priority over work friendships. https://people.com/music/kanye-west-jay-z-friendship-timeline/
Also my all time favorite picture of Big and Puff in the 90’s https://www.reddit.com/Hiphopcirclejerk/comments/1b3v7wb/biggie_always_kept_an_eye_on_diddy/
Throughout the years many stories have surfaced of label owners intentionally interfering in their artist’s relationship or personal lives. I love how Suge made fun of Diddy for dancing in all of his artists videos. I’ve also mentioned Al B. Sure and how Diddy stole his wife and raised his son and previously went into the whole alleged Kanye, Drake, Kim Kardashian love triangle and all the other rappers partners Drake pursued. There are lots of other examples, but this is just to support the possibility that Dave Free may have had an affair with Whitney to get leverage over Kendrick. https://www.billboard.com/music/rb-hip-hop/throwback-thursday-suge-knight-diddy-1995-source-awards-6363520/amp/
If it turned out Drake is right and Kendrick really is raising Dave’s child, that could obviously really hurt Kendrick and his family. It could also severely damage his reputation in the industry. This may explain how Dave owns half the rights to Kendrick’s label, despite him appearing to have the desire to go fully independent. I might be wrong, but I can’t imagine Kendrick really needs Dave for anything.
While it seemed like they were very tight in the first picture I included from the beginning of 2022, the second photo is from another photo shoot at the end of 2022, and I could be wrong, but they both look a bit uncomfortable. Coincidentally the first picture was right before Kendrick officially left TDE and announced his second child publicly when he released Mr. Morale a few months with his wife and kids on the cover. While these all could be used as evidence to support the infidelity rumors, as I’ve said it also could have been the deal with UMG which was not long before Kendrick announced to the public he was leaving Top Dawg around the end of 2021. There is still a very good possibility there is no tension at all and they’re still friends and partners like most people seem to believe. A bunch of randomly selected photos and a couple loose connections only get you so far. While Drake may know something we don’t for all we know it may never be revealed publicly or even discussed. https://variety.com/2020/music/news/kendrick-lamar-signs-with-universal-music-publishing-1234816664/
I had to cut this post in half because apparently there is a character limit on posts. I’ll post part two in a minute. The rest is mostly bonus features and links to supporting evidence. It also includes a lot of random loosely connected issues I’ve been researching and writing about, along with a few personal anecdotes that I think are interesting and people may find relevant. I should be done editing the rest by tomorrow evening and depending on how long it ends up I’ll most likely have to do a part four and possibly five.
With gratitude,
The Randomest Moniker

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association announced that the 2024 Kate Wilhelm Solstice Award will be presented posthumously to Jennell Jaquays at the 59th Annual SFWA Nebula Awards® ceremony on June 8, 2024. The Kate Wilhelm Solstice Award is given by SFWA for significant contributions to the science fiction, fantasy, and related genres community. The award was created in 2008, with Wilhelm named as one of the three original recipients, and was renamed in her honor in 2016. Ms. Jaquays joins the ranks of the latest Solstice Award winners, including Cerece Rennie Murphy, Greg Bear, Petra Mayer, Arley Sorg, Troy L. Wiggins, Ben Bova, and Rachel Caine.
A multi-award winning and honored artist, game designer, editor, and activist, Jennell Jaquays left an indelible mark on the gaming industry and SFF community for nearly fifty years. Ms. Jaquays’ career began in college, when she and her friends created “The Dungeoneer,” one of the first licensed Dungeons and Dragons fanzines. Now, from magazines to books, Ms. Jaquays’ art can be seen on multiple covers and throughout the pages of the many different forms and iterations of Dungeons and Dragons’ media. Having designed two modules of her own, “Dark Tower” and “The Caverns of Thracia,” her writing was celebrated by players for eschewing traditional and linear game mechanics and are not only playable today–but continue to inspire game designers and GMs.
Also known for her game industry work at companies such as Coleco, TSR, and id Software, Ms. Jaquays designed and contributed to multiple projects such as Coleco Vision, certain levels on the Quake II and III video games, arcade conversions of Pac-Man and Donkey-Kong, Halo Wars, and created an expansion pack in Age of Empires III. Ms. Jaquays was nominated for multiple H.G. Wells Awards for her work and creation of the “Dark Tower” D&D module and for her design and illustrations on“Griffin Mountain.” Her work with Coleco’s WarGames won her the 1984 Summer C.E.S. original software award. Additionally, Castle Greyhawk won an Origins Gamer’s Choice Award for “Best Role-Playing Adventure,” and in 2017, the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design inducted Ms. Jaquays into their hall of fame.
Inspired by her own journey, Ms. Jaquays also became a recognized transgender activist, spending time working as the creative director of the Transgender Human Rights Institute.
"A beacon of hope and inspiration, Jennell Jaquays worked tirelessly in the spirit of community while gifting us with her art, her games, and her stories for almost fifty years," said SFWA Director-at-Large, Monica Valentinelli. "The Board is honored to commemorate Jennell Jaquays and her indelible legacy as an artist, writer, and game designer in the video game and tabletop roleplaying industries." Accepting on behalf of Ms. Jaquays at the 59th Annual Nebula Awards is her wife, Rebecca Heineman.

I love the show, and while I think Ross has his nice moments and some funny lines, he is by far my least favourite friend. Here are my reasons why:

1. He doesn't spend much time with his son.
   
2. His jealousy over Mark. Rachel worked hard for her career and he should have just been happy for her. He is directly responsible for the break/breakup with Rachel, then immediately slept with someone else.
   
3. When he lied about getting the annulment, all because he didn't want to be divorced rhree times.
   
4. I think him dating a student is problematic and unprofessional. She's young and kind of naive, and he is in a position of authority over her.
   

I do think he has some nice moments like when he got Phoebe the bike or how he was going to take Rachel to the prom, as well as a few others. But overall, he kind of drives me nuts.

As the finale ended, I found myself feeling immensely tired. I'm reminded of the scene in the Barbie movie, when Barbie rolls over, facedown on the grass and "waits for someone smarter to solve it," as well as America Ferrera's speech personifying the exhausting and conflicting dualities of being a woman today. I made myself watch the season until the end because I realized it was important to absorb all the data and form my thoughts on why this season bothered me the way it did.
As many have pointed out, the (male) lead producers banked on redoing an old trope, in which women are pitted against each other and destroy each other over alignment with a main male character and to win a sort of trophy of likeability from the audience and general public. The success of the Barbie movie, I think, marked a slow-building shift in the cultural zeitgeist about what we are open to consuming about female stories. Social movements, increased levels of understanding and education about tacit and internalized misogyny, mainstreaming therapy concepts and language...all have led to greater rejection of old themes like this that used to "sell" female stories. There was a massive failure in grasping this shift and telling a story that reflected it, to an audience that had "grown up" with the cast in the past 11 years. When the producers chose Lauren (I am choosing to call this cast member by her formal name because I believe that even the choice of her nickname was designed to paint her as frivolous and silly, an easy plaything, rather than a whole person) to be a sort of "truth-teller" in the final episode, to tell us the ending of this story, it personified this awful choice of the "old story" about women and their struggle, versus the emerging one.
Choosing Lauren was choosing the woman who lead with her sexuality and desirability to men, whose social currency was the unkind and unstudied way she attacked and competed with her female peers, and aligning herself with men in the form of them "choosing" her over other women (their wives, girlfriends... see Randall and Jax and James) who were dragging the men down with needs/expectations for the respect of consistency and domesticity. In some ways (and she probably resents and reacted strongly to this)... her life story/stimulus value is similar to that of Rachel's. "Lala" was like the cover of every Cosmo magazine proclaiming to help me "titillate my man" with "15 different mind-blowing blowjobs" that I voraciously consumed as a teenager. Ariana (and Katie) was supposed to be the dreary woman I was supposed to avoid wanting to become if I wasn't careful.
To have a woman who chose to spend the vast majority of the show vehemently swinging between dangerously admitting to, and then denying the truth and reality of her life--her career, her relationship, her core motivations and desires--serve as the "storyteller" who holds other women accountable and challenges the cast to be honest, was a disastrous choice. On several filming occasions, Lauren has literally left her seat this season, screaming about how she is "sick" of the cast for acts of dishonesty, fakery, and betrayal. I cannot think of a worse spokesperson to play this role based on a long, meticulously documented history of actions attempting to deceive the audience and cast, and even blatantly betraying them with her actions. But she was CHOSEN for this role, because historically, it worked. The best/safest person to take down another woman must be another woman--the producers knew this. They banked on a history of social discomfort with a woman in a leadership position, holding power--even as a figurehead. Ariana, they decided, must be broken down to old story of the dreary or hysterical woman who held a man back from pursuing his pleasures and self-fulfillment. Scheana was too political and self-involved to employ a full-fledged attack, and Katie was too representative of that female schema itself.
There was also a failure to understand this audience's interest in watching "average" but beautiful people struggle with real life problems and reconciling youthful fantasies with adulthood. When I began watching this show, I was a starving student, and I've spent the past decade working to enhance my circumstances, my knowledge of myself, and the world around me. There is hard work there, between taking on massive financial responsibilities, choosing things like therapy and self-help and different choices in partners and how to present in relationships, and struggling with self-compassion. She has attempted to make this argument before, but Lauren screaming about how Ariana, and how I, as an audience member, must care about putting food in the mouth of her child(ren) and the payments on her two luxury homes in Southern California... was a moment of deafening selfishness and misunderstanding about the core of the show--real struggle. The dirty, jangled blinds in Tom and Ariana's shared apartment, the immense weight of the cost of a fairly "average" wedding for Schwartz and Katie, Stassi forced to couch surf at the home of her ex boyfriend's former affair partner... I didn't enjoy the show because I felt these characters were gilded people who were just supposed to enjoy comfort and luxury they didn't "earn"--they struggled just like me. And I also grew up, and learned what it actually takes to get the things I wanted out of life, whether it was more peaceful relationships or a nicer home.
I believe that audience members like myself are more "comfortable" with Ariana's successes, because they are hard-won. Her changed behavior and poise is a reflection of the hard work of therapy. Placing in a professional ballroom dance competition takes talent and hard work, as does writing a well-received book, hosting shows, and being a compelling and well-spoken guest on other major shows. I respect that, and I respect her. I respect Lauren's struggle as well, but I cannot find empathy or sympathy in her tone-deaf assertions that anyone but her should care for and be responsible for feeding her child or paying her mortgages, especially as she expects to do it solely by exacerbating and monetizing interpersonal conflict while being filmed. Why should I care that she expected to pay for two mortgages by doing that? Why should the mostly female audience engaged in their own struggles with finances, childcare, self-worth, demanding respect from the world around us, care? Why would I, or any savvy member of the audience, agree that Ariana must "pay" for the actions of a former partner, not just through the trauma and the cost of healing, but in the enormous cost of alternate housing because the 40-something year old, capable person who failed her and their ten year relationship would not give her the grace of the space to recover by staying elsewhere for a time? These are assertions from a place of blind privilege and misogyny. And I deliberately say misogyny because there seems to be an expectation that women are supposed to absorb the shock, pain, and cost of trauma inflicted by men silently; there is an undeniable position that this female rage and hurt and desire to not just survive but THRIVE and live loudly through it, is unpalatable.
Lauren also represents an inherent problem in reality television that producers are tasked with solving--how much of the massaging and dramatizing of reality is acceptable, and how much "producing" feels disingenuous and patronizing to an increasingly aware audience. Ariana could have solved that problem for them--her proclamation that while it may not be loud and dramatic, maintaining her boundaries and walking away from situations and people who do not serve her IS her actual and chosen reality. Perhaps this could have served as a welcome departure from the tinny and superficial visuals and values of reality television, and served as a model for audience members struggling with similar choices. Again, choosing a known liar and actor to shout at a traumatized woman about not playing along with a forced interaction with her traumatizer that could have paid that woman's mortgages was a shocking choice and jarred me, and I hope most of the audience, in understanding the cold and callous reality of what we are watching and supporting.
I could write a whole essay on this piece alone, but I cried when I recognized Ariana's demeanor on the reunion. It was that of a woman who realizes what she is contending with and how she is going to be portrayed. She recognizes she cannot "win" in the micro or macro level by being completely vulnerable and honest in her rage and grief; that in fact, doing so will destroy her. And so she chose a soft voice, gentle reason in the face of pointed insanity and undeserved anger, and expressions of quiet confusion. I do not blame her, but I know the painful wisdom that brings a woman here.
To the producers who chose Lauren to influence the arc of filming and tell the story: have you learned from this experiment? To those of us in the audience who loudly opposed the way the story was told--will you keep watching? What would you need to see in any future seasons, in character development, in order for this show to feel compelling again?

As the finale ended, I found myself feeling immensely tired. I'm reminded of the scene in the Barbie movie, when Barbie rolls over, facedown on the grass and "waits for someone smarter to solve it," as well as America Ferrera's speech personifying the exhausting and conflicting dualities of being a woman today. I made myself watch the season until the end because I realized it was important to absorb all the data and form my thoughts on why this season bothered me the way it did.
As many have pointed out, the (male) lead producers banked on redoing an old trope, in which women are pitted against each other and destroy each other over alignment with a main male character and to win a sort of trophy of likeability from the audience and general public. The success of the Barbie movie, I think, marked a slow-building shift in the cultural zeitgeist about what we are open to consuming about female stories. Social movements, increased levels of understanding and education about tacit and internalized misogyny, mainstreaming therapy concepts and language...all have led to greater rejection of old themes like this that used to "sell" female stories. There was a massive failure in grasping this shift and telling a story that reflected it, to an audience that had "grown up" with the cast in the past 11 years. When the producers chose Lauren (I am choosing to call this cast member by her formal name because I believe that even the choice of her nickname was designed to paint her as frivolous and silly, an easy plaything, rather than a whole person) to be a sort of "truth-teller" in the final episode, to tell us the ending of this story, it personified this awful choice of the "old story" about women and their struggle, versus the emerging one.
Choosing Lauren was choosing the woman who lead with her sexuality and desirability to men, whose social currency was the unkind and unstudied way she attacked and competed with her female peers, and aligning herself with men in the form of them "choosing" her over other women (their wives, girlfriends... see Randall and Jax and James) who were dragging the men down with needs/expectations for the respect of consistency and domesticity. In some ways (and she probably resents and reacted strongly to this)... her life story/stimulus value is similar to that of Rachel's. "Lala" was like the cover of every Cosmo magazine proclaiming to help me "titillate my man" with "15 different mind-blowing blowjobs" that I voraciously consumed as a teenager. Ariana (and Katie) was supposed to be the dreary woman I was supposed to avoid wanting to become if I wasn't careful.
To have a woman who chose to spend the vast majority of the show vehemently swinging between dangerously admitting to, and then denying the truth and reality of her life--her career, her relationship, her core motivations and desires--serve as the "storyteller" who holds other women accountable and challenges the cast to be honest, was a disastrous choice. On several filming occasions, Lauren has literally left her seat this season, screaming about how she is "sick" of the cast for acts of dishonesty, fakery, and betrayal. I cannot think of a worse spokesperson to play this role based on a long, meticulously documented history of actions attempting to deceive the audience and cast, and even blatantly betraying them with her actions. But she was CHOSEN for this role, because historically, it worked. The best/safest person to take down another woman must be another woman--the producers knew this. They banked on a history of social discomfort with a woman in a leadership position, holding power--even as a figurehead. Ariana, they decided, must be broken down to old story of the dreary or hysterical woman who held a man back from pursuing his pleasures and self-fulfillment. Scheana was too political and self-involved to employ a full-fledged attack, and Katie was too representative of that female schema itself.
There was also a failure to understand this audience's interest in watching "average" but beautiful people struggle with real life problems and reconciling youthful fantasies with adulthood. When I began watching this show, I was a starving student, and I've spent the past decade working to enhance my circumstances, my knowledge of myself, and the world around me. There is hard work there, between taking on massive financial responsibilities, choosing things like therapy and self-help and different choices in partners and how to present in relationships, and struggling with self-compassion. She has attempted to make this argument before, but Lauren screaming about how Ariana, and how I, as an audience member, must care about putting food in the mouth of her child(ren) and the payments on her two luxury homes in Southern California... was a moment of deafening selfishness and misunderstanding about the core of the show--real struggle. The dirty, jangled blinds in Tom and Ariana's shared apartment, the immense weight of the cost of a fairly "average" wedding for Schwartz and Katie, Stassi forced to couch surf at the home of her ex boyfriend's former affair partner... I didn't enjoy the show because I felt these characters were gilded people who were just supposed to enjoy comfort and luxury they didn't "earn"--they struggled just like me. And I also grew up, and learned what it actually takes to get the things I wanted out of life, whether it was more peaceful relationships or a nicer home.
I believe that audience members like myself are more "comfortable" with Ariana's successes, because they are hard-won. Her changed behavior and poise is a reflection of the hard work of therapy. Placing in a professional ballroom dance competition takes talent and hard work, as does writing a well-received book, hosting shows, and being a compelling and well-spoken guest on other major shows. I respect that, and I respect her. I respect Lauren's struggle as well, but I cannot find empathy or sympathy in her tone-deaf assertions that anyone but her should care for and be responsible for feeding her child or paying her mortgages, especially as she expects to do it solely by exacerbating and monetizing interpersonal conflict while being filmed. Why should I care that she expected to pay for two mortgages by doing that? Why should the mostly female audience engaged in their own struggles with finances, childcare, self-worth, demanding respect from the world around us, care? Why would I, or any savvy member of the audience, agree that Ariana must "pay" for the actions of a former partner, not just through the trauma and the cost of healing, but in the enormous cost of alternate housing because the 40-something year old, capable person who failed her and their ten year relationship would not give her the grace of the space to recover by staying elsewhere for a time? These are assertions from a place of blind privilege and misogyny. And I deliberately say misogyny because there seems to be an expectation that women are supposed to absorb the shock, pain, and cost of trauma inflicted by men silently; there is an undeniable position that this female rage and hurt and desire to not just survive but THRIVE and live loudly through it, is unpalatable.
Lauren also represents an inherent problem in reality television that producers are tasked with solving--how much of the massaging and dramatizing of reality is acceptable, and how much "producing" feels disingenuous and patronizing to an increasingly aware audience. Ariana could have solved that problem for them--her proclamation that while it may not be loud and dramatic, maintaining her boundaries and walking away from situations and people who do not serve her IS her actual and chosen reality. Perhaps this could have served as a welcome departure from the tinny and superficial visuals and values of reality television, and served as a model for audience members struggling with similar choices. Again, choosing a known liar and actor to shout at a traumatized woman about not playing along with a forced interaction with her traumatizer that could have paid that woman's mortgages was a shocking choice and jarred me, and I hope most of the audience, in understanding the cold and callous reality of what we are watching and supporting.
I could write a whole essay on this piece alone, but I cried when I recognized Ariana's demeanor on the reunion. It was that of a woman who realizes what she is contending with and how she is going to be portrayed. She recognizes she cannot "win" in the micro or macro level by being completely vulnerable and honest in her rage and grief; that in fact, doing so will destroy her. And so she chose a soft voice, gentle reason in the face of pointed insanity and undeserved anger, and expressions of quiet confusion. I do not blame her, but I know the painful wisdom that brings a woman here.
To the producers who chose Lauren to influence the arc of filming and tell the story: have you learned from this experiment? To those of us in the audience who loudly opposed the way the story was told--will you keep watching? What would you need to see in any future seasons, in character development, in order for this show to feel compelling again?

Full disclosure I was born in 1960 in UK (hence the "behaviour"). When the Coupland book came out I recognised myself as GenX as portrayed, so I'm early GenX. Getting into 6502 and Z80 8 bit processors early on strengthened my GenX identification but doesn't account for all of it.
In the 50s and 60s the educational system was geared to produce factory and office workers for an economy which had existed for most of the century. I got endless hassle for failing to rote memorise multiplication tables and didn't fit at all. Most did fit. It wasn't about exploration, problem solving, points of view or anything like that. It was about compliance. I was being taught pounds, shillings and pence in 1970, even though everyone knew they were going to be replaced by decimal coinage the following year. This produced a generation with the lowest cognitive flexibility ever.
In the 1980s the factories started to disappear and IT was transforming office work. My peers failed to adapt. Their adaptability had (perhaps purposefully) been left to atrophy in childhood to make better factory workers. By the 90s they were settling into still lucrative career paths in more senior roles where they could leave interfacing with reality to the youngsters but the cracks were starting to show. I was mainly working in C++ for upstart firms with big software elements just like in Coupland. The Silver Surfers were Silent Generation people who were video calling their Millennial grandchildren before the Boomers in the middle had figured out how to turn the box on.
Today they are living fossils. Politicians like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson appeal because they want to turn the clock back to something they can understand, because they haven't been able to learn since Abbey Road came out. Johnson and ridiculous Brexit prophet Nigel Farage are both younger than me. They are play acting to an audience, as Jon Stewart pointed out with Tucker Carlson's bow tie.
Now they are very lost, and with no ability to learn, they have started to act out the behaviours they saw people of their age (then old people - double glazing, central heating and damp proof courses have made a huge difference) performing in the 1960s. And those people were born in the 1890s.
So I think Boomers are like the tragic Romanian orphans, prevented from developing correctly as children and now utterly lost. Meanwhile I'm programming in Go and Swift and this week I'm listening to Rachel Lavelle (utterly funny, haunting brilliant stuff). Lead poisoning probably contributed, but I look to the schools. There is also hope. I once thought society was in an irreversible cognitive decline. Every day on this sub people are describing Boomers not being able to comprehend the level of cognitive flexibility they have to employ each day just to keep a roof over their heads. It shouldn't be that way, but it is a cure for this worst of malaises.

After binge-watching and rewatching the series over two weeks successively, here are reasons why I believe Joey and Rachel was a huge mistake.
My answer is going to be a bit long but kindly bear with me.
CHARACTER UNDERMINING.
JOEY: From the start of the show, JOEY is portrayed as this womanising nympho who used and misused girls all the time. His mistreatment of women, however, was overlooked by fans and the FRIENDS (particular the females in the gang) due to his undying loyalty to his friends. As the man-child he is, you know he'd jump off a cliff for you if need be. Joey was an amazing friend who always put his friends’ need first. I remember Ross telling Chan about Kathy that if he first approached Joey on it, he'd stepped aside graciously. It takes a great friend to comprehend that. He once told Chan to step aside as Janice contemplated a reunion with her ex-husband, citing he shouldn't be the guy who breaks up a family. So you are telling me this guy would then go out of his way to have a relationship with Rachel, the baby mama of his best friend, where said relationship would ruin every chance of her getting back together with Ross as Ross thought with Jill, when it was the group concensus that they'll eventually end up together? Doesn't that make him a hypocrite? Doesn't that take away his one redeeming quality, which is loyalty to his friends?
RACHEL: Her character development was one of the most impressive on the show. Starting out as a spoon-fed spoilt daddy's girl, she run out on her wedding when she realised she is doing something she has no love and passion for, and begin to embrace the ‘real world’ as Monica welcomed her to it. Even in the pilot episode where she is at her most vulnerable, she resisted Joey's flirt on her. She would go on to perpetually bond with Ross after her own imagination of Ross during her date with Carl held them ‘perfect for each other’. She'd go on to love Ross very strongly and even amidst their breakups and pseudorelationships, she never stopped loving him. This is evidently clear when she confesses her love during Ross's relationships with Bonnie and Emily. She goes on to have a child with Ross, and had previously stated during Phoebe's pregnancy that when she has a child, it would be with the man she loves and it will be a keeper. We see the shock and disappointment on her face when she realised Ross wasnt gonna propose, hinting she eventually wants to marry him. And yet was willing to start dating him again after Emma's birth, after all, he is the guy “she is supposed to be with”, as she told monica in s02. After maturing into a responsible career lady and mother, you think she would throw away the chance to reunite herself, her daughter and the father (who is the love of her life)? NO. I believe it is this subconscious realisation that led her to keep slapping Joey's hand off whenever it went too far. She stopped the possibility as Ross did earlier with Jill. Let's not forget she had sex dreams of all the guys in s01 and didn't mean nothing then. So how does a kissing dream suddenly makes her fall in love with Joey, when she's supposed to be matured at this point?
UNFAIR TO JOEY
Joey's character was one who had one-night stands, no commitments. He was never used to the cuddling and romancing couple have after sex. He starts to infatuate on Monica after she started romancing with Chan and saw then cuddle. He hurriedly proposed to Phoebe and Rachel when he heard they were pregnant. He loves his friends in a certain weird way. But after Rachel lives with him, he actually falls in love for the first time due to their prolonged exposure to each other and the constant fun they have together. The same thing would have happened with Janine if she lived there long enough, in fact it had started already. He ends up dedicating his time to Rachel and her pregnancy, as the good friend he is. But did Rachel fall in love with as well? NO. Late in the show she begins to develop feelings for him, but plainly states to Phoebe it was nothing but physical (which I understood because it had been almost 2 years after Emma's conception, the last time she had had sex. A girl has needs). She later in Barbados goes on to tell Joey what she has is small ‘musings’ for him. On her labour bed, she admits to Monica she doesn't really wanna marry Joey after the accidental proposal, and responds with ‘sure, whatever’ when Mon asks if she loved him. It'd be unfair to Joey to have that relationship with Rachel when he's ‘crazy about her’ as he told Ross, but all she wanted was something physical. Since she didn't love him, it was inevitable she was eventually gonna drop him like she did all her other physical relationship and never go back to them (Paolo, Tag), and this would have ruined their friendship. I believe this is one of the realisations that made her stop the relationship. She didn't wanna lose Joey as a friend.
COMPATIBILITY
A lot of the arguments for this relationship was based on their compatibility while living together. But that doesn't necessate romance. Siblings have that too. Also, some say there was no crazy drama in their relationship like Ross's. That's an unfair comparison. Well what kinda couple fight in a week of dating? That's when the spark is lit and flaming. Rachel and Ross were together for a year and were bound to knock heads sometimes, as it happens in every relationship.
CHEMISTRY
I can't deny Rachel and Joey had fun and bonding during their stay together. But when it comes to choosing a life partner, it's not about who you throw wet towels and drop spaghetti on the floor with. Rachel and Joey did have fun, but it was all childish games. Ross and Rachel was different, as Rachel said ‘we have tenderness, we have intimacy, we connect’. From the first season, you could see how their moods light even when just chatting with each other. They didn't just have fun repelling the bully at the laundromat, but Ross ended up teaching her to stand up for herself, which led her to give him a kiss then long before they even started going out. In her fantasy imagination on her date with Carl, she tells Ross he's her best friend and ‘don't wanna lose’ him should they break up. They took walks alone constantly where she points the valuable pin Ross later gifts her as a birthday present. There was a permanent bond there with Ross from the onset, unlike Joey who she saw as a womaniser and man-child in the beginning and only started to have some liking to him when they started to hangout exclusively only after she started living with him.
Ross and rachel deserved to be together because they loved each other and by the time of the finale, had matured over the years and now have a child together, a common loving ground outside the love they have for each other. Joey and Rachel would have been a one-sided love affair and i honestly believe he deserved better. A woman who would love him as much as he would her.
I hope I have cleared a lot of stuff. At the end of the day, all this is fiction and left for interpretation. But what is right is right ✅️ HE'S HER LOBSTER.

Am i the only one who think that Winfield character Jimmy (Harriette and Rachel long lost father) should have been a recurring character after his first appearance and the kids learning about their grandfather they thought he was dead?? I know that Showrunner originally afford him a recurring role but Winfield declined to instead focusing on his movie career

1. Taylor Swift's younger brother, Austin Swift, manages her music licensing for film, which is how "Message In A Bottle" ended up in the DC League of Super-Pets end credits or how "My Tears Ricochet" ended up in the It Ends With Us trailer.
2. Additionally, Taylor Swift's parents, Scott and Andrea Swift, reportedly help run 13 Management, her management company.
3. Jillian Demsey is an accomplished makeup artist, and her husband, Patrick Demsey, is one of her clients.
4. Angelina Jolie is producing The Outsiders on Broadway, and her 15-year-old daughter, Vivienne Jolie-Pitt is volunteering as her assistant.
5. Miley Cyrus's mom, Tish Cyrus-Purcell, is her longtime co-manager.
6. Kayleen McAdams is a celebrity makeup artist, and her sister, Rachel McAdams, is one of her clients.
7. Since 2001, Vin Diesel's sister, Samantha Vincent, has been the president of One Race Films, the production company he founded in 1995.
8. In 2023, Pink shared that her then-11-year-old daughter, Willow Hart, "has a job on tour."
9. Even before their Keeping Up with the Kardashians days, Kris Jenner has been the manager — or "momager" — for her children Kim Kardashian, Khloé Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian Barker, Rob Kardashian Jr., Kendall Jenner, and Kylie Jenner. She reportedly gets 10% of everything they earn from their beauty brands, licensing deals, and modeling gigs.
10. Katherine Heigl's mom, Nancy Heigl, is her manager as well as the co-founder of her production company, Abishag Productions.
11. Property Brothers stars Jonathan and Drew Scott have an older brother, JD Scott. He hosts HGTV's online behind-the-scenes videos for his brothers' competition show, Brother Vs. Brother.
12. Heidi Klum's dad, Günther Klum, is the managing director of her company Heidi Klum GmbH & Co. KG.
13. Sharon Osbourne has been Ozzy Osbourne's manager longer than she's been his wife. Her father managed Black Sabbath. Then, in 1979, Ozzy was kicked out of the band, and Sharon took over as his manager and encouraged him to go solo.
14. And finally, Megan Thee Stallion's mom, Holly Thomas, quit her full-time job to manage her daughter's career until her death in 2019.

Link to article

While sitting on the toilet today, I was thinking about how stupid Carl is. I should preface this by saying I, too, don’t drink but I smoke weed. The fact that Carl is now trying to pursue a motivational speaking career and promote his “sober” lifestyle is insane to me. Like bro, you’re still using substances as an escape—which is fine! Again, I do it too!—but let’s not pretend you’re the picture of sobriety. And let’s DEFINITELY not pretend your shaky-voiced, non-identity self is a MOTIVATIONAL SPEAKER.
I’m far from Lindsay’s biggest fan, but I completely agree with her complaints about Carl. He can’t take any questions or criticism, and he runs to his mommy and step daddy to end his relationship for him. If there’s such thing as negative respect, that’s what I have for Carl.
Edit: right after posting this I had the thought that Carl and Rachel Leviss would be a perfect match in the worst way possible

I like to do little projects like this from time to time as pertaining to my passions, so, for anyone who's interested in which Bond actors over the years have become Academy Award winners, here's a compilation I've put together, with a bit of a write-up on each. There are twelve in all, counting three Oscar winners who have appeared in the non-Eon Bond films.
William Holden
Having appeared in such legendary greats as Sunset Boulevard, Sabrina, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, William Holden found himself slumming it in 1967's Casino Royale when he appeared as CIA chief Ransome, joining M at the beginning of the movie in exhorting David Niven's James Bond to return to active duty. He had won his Best Actor award many years prior, for his role as the cynical Sergeant J. J. Sefton in 1953's Stalag 17, directed by Billy Wilder.
His competition for Best Actor that year included Marlon Brando for Julius Caesar, Richard Burton for The Robe, and both Montgomery Clift and Burt Lancaster for From Here to Eternity.
David Niven
The debonair David Niven (who was actually suggested as a possible Bond by Ian Fleming) won the Best Actor award for his portrayal of the maligned Major David Angus Pollock in the 1958 ensemble drama Separate Tables. With just twenty-three minutes and thirty-nine seconds of total screen time, his is the briefest performance ever to be awarded Best Actor. The win came at what would be the midpoint of Niven's career, after he had starred in A Matter of Life and Death, Around the World in 80 Days, and My Man Godfrey, but before The Guns of Navarone, The Pink Panther, and Casino Royale.
Niven was up against some extremely stiff competition here. Other contenders for Best Actor that year included Paul Newman for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Spencer Tracy for The Old Man and the Sea, and both Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier for The Defiant Ones.
Christopher Walken
The future Max Zorin won his Oscar relatively early in his career, garnering Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of the ill-fated Corporal Nick Chevotarevich in 1978's The Deer Hunter. That was his breakout, and all of his most famous roles followed. Though he was a relative newcomer to Hollywood, the Academy likely made the right choice, as his competition from that year has since faded into comparative obscurity. They include Bruce Dern for Coming Home, Richard Farnsworth for Comes a Horseman, John Hurt for Midnight Express, and Jack Warden for Heaven Can Wait.
Sean Connery
After years of trying to break out of James Bond's shadow, Sean Connery was awarded Best Supporting Actor for his performance as James Malone, honest cop and mentor to Elliot Ness, in 1987's The Untouchables. Though hardly a pauper when it came to meaty roles, this would be the start of a new, bigger era of Hollywood stardom for Connery, particularly in the recurring role of the older, wiser mentor figure, opposite younger, brasher co-stars like Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin, Wesley Snipes, Richard Gere, Nicolas Cage, and Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Similar to that of Christopher Walken, Connery's contemporary competition seems to have faded over time, none holding up like his turn in The Untouchables. They include Albert Brooks for Broadcast News, Morgan Freeman for Street Smart, Vincent Gardenia for Moonstruck, and Denzel Washington for Cry Freedom.
Kim Basinger
Fourteen years after she played Domino Petachi in Never Say Never Again, Kim Basinger was awarded Best Supporting Actress for her performance as femme fatale Lynn Bracken in 1997's L.A. Confidential. The 1980s had been her decade, culminating with the success of Tim Burton's Batman in 1989, but her career fizzled a bit in the early 1990s, leading her into semi-retirement. Her star turn in L.A. Confidential was a triumphant resurgence. Her competition included Joan Cusack for In & Out, Minnie Driver for Good Will Hunting, Julianne Moore for Boogie Nights, and Gloria Stewart for Titanic.
Judi Dench
Shortly after assuming the mantle of M in the James Bond series, the prolific Dame Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress for her brief but memorable turn as Queen Elizabeth I in 1998's Shakespeare in Love. After an already long and distinguished career in theater, film, and television, Dench's Hollywood profile expanded greatly around this time, leading to many high profile roles and additional Oscar nominations.
At not quite six minutes total, Dench's screen time in Shakespeare in Love might seem so brief as to be easily dismissed, but, like the runners-up of certain other years on this list, her competition has not endured in the annals of popular culture. They include Kathy Bates for Primary Colors, Brenda Blethyn for Little Voice, Rachel Griffiths for Hilary and Jackie, and Lynn Redgrave for Gods and Monsters.
Benicio del Toro
Bond fans likely still associate Benicio del Toro with the sadistic, knife-wielding thug Dario in Licence to Kill, though his career has grown quite varied and distinguished since then. He won Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of jaded but honest police officer Javier Rodriguez in the 2000 film Traffic. He competed against Jeff Bridges for The Contender, Willem Dafoe for Shadow of the Vampire, Albert Finney for Erin Brokovich, and, perhaps most impressively, Joaquin Phoenix in the role of the evil Emperor Commodus for Gladiator.
Halle Berry
Bond girls, at the time of their casting in a 007 movie, usually range from the lesser known to the completely unknown. Halle Berry, by contrast, was an international superstar and Oscar winner before Eon ever came calling. She was the first African-American woman to win Best Actress, for her performance as Letitia Musgrove in the 2001 film Monster's Ball. Though at the top of the world then, her star seemed to decline over the ensuing years, with a series of less prestigious, less popular roles, often in unsuccessful projects.
Halle Berry triumphed over an impressive field of contenders, including Judi Dench for Iris, Nicole Kidman for Moulin Rouge!, Sissy Spacek for In the Bedroom, and Renee Zellweger for Bridget Jones's Diary.
Javier Bardem
After a distinguished career in Spanish films, Javier Bardem won Best Supporting Actor (and made his Hollywood breakthrough) for his portrayal of the seemingly unstoppable psychopath Anton Chigurh in 2007's No Country For Old Men. His eerie, chilling performance gave him the edge over such worthy competitors as Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson's War, Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild, Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton, and Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
Christoph Waltz
Christoph Waltz is the only actor on this list to have won two Academy Awards, both while working for Quentin Tarantino. He won Best Supporting Actor for his portrayal of the evil Colonel Hans Landa in 2009's Inglourious Basterds, then again for the role of bounty hunter King Schultz in 2012's Django Unchained. This is especially impressive considering his career prior to 2009 had consisted almost exclusively of roles in German movies and TV shows. As soon as he became a known commodity in Hollywood, he started raking in the awards.
His competition in 2009 included Matt Damon in Invictus, Woody Harrelson in The Messenger, Christopher Plummer in The Last Station, and Stanley Tucci in The Lovely Bones. His competition in 2012 included Alan Arkin in Argo, Robert De Niro in Silver Linings Playbook, Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Master, and Tommy Lee Jones in Lincoln.
Rami Malek
Rami Malek was awarded Best Actor for his portrayal of Queen lead vocalist Freddie Mercury in 2018's Bohemian Rhapsody. Though the film is controversial, Malek's spot-on impression of Mercury helped him soar to victory over such worthy competition as Christian Bale in Vice, Bradley Cooper in A Star Is Born, Willem Dafoe in At Eternity's Gate, and Viggo Mortensen in Green Book.
Michelle Yeoh
The latest member of Bond's Oscar club, Michelle Yeoh was awarded Best Actress for her performance as multiverse-traveling Evelyn Wang in 2022's surreal sci-fi comedy Everything Everywhere All at Once. Her competition included Cate Blanchett for Tar, Andrea Riseborough for To Leslie, Michelle Williams for The Fabelmans, and fellow Bond girl Ana de Armas for Blonde.