The Studio (season one on Apple+)

Considering this show nominated for a ton of Emmy’s, I think it’s a safe bet it’s already renewed for more episodes.
And if Hollywood loves something more than giving each other trophies, it’s making fun of themselves.

The Studio is probably the most divisive Apple series I’d seen so far. Divisive meaning I don’t think I’ve went back and forth this much in deciding whether or not I actually enjoyed watching a series. That’s kinda wild, especially since each episode (except the pilot) is half an hour long and I could end one having a good time and the other being back to square one skepticism.
(Also- I should TM “square one skepticism”- that sounds as cool as “old school Hollywood buffet”… watch episode 9 for additional context)

Unlike previous series I’d watched, I didn’t go into it because of one specific actor. I figured it was a series about making movies and I took a stab.
I’m not even a Seth Rogen fan. He did have some good moments but he had just as much cringeworthy moments that I don’t think my status as a fan had changed.
Catherine O’Hara is an over-the-top movie producer, sometimes too much, but it’s one of those roles she pulls off well.
Among studio head Matt Remick (Seth Rogen)’s employees are Sal Saperstein (Ike Barinholtz in another role tailor-made for him), a marketing person played by Kathryn Hahn and Quinn, a plucky young producer eager to make her mark in the movies.
Also Bryan Cranston as Matt Remick’s eccentric boss, Griffin Mill.
Not to mention the dozen or so cameos of celebrities playing themselves.

Aside from Seth Rogen’s shenanigans (more on that later), the one other aspect I didn’t enjoy about this show is Kathryn Hahn’s character. I’m not super familiar with her career so I’m not sure if it’s just this role or she’s like this all the time. She was just WAY too much. Her dialogue is either shotgun fast that I just want her to stop talking or she speaks like she’s pandering. Either politically correct BS or she’s trying to be “down with the kids." She talks like someone who’s gen Z and in real life, she’s older than Seth Rogen (I recently learned he's just 4 years older than me!). It just didn’t make sense and it irritated me.

As for Seth Rogen as Matt Remick, he’s the main character so of course I want to see him succeed.
When he got promoted to studio head, he talked about wanting to make the kinds of movies he wants to make. Not going for easy cash grabs and box office totals, he wanted to make art that would also be financially successful. That much was clear in the pilot where Griffin Mill wants to make a Kool-Aid movie (riding on Barbie’s hot pink coattails) and Matt tried so hard to make an artsy Kool-Aid movie with Sorcerses directing— which was less about Kool-Aid and more about a cult that brought “drinking the Kool-Aid” into the public lexicon.

Other storylines revolve around other movies (thankfully Kool-Aid wasn’t the only movie they were making) and the ups and downs coming with production. Some of which ran into snags because he was interfering or overzealous with making suggestions. But others weren’t.

One nice thing about having these be half an hour per episode is how it condenses everything down to a single event or movie. How much of it is tongue-in-cheek and how much are things people in Hollywood actually have concerns about- I’ll always be slightly curious. In a few interviews, Robert Downey Jr would say how he’d approach making movies by picturing himself as an audience member. Bearing in mind what people expect to see and making certain moments more impactful when it counts. I’m sure there was more to it- it’s been a while- but it’d be nice to think other actors feel the same way. Some of them are just as frustrated by certain things that’ve grown unnecessarily prevalent in the industry as we are.

My two favorite episodes or at least the most memorable for the right reasons were about a One-Shot sequence and the other involving an infamous “motel sequence”.

One-shot is an instance in movies where long sequences are shoot in one continuous long take with no cuts. 1917 was almost entirely shot this way as was the Alejandro Inarritu Oscar winning "Birdman." This was something I’d already heard of before going in so I was already ahead of the game.
But all the ways Matt Remick interferes with this shoot because he doesn’t have the sense to know when to shut up… all I can say is stick around for the end. He got on my nerves, but it ended with such a huge laugh that the prior frustrations could easily be forgiven.

As for the motel sequence movie, it’s a Ron Howard film "Alphabet City" starring Anthony Mackie. Matt Remick and crew are watching the final cut in a theater. They’re loving and enjoying it… until it winds up with a ridiculously long runtime. The final half hour is this bizarre, over the top, self-serving scene where nothing happens. It’s Anthony Mackie with (presumably) his son and they just stand together in silence staring at the moon.
Kathryn Hahn is especially angry about the runtime because after discussing with her people, she learns that theaters will only be able to show it twice a day and it’ll be a financial disaster as a result. The one time in the entire series I agreed she had a point. 

Plus there’s been a lot of talk in recent years about movies being too damn long. I think someone published a stat prior to the 2025 Oscars that the average length of best picture nominees was long... looked it up, the average was 2hr29min.

Oppenheimer and Christopher Nolan movies have gotten this criticism for years but I think the Adrien Brody movie “the brutalist” ran over 3 and an half hours. (Looked it up, it's 215 minutes, which apparently includes a 15-minute intermission... WTF! and you thought his Oscar speech was long...)

The only problem left was who would be the one to tell Ron Howard… not only do we learn the motel sequence was a tribute to a cousin who’d died young but Matt is especially hesitant to be honest because he once gave Ron Howard painfully bad advice.
It all works out in the end but just the amount of craziness that culminates, it was a blast.

Some low points… I’d said how Matt Remick can’t shut up when it’s in his best interest to do so… he's smart on occasion but his ego is so fragile, you'd have to barely breathe on it and it would shatter instantly.
The most memorable is being a plus one at a doctors' charity event and going on a rant about how his job is just as important as doctors saving cancer patients.
Sure, all hospital rooms have a TV and people need entertainment to lighten the mood when they’re already not feeling well. But his blatant disregard for the medical profession, thinking working in movies is even on the same level, if not better… if anyone got through this episode without screaming at him or wanting to strangle him, I’d give them a dollar all while questioning their judgment.

Then we have an entire episode essentially dedicated to Hollywood’s obsession with diversity and political correctness.
Casting the Kool-Aid movie and wondering if it’d be racist to cast Ice Cube as the lead. Then it accelerates until they're left wondering whether it's possible to go too far when you make the entire cast black?
Personally, I’m a little curious if people in Hollywood are actually having these kinds of conversations. Seems like no matter what they do, some group (marginalized or not) will take issue with it.
This all culminates in a massive convention announcement and now the burning question is whether AI is going to put all the writers out of work. All important conversations to have, but omg, what a mess.
Also- since when has Kool-Aid been a product affiliated with the black community? I’ve literally never heard this. I'm white and grew up drinking Kool-Aid in the 90's so I thought at most it was a middle class thing.

Another sort of low point for Seth Rogen— obsessing over whether Zoe Kravitz is going to thank him in her acceptance speech. He just takes this whole thing way too far and I wouldn't have been surprised if all that effort was wasted.
Probably the best part was someone else getting thanked and name dropped over a couple speeches. I’m sure this piggybacked off Oscar winners in recent years thanking their publicists and all the winners afterwards doing the same.

A lot of the guest star actors playing themselves were great sports at poking fun of themselves. Although regarding the episode revolving around a missing reel of Olivia Wilde’s movie, I wonder how much was true to her as a person or they deliberately made her out to be a perfectionist. And not just a perfectionist but David Fincher “doing 50 takes of someone opening a door” crazy perfectionist. (Him and Stanely Kubrick apparently pull this stunt in all their movies).
Olivia had also gotten some heat recently on the set of “Don’t Worry, Darling." (Looked it up... these rumors apparently were unfounded so I guess the "Missing Reel" episode was making light of those rumors)

The final episodes were a two parter where all the actors spent half of it tripping on shrooms (Zoe Kravitz was a riot in this storyline!) and the other half trying to get everything together and tracking down a wayward Griffin Mill so Continental Studios can pull off a killer presentation at CinemaCon.
It ends on an odd note but man, the journey leading up to it, you just have to see for yourself. It’s insane.

One final highlight actually didn’t involve Matt Remick much at all. Rather, it was a tit for tat rivalry between Sal Saperstein and Quinn. Each of them has a horror movie they want to get made and they’re willing to pull out all the stops to make that happen. Again, it’s crazy over-the-top ridiculous so you’re better off just enjoying the ride cuz, oh boy, it’s a doozy.

I just really appreciated the issue this was addressing. I don’t like watching horror movies in general but I’m especially not a fan of the same concepts getting used to death and dragged out over a dozen sequels. Plus, “Smile” is a recent success story that has since spawned exactly one sequel and the fact Sal is backing a film called “Wink” that rips off that concept and has the same person directing it… I’m definitely on Team Quinn for this one.
I get that Hollywood is a business and businesses revolve around making money but c‘mon!! To rephrase a quote from Herman Melville, I’d rather them fail at something original than to continue succeeding with the same old stuff they’ve done a billion times over.

Whether you enjoy series about making movies, gratuitous cameos from actors playing themselves, or making fun of the whole institution, I’m sure this series has something for everyone to enjoy. Some points do require a little more patience than others and I’d highly recommend sticking it out to the end before you form an opinion on "The Studio" as a whole.

Theatrical Review: The Lion King

Date: Sunday July 28 2019
Location: Cinemark Theater in Stroud Mall
Time: 11am
Party: 3 (my mom, sister and I)

Director: Jon Favreau 
Writers: Jeff Nathanson (screenplay) and Brenda Chapman (story)
Composers: Hans Zimmer (score), Elton John (music) and Tim Rice (lyrics)

Cast:
Simba- Donald Glover
Nala- Beyonce 
Scar- Chiwetel Ejiofor
Zazu- John Oliver
Rafiki- John Kani
Sarabi- Alfre Woodard
Shenzi- Florence Kasumba
Keegan-Michael Key- Kamari
Eric Andre- Azizi
Timon- Billy Eichner
Pumbaa- Seth Rogen
Mufasa- James Earl Jones (seriously- who else?!)
JD McCrary- Young Simba
Shahadi Wright Joseph- Young Nala

(hopefully that's everyone... )


Duration: 118 minutes (+7 previews)


Introduction

OMG- I have been looking forward to this for a long time. I forgot where I ranked it in my top 100, but The Lion King is one of my all-time favorite movies. Not just animated or Disney, but all time. I think the only thing that beat it with animation was Spirited Away. But this one is very close to my heart and a big part of my childhood. Heck, I still have all of my lion plushies- a lion from the Ringling Bros. (a cirus that had no lion tamer, by the way- I'm still disappointed about that), a lioness and three Disney plushies of young Simba, Kiara and Kovu because I LOVED the direct-to-video sequel.  

But after seeing Aladdin, I still had some nerves about what kind of adaptation this would be. Even with Beauty and the Beast, as good as it is, there were still some bits I didn't like how they changed it.

Just to get it out of the way, I am very pleased with this version of Lion King. In some respects, it's actually better than the original... or I just liked how they did some things in this version more. And there are parts I prefer from the original and that'll never change. This is one DVD I'll definitely be getting. 

One thing I will add about the theater. It filled up a bit, but it wasn't full. But this felt like the stiffest audience. There was no cheering after the Circle of Life and no cheering after the credits. Maybe a chuckle or two, but still... was everyone still asleep or were they really not that impressed? 
And I'm not easily impressed either- especially something I feel this strongly about. 

Trailers

Clearly these trailers were geared towards kids more than adults... but there were a couple exceptions. 

The Art of Racing in the Rain- I'm not seeing a dog movie in the theater again after "Marley & Me", but the fact Milo from "This Is Us" is in it, I might google spoilers to see if anyone dies in the end so I can spare myself the grief. 

Playing With Fire- either John Cena has the same agent as Dwayne Johnson or his agent saw The Rock's successful crossover from wrestling to movies to Sexiest Man Alive and wants him to follow the same route. He was kinda funny in "Trainwreck," his acting debut, but a little over the top. Now he's doing a lot of Nickelodeon stuff like hosting "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" This movie-- it's almost as goofy looking as The Tooth Fairy was (somehow The Rock got past that and made something bigger out of his career... the Furious franchie might have helped with that). But John Cena and these firefighters adopt these kids after a fire destroys their house and it's full of stupid humor. Although the kid getting his mastiff to obey in an instant was hilarious...

Dora and the Lost City- this is a weird one for me... Dora the Explorer came around way after I was too old to like kiddie shows, but it's still kinda weird that they're making a live action version of her all grown up. I'm not sure if that same nostaglia factor will be in there. Plus it seems to have that self-aware humor a lot of Nickelodeon stuff has nowadays. 

Cats- ooh, mixed feelings about this one... PBS aired the original musical on Greatest Performances years ago. I think I was in 8th grade at the time. I don't know if it was the music or the visuals or the fact the TV was on too loud, but I went to bed halfway through and couldn't sleep. Then I got out of bed, saw the end... and I barely slept and I had school the next day. I love cats in general, but something about this show, I find a little unsettling. Thinking about "Memory" and the ending-- it was a happy ending too... it makes me burst into tears. 
I haven't read any comments on the trailer that was just released, but I'm already under the impression that a lot of people aren't going to like this version. The overall look of it is a little strange- although motion capture is a better move than what they did with Mike Meyers and the Cat in the Hat. Some of the same characters from the original I can pick out- like the lithe female white cat, Rum-Tum-Tugger and Deuteronomy (what, that's Judi Dench's character?! That's supposed to be a male character... not sure if I like that). But Jennifer Hudson seems to be playing Grizabella, the cat singing "Memory"... and she's just a diva cat that had her heyday and has become a hasbeen. I'm sure some die-hard fans of the play are not going to like that particular part of the adaptation. Not the diva angle or the race angle, but because she doesn't look old enough for that part. Elaine Paige's talent can't be denied, but the makeup and costume for Grizabella, for me, was scary beyond all reason. I mean, they had a song prior to "Memory" where the other cats were dismissive of her, almost like they were pegging her as a scary old woman that nobody should go near. So they're making her a little more approachable in this version... which I guess is good. It'd make me want to see what they do with it. But there are probably people hating also because Taylor Swift is in it somewhere... I cannot undersand why people constantly dump on her, or any of the clean cut nice girls in the entertainment business. 

Yeah... for a musical I have unpleasant memories (haha, not an intended pun) about, I remember a lot... but I have this weird issue where I remember the unpleasant things far more than things that make me laugh and smile.

Angry Birds 2- Um... the fist movie wasn't a success, why are they making a sequel?! (although the dance battle was pretty hilarious) 

Abominable- ok, are Bigfoots and Yetis IN now? What is what all of these movies lately about these guys? They're going from an Asian angle with this one and the girl who discovers it plays violin and the music brings the forest to life. That's kinda cool...but still, that's a little strange to me that this is trending and all of the studios are doing it. It's almost like the old days where Pixar and Dreamworks were ripping off each other's ideas-- Antz and A Bug's Life, anyone?

Maleficent- Mistress of Evil... I didn't like how they redid the story in the previous movie. Where Maleficent wakes Sleeping Beauty and King Stephen is actually the bad guy. I did like Angelia Jolie playing this role because I can't imagine anyone doing it better (and I don't like her that much). I don't know if this warranted a sequel. And she finds out that there are more dark fairies like her out there... I have a bit of a problem with that... she's like an evil unicorn, there should only be one of her or it just dilutes the whole evil formula. 

Mulan- yet another live Disney remake that's in the works... but this looks completely different from the original... Mulan's suddenly a badass? And where the hell is Mushu? Is this not even a comedy? I'm sure it'll be more culturally accurate than the original, but the original was great because it had a lot of heart, Mulan was an underdog who had to find her own strength and poise being in the army, and it had lighthearted funny moments because of Mushu and the dynamic between him and the lucky cricket. Of course I'll have to see it myself so I can properly judge it, but it's almost like they've erased all of the things I liked about the original. The guy playing Shang better be handsome, that's all I'm gonna say.

The Main Event

In Case anyone by now hasn't seen the original... SPOILERS will be later on... although I can't imagine anyone not familiar with this movie at all... 


Clearly I've already written a lot of things about things other than the movie so this isn't going to be a line for line thing where I go through every bit of dialogue or every scene across both movies and say which they did better... that can be its own entry in the future... 

One thing about Aladdin that I didn't like so much was the fact that they had a lot of the same dialogue, but it didn't flow as naturally from the actors. It's almost as if they've looked down on the stage where they see the T-marker and realize they have to say this line at this particular moment. 
The Lion King had this as well... there were some moments where they had lines identical to the original and they arrived at them without a proper build up. Like they copied and pasted parts of the original script into the new one. 
That said, after the Circle of Life scene where everything had to be on point (but there were some things that they could have left out because it was an obvious callback to the original)... after that scene, everyone started to relax and do the movie like they're debuting it for the first time. 

One notable difference... how the animals move and interact with one another... even how they look (Rafiki has no tail in this version because, I guess, some baboons don't have tails)... it was truer to life. And I kinda liked that. It made it feel more realistic and believable. 

Overall, the story is identical to the original and they didn't add or change too much. That was good. A story this well written, you can't mess with it too much or that just gets lost. 
One scene that was added was the circumstance where Nala leaves Pride Rock to find help. In the original, she just randomly shows up in the jungle and nearly eats Pumbaa. We get to see a bit of what the regime is like under Scar and how dire the situation is for the lionesses. It was BAD... 

The characters had all of the same qualities as the originals, but some were improved upon quite a bit. Chiwetel Ejiofor has been getting a lot of good roles since he was in "12 Years a Slave" and he's done them well. As Scar, he's downright terrifying and that's what you need in a villain like this. 
Scar in the original was oily like a snake and worked both sides with his keen intellect. But once he becomes king, he's a bit of a prima donna-- like where Sarabi tells him that there's no food and they need to leave, he says lines like "you're just not looking hard enough" and "I'm the king, I can do whatever I want"... really?! 
So definitely a check in the remake column for Scar.
We also get a little more background about him, Mufasa and Sarabi and that was a nice touch. If you really thought about it, you could have made that same argument in the original. Although why Sarabi chooses Mufasa over him isn't that hard to imagine in the original. 

One casting choice that hasn't been popular is John Oliver as Zazu... he's one of those political pundits that reads the news and skews it fully on the liberal angle. Maybe it's because I don't watch a lot of "Last Night with John Oliver"... but I didn't have a problem with him.
In fact, I really liked how they improved upon Zazu in this version. Granted, he's still a bit of a know-it-all who insists on following the rules, but he gets to play the unsung hero in a couple scenes. Not giving all that away, but that was a great way to move the story along. Plus, he has a running gag that throws back to some older Disney characters. 

One key element I was following almost the entire movie that they had to get absolutely right or they'd lose me... the score... Hans Zimmer wrote an amazing score for the original and they brought it back with extra oomph in all of the key scenes. 

Back to the characters... the hyenas still have that comic relief element, but Banzai and Ed are gone and got completely replaced by Kamari and Azizi. And they have some moments that reminded me of Pain and Panic from Hercules. Shenzi is not just scary, but she's even stronger of a character. In real life, hyenas aren't just scavangers, but they're top tier predators equal with lions. And females are the leaders. So they were definitely more accurate and respectful to hyenas. Taking everything into account, it makes the story even stronger. 

One thing I didn't like as much... the dynamic between Timon and Pumbaa. They're still a dynamic duo and it's not like Timon was an angel in the original... but his snark and sarcasm is a little more produced. And their dynamic is a little closer to Laurel and Hardy where one is dismissive of the other, insisting they're the smarter one. 
Seth Rogen as Pumbaa, though... dang, he WAS that character. Not that his voice isn't easy to pick out, but I forgot it was him that whole time. And he gets some moments to really shine. 

There'd been so much in entertainment lately about female empowerment and while I'm all for it speaking as a female, a lot of it has been over the top. That was one thing about Aladdin I didn't like so much because they were trying too hard for that angle. I was a little afraid that they'd do that with Nala as well because she's such a great character. But they did it in a way that made sense. We see why and how she's the bravest of the lioness to go for help. And she has her own role to play in the final battle with Scar and the Hyenas. I'm not the biggest Beyonce fan, but she did this part well and brought her own spin to it. Sarabi also gets a little more screentime and backstory and she shows her strength in not succumbing to Scar's demands. 

I haven't talked about Simba at all and this movie is about him, really... the young actor who played him did a really good job and Donald Glover wasn't bad playing the older version. I'd say on both accounts, the actors did a good job playing the roles in both versions. I'd read one or two comments saying he's not that great of a character or he's nothing special. But we get to see a little more of the struggle he goes through about what happened to his father and living with that guilt for something he didn't do. And there was more dialogue to bolster his character in the moments he needed it the most. 

James Earl Jones as Mufasa... it's like he never left... and that's what makes him so good as an actor. He plays this role proudly and brings the strength absolutely needed for it. That's why it's such a shock when he gets killed off. Simba grows up believing his father was invincible and we see a little more of why he's such a strong king and just a good king. Rewatching the original again a week beforehand, I almost feel like Mufasa doesn't get enough screentime and we don't get enough to grasp why he's so beloved. We lose him as we're getting to know him. Here, we get to see this for ourselves more rather than relying on what everyone else says about him and taking their word for it. 

The stampede scene is very iconic and it broke a lot of hearts the way Bambi's mom did decades before that... there were parts of it that were more impressive looking... but the moment where Scar throws Mufasa into the gore below... that's a hard scene to duplicate and improve upon. And the original still did it better... 
I know this movie practically by heart, nearly every scene and bit of dialogue... I can recall that scene instantly in my mind and that still sends shockwaves through me. Mufasa falling to his death and Jonathan Tyler Thomas screaming "NOOO!!" as he sees it happening. 
I can't recall what it was like seeing it happening in the theater for the first time, the exact things I was feeling... I was maybe 8 at the time... but yeah... phew... 

And I will concede to another criticsm... people talking about how having well known actors playing these roles takes away from it... my opinion on that is that this doesn't make me want to buy the soundtrack all over again. We do have it in the house somewhere, but I don't feel like I need to have these actors singing these songs. 
And I don't mind well-known actors doing voiceovers, but it really depends on who they are. It's not as if in this case I felt like I was hanging around with them instead of the characters themselves and I've felt that way about other actors in the past. I'm someone who worships voice actors almost more than people that are in live action movies. Mostly because they have ties to my childhood. But for iconic characters, the voice actors ARE those characters for me. I wouldn't love these characters the same way if the right actors didn't play them. 
That could be another post in itself so I won't yammer about that as well. 

While not 100% perfect, this movie is definitely a solid A for me.