So something I am curious about with the response/reaction to the Jonathan Majors trial and I am curious where I might be wrong.

I never trusted the trial. but then again, I also know he might well be guilty of assaulting his ex-girlfriend Grace Jabbari. What always bothered me was the difference in how Jonathan Majors got treated compared to someone like Shia LaBeouf or Ezra Miller.

Shia has openly admitted to the fact that he had inner demons that he is struggling with and that he was abusive to his ex-girlfriend. He never really got "cancelled" by Hollywood (whether or not he deserved to be cancelled is another story) and he never faced a trial as far as I can tell.

Ezra Miller has had a laundry list of scandals and controversy and was apparently caught on camera assaulting people. No real publicized trial or anything (not that I think a publicized trial is good but it's what happened to Jonathan Majors). and I feel like social media didn't really come for Ezra like how it did for Jonathan Majors (again, I don't think social media should come for either individual but the difference in how they were treated seemed weird to me). I am not sure if Ezra has been "cancelled" by Hollywood. They hasn't really been in anything, so it might be Hollywood cancelling them or just not willing to take a chance on them or they're focusing on themself.

All three man apparently assaulted other people. One of them on camera, but only the black guy faced a very publicized trial over it. What's more, Majors was accused of assaulting a white woman so it made me feel like the odds were stacked against him even more with regards to getting a fair trail due to the racial undertones.

I will admit, I am not totally plugged into social media (I had no idea about the 6 7 meme until it made an appearance on South Park), I try to avoid staying away from it as I find it toxic to mental health (the extent to which YouTube shoved the Johnny Depp Amber Heard trail down my throat even though I didn't search for it and had no interest in seeing a women being served up on a platter for all the misogynists online who were damn near ready to say she was basically the anti-Christ scared me) but it just felt to me like there was much more furor behind the Majors trail than Miller or LaBeouf and it always made me distrust the pronouncement of guilty even though I also know he might well be actually guilty of assaulting his ex-gf.

Did I misread the situation?

Sydney Sweeney has been the subject of a lot of controversies as of late. But what I want to focus on is how media outlets have been covering the release of her two new films, Americana and Eden.

Some background:

Americana is a genre film. It was shot and screened in 2023 to relatively positive reviews. The company that financed it, Bron, went bankrupt shortly after the film's screening. Due to this bankruptcy Lionsgate was able to acquire the rights to the film for cheap. While the film was made on a nine million dollar budget, Lionsgate purchased it for three million, with two million of that coming from international rights sales. Meaning that Lionsgate only spent one million acquiring the domestic distribution rights. In order to get more VOD sales and streaming deals, Lionsgate gave the film a small theatrical release with next to nothing in marketing.

Eden premiered at TIFF in 2024. Directed by Ron Howard the film also stars Jude Law, Vanessa Kirby, Ana De Armas, and Daniel Bruhl along with Sweeney. The film was financed at a net cost of 35 million dollars. It received mixed to negative reviews and only Netflix was willing to purchase it. Ron Howard opted to go with a smaller distributor, Vertical (who are mostly known for straight-to-video trash but have been slowly building themselves as a more legitimate art-house distributor), due to wanting a theatrical release which no one wanted to give the film. Vertical made a deal for less than 20 million dollars for the film.

Now, each distributor had their reasons for acquiring each film. Lionsgate saw a cheap film with a rising star which was well-received. It was an easy profit for them and helps build up their library as they are looking to be sold off. Vertical, having released last year's acclaimed The Order, is trying to build a filmmaker friendly reputation. Buying a non-commercial film with a high profile cast and a high profile director gives them more exposure and allows them to be more in the conversation for prestige filmmaking.

The film's financiers, however, are the money losers in both situations. Whether or not the distributors lost money doesn't really matter. Money losers are money losers and these films should be described as such.

And this is where it gets weird.

In the wake of Americana's opening we got two different articles about the film's box office. One from Deadline and one from IndieWire. Covering for the film, arguing that they weren't money losers for the reasons I myself just gave earlier. This weekend, as Eden just released, Deadline releases yet another article defending the film's performance.

This is too much coverage for these films that no one saw. Comparable films never get articles like this. So what's going on?

Here's my conspiracy theory. Sydney Sweeney is friends with Jeff Bezos. She attended his wedding and a few months ago there were heavily circulated rumors about her being the new Bond girl a franchise that Bezos unfortunately owns.

The media outlets that cover the entertainment industry: Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and IndieWire are all owned by the same person: Jay Penske. Penske and Bezos run in the same circles, rich guy circles, and have attended philanthropic events at the same time. What I believe is happening is that Bezos is using his influence and connections for these outlets to write out positive headlines for Sweeney, due to her controversies, to create a more flattering image of her and her career.

It's odd, to say the least.